Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 2 - Evidence, December 2, 2002
OTTAWA, Monday, December 2, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 4:07 p.m. to hear from the Official Languages Commissioner and to study future business.
The Hon. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would ask our witnesses to be patient for a few minutes, since we have to discuss something before we begin.
As I was saying at our November 18 meeting, this is an extremely important committee. The Senate has decided to strike a Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and therefore members of this committee have taken a stand on official languages in Canada. I am counting on the cooperation of each and everyone of you.
Let me begin by introducing Marie-Ève Hudon, the committee's research analyst. She will be with us full-time beginning January 1. She is currently working for Health Canada. Marie-Ève already has several publications to her name. She has a Masters in Political Science and her thesis was on Canada's linguistic aspects. Welcome, Marie-Ève.
[English]
I should like to begin by having a short discussion on a revised general order of reference for the committee.
[Translation]
As you know, the committee cannot hear witnesses without Senate authorization. This authorization is contained in the order of reference. Since we do not have an order of reference, we had to receive special authorization last Thursday to hear from today's witnesses.
[English]
The committee can have more than one order of reference at a time. I am proposing that we finalize the wording of a general order of reference that will allow the committee to exist officially throughout each year.
[Translation]
In the Senate last week, some of my colleagues suggested amending the general order of reference; this committee had asked the Senate to authorize it on November 18.
Let us take a look at the order of reference I am proposing. The proposed amendments reflect the discussion we had in the Senate last week, as well as comments made by Senators Corbin, Gauthier and Kinsella.
[English]
You will remember that Senator Kinsella wanted the committee to focus part of its work on the initiatives of the Department of Canadian Heritage. His exact words were:
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is the one that has the most number of programs for citizen participation and the promotion of the official languages with citizens' organizations across Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier suggested that the committee not restrict the scope of its work to the federal public service, but that it also include federal institutions, that is, the approximately 160 institutions which fall under the Official Languages Act.
[English]
Our newest member of the committee, Senator Corbin, suggested an amended order of reference reflecting those comments from Senator Kinsella and Senator Gauthier. That is the order of reference before you. I would now like to discuss this so I can present this order of reference to the Senate tomorrow afternoon.
[Translation]
That the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to study and report from time to time upon the operation of the Official Languages Act in Canada in general and in federal institutions in particular, with special attention given to the Department of Canadian Heritage. This includes the authorization to study the report from time to time. Reports can be made regularly on our deliberations each month or every two months.
The last line, included in other orders of reference of committees, which includes a deadline, is not necessary if we report from time to time.
Is there any discussion on this order of reference?
Senator Corbin: I think the order of reference should include the wording of section 88 of the codification which was carried out by the Official Languages Commissioner with regard to the Official Languages Act. Let me read you what it says.
The administration of this Act, any regulations and directives made under this Act and the reports of the Commissioner, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage made under this Act shall be reviewed on a permanent basis by such committee of the Senate, the House of Commons — that has been decided — as may be designated or established for that purpose.
I must admit that I find the wording of section 88 more inclusive; it would give us more latitude with regard to our study of how the Official Languages Act is applied.
The wording you are proposing is already included in the wording of section 88, but section 88 is more inclusive. I personally would rather stick to section 88.
The Chair: That is a very good point. Anyone else?
Senator Maheu: I have a question for Senator Corbin.
[English]
Are you suggesting that we remove ``upon the operation of the Official Languages Act in Canada in general and in federal institutions''?
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: No, not at all. I think it is already included in the Official Languages Commissioner's annual report. The annual report touches on all aspects of how the legislation is applied in Canada.
The commissioner will have the right to look into any issue, to investigate, to recommend and to appear before the courts and follow up on cases, including those where directives were not followed. This gives us the latitude to examine everything happening in Canada with regard to the Official Languages Act. That is my interpretation.
Senator Gauthier: I have no problem with Senator Corbin's suggestion, except that it is already included in the Act. We are talking about the order of reference. The Act refers to reports produced by the President of Treasury Board.
Last Thursday, I talked about ``federal institutions''; I meant to say that it covered all federal institutions. The law specifically says that we must follow up on whether the law is applied in view of the reports which are regularly produced by the agencies you mentioned.
I do not have a problem with that. If the Senate's order of reference is not wider in scope than the Act, that is fine. But the law clearly states that we must study the reports of the Official Languages Commissioner and the President of Treasury Board. I wanted to include federal institutions such as Air Canada in the list of 160 federal institutions. That was the point. I also did not want the order to be too specific. Obviously, federal institutions will be included.
The Chair: That is a good point.
Senator Beaudoin: I agree with including federal institutions. After all, the Official Languages Act applies to all federal institutions. That has to be written somewhere. In my view, the 1988 wording is so wide that it includes federal institutions.
Senator Corbin, you compared section 88 and another section. Which one was it? Did you not compare section 88 with another one?
Senator Corbin: I was quoting from the draft motion presented by the chair. I was saying that in my view, the chair's motion is already included in section 88.
Perhaps we can ask the Commissioner. After all, she is here to help us.
Ms. Dyane Adam, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: I have a bit of a technical problem: I do not have the text you are referring to.
Senator Corbin: Let's give the commissioner a moment to read it. We want to cover all our bases to make sure there are no loopholes.
Senator Beaudoin: That is all the more true, since the court ruled that it is a quasi-constitutional act.
Ms. Adam: We have two comments. First, within federal institutions, that is, institutions which are subject to the legislation, there are several other institutions, such as Air Canada, which are not considered as being federal institutions.
In addition to studying the application of the Official Languages Act, this committee could also study other pieces of legislation which affect, for instance, air transportation, sports or any other area which may have an impact on linguistic duality.
Senator Corbin: Madam Commissioner, do you not think that by including in the motion study of your annual report, as well as special reports presented over the year on specific issues, that we would automatically cover the points already raised?
Under the law, your report must be tabled with two committees, those of the House of Commons and of the Senate. In doing so, any problem with regard to the application of the Official Languages Act would automatically be discovered.
That is how I see it. Perhaps others would not agree.
Ms. Adam: The application of the Official Languages Act, which is fairly explicit, should include everything.
The Chair: I would ask for your indulgence at the end of the meeting to adopt this order of reference, given what we have heard about section 88 of the act and its scope. What would you like to say, Senator Beaudoin?
Senator Beaudoin: I prefer the expression ``which fall under the act.'' There are federal institutions, and Senator Gauthier has made a list of them, but there are no doubt other areas of federal jurisdiction which are not institutions per se, but which nevertheless fall under the Official Languages Act — for instance, institutions which are partly privatized. I would not want us to forget them.
I like the expression ``which fall under the Official Languages Act.'' One can argue that they are included in section 88. However, I prefer the wording to be clear and precise. We could think about it and come up with a motion next week.
The Chair: Or perhaps even at 7 p.m. this evening. I need the order of reference so I can present it in the Senate tomorrow. Do you agree that we should take under advisement what we have heard and come up with another motion at about 6:45 p.m.?
Senator Gauthier: As long as we can get a copy.
The Chair: We will have time to draft something and show it to you. But let's move on.
It gives me great pleasure today to inaugurate the proceedings of the committee by welcoming the representative of the organization. She is probably the most important person with regard to the defence of official languages in Canada.
Madam Commissioner, thank you for having accepted our invitation.
I do not think there is anyone in this room who does not know Ms. Dyane Adam. Ms. Adam is accompanied by Johanne Tremblay, General Counsel and Director, Legal Services Branch. Michel Robichaud is the Director General, Investigations Branch. Mr. Guy Renaud is the Director General, Policy and Communications. Mr. Gérard Finn is a special adviser. We have already had the pleasure of meeting with Mr. Finn last week.
[English]
Ms. Adam will make a presentation of between 40 to 45 minutes. After that, I will open the floor to questions. To be fair to everyone, we should try to limit our first round of questions to between five and eight minutes. There will be a second round. With that timing and with the number of members here, that will take us close to 6:30 p.m.
[Translation]
Ms. Adam: Ladies and gentlemen, my presentation before you today is symbolic since it is a first, for myself and for the senators. It is a privilege for me.
The primary purpose of my presentation is to present the key findings of my latest annual report and explain our main courses of action.
