Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 5, Evidence - April 7, 2003
OTTAWA, Monday, April 7, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 4:08 p.m. to study and report 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; and also, to study the report entitled "Environmental Scan: Access to Justice in Both Official Languages,'' revised on July 25, 2002, and commissioned by the Department of Justice of Canada.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I want to begin by welcoming all of you to the committee and thanking you for being here today. The Minister of Canadian Heritage, Ms. Sheila Copps, as well as the Commissioner of Official Languages, Ms. Dyane Adam, were scheduled to be with us today, but had to cancel.
Our first order of business is to hear from representatives of the Fédération franco-ténoise who will be discussing the situation of the Franco-ténois. Second, we will be hearing from witnesses from Justice Canada, who will discuss a report entitled "Environmental Scan: Access to Justice in Both Official Languages.'' As regards that particular item, Senator Gauthier has asked that you be given a paper providing background information.
You may recall that witnesses from Justice Canada appeared before the Committee to discuss the Franco-ténois and their situation with us. Today, we will be hearing the views of the Franco-ténois themselves in this regard.
We are hoping that the session will not end too late. I would therefore ask senators to keep their questions short so that the witnesses have a little more time for their answers.
Our first witness is Mr. Fernand Denault, President of the Fédération franco-ténoise. You will have up to 30 minutes to make your presentation. You are accompanied today by Ms. Diane Côté, Liaison Officer for the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. Please proceed, Mr. Denault.
Mr. Fernand Denault, President, Fédération franco-ténoise: I would like to thank you on behalf of the Franco-ténois community for the interest you are taking in our issues. That is encouraging. This is a critical time for us. I will not use all the time available to me for my presentation.
Once again, the governments of the Northwest Territories have shown a lack of good will towards our community. The interim report of the Official Languages Act Review Committee issued last year made no reference to interventions by the Fédération franco-ténoise (FFT), the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne (FCFA) and the Commissioner of Official Languages.
This was also confirmed when the chairman of the committee admitted that we had been advised too late to be in a position to change anything in the report. This lack of good will dates back to 1986, when the government asked Me Bastarache to provide advice on the obligations enshrined in the new legislation.
Me Bastarache submitted a report that has been sitting on a dusty shelf somewhere ever since. It should also be noted that since that time, the federal government has been paying the bill. The territorial government has been receiving more than $37 million since 1984 to provide services in French, with no tangible result. The act is still not being enforced and practically no services in French are available.
After 19 years of experience, we have clearly understood that there is a clear political will to impede the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories. We are seeing a determined opposition to the attainment of the objectives of the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories and a ban on its implementation.
Throughout that entire period, we have been discriminated against by our governments of the federal Crown. Take the example of the government announcements offering the community opportunities to participate in services. Since December of 1993, approximately 50 per cent of the territorial government's announcements were in French. That shows a bias against our community. The francophone press in the Northwest Territories is also subject to bias and francophone citizens are deprived of important opportunities. That is just one example, but I could give you others.
In 1999, we began to treat all of this more seriously and start taking some action. We did a study, followed by a forum, in order to take stock. Following futile discussions with the government, on January 25, 2000, we filed an application before the Federal Court against two governments of the federal Crown, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Canadian Government. Judge Rouleau ruled in our favour in September 2000. However, the governments appealed the decision and the Federal Court of Appeal declared it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case in July 2001.
On October 9, 2001, we filed an application before the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories and our case was put on hold until September 2002. An entire year was lost. It seems the territorial government wanted to hold discussions, but nothing was moving. Finally, we went all out to try and arrange a meeting, but at the last moment, the meeting was cancelled because the territorial government did not want to hold discussions with us in French. Given that attitude, a quick resolution of these issues is not likely.
On August 26, 2002, we made a request to the Honourable Martin Cauchon that there be a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada with a view to clarifying specific points of law that would help the three parties resolve their issues. On November 20, 2002, that request was denied.