The Prime Minister, who agreed with my first two diagnoses, invited me to recommend tangible actions.
Through my report, I publicly responded to his request by including seven recommendations. My report also highlighted achievements and progress made, including the first Leon Leadership Award presented by my office. The report also reflects my approach, which is based on the search for solutions that lead to lasting results. The report describes problems but also achievements.
This time, in contrast to the previous two reports, the tone is a bit more optimistic, since we have noted tangible evidence of coordinated and committed leadership. As well, the government's formal commitment, renewed in the latest Speech from the Throne, gives us reason to hope, if words really do translate into action.
Overall, this commitment to linguistic duality is consistent with the recommendations put forward in my annual report. The commitment reads as follows:
[English]
Linguistic duality is at the heart of our collective identity. The government will implement an action plan on official languages that will focus on minority-language and second-language education, including the goal of doubling within ten years the number of high school graduates with a working knowledge of both English and French. It will support the development of minority English- and French-speaking communities, and expand access to services in their language in areas such as health. It will enhance the use of our two official languages in the federal public service, both in the workplace and when communicating with Canadians.
As you can see, honourable senators, this commitment includes very specific objectives. The government has thereby renewed hope for many Canadians and created very legitimate expectations. However, will the government be able to deliver?
We are still missing a key element, the long-awaited action plan promised by Minister Dion. We are expecting a plan that will be the cornerstone of the renewal of the program. Revitalizing language rights is an urgent matter. The loss of previous gains, the integration of official languages in government operations, and the implementation of our recommendations require innovative approaches and a firm and sustained commitment from all levels in the government.
[Translation]
Resource allocation is an essential condition for revitalizing language rights.
You will surely agree with me that the government must provide the sums of money required for the program if it wishes to translate its commitment into action. This condition, I hope, will receive unanimous support in cabinet. The government must not limit itself to a succession of incoherent mini-reforms without a clear end goal.
Once more, I call upon the government to develop an overall vision supported by objectives. This long-term vision must include deadlines and mechanisms to assess results and ensure that its action plan is implemented successfully.
Canadians have a right to expect such a vision based on true leadership and respect for language rights.
We must reverse the trend of recent years, which saw the number of officials responsible for bilingualism in the federal government drop by more than half. Since 1990, investment in official languages has stagnated and declined — this is a recognized fact. We must now correct this situation throughout the federal government.
All federal institutions must have the necessary resources — human as well as financial — to fulfill their linguistic obligations. I have therefore recommended that the government allocate sufficient resources to allow the Treasury Board Secretariat to fully assume its role of overseeing and evaluating institutions subject to the Official Languages Act.
It must also be able to fulfill its roles as language trainer, educator and auditor. I continue to express my concern about the slow pace of change, which is why I am insisting on the need for diligence.
[English]
We are all aware that implementing the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne requires concerted effort every day. The government moved forward in this direction last year by setting up the Ministerial Reference Group on Official Languages, chaired by Minister Dion. The government has thereby made it possible to act horizontally in a well-structured way. Greater coordination at the political level is required to ensure that the objectives of the Official Languages Act are achieved. This kind of integrated and horizontal action must be encouraged and supported. I therefore recommended this year that this group be given permanent committee status in order to encourage sustained leadership at the highest levels of the public service and to support the implementation of the government's action plan. There must be integration and continuity with respect to language rights.
The pacesetter in terms of administrative leadership is, without a doubt, Ivan Fellegi, Chief Statistician of Canada, who received my first leadership award. His institution has distinguished itself by the excellent bilingual services it provides to the public, by its workplace conducive to the use of both languages and, more generally, by the management of its language program. It is therefore possible to show leadership, but many more similar examples are required to guarantee the equality of English and French and to ensure the vitality of anglophone and francophone communities across Canada.
[Translation]
Recent studies on the use of both official languages within the federal public service clearly show that an enormous amount of work remains to be done to ensure that both official languages are used equitably.
I identified language of work as a priority since I believe that the public service must embody a dynamic culture of linguistic duality. A Treasury Board study, ``Attitudes towards the Use of Both Official Languages Within the Public Service of Canada,'' shows that public service employees support the basic principles underlying language policies.
Support is especially high with respect to service to the public: 92 per cent of public service employees believe that it is important for them to serve the public in both official languages, and 86 per cent stated that they would be willing to make a personal effort to encourage bilingualism in the workplace.
The study also reveals that 42 per cent identify themselves as bilingual and 37 per cent of positions require a knowledge of both official languages. On average, bilingual anglophones working in a bilingual environment speak French 14 per cent of the time.
However, bilingual francophones in a bilingual environment speak English 43 per cent of their time. I was pleased to see that public servants generally support the key principles underlying the government's language policies. However, there is still a lot of confusion or lack of knowledge about the way these principles can be put into daily practice.
The President of the Treasury Board, Lucienne Robillard, who shares this view, has taken a proactive approach in this regard. In fact, to remedy the current situation, I had recommended courses of action she could take.
[English]
One of these arises from the unanimous view that it is time for a change in culture and that senior management must lead by example. I have therefore recommended that the achievement of the three objectives of the Official Languages Act remains one of the priorities of the Clerk of the Privy Council for the next three years. Public service administrators must allocate the time and the resources needed to implement the official languages program in their workplaces.
Another approach focuses on the modernization of the management of human resources underway in the federal government. I have suggested that during this exercise, the public service should fully integrate official languages into its activities. The culture change will be achieved through the modernization of the public service. During this process, action must be taken to: make senior federal management more accountable by redefining the governance framework for official languages; promote bilingualism as a basic skill; staff bilingual positions with people who have knowledge of both official languages; — called ``imperative staffing'' — rethink language training and; emphasize receptive bilingualism.
[Translation]
Regarding the dynamics of workplace communications, many factors are constantly interacting. In order to identify them, I have commissioned a sociolinguistic study that will primarily focus on the situation in headquarters in the National Capital Region and will extend to regions designated as bilingual. We must make every effort to find ways to increase the use of French in the public service if we want it to reflect linguistic duality, one of the fundamental values of Canadian identity.
Along the same lines, during the Symposium on Language of Work, which took place in new Brunswick in early November, Minister Robillard repeated the government's desire and commitment by sending a clear message to managers who will not be able to meet the language requirements of their positions by March 31, 2003. She tried to mobilize them by spelling out expectations and the punitive measures that could be taken if necessary.
I am pleased to see that my recommendations are leading to both political and administrative actions.
However, I am disappointed that the measures do not apply to Deputy Ministers, who are currently exempt from language requirements. It is puzzling to say the least that the federal government requires its managers to be bilingual but not its senior leaders.
As soon as new senior public service managers arrive, they should be informed of the requirements of the Official Languages Act and its underlying values. They need guidance and preparation to manage the Official Languages Program.
They must be made aware that they are the officials primarily responsible for integrating these values into their institutions' organizational culture. In short, they must put into practice the government's commitment to the equality of status and use of both official languages and to the right of employees to work in the official language of their choice.
[English]
My role is to constantly monitor the situation in a structured way and to intervene before Parliament as required. I am therefore taking a proactive approach by getting involved at the drafting stage of acts, regulations, policies and programs to ensure that our leaders give high priority to language rights.
I have performed this role in various areas involving many sectors of activity. For example, I intervened with the minister responsible and before parliamentary committees to ensure that the policy and bill on physical activity and sport gave consideration to linguistic duality. You will remember that I produced a report in 2000 that showed that francophones are facing major barriers, preventing them from fully participating in various sporting activities.
I am also closely monitoring other key issues such as broadcasting, including subtitling, the Internet, minority press, broadcast of parliamentary debates and government on-line, to mention only a few.
[Translation]
For example, with respect to immigration, from the beginning of my term I wanted to raise awareness of the fact that Canadian population growth and the survival of official language minority communities depend on immigrants. The two studies I commissioned on immigration confirmed this and in particular revealed a lack of effective measures that could help communities recruit and integrate francophone immigrants.
I worked hard to ensure that the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Regulations pay special attention to the development of both official language groups in Canada and in particular minority francophone communities, which are clearly disadvantaged by the demographic imbalance that has been growing in recent years.