Justice delayed is justice denied. As a last resort, we are now calling on the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages for assistance. We ask that you take a number of actions, in the hope that this will be possible. Our community is in a state of desperation. We have undertaken legal action that may not be concluded before some time. We must try to arrive at something credible, because this is a government of the federal Crown we are talking about. It is sad to see the federal government not taking the necessary action to ensure that citizens' rights with respect to official languages are respected.
Is it possible for a federal government to deny certain citizens their rights even though those rights have been granted by the House of Commons and the Senate? That simply makes no sense. These matters need to be clarified and ruled on by the Supreme Court of Canada. Both governments are hiding behind ambiguities.
I heard Mr. Préfontaine and Mr. Tassé argue in front of Judge Rouleau that this grey area — those were their words — regarding the governments of the Northwest Territories should be respected. Their view is that this is a creation of the House of Commons, of the Government of Canada. It is the responsibility of a federal department — the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. I should also say that the Department refuses to take its responsibilities under sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act, even though it is directly responsible for three governments with jurisdiction over the Official Languages Act.
We believe that many of these issues will be clarified if there is a reference to the Supreme Court aimed at identifying this mysterious and complex creation we have in the governments of the Northwest Territories. It is cruel to hide behind ambiguities in order to deny citizens their rights.
Not so long ago, it was not just official languages legislation that was not being respected, but human rights. There were no human rights in the Territories. Even today, respect for human rights does not meet the threshold set out in the federal statute. In order to access the federal Human Rights Office, you have to go to Edmonton. That is ridiculous! That is just another illustration that it goes much further than just the Official Languages Act. We are dying a slow death because of unjust cruelty.
We are asking that the Senate — because new legislation is supposed to be passed in June — see to the creation of a special committee composed of members of existing Senate and House of Commons Committees responsible for official languages to examine the Official Languages Bill of the Northwest Territories, with a view to ensuring that language and constitutional rights are respected. We are asking that this Committee urgently examine that bill and ensure that it does not come into force before that review has taken place. We are also asking that this same special committee ask the Minister of Justice for a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to clarify the situation for the parties and define the constitutional and legal status of this mysterious federal creation which is the Government of the Northwest Territories.
In the Northwest Territories, because we are the vestige — we are what is left of the Northwest Territories, which previously covered an area stretching from Ontario to the Rockies and included the entire northern region of the country — we are seeing an influence within the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs that is not a positive one as far as we are concerned. At one time, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs was responsible for forming governments, and seeing that they behave responsibly. But with the attitudes that we are still seeing even today, we have doubts about their ability to form governments appropriately for which they will take responsibility.
And looking at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Act, it is clear that with a single stroke of the pen, the Minister can in fact take governments away. That is an excessive power that Ottawa has always reserved for itself. One might be inclined to think that it is motivated by its desire to ensure that citizens' rights are upheld and safeguarded. And yet, we have observed that that is not the case. Whatever happens, the federal government pays the bill. It asks no question. I recall that during other mandates, discriminatory language had been used about us by the leader of the then government. It was so simple; on Christmas eve, a statement was published in local newspapers to the effect that the then government's Christmas gift for the people was a two-year delay in implementing the Official Languages Act for francophones in the region.
So, we took the necessary action. That was a signal that something was not right. We asked the federal government to look into what was being done with the money provided to the Northwest Territories. The federal government never wanted to do that. We asked the Auditor General to look at what was going on with that funding. No one seems to want to verify how the money is being used. She may or may not decide to conduct an audit, but that was what we requested. So far, the federal government has been paying the bills without even ensuring that the work is getting done. And we can assure you that the work is not getting done.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. I am sure that members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages will have a lot of questions for you. Before I recognize Senator Beaudoin, I would like to put one question to you.
You are recommending that a joint committee be struck. You probably know that the Senate committee is a recent committee established only this year, but I gather you would prefer, for the purposes of your special study, that the review be carried out by a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. Perhaps you could explain why that would be your preference.