Much work remains to be done in order to correct this imbalance. According to current data from Statistics Canada, in the anglophone population one person in five is an immigrant, whereas in the francophone population, both in Quebec and across the country, the figure is one immigrant in twenty.
Like our country's ethnocultural diversity, linguistic duality is at the heart of our Canadian identity, and immigration must contribute to consolidating these values of our society.
I recommended that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration develop support programs to implement the language provisions of the new Act. It is also important to promote our linguistic duality abroad by raising the profile or our official language minority communities and helping these communities develop adequate infrastructures to welcome newcomers.
Regarding national health, I noticed last May that linguistic duality was absent from the deliberations of the Romanow commission. I therefore also made a submission. I have reviewed the final report, which was tabled on November 28. I acknowledge the significant efforts made in this area, since the linguistic dimension is addressed in one of the Commission's recommendations.
However, I would have liked to have seen it go further. The principle of giving Canadians access to health services in the official language of their choice should be explicitly recognized in the Canada Health Act. I am concerned about the absence of a national legal guarantee. I also noted that, although a number of recommendations include deadlines, there are no deadlines with respect to the provision of health care in the minority official language. This is not enough!
This indicates to me that our leaders need to be informed about this issue. I therefore intend to present my view before parliamentary committees, in particular the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to ensure that the linguistic dimension of health for official language minority communities is taken into account. As a clinical psychologist, I know firsthand about the importance of communication in fostering a climate of trust between patient and physician, or any other health care professional. It is a very important condition of any healing process. In order to provide care, you must first be able to understand the patient. In this respect, I will make recommendations to the members of the Senate committee in the hope that Parliament will be able to enact legislative provisions best able to guarantee equality in terms of health for Canada's anglophone and francophone communities.
[English]
Now I will turn to justice. Access to justice in both official languages is also a major issue. Last August, the Department of Justice published its ``Environmental Scan.'' This study identified barriers to obtaining legal services in English and French across Canada, as well as a variety of possible solutions from the minority communities. The Department of Justice, in cooperation with its provincial and territorial counterparts, must now make efforts to review the solutions proposed in the study and implement those that are most likely to address the needs of minority communities. In this regard, the department's initiative to set up the federal-provincial-territorial working group, spun off from the forum of deputy ministers of justice, is certainly a step in the right direction. I therefore expect to see this initiative result in tangible actions from the department. The necessary measures must now be taken to help the provincial and territorial governments set up the appropriate institutional structures to allow Canadians to access the justice system in both official languages.
In one of its last reports, the Joint Committee on Official Languages addressed a series of recommendations to the Department of Justice, the first of which dealt with reinforcing the application of Part VII of the Official Languages Act and the importance of working with the communities on this question. In my annual report this year, I recommended that the government clarify the legal scope of the commitment set out in section 41 of the act and take the measures required to effectively fulfil its responsibilities under this section.
[Translation]
On another matter, I encourage you to examine the relevance of the current provisions of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations developed by the Treasury Board Secretariat. I believe that the time has come to review them, and I have made my position known to ministers Robillard and Dion.
You will have noticed that my role as ombudsman involves a number of areas, one of which pertains to complaints and investigations. I have re-examined my Office's investigation process, since complaints remain a powerful tool for change when our recommendations are implemented. Beyond complaints, however, we must remain proactive. That is why I will now speak of the role of the Commissioner as though she were an auditor.
Like the Auditor General, we need to fulfill a monitoring role for all institutions subject to the Official Languages Act. We need to be able to report accurately to Parliament on the language situation within the federal government and Crown corporations, agencies and privatized institutions that are not under Treasury Board's responsibility or do not have it as their employer. There are over a hundred such institutions. I therefore intend to enhance the auditing function of my Office, as we are the independent body responsible for monitoring compliance with the Act.
Among the key courses of action I am encouraging you to examine are the government's action plan, the Environmental Scan study, modernization of the public service, the status of official languages in Crown corporations and other institutions subject to the Official Languages Act, language of work, and the accountability framework. If we succeed in creating the necessary synergy, we should work to ensure that Canadians properly recognize linguistic duality as a fundamental value of our country.
The government must act, but it must act with diligence, it can no longer afford to turn a blind eye. It must take action in a timely manner and refuse to accept unjustified delays or evasion. I know that I can count on you; I also wish to pledge my full cooperation. Your meetings are among my priorities and I will try to take part as often as possible. Of course, my staff will always be available to help you.
My staff and I will be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. By the way, I would like to congratulate you for the Leon award. I hope that other organizations such as, for instance, Statistics Canada, will do everything they can to win the award.
Before moving on to questions, I would like to speak to your role as ombudsman. The Commissioner receives complaints and reads and analyzes them; we discussed this issue last week with members of your staff. This process, however, seems very lengthy. Could you briefly comment on the process?
Ms. Adam: I agree that, generally speaking, the process is indeed a long one. However, the act is very explicit in terms of the procedures we must follow to ensure administrative fairness and thoroughness. The Director of Legal Services would tell you that since complainants may turn to the courts after they have filed a complaint and following an investigation, it is essential that the evidence be well-established, which forces us to be extremely thorough.
That being said, there are nevertheless constraints imposed by the act itself which force us to undergo a sometimes weighty process. We have reviewed our complaints process and are currently reviewing all the stages involved to see if we can streamline them. We need to distinguish between complaints which can be handled immediately and those which are more complex and should go through the much more rigorous and lengthy process. Perhaps Mr. Robichaud could add a few words on that matter.
Mr. Michel Robichaud, Director General, Investigations Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Certainly. Indeed, under the law, we are required to follow certain well-established processes. However, as the Commissioner was saying, it is possible to streamline the system somewhat.
Let me give you an example. In the past, we sent out to federal institutions a ``preliminary'' investigation report, that is, a written report which made recommendations, and we asked them to provide us with feedback, which would go towards our final report. We changed this procedure to increase the participation of department managers and to find solutions which reflected their needs and which therefore were more lasting. So instead of sending a preliminary report, we now meet with managers directly and after our meetings, we translate their commitments into recommendations we had agreed on. This gives us a final report which includes very specific commitments made by the managers. This eliminates the need for a preliminary report. We stand by these recommendations and if they are implemented, we can assess the organization accordingly.
The Chair: Is there a deadline?
Mr. Robichaud: The law requires us to communicate with the complainant within six months after receiving a complaint to provide the complainant with a progress report. We try to complete most of our investigations within that deadline.
[English]
Senator Keon: Ms. Adam, you raised something that is of enormous interest and importance to me as a citizen, as a health professional and as a senator, that is, our inability in Canada to reflect our linguistic duality in health services. Indeed, in my other life, we made a major appointment within the last couple of years. To reflect this duality, we found it necessary to recruit someone from France who had the scientific expertise of the other global competitors and the expertise required to reflect that linguistic duality. That is not to say there are not superb people available in Canada; there are. However, they are all taken.
I was deeply interested in the fact that you touched on the immigration issue as well as the health issue. Both of these are difficult to deal with when attempting to resolve the linguistic duality that should exist in health services. It seems to me that we are now opening the doors in Canada to foreign health professionals due to the shortages we are experiencing. The restrictions are being lifted from a professional point of view. It seems to me that if we could have an initiative, it would be a positive attempt to attract recruits for health services from francophone countries. We could thereby overcome the problems we have in many areas.
Having had over 30 years of experience in this field, I know that recruiting doctors to reflect the linguistic duality is not that difficult. We are blessed in Ottawa to begin with in that we have a bilingual medical school. However, in the case of nurses, psychologists and the other 38 health professions that make health care possible, it becomes extremely difficult.
I should like to hear your comments about how we might overcome this situation.
Ms. Adam: I had another life, too, before becoming commissioner. I worked in hospitals in Sudbury, Rouyn Noranda and Baie Comeau. I was married to a physician who also worked in those areas. I discovered that a licence to practise psychiatry from France or a Francophonie country was accepted by the medical association in Quebec. However, in Northern Ontario, where there is a large proportion of francophones, the Ontario College of Physicians did not recognize the credentials of psychiatrists or doctors trained in France, or at least it was difficult to have them recognized. We see, therefore, the differences between two provinces.
I want to reiterate that we need to ensure that our citizens are provided services in both official languages. The physician situation may now be better, Senator Keon, I am not sure. Our studies on immigration and our experience show that the professional associations present a major obstacle to people trained outside Canada. If we do not recognize accreditations from francophone African countries, we cannot improve service to communities of both official languages.
This is one area we must look at. The same holds true for nurses, as honourable senators will be aware. Quebec is currently recruiting from Belgium and France. I am not so sure that in Ontario, or other provinces, people from those countries would be accepted as health professionals.
Minister Coderre is trying to address the issue of deployment of immigrant health professionals in non-urban areas. However, the biggest challenge at the present is the recognition of professional diplomas. That is a major issue for us.
Senator Keon: I agree completely that progress is being made. However, the biggest barrier that we face in Canada is that, since health has been enshrined since almost the beginning of time as a provincial matter in the Constitution, we do not have a structural framework to deal with an issue such as the one we are debating. I have been of the belief for a long time that we need a health commissioner. A health commissioner could work with people like you, with the Department of Immigration, with the provinces and so on, to overcome these barriers. We advocated that in our Senate report, but it did not receive a lot of attention. We will continue to advocate that and I would like to discuss that with you at some time.
[Translation]
The Chair: Perhaps you can come back to discuss health care another time, because we will certainly revisit the issue.
Senator Gauthier: Ms. Adam, in your annual report, which I read, you talked about education. I do not know who your bookbinder was, but the report is not easy to handle. Could you perhaps pass this message on to your printer?
Ms. Adam: Senator Gauthier, as I was leafing through the report, several pages fell out and I thought of you.
Senator Gauthier: There is the Léon award, but you should also award a lemon award!
Let's move on to the area of education: in your presentation, you said that we have to focus more on language training in schools and, as was stated in the Speech from the Throne, we need to increase by about 50 per cent the number of functionally bilingual graduates.
People have been talking about this issue for years. I realize it is an area of provincial jurisdiction. But there is a national interest, since it is referred to in section 23 of the Constitution.
Francophone communities outside Quebec have certain rights which homogeneous French schools do not have, but which the English and immersion school systems have. Fifty per cent of children who have these rights are sent to English or immersion schools. Surely the committee will study this serious problem. We are losing the new guard, if I can put it that way. Am I mistaken?
Senator Gauthier: If the Senate studied section 23 and the right certain Canadians have to send their children to French or English schools in Quebec, could you set clear and specific objectives?
Ms. Adam: The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages considers this question as being a priority. Depending on the type of study you would like to carry out, we could probably help.
The last study you referred to was published just under 18 months ago by the Office of the Commissioner. It reached some fairly drastic conclusions.
What is important is to find solutions. How can we ensure that parents who have the right to send their children to a minority language school do so? If they do not exercise that right, it will be lost for future generations.
The study is a warning cry. Today, we still hope that school boards and our partners in education — such as yourselves — truly work at making parents and all stakeholders aware of minority language education rights.
Senator Gauthier: Once again, the Official Languages in Education Program is being reviewed. It was also reviewed in 1996. I have no idea who is reviewing it. The Department of Canadian Heritage is reviewing its official languages program. But as far as I know, the support for Official-Language Communities Program has not been assessed since 1970. God only knows how hard I tried to have it reviewed. Why is there such resistance to reviewing a federal program which supports education or communities? Where is the problem?
Ms. Adam: Your study would consist in evaluating the effectiveness of these two programs. I do not know whether the department or anyone else in government is opposed to such a review. One thing we are asking for and which we are focusing on is accountability. When the federal government signs these types of agreements with the provinces and transfers funding, it is important to include measures enabling the federal government to assess whether the money was really spent on the relevant activities. Second, it is important to meet program objectives.
Senator Gauthier: Twenty-five or thirty years ago, I asked Mr. Trudeau exactly what I have just asked you. His answer: if you want an answer to your question, go ask the provinces, because that falls under provincial jurisdiction.
We have a federal program for which we have spent millions of dollars without knowing whether the money has been spent efficiently. I wonder what the state of things is since 1970. Have you done an evaluation?
Ms. Adam: Not for that program, no. Are you telling me that we should?
Senator Gauthier: I will come back to that a little later.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Gauthier, for raising that issue. It is easy to see that the Commissioner wants to create partners in education. We most certainly can raise these issues when we will meet with the people in charge of those programs, and in particular with representatives from the Department of Canadian Heritage. In our travels through the provinces, people living in a minority language situation often complained about that very situation. I think we will have to come back to your issue. The Commissioner may have other ideas for us.
Senator Comeau: Ms. Adam, I have a series of questions for you.
Since you are our first witness, has anyone raised the possibility with you that a staff member from the Office of the Commissioner be present at each of our meetings? I realize that you are very busy. Perhaps someone from your department can send someone who is familiar with these issues to our meetings and whom we could turn to for advice.
If we are dealing with a subject we are unfamiliar with, perhaps a representative from your Office could be made available. I do not know if the chair mentioned this to you, but I think it is a good idea. Has anyone approached you on the subject?
Ms. Adam: Indeed, and we have agreed. Of course, if we know what you are going to talk about, it will be easier for us to send the person most familiar with that subject to the committee. But there is always going to be someone here to advise you if need be.
Senator Comeau: I would like the Office of the Commissioner to work closely with this committee.
My first question is as follows. You touched upon the issue of immigration in the sense that we need more physicians, nurses and other health care professionals in outlying areas, in regions where communities speak the minority language. I am thinking in particular of the place I come from, which is Yarmouth. When I go to the hospital, I know quite a lot of people and I know that many of them are francophones. We probably do not need to bring people over from France or from elsewhere. However, there is nothing to identify these people as being francophones.
How could we encourage the hospital in question to designate these individuals or make them known? Could it be done by using a label on their coat that would say: ``I am doctor so and so and I speak French?''
How could we encourage hospitals to do that? Has the federal government considered a direct subsidy program, not through the province, but directly with the hospital? We could perhaps offer some benefit to employees wearing these tags. The employee would encourage the hospital to supply the funding, and the federal government would encourage these people to offer service to the public in French.
Ms. Adam: It is quite difficult to answer your question. Of course, we are talking about the issue of federal and provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has already taken some steps to provide encouragement and support, such as the training of health care professionals in French. They established the Réseau national de formation professionnelle (National Professional Training Network) in all French-speaking universities in Canada.
Senator Comeau: I am talking about a real problem, one that exists today, while communities are being assimilated.
Ms. Adam: This program has been in place for five years and is now training doctors, nurses, occupational and physical therapists and so on. This effort is underway, and the federal government should renew this program. The administration of hospitals is a provincial government responsibility. It would be very difficult for the federal government to get involved in important, but operational details.
Senator Comeau: It is an operational issue, but when we deal with provinces with a unilingual English Web site, I wonder what is the point. These provinces show no interest whatsoever. I cannot imagine that a province would disagree with having federal funds go directly to the operational level. What does the province have to lose?
Ms. Adam: When we think about enshrining the principle of bilingualism in the Canada Health Act, we have provided the basis that would allow this type of intervention or agreement between a province and the federal government or between provinces, territories and the federal government. We have a long way to go, given that there is not even any recognition of the fact that language is fundamental to health care!
Before we talk about specific agreements, we must start by acknowledging that the two languages have the same status in law and in our Constitution, and that one of the greatest collective assets we have is health care. Without it, something very important is missing.
We have a way to go as a society, and I hope that all future committees, the Romanow commission and all the work of Senate committees, will lead to this awareness and that action will follow. It must happen this year.
Senator Comeau: You said in your remarks that you are involved in developing bills. Do you do that in cooperation with the department in question? As parliamentarians, we cannot be involved in preparing bills. We are entitled to be involved once the bill is introduced in Parliament.
Ms. Adam: We are like you, but some departments get in touch with us to get our opinion. We do not see the text, but the officials tell us what they are working on. That gives us an opportunity to intervene. I tell all the ministers I meet that I prefer to intervene beforehand, rather than afterwards. Some accept our offer and others do not.
Senator Corbin: I have not been a member of the Official Languages Committee for years. I intend to dedicate myself to it — God willing — during my last years in the Senate. This is where I started when I was in the House of Commons, as the former Joint Chair of the committee.