Mr. Denault: Because this is a matter that requires urgent attention. At the present time, the legislation is not being enforced and never has been. There is a provision in the Official Languages Act that guarantees us that our rights will not be taken away. In other words, if bills are passed that take away the language rights of francophones, that will have to be done through a debate in the House of Commons. On the other hand, the Act has never been applied. We have always been deprived of our rights, because no regulations have ever been developed. There is currently no mechanism in place to implement that legislation. No one has ever ensured that the legislation respects our rights. Nor has there ever been a debate in the House of Commons. Now they want to make changes after ten years, and the legislation did need to be revised. So, they are revising it and that is where the power lies. Essentially, that power rests with the House of Commons and the Senate. So, we are recommending that a joint committee review this in order to save time.
Senator Corbin: If I could just interrupt you for a moment, I would like the witness to clarify something. He mentioned earlier that the Auditor General was going to be asked to do an investigation. Were you referring to the federal Auditor General?
Mr. Denault: Yes.
Senator Beaudoin: I guess it is important to say from the outset that this is a very controversial matter. My impression is that it will be decided by the courts. You are currently before the courts, and the Canadian government is as well. My feeling is that neither side is prepared to change its stance. That means that the courts will have to rule on this. As a Senate Committee, we have the right to discuss the issue, even though it is before the courts, because the sub judice principle does not restrict us to that extent.
Where criminal matters are concerned, we let the courts decide. Here, though, we are not dealing with a criminal matter, but rather, a question of interpretation. I have been here for a good number of years and we have always considered that section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives equal status to both languages — French and English.
Section 16 is of considerable importance, but people do not talk about it much. English and French are the two official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges. That is what the Constitution says and there can be nothing better than the Constitution. We are often told that the Official Languages Act applies to federal institutions, except those in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and Nunavut.
When the matter was debated with legal experts, some said that the Northwest Territories are not provinces, although they are more than municipalities. Up to that point, I think we can agree; they are not provinces. The Territories derive their power from the Canadian Parliament, because it is the Canadian Parliament that creates a territory through legislation. That is very clear and no legal expert disagrees with that position.
When a territory is created and it is granted certain powers, must that be done in both languages? The answer is yes. The Northwest Territories Act exists in both French and English because all federal statutes must be drafted in both languages.
Then the Official Languages Act was created. Personally, I support the theory that when the Parliament of Canada legislates in the area of official languages, it must abide by section 16 of the Constitution of Canada. That is very clear. Both languages must be granted equality of status.
According to another theory, however, the Official Languages Act does not mention that. Based on that logic, the Official Languages Act is subject to the Constitution, rather than the Constitution being subject to the Official Languages Act. In some circles, the position is that the territories are not a federal institution, but rather, a federal creation. I verified the meaning of the term "institution'' in the dictionary and it is in fact defined as being a creation. So far, I think that that logic holds up very well. So that is the current status of the debate.
As I was saying, if neither of the parties is prepared to move, the Court will intervene and make a ruling. And one day, this matter will come before the Supreme Court of Canada and that will take some time. But there will be a final decision. That is how I see the problem. On both sides, legal counsel will make their cases, but there is one thing that will not change. Section 16 states that English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equal privileges. That means that in territories created by a federal statute, the two official languages should have equal status.
I do not want to discourage you. On the contrary, I am very supportive of your actions. You say that you have been unable to secure a reference to the Supreme Court. The debate is going to take place before the courts. That will require a great deal of patience. I see no other solution. Do you?
Mr. Denault: No, we do not. Given the determination that both governments are demonstrating, it is clear to us that justice will be denied an entire generation. That simply is not acceptable in this country. If the Supreme Court were to rule on the nature and status of the territories, that might result in a more responsible and fairer approach on the part of our governments.
We at least might be able to sit down at a table and discuss it, hopefully in French. That is what we are seeking and what we would like to have happen; action to move things along and improve the poisonous climate.
Senator Beaudoin: I can tell you personally that it is clear in my own mind that I will abide by the Supreme Court ruling. If we are not satisfied, we can always legislate and amend the Constitution, although I would not amend it in that respect because it is favourable to us.