Ms. Adam, when you were appointed, I described you as being a person who would disturb things. I see you are living up to your mission. I think some people are not impressed when you complain about the slowness of the government — like all your predecessors — in following up on your recommendations. I have been hearing that forever. What do we have to do to change this situation?
I studied your report in detail. I listened to you very closely today and I focused on the description of the various roles you have under the act and that you fulfill as commissioner. Do you feel you have enough roles? Do not answer right away. Should some of your responsibilities be changed or should some of your powers be increased? You already have a good two years of solid experience.
What other responsibilities or powers would you like to have to enforce the Official Languages Act and to ensure that the corrective measures you described are applied as quickly as possible? As language ombudsman, it seems to me you do not have very much power. You identify, you investigate and you table one report after another. There are always the same types of complaints especially when it comes to follow-up action and the reluctance of some federal institutions to comply with your wishes to ensure the act is respected. What more do you need for changes to occur? Should you be given some responsibilities held by the Treasury Board Secretariat, which to a large extent is in charge of reacting to your recommendations? You complain that it took seven years just to set up corrective measures. We have not even seen the results yet.
What more do you or your ministers need to ensure everything changes more quickly?
Ms. Adam: It is a major issue. I am often asked that question. It goes right to the heart of a commissioner's mission. His or her power is only the power of one person among many.
The commissioner is not in charge of implementing the act. In my view, as long as those in charge of enforcing the act do not take it seriously, the powers will be irrelevant, except the judiciary power, which allows me to impose a ruling and force a government or department to act on it.
The act can always be reinforced. For example, rules could be set to clarify the government's obligations under Part VII. Some things could be strengthened in the act. For example, the act is drafted in such a way that I cannot publish the report on my investigations. Often the result is known because a complainant made a public statement. However, I do not have that power.
There is no recourse against a government or institution if there is no complainant. There must be a complaint and the complainant's consent. The act could be improved. Despite all the respect I have for the act, I basically think there should be much greater accountability expected from those who implement the act. That is up to parliamentarians, who have the important role of overseeing what goes on and of demanding information. The executive and the government must play their leadership roles. The public service is an organization with its own culture. That is why there is a focus on the need to change it.
Senator Corbin: In my view, there is a major obstacle when it comes to designing policies and follow-up procedures based on your recommendations. Ministers change too often. It is one of the major flaws in the system. However, I do not know how to circumvent it, it is a problem which involves human beings and politics at the same time — and you are a psychologist. It is one of the major problems.
The minister changes portfolios and the new incumbent must often start from scratch. He does not know the basics of the Official Languages Act, nor its spirit, nor the obligations that stem from it.
I have come to this committee somewhat discouraged because I have seen this development occurring since 1969. I hear the same story year after year. You congratulate the government on its statements in the previous Throne speech. Are we really heading in the right direction? Do you think there is renewed interest in tackling the problem once and for all?
Ms. Adam: You said that ministers often change. I would say that deputy ministers change very often. In my opinion, the situation could definitely be improved. Politics is one thing, but when it comes to government departments, some deputy ministers hold their positions for only two or three years. Changing a department or bringing a department into compliance with legislation is not enough to really make a difference. I think our deputy minister colleagues would acknowledge that.
Do I believe what I said in my report? I do not have as much experience as you with official languages, but I can say that this government has made some commitments over the past three years. We have the beginnings of a mobilization. Mr. Dion has worked very hard with his minister colleagues and the departments have come on board. Apparently, there is a revitalization plan — it may not be a cure-all — for official languages that we have not seen for some time. However, we have not seen the plan yet and do not know whether it will be sufficiently resourced. We are told it will be released after the budget, so in late February or maybe March. I would like to answer your question then. I am an optimist and I would like to give Mr. Dion the benefit of the doubt. He is going step by step. Some institutions have moved forward. The Department of Justice is making slow progress. The Department of Canadian Heritage is currently thinking about renegotiating agreements or programs Senator Gauthier referred to. All of this will require very serious examination.
Treasury Board, as I said in my presentation, is not really doing what it should be doing in terms of overseeing and evaluating. It lacks resources. It is not unwilling. Departmental resources for official languages have been cut in half. That too sends a powerful message. When you cut the bureaucracy's resources, it is as if it did not matter.
Senator Corbin: You emphasize and the act also emphasizes the value of official languages. It is in the Constitution. It is fundamental. By what right are cuts made to value- and society-building instruments? What do you have to say about that?
Ms. Adam: I am not the one who makes budget decisions.
Senator Corbin: But you are entitled to comment.
Ms. Adam: More people have to protest like you are doing now. The commissioner will comment, but if the commissioner gets no response from Parliament, from politicians, from officials or from the public, you will keep on hearing the same old stories from commissioner after commissioner.
The Chair: Have you published a specific report on proposed amendments to the act? Could you do so?
Ms. Adam: That is one of the projects we are currently considering. I and my team have to give some serious thought to what the Office's priorities should be. One thing we will look into — not this year but in the near future — is the issue of the act. The basic issue is the following: is it due for review? We think so.
Senator Beaudoin: I would like to change the topic. Federally, there is a solid bilingualism infrastructure. Both languages are official and moreover, they are equal.
But provincially, the situation unfortunately varies from one province to the next, as was discussed in Moncton. Quebec has to fulfill its obligation in French and English, and Manitoba too. The Acadians did an incredible job and managed to get that included in the Constitution in 1982. The equality of both communities in New Brunswick is extraordinary.
In Manitoba, it took 100 years before the legislation was in both languages. In the other provinces, things are not so good. As Minister Dion said, and I agree, settling the bilingualism issue is going to take different plans for different provinces. The weaker provinces need help. I am very impressed, as I said, with New Brunswick. However, out west, it does not look so good.
You have to take the bull by the horns and say that you need a very strong plan. That will be all the harder because the minorities are not very strong. Since McKel, we have known that French was not protected in the schools. Only religion was protected. But today, across Canada, there is more talk of language than religion, because religion, whichever religion it may be, is recognized as being equal under our Charter. You have the right to have a religion or not. All religions are on an equal footing. So that is settled.
However, bilingualism has not been settled and it varies from one province to the next. When you stick to the federal scene, it is okay because there is equality. In health, which is primarily provincial — and everyone agrees on that — it varies from one province to the next. I would really like for doctors and nurses to be bilingual in all of the provinces, but they are not. In New Brunswick they are, in Quebec a good number of them are, and in Ontario, but not out west. However, it is a provincial matter.
When you are dealing with federal institutions, you said so yourself, you are on solid ground and can intervene because we are for equality. It is different provincially. You cannot take over for the provinces.
As Minister Dion said in Moncton, what is needed is a bilingualism plan that is not based on equality, but rather on asymmetry. The French language is in a tougher situation than the English language. The French language therefore needs more help. People think you are not allowed to do that, but they are wrong. You are allowed to do that. It does not have to be one-size-fits-all. It will take time, but we have to get there as a country, meaning all of Canada. All regions of Canada need help, but the problem areas are under provincial jurisdiction, because it is harder for us, in Ottawa, to intervene in those areas, except that we can use our spending power.
Some provinces are not as rich as others, but we need a system that is roughly equal for all Canadians. That means that the federal government has to intervene. It does not bother me at all for the federal government to intervene with its spending power, without encroaching on provincial jurisdictions.
We may not be able to do anything more than that, but that we can do. And I am not sure we are doing it. I agree with Minister Dion when he says we need different plans for different parts of Canada. The French language needs greater protection where it is weakest. The French language is not in any danger in Quebec City, but it may be elsewhere. It is not in any danger in New Brunswick, because there is equality there, but elsewhere, unfortunately, there is no such equality.
People have to start understanding that we need plans that may vary from one province to the next. If the federal government understood its role correctly, it would undertake to make some plans. It is a different approach, but one that I would try. What do we have to lose? We have nothing to lose.
The Chair: Did you want to respond to that, Ms. Adam?
Ms. Adam: You have covered a lot of things, Senator Beaudoin. I would like to respond to what you said about spending power. The federal government has some power. A number of us, including myself as commissioner, find the federal government to be timid in its interaction with the provinces and territories and in the agreements it signs on social union and language provisions. We have had to take them to task on a number of occasions.
Your observation shows that in many of its decisions and actions, the federal government does not push that. They want to come to an agreement relatively quickly. We saw that with labour, for example. In order to close the deal, they dropped the language requirements and provisions.