However, I think we may at some point have to make a compromise in that area, which would be equality of status of both languages over time, if it cannot happen immediately. At least that is better than not having it at all. That is how I view the issue. I am not terribly optimistic, although it is possible you will win in the Supreme Court. That's what happened to Mr. Forest, who lost everywhere except in front of the Supreme Court.
Senator Gauthier: Did you read the fourth issue of the committee's proceedings?
Mr. Denault: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: I was not surprised, although I was sad to hear you say that you felt desperate and anxious about this whole situation. That is certainly worrisome, because if you disappear from the territories, Canada will be a big loser. Maintaining and defending the development and expansion of your community is a matter of national interest.
Something you said in your opening comments intrigued me. You said that you had been subject to discrimination in the territories. You also said that they were acting in bad faith and were not interested in meeting with you. Although interpretation services are available, they have no desire to talk to francophones.
At the present time, is it possible for a French-speaking Canadian living in the territories to receive services from the government in his or her language?
Mr. Denault: That person would be extremely lucky if that were to happen. It is highly unlikely. According to the study, practically no services are being provided. Approximately 70 per cent of the locations covered in the study provided no services whatsoever and 75 per cent of the material was missing.
Senator Gauthier: That does make it difficult.
Mr. Denault: It would be extremely difficult.
Senator Gauthier: Could you be heard by a civil or criminal court in your own language?
Mr. Denault: Thus far, yes, that has been possible.
Senator Gauthier: If you were to request a trial in your own language, would you have a chance of that right being granted?
Mr. Denault: To my knowledge, that has never been refused. People who have had to come before a court of law have been able to make their case in French. I only do follow-up in that area where we receive a complaint.
Senator Gauthier: Is it possible to be heard by a judge who understands French in the Northwest Territories at this time?
Mr. Denault: Yes, it is.
Senator Gauthier: As regards the status of the Northwest Territories, Senator Beaudoin referred to the question of whether you are an institution of the federal government or something else entirely. We put that specific question to a number of legal experts who appeared before the Committee a month or so ago, but we did not receive a satisfactory answer. You have said you would like this to go before the Supreme Court. Where you referring to the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories?
Mr. Denault: No, the Supreme Court of Canada.
Senator Gauthier: After going before the territorial bodies, is that correct?
Mr. Denault: Our case is currently before the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories.
The Chairman: If you do not win your case, can you take it to the Supreme Court of Canada?
Mr. Denault: That is a long and costly process.
Senator Gauthier: It is not necessarily true that you can take your case to the Supreme Court of Canada is you lose in front of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. The Supreme Court has the right to accept or refuse to hear a case.
You do not have access to regular, comprehensive government services, offered in a positive manner. However, you do have acceptable access to the legal system. Would it be possible for you to win a case in French in front of a civil court?
Mr. Denault: So far, courts in the Northwest Territories have never refused, as far as we know, to provide a trial in French when requested. I do not know whether requests for civil proceedings in French have been refused or not. It is quite probable that we would be aware of that.
Senator Gauthier: Could you clarify one thing for us? On many occasions, legal experts have told us that the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories was quite good. You have said, however, that you have to review the legislation every ten years. I agree with you on that.
New legislation was tabled in late March. Are you satisfied with it?
Mr. Denault: No, because there are no regulations for the new legislation either. Without regulations, the Act amounts to nothing more than words on paper that will never be enforced. It has no teeth and nothing requires the departments to abide by it. All there are are internal guidelines.
Senator Gauthier: In the North, you have guidelines, rather than regulations. They are administrative in nature in those areas where demand is deemed to be significant. I imagine that you have a right of access in some municipalities of the Northwest Territories, but not in others. Am I wrong?