The federal government could make some major breakthroughs in advancing Canadian linguistic duality, while respecting provincial jurisdiction, if it were to champion and safeguard the Canadian Constitution, which was signed by all provinces except Quebec. But it is not necessarily exercising its power.
Senator Beaudoin: The problem is that some provinces do not recognize the equality of linguistic rights, and some provinces are not required to have rights in both languages. Some provinces have no use for bilingualism. So we have to find a way.
New Brunswick, for example, is the most bilingual province; it is working well there. However, there are some provinces where there is no or very little bilingualism. Since it is a provincial matter, it is difficult for us to intervene and to have an impact, but the federal government can at least provide a little bit more money.
Ms. Adam: We agree that each province has a linguistic regime that is very different. The legislative base or the provisions are very different. The fact remains however that the federal government signs agreements in almost all areas with almost all provinces and territories. It is up to the federal government to require that, since the provinces signed knowing that French and English were on an equal footing in Canada.
Senator Beaudoin: I am making a distinction for the territories. Do not forget that territories are not provinces. The powers are delegated to the territories by the federal government and the federal government can intervene at any point in any matter in any territory.
Ms. Adam: I would like you to remind the federal government of that, since that is the position we are defending in a case currently before the courts. That is not necessarily the position held by our government.
Senator Beaudoin: I am going to support you. It is very simple, provincial powers stem from the Constitution. The territories obtain their powers from a federal act. It is not the same. They are only delegated powers. You may say to me that they have delegated powers that resemble those of the provinces, but the federal government can change that from one day to the next if it sees fit. That is currently before the court?
Ms. Adam: Yes.
Senator Beaudoin: Well, I am going to look into that tomorrow morning!
Senator Léger: This is not a question. I support your efforts to focus on the federal government so that there is absolutely no confusion. We are equal and I like to hear that.
I am going to give an example. I was asked to be the sponsor of a ship when it was inaugurated. It was the Moncton. Everything took place in Halifax and Irving was responsible for the 12 Kingston class vessels. I learned all of that. I automatically assumed that the ceremony would take place in both languages, because it was federal. However, it was not necessarily bilingual. I subsequently learned that Ms. Chrétien was the sponsor of the Shawinigan, and I believe that that time, the ceremony was in French. The ceremonies were not automatically bilingual for all of the other vessels. You work on this type of issue. We do not succeed right away, but we can do so. Personally, I am starting to see differences between the situation 30 years ago and that of today.
In the Senate, I am amazed to hear anglophone senators speaking such beautiful French. They are currently becoming our strongest advocates. There is an army of people like that. It takes some time to achieve that, but I am proud that you are focusing on the federal government.
[English]
Senator Keon: I am wondering about what you had to say about the Romanow commission. You felt there were, and I hope I am not paraphrasing you incorrectly, some fuzzy references to strengthening the duality of health services. You felt there really should be a commitment to bilingual health services. It is very interesting that Romanow is advocating opening up the act and adding a sixth principle, which is accountability. Why do you not suggest a seventh, which would be bilingual services? Go beyond linguistic duality. Senator Gauthier speaks about this frequently and uses the term ``linguistic duality'' a great deal, rather than ``bilingualism,'' — and maybe he will comment on that further when he is questioning you — but why could we not include a seventh principle in the Canada Health Act now?
Going back to what Senator Beaudoin said, there is tremendous power in the federal government to implement bilingual services in Canada. I can tell you, as head of an institution, we had to invest very heavily to acquire a suitable number of people to reflect the linguistic duality of Canada and provide services. We did not get much help from anybody — a little from the Ontario government, but none from the federal government. Why do not we move into this area?
Ms. Adam: I find your invitation appealing. We will move in that direction and will try to propose avenues for the federal government in this area. I agree completely that the federal government has more power than it is exerting. You could even blend official bilingual services with the sixth principle of accountability proposed by Mr. Romanow. You can introduce these obligations within another principle. There are ways to look at this issue. I think I will not push this agenda today, but certainly will be coming to this committee if I am asked to go further on this issue and discuss options for the federal government.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: I would like to raise three topics, but I am going to let you choose.
I would like to go back to the study on access to legislation such as the Divorce Act and the Bankruptcy Act by Justice Canada and tabled last August. We should examine that to familiarize ourselves with the reality mentioned so clearly by Senator Comeau, in other words symmetry of access to Canadian legislation. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that Canadians are entitled to certain rights in education. The Charter outlines the steps to take.
Senator Keon talked about a Canadian health charter. I do not have a problem with that. In Ontario, access to the Divorce Act and the Bankruptcy Act is not easy for a francophone. In New Brunswick, there is no problem. Some say there are problems in Manitoba. This needs to be examined closely. There are no problems in Quebec. Do you see the symmetry? Judges to hear cases in French in provinces like mine are not readily available. I am not familiar with the situation in Nova Scotia, but I am sure that Senator Comeau can tell you that it is not easy to get a divorce in French in Nova Scotia. But it is a federal act. I want to hear your comments on that.
Ms. Adam: We agree. The entire issue of access to justice warrants study. I am going to react this way. The Department of Justice is increasingly aware of the problem and is determined to examine the situation. Following its study entitled ``Environmental Scan,'' it set up a federal-provincial-territorial committee that will be responsible for examining the issue of access to justice in each province and territory. I think they are all covered.
Ms. Tremblay: No, not all of them.
Ms. Adam: We already have problems if some of them are not up to speed. I agree with you. We saw the same thing with the file on the Contraventions Act. Once responsibility is entrusted to a province, the enforcement of an act may be seriously threatened.
The federal government was made aware of this problem as a result of the file on the Contraventions Act. The Department of Justice told us — I would not want to quote them — that the decision on the Contraventions Act has led them to examine other acts which may be under provincial jurisdiction in terms of enforcement.
Senator Gauthier: Canadians, through their constitutional rights, have access to the debates of Parliament. When proceedings are published, they are in both official languages. When a message is put out, there should be access to it in both official languages. That is clear, it is section 133. When I have trouble hearing, I do not have access to televised messages, unless there is real-time captioning. This is not a problem in English; CBC announced that as of November 1, all of its programming is captioned, but not in French. So access is unequal.
I went to visit two post-secondary colleges in Edmonton and Vancouver. There are no safety instructions available in airports or on the planes. I am hearing-impaired. I am forced to ask my neighbours for information to know what is going on. That is unfair. They all have televisions, screens that indicate all kinds of things. I cannot understand them. However, I noticed that there was captioning for the advertisements, but not the safety information. That is not right. I mentioned it to Mr. Milton, who told me that he was doing what he could. That is not acceptable. I would like to hear your comments on those two topics.
Ms. Adam: You know better than I do that parliamentary debates as well as any publication from the House of Commons must be in both official languages. Does the act go as far as to include captioning in English and French?
The legal and constitutional experts present could undoubtedly comment, but it seems to me that if a crown corporation like CBC is providing English-speaking citizens with real-time captioning, that raises a serious question as to the equality of French and English if Radio-Canada is not doing the same for francophone citizens. For me, it becomes a question of equality in the treatment of the two major language communities.
Senator Gauthier: This morning, I met with lawyers and advisers from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I am going to file a complaint on this topic. I have been told that is the route I should take. As Commissioner of Official Languages, I have been told that you would undoubtedly not have jurisdiction, but the Canadian Human Rights Commission may have jurisdiction, because it has already dealt with cases like that: the Vlug and the Quigley cases. You are familiar with them. What triggered your involvement in a legal challenge?
Ms. Adam: In the Quigley case, complaints were filed with my Office which, in fact, showed that citizens did not have access to parliamentary debates broadcast in the language of their choice. Of course, the matter is again before the courts, because the House of Commons has appealed the trial decision which was in favour of the position presented by the complainant and my office. We will see what will happen during the appeal.
As regards what triggered that, if we draw a parallel between the situation that you were raising, Senator Gauthier, would there be any obligations for federal institutions — including CBC — to serve English-speaking and French- speaking Canadian citizens in a fair and equal way? And if communicating with Canadian citizens involves captioning, the matter should be examined from that angle. We cannot do it from the human rights angle.