Mr. Denault: That is fairly correct. Hay River, Yellowknife, Fort Smith and Inuvik are communities where we are active and are more likely to receive services. It should be mentioned that although there is a fairly significant historical presence in Hay River given the size of the community, the context is important because the total population of the Northwest Territories is only 40,000. Following a work place accident, someone had to be taken to the hospital and it was impossible for that person to make himself understood in French. There were complaints. It always depends on whether the interpreter is available, has left to go and have coffee or is on vacation. It depends on an individual, rather than a position; it is a matter of pure luck.
The Chairman: Senator Gauthier, I will put you down for the second round.
Senator Gauthier: Could I just finish?
The Chairman: Do you have one more question?
Senator Gauthier: It will only take 30 seconds to get the answer.
The Chairman: To another question?
Senator Gauthier: No, go ahead; let another senator have a turn.
Senator Léger: In March, we received Minister Dion's Plan of Action. Do you think it will make a difference? Will it result in changes in the Northwest Territories?
Mr. Denault: In some areas where there is a direct relationship with specific departments — for example, Health Canada in Ottawa — there should be positive spin-offs for us.
However, an example of an area where there will be no positive spin-offs is economic development, which is a responsibility of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. That department is refusing to take its responsibilities. There has been an historical and categorical refusal to do so, and as far as I know, Minister Dion has yet to make a breakthrough there.
Senator Léger: When the Official Languages Act was passed 30 years ago, regions with majorities, like Fort Smith, Hay River and Yellowknife, were identified. Thirty years later, do you think the government should do away with designations such as "majority'' and "French-speaking''? Should it automatically be English and French? Maybe we'll have to wait the Third Act. Do you agree?
Mr. Denault: There is one detail that is often forgotten. All territorial statutes are federal statutes. That is the dilemma I referred to earlier when I asked whether it was logical for a creation of the government to be denying citizens rights they were granted by Parliament?
The Chairman: Have you filed a complaint with the regional office in Edmonton with respect to a service that the federal government has not provided and should be providing? If so, what was the outcome?
Mr. Denault: The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada has provided tremendous support in that regard. Indeed, we have nothing but praise for Commissioner Adam.
However, we do have a Commissioner of Official Languages in the Northwest Territories. The Commissioner is being taken to court because she has refused to receive and deal with complaints. She even refused to communicate with our organization in French. That's the kind of Official Language Commissioner we have to deal with in the Northwest Territories.
The Chairman: In that case, you have to go through the office in the Territories, rather than the regional office in Edmonton.
Mr. Denault: It depends on the services. If the service is provided by the Government of the Northwest Territories, we have to go through the Commissioner of Official Languages for the Territories. If it is a service provided by the federal government, we can go through the federal office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
The Chairman: For federal government services, if and when you have gone through the Commissioner's Office in Edmonton, did the complaints lead anywhere? Have changes been made to services? I know that francophones in British Columbia filed a number of complaints. I believe there was an attempt to make some improvements in that area.
Mr. Denault: We would have to look at this but at the present time, the community is concentrating more on the Government of the Northwest Territories, as opposed to the federal government. But it would certainly be a good idea to have a look at that. We obviously cannot fry all our fish at the same time. We do not have the resources. However, I do want to emphasize that every territorial statute is in fact a federal statute.
Senator Léger: I was very surprised to read that in 1984, the Northwest Territories passed an Official Languages Act. I thought that only New Brunswick had done that. And that legislation recognizes eight official languages. Does that mean that English and French, as well as the six other languages, are all included in the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories? And at the federal level, you have the Official Languages Act where French and English are equal?
Mr. Denault: French is equal to English and the Aboriginal languages are officially recognized in the Northwest Territories. We are pleased and proud of the efforts made by our Aboriginal brothers and sisters to follow a path similar to ours. It will be tough for them, just as it is for us. However, we claim that our language is equal to English. In reality, there is only one language that takes precedence over all the others in the Northwest Territories, and that language is English.
Senator Léger: When I see that you have eight languages — English, French and six Aboriginal languages — when I read something like that, my reaction is that this represents the present, and particularly the future, because of immigration. Even we on the Official Languages Committee will have to add other languages over time.