Mr. Robichaud: We are currently examining the matter from the angle of availability of captioning in both languages, those with the CRTC and Radio-Canada. In this context, we have already made initial contact with Radio- Canada. Recently, Ms. Adam wrote directly to the president of Radio-Canada on this topic.
Ms. Adam: The reason why there is no captioning in French, it seems, is that there are not enough professionals available. That reminds me that not so long ago, some said francophones could not have health care services in French, because there were not enough francophone health care professionals. We should examine the responsibility of institutions or government to ensure that there are enough competent professionals to ensure equal services in both official languages for Canadian citizens.
Senator Maheu: You mentioned bilingual anglophones who spend 14 per cent of their time speaking French and francophones who spend 43 per cent of their time speaking English. When they speak to the public, it is okay, they use the language spoken by that person. Within our services, is there any incentive for management to alter the situation? I realize that francophones give in and speak English more often, and it seems to me that has been happening for a long time. In my opinion, no one is looking after this matter. Anglophones who are only speaking French 14 per cent of the time do so because they do not speak French well enough. They hardly speak it. Bilingualism in federal institutions is far from being true bilingualism.
Ms. Adam: Several things could be done to improve the situation. Bear in mind that the statistics I presented show that we have been successful with respect to the quantitative aspects of bilingualism, in other words a good balance of anglophones and francophones in designated bilingual positions.
It is the interpersonal aspect in the work environment. It is really at that level that we need to make some improvements.
However, making changes in terms of linguistic behaviour is not all that complicated. If you want someone to speak their first language more, you need to encourage and reinforce the daily use of that language. That can be done in several ways. Employees need access to work tools in the language of their choice. The manager or anyone exercising authority must explicitly encourage the use of the language chosen. A supervisor or a deputy minister who does not speak or who dares not speak his or her second language is not necessarily displaying the right behaviour.
Behaviour cannot always be changed by legislation. We really have to empower people who can make a difference in the workplace, on a day-to-day basis. No act or regulation will have any impact except to the extent that day-to-day linguistic behaviour changes.
Senator Comeau: Allow me to be a little cynical for a moment. We have been waiting for the Dion plan for a very long time. Our expectations are growing daily, and we will probably not see anything until March 2003. In November, there will be a new leader. We have lost all this time, and then everything will be shelved. We will have to start over at square one. We have to expect that the promises made by Mr. Dion over the last year have not made him more likeable in the opinion of the future leader.
Ms. Adam: The act will not go away because there is a new leader. The government's obligations remain the same.
Senator Comeau: I am not talking about the act, I am talking about the Dion plan.
Ms. Adam: Yes, but that is merely an initiative undertaken by the government to renew its commitment and to improve the situation regarding the implementation of a language plan. My role will not change. I am going to keep an eye on the future leader to make sure that he implements this plan. If he does not like the Dion plan, he will come up with another one. What I am interested in is fast action, because this is urgent!
Senator Comeau: That is why I raise the issue. We have been waiting for this plan for a long time, and this will delay its implementation. It may take a year or two, which is a fairly significant delay.
Ms. Adam: The important thing is to have the famous Dion plan unveiled, with enough resources to allow us to get going. The new leader will come aboard wherever we are at.
Senator Comeau: I would like our committee to send out surprise invitations to departments and agencies asking them to come in and tell us what they are doing to advance the cause of bilingualism in Canada. What would you think of such a tactic?
Ms. Adam: A federal institution must ensure that the laws of the land are implemented. It should have its own program and should check on its own progress. It should be prepared to provide information about its objectives, priorities and achievements to date. A properly run institution would be able to answer such questions.
Senator Comeau: Including the foundations established by the federal government?
Ms. Adam: Even including the commissioner's office!
Senator Comeau: Good idea! You commended Statistics Canada. That is the agency that looks after the census. Have you had an opportunity to discuss the census questionnaire with officials there, more specifically the question on ethnic origin? A number of cultural groups are mentioned, but the Acadians seem to have been omitted. Acadians do not see themselves as French, but rather as Acadians, and many of our Acadians do not put an X beside the box labelled ``French.'' The Chileans, Somalis and Vietnamese have been included, a whole series of groups from all over the world, but not the first European group that established a nation here called America. The Acadians have been left out on the census questionnaire.
Ms. Adam: The commissioner's office approached Statistics Canada a few years ago, after the 1996 census, to suggest some new questions on official language use. Three new questions were added to the form. I will let Mr. Gérard Finn reply. He is a special adviser and also an Acadian, and he was there when the new questions were suggested for the 2000 census.
Mr. Gérard Finn, Special Adviser, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: We must distinguish between the question on language and the one on ancestry. Whether a person is anglophone, francophone, Scots or Acadian, what determines the obligation to provide service to the public in both official languages where numbers warrant is the official language spoken by that person. In this regard, the question has no impact on the provision of service to the public in federal institutions.
Senator Comeau: You say that there is no impact as far as service goes. I can understand that, but if we knew how many Acadians there were in our provinces, that could give us some political ammunition: we could say that there are X number of Acadians who are being assimilated. At this point, the census does not provide us with that information. We are looking for ammunition and tools of all types.
Mr. Finn: There is a long list of choices including ``Canadian.'' One of the new questions on languages is: what other language do you speak at home? That can give us a good idea about Acadians or others who speak mainly English at home. So far, we did not know whether they spoke another language at home. Now, with this additional question, we will know what percentage of these individuals speak mainly English at home, but also how many speak French or some other language. That will be interesting as regards language transfers. In the case of a francophone who speaks mainly English at home, we will no longer be able to say that there has been a language transfer, because he or she might also speak French at home. We ask for information about both.
Senator Comeau: We will come back to this issue, Madam Chair.
The Chair: It was agreed that we would try to end this part of the meeting at 6:30 p.m., and then move to other items.
We want to make full use of our witnesses, but at this stage, we are going to have to be quite brief.
Senator Beaudoin: One of the main principles in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the principle of equality. Canada is a bilingual country with two judicial systems. Could we not find some provision somewhere that would enable us to conclude that our justice system must respect the richness that comes from this bilingualism and bijuralism?
In the matter involving the La soirée du hockey broadcast in French, we won, by saying that the two official languages are equal and that Radio-Canada and CBC must respect this value. We should do the same in the case of the principle of equality. Our country has two systems. One is based on the French model, and the other on the British model. Does that lead us to justice based on equality? I am not affirming that, but it is something to think about.
As far as the health care sector goes, section 7 provides for the right to life, security and freedom. I do not want to get into the debate on the right to life, because that is another matter. In an area as important as health care, the issue of bilingualism is very real in a country such as ours. That is why I would willingly accept Senator Keon's proposal that the principle of bilingualism be included in the Canada Health Act.
Senator Corbin: I would like to ask the Commissioner whether it is possible to file a complaint about her report.
Ms. Adam: All things are possible.
Senator Corbin: What happened to your mascot, the prix Léon?
In the French version you use the word ``chemineau,'' which means tramp or vagabond.
You did not use the word ``C-H-E-M-I-N-O-T,'' but rather ``C-H-E-M-I-N-E-A-U.'' This makes all the difference in the world — and I know this because I am the son of a ``cheminot,'' a railway worker. So you made a mistake in your heading, but I mention this just as a joke.
Ms. Adam: I noticed it, but it was too late.
The Chair: I repeat Senator Comeau's invitation for you to attend our committee meetings. We will keep you posted and send you a notice, Ms. Adam, so that you may be present. If you cannot be present, I am sure one of your colleagues could attend.
Senator Gauthier: I would like to ask a few questions about the linguistic audit. I thought I would have an opportunity to do that in the second part of the meeting, as we agreed.
My question is as follows. I have some experience with the auditing of accounts, having chaired the Public Accounts Committee for years. There is a system called VFM auditing, value-for-money.
An audit exercise needs clear and specific objectives and criteria. You received an additional budget this year of some $1.3 million or $1.4 million, if I remember correctly. You convinced me that you needed the money in order to be able to carry out more audits of departments, in order to see whether they were meeting the requirements of the act and to get a clear accounting of how official language policies were being implemented.
Do you intend to carry on with that work? If so, could we have a broader discussion on that?