Senator Lapointe: When we heard from a number of lawyers and legal experts on this issue, I did not really understand what their position was. Is it that the establishment of the Northwest Territories was a gift of Canada?
Mr. Denault: Yes.
Senator Lapointe: A creation of Canada.
Mr. Denault: Yes, a creation of the government.
Senator Lapointe: That was given to whom?
Mr. Denault: It still belongs to the Government of Canada.
Senator Lapointe: Are the Northwest Territories subject to the same laws that apply in the rest of Canada?
Mr. Denault: That should be the case. However, we are having trouble determining exactly what the Territories are. At times when we are feeling a little more frustrated and sad, there is only one word that really seems to define the Territories, and that word is "colony.'' It is not a popular word, and it certainly is not politically correct, but thus far, I have not found any other word to describe our situation.
Senator Lapointe: The Northwest Territories are bound by the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are they not?
Mr. Denault: Yes.
Senator Lapointe: You represent 2 per cent of the population. You need to be very strong to impose your will when you only represent 2 per cent of the population. That is going to take a great deal of courage. My view is that if this problem cannot be resolved before the Supreme Court, a final remedy would be to invoke your human rights. Because you are involved in a very difficult fight here. I am no expert, but that is my view.
Mr. Denault: I referred to some of the figures earlier. Putting this in context, we represent between 2, 2.5 and 3 per cent of the population; depending on the period or the region's economic activities. That is total population. However, in terms of the principle that French is equal to English and if we accept the principle that there are several official languages in the Northwest Territories, we could say, using the same statistics, that Aboriginals in the Northwest Territories represent 49 per cent of the population. Our figures place us at around 2, 2.5 or 3 per cent. We like to say that we are between 4 and 5 per cent.
Senator Lapointe: If memory serves me, 90 per cent of francophones in the Northwest Territories are unemployed, not working or without employment?
Mr. Denault: No, not francophones.
Senator Lapointe: Oh, I am sorry; my memory obviously failed me there.
Mr. Denault: There is a great deal of unemployment, and sadly, that problem primarily affects the Aboriginal community. Corrective action is being taken within the system to try and improve things. But there is still a great deal of work to be done in that area. It is in the Aboriginal community that the unemployment rate is high.
Senator Chaput: I am a francophone from Manitoba. Ms. Côté, Mr. Denault, I sympathize with your situation and completely understand your deep concerns. I also understand exactly what you are talking about when you refer to erratic service. In Manitoba, with everything we went through, we lost one whole generation and now we are trying to make up lost ground. Everything seems to be working against us. If we do not go to court, we cannot exercise the rights that are legitimately ours. Even the figures and percentages are against us. Let me use Manitoba as an example. According to Statistics Canada, we represent barely 4 per cent of the population. But it is important to remember the wording of the question used by Statistics Canada, which asks which language is usually used in the home.
These figures do not reflect couples where one partner is not francophone, such as couples who speak in French with their children, but do not speak it at home. So, these percentages are certainly not in our favour. Indeed, that very matter is now before the courts, which will have to rule on it.
On the other hand, the Constitution is favourable to us. So I really believe we have to remain optimistic, never admit that we are beaten and live on hope. Eventually something will happen to support us and carry us forward.
My question is this: you have suggested that we form a special committee. If the Senate were to establish such a committee, what are your specific expectations in terms of the work this committee would carry out in the next few months? What specific issues should be examined by such a committee with a view to supporting your efforts?
Mr. Denault: There are a number of things. If it were possible to strike such a committee, the Government of Canada could first ensure that the bill which is to be passed in the Northwest Territories in June — and that we would like to see delayed, to give you time to do your work — fully respects the legal and constitutional rights of French- speaking citizens. Although the government is already charged with that responsibility, it has never really taken it seriously. The mechanism is in place; it is only a matter of taking responsibility. How can people say that francophones have lost rights if no one is listening to them or looking at this issue, and if the act in the Northwest Territories can be changed without anyone here even reviewing this?
Members of the Senate and the House of Commons could make recommendations, but of course they would have to be taken seriously. That way, you could ensure that regulations are put in place to enforce the law — a law that we have been asking for from the very beginning, but still do not have. What would be desirable would be for the government to implement the Act and provide adequate budgets.
In recent years, we have noted a drop in the federal contribution for official languages — in other words, French in the Northwest Territories. We're currently talking about $1.6 million per year, which is a ridiculously small amount. This is a 75 per cent decrease, compared to the amount we were entitled to previously. So, it is important to ensure that adequate budgets are put in place to implement the Act.
Also, if the joint committee, composed of members of the Senate and the House of Commons, were to request a reference, we believe it is much more likely that people would pay attention to such a request — more so that if it came from a small community such as ours 5,000 kilometres away from Ottawa. We believe that this would be a useful exercise that could potentially allow us to avoid 20 years worth of legal proceedings.
Senator Corbin: I just wanted to say that I am sorry that because of my schedule, I was unable to attend previous meetings.
Having listened to your comments, I have the impression that we are essentially attempting to catch a bull in the midst of a dense fog. I am not convinced that the solution proposed by Senator Beaudoin is the only possible solution, which is to use the legal system and take this to the Supreme Court. It seems to me that is just a way of making lawyers rich.
Senator Beaudoin: There is no other solution.
Senator Corbin: I do not agree. There is the executive power and the will of Parliament, as expressed through legislation. Although I am not entirely certain, since I did not hear what was said at the previous session — and the suggestions that you made today — my impression is that we have placed so much emphasis on the current issue that we have not taken the time to look for alternatives. I find it unbelievable that Ministers of the Crown are not taking their responsibilities. It is completely unacceptable that a minister charged with enforcing the will of Parliament, as expressed in legislation, is not doing whatever is necessary to get the job done.
You referred to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs which, for all intents and purposes, seems to be losing interest in this kind of issue. I am wondering, Madam Chairman, if, as the legal process proceeds, the committee should not be more aggressive in asking the federal government, and specifically the minister responsible, whether it is Minister Dion or Minister Cauchon, to take such an initiative and introduce a bill in Parliament to rectify this problem.
Going back to what Senator Beaudoin was saying, unfortunately, this case will languish in the courts for years. You will incur losses over that period, and continue to be mistreated — including by the federal government. I believe that the time has now come to act boldly, and this Committee should not hesitate to put its cards on the table. It is all or nothing, at the risk of francophone communities such as yours disappearing altogether. That is certainly not what the Committee would like to see happen. You yourselves are concerned that this could be the outcome and you have thus raised the red flag a number of times in your comments.
I have been in Parliament for 35 years, and it seems to me we're always coming back to the same starting point. I fought in 1969 when the first Official Languages Act was introduced. John Turner was Minister of Justice at the time. I made a case for there to be more French language courts than the number that would have been warranted, particularly in the Western Provinces. I received letters of insults left and right. And we are still at the same point, which is ridiculous. The committee has to get angry now. We need to use the kind of language Émile Zola did and call things as we see them.
The Chairman: Senator Corbin, I completely agree with you. We have to be more aggressive. Could we be so aggressive as to demand that the Official Languages Act be reviewed, or would you prefer that that legislation remain in place and that the ministers responsible ensure that it is being enforced?
Senator Corbin: If there is a need to revise the legislation, then it should be revised. But we must ensure, first and foremost, that the members of the Executive charged with implementing the Act are doing their job. If they are not capable of doing that, then they should be replaced.
The Chairman: Mr. Denault, would you like to respond to that, with a yes or a no?
Mr. Denault: Well, I certainly will not say no. That is the sort of action we are seeking. We would like a miracle to occur; nobody ever has trouble accepting a miracle, but we do not dare even hope for that to happen. It is quite true, though, that if the ministers who say they are responsible were doing their job, we would not be facing these problems. This has been going on for a long time.
Senator Gauthier: You have been steered down the wrong track. We are talking about the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories, not the Act that applies to all of Canada. In fact, the case you are arguing in front of the courts now puts all of that in doubt. It is not our place to make decisions about the Act passed in the Northwest Territories. It is up to them to do that.
I asked you earlier whether you agreed with the amendments that have been proposed. As you know, the Parliament of Canada is the highest court you will have to face. The Senate is interested in your case. We will not be in a position to accept any amendment or change, or repeal the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories without the support of the Canadian Parliament.
Having a joint committee will change nothing. However, if the Senate were to issue a report stating firmly that the bill introduced in the Northwest Territories is not acceptable in its present form, that would be different. Canada's Official Languages Act has nothing whatsoever to do with that. It is the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories that takes precedence. It should be similar or comparable, but it isn't.
Mr. Denault: You are right.
Senator Gauthier: My second question —
The Chairman: I would like an answer.
Senator Corbin: Senator Gauthier cut Mr. Denault off as he was speaking.
The Chairman: Mr. Denault, could you continue answering Senator Corbin's question, please?
Mr. Denault: Coming back to the point about the ministers responsible, that also includes the ministers responsible for the legislation in the Northwest Territories. The first to be directly concerned would be the ministers in the Northwest Territories. Previously it was the head of government of the Northwest Territories who was responsible, but things changed over time. People have to take full responsibility for their role in this. It is important to remember that territorial statutes are federal statutes and that the Government of the Northwest Territories is a government created by the federal government. It always comes down to that.
Senator Corbin: In New Brunswick, we set up French schools in so-called minority areas. That was done in Fredericton, Saint John, Miramichi and Prince Edward Island. That happened because there was a federal determination to help establish these institutions. There was a receptiveness on the part of the provincial premiers to ensure that these projects would go forward and be completed — which brings me back to what I said at the outset: a minister can do more than just follow the letter of the law. He has an unwritten responsibility to do what he can to encourage local authorities to work together to implement the legislation. That kind of work is carried out at an individual, personal level. Based on what the witness has told us today, no such encouragement has not been given. They have just washed their hands of the whole affair, and that is extremely unfortunate.
Senator Beaudoin: I want to be sure that everyone understood my comments. This is before the courts and it bears a curious resemblance to what happened in Manitoba. Mr. Forest came to see me here in Ottawa. He said to me: I have taken my case to court and I keep on losing. I said to him: That is right. But if you can take it to the Supreme Court, you will win. And he did. I was one of the lawyers that pleaded that case. I believe they can win their case in front of the Supreme Court. Perhaps even in front of a lower court, which would be even better. But unless there is some movement between now and whenever that happens, which may be some way off, then obviously, the ideal thing would be for people to agree on a compromise, on the understanding that this may take five or ten years, but that one day, both official languages will be equal. If we could do that in the committee, I am all in favour. I will support you, but as long as nothing is moving, the only thing that can help us are the courts.
Senator Corbin: But they are not moving either.
Senator Beaudoin: Well, you are right; it takes time, but there is movement. All this costs a fortune. Mr. Forest spent thousands of dollars. He is a hero, but he won. There are two solutions: the second one is such a minor one and registers so little on the radar screen that it goes completely unnoticed. Both sides are sticking to their guns. They have practically no contact and do not seem to communicate in French either. So, if we are successful, that is great. I am generally optimistic, but I have to say that that is how I see things at this time. I am pretty certain that the Supreme Court will see it our way. I am prepared to wait. I am a patient man, but unless we can find another remedy, then engaging in discussions or having the Committee go and see the ministers, the governments and everyone else involved, in order to shake things up a little bit, certainly cannot do any harm. The legal debate centres solely on whether or not both languages are official and equal in the Northwest Territories. And also, whether or not the Northwest Territories are federal institutions. I say they are, others say no. The court will rule on this. However, if the Territories are not federal, what are they? Are they nothing at all? That is a ridiculous proposition. The legislation we are talking about is not municipal, provincial