Ms. Adam: Mr. Robichaud could elaborate on this, and I do not want to slow down the committee's work. We are now at the stage of identifying these criteria and objectives and establishing the methodology. We are involved in consultations and part of the team is already in place. So the process is underway.
I will be pleased to come back to the committee with the team in order to listen to your opinions, and, on the basis of your experience, hear what an audit needs to look like in order to help you as a parliamentarian. We could take that information into account as we develop our methodology and our audit approach.
Mr. Robichaud: I fully support that idea.
Ms. Adam: So we will certainly come back.
Senator Gauthier: In your presentation, you talked about a number of departments to which you gave advice. Can we have access to those documents? For example, on the last page of your presentation, you mentioned giving certain guidelines to Treasury Board. Could we have a copy of that?
Ms. Adam: I have had differing opinions on whether that is possible. Everyone is going to have to come together on this.
I can do nothing because I am receiving two different opinions. I will have to think about it.
The Chair: Thank you once again. Thank you to the members of the committee for their participation. This was very interesting. The committee is just getting underway in its work, and this was an auspicious beginning. This is a small example of what we will do in 2002, 2003 and 2004 in the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
We have two points to discuss: first, the motion for the order of reference that has just been distributed to you; second, the Statistics Canada report that will be published on December 10. I will be making a suggestion to you on that.
Senator Maheu: Point of order.
The Chair: We will deal with it at the end. The motion before you reads as follows:
That the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages be authorized to study and report from time to time upon the operation of the Official Languages Act, and of regulations and directives made thereunder, within those institutions subject to the Act, as well as upon the reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage — section 88 of the Act.
Senator Comeau: My questions are on the institutions subject to the Official Languages Act. I assume that those institutions include all the departments, foundations and other government entities. As for the new foundations, can they appear before the committee if they are not subject to the act?
The Chair: That is a very interesting question. I will ask those with more experience to answer. In my opinion, if the foundation has been created by a federal government body, it is subject to the Official Languages Act.
Senator Beaudoin: In any case, I agree with this motion before us, for a very simple reason. The Commissioner preferred the expression ``institutions subject to the Act'' to ``federal institutions,'' because ``institutions subject to the Act'' is broader and less specific than ``federal institutions.'' I have no hesitation in voting for the use of ``institutions subject to the Act.''
As for the foundations, I would say that if we want to include them, it would be better to adopt the amended motion rather than the wording of section 88. It talks about federal institutions, whereas institutions subject to the act is broader. So I quite like this amendment.
Senator Comeau: Are there foundations being created that are not subject to the Official Languages Act? If so, perhaps these institutions should be encouraged to recognize the value of bilingualism.
The Chair: Ms. Tremblay, do you know if there are foundations that are not subject to the Official Languages Act?
Ms. Tremblay: I do not know, but there may be. For example, the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre is established under the Physical Activity and Sport Act and is not subject to the Official Languages Act. As it stands, the wording would not allow this Centre to be called before the committee, even though it has language obligations under the Physical Activity and Sport Act, because it is not subject to the Official Languages Act.
For example, if the committee wanted to invite the Justice Department to appear to talk about its Environmental Scan report, there may some ambiguity, since that report was not commissioned in a context where the Official Languages Act applies. That is my point of view.
Senator Gauthier: That is what I was going to say as well. Right now, there is an amendment that has been proposed to Bill C-12, which is before the Senate, that would force the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre to present its language policy and to act on it.
The act clearly indicates that the board of directors must adopt an official languages policy. If the order of reference is worded in this way, I do not see any difficulty in having the centre appear, but without that wording we might have problems. I would recommend that you listen to me and vote with me tomorrow.
When we specify that we are talking about departments, we leave out many other bodies, and I do not like the idea of including the wording of section 88 of the Official Languages Act in the order of reference. The act is there.
Senator Beaudoin: I would like to ask Ms. Tremblay her opinion about whether foundations are included in the institutions subject to the act. Like Senator Comeau, I believe that these foundations should be subject to the Official Languages Act.
The Chair: We cannot start naming all these institutions, because we cannot do everything.
Senator Comeau: We need to include all federal institutions.
Senator Maheu: If there are any doubts as to whether the foundations are included in the institutions subject to the act, we can ask for another order of reference next week once we hear back about the foundations.
The Chair: Nothing prevents us from doing that.
Senator Corbin: I have no problem with that idea, and I think that there was no problem to begin with. What you are looking for is a reference from the Senate to start your work, and subsection 69(2) gives you that reference.
Once they are tabled, the reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages are sent to the committee set up by Parliament to implement section 88. The commissioner's report is tabled by the Speaker and automatically sent to our committee. We already have our mandate, but if you want to add anything, I am a good sport and I am completely on side on this issue.
The Chair: Do I have your permission to move this motion in the Senate tomorrow?
Senator Comeau: Over my objection.
Senator Corbin: On division.
Senator Comeau: I would like the committee to be able to invite federal institutions that are not subject to the Official Languages Act. I would like to know what those institutions are prepared to offer our francophone and anglophone communities across Canada.
Institutions subject to the act have certain controls on them, and if you want to exclude institutions that are not subject to the act, go ahead, but I do not agree.
Senator Gauthier: I do not have much experience with this, but I believe that the terms ``notwithstanding'' and ``among other things'' are quite generous in their application. Instead of saying ``and of regulations'' we could say ``among other things, regulations.''
Senator Beaudoin: That is not the problem. The text is an improvement in the first area and I am prepared to vote in favour of that. However, Senator Gauthier is right. It does not go far enough and I think that committee members need a week to think about this. Ms. Tremblay might be able to find some wording for us.
Ms. Tremblay: There is, for example, section 58 of the Official Languages Act, which grants the Commissioner the power to investigate. That power is not restricted to the implementation of the Official Languages Act. The text reads as follows:
... any provisions of any act of Parliament or regulations relating to the statute of use of the official languages ...
The provision would apply, for example to the Conflict Resolution Centre, which is not subject to our act but to the act which created it and which sets out linguistic obligations. It would not go as far as what you wanted, but it would be a possibility.
Senator Gauthier: Why not take a bit of time for reflection, as Senator Beaudoin as suggested? We can adjust the wording so that it includes all the aspects that we want to see included. There is no urgency, since the annual report is sent to this committee. The commissioner talked about Statistics Canada in her report. We can invite officials from Statistics Canada.
Senator Beaudoin: I suggest that we postpone our decision until next week.
Senator Corbin: We are working as a team. If one senator has an issue, like Senator Comeau, who has a special request, we need to do everything we can to accommodate that request.
Senator Comeau: I can propose a compromise. I would like to see us go ahead with the current wording of the reference motion. I do not want to create a delay at this point in the process. Perhaps our committee could review the reference later and we could then ask the Senate to approve a change. That could be a solution to my problem.
The Chair: Especially since our rules allow us to seek another reference in January.
Senator Corbin: I move the adoption of the motion.
Senator Beaudoin: I second the motion.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. I will move the motion tomorrow in the Senate.
The Chair: The second point is the report that Statistics Canada will be publishing on the linguistic aspects of mobility in Canada beyond 2001. The report will be released December 10. There will be a breakfast presentation on Friday, December 13, to discuss language issues in Canada.
We have already contacted Statistics Canada, and officials from the organization are prepared to meet with us if we are available at lunch time on Thursday, December 12. If you are not available, you could delegate someone from your staff to bring back the information that will be presented by the Statistics Canada representatives. Do you agree to have the committee reserve a room?
Senator Beaudoin: The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee always sits at that time.
The Chair: You may also receive an invitation to the breakfast meeting on Friday, December 13. If you are interested, the registration fee is $40.
Senator Gauthier: The Internal Economy Committee has to invite all committee chairs to discuss their budgets.
The Chair: The meeting of the Internal Economy Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, December 10.
On Mondays, between committee meetings, we usually hold a one-hour preparatory meeting in this very room, from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. Next Monday, December 9, we will be meeting to discuss future business and to approve the budget.
Senator Comeau: Since I have to travel from Nova Scotia, I often arrive at the committee at the last minute, either because there has been a flight delay or for some other reason. I was wondering if it would be possible to hold our meetings at 4:30 instead of 4 p.m.
The Chair: We could look into that. Is your staff aware of your timing?
Senator Comeau: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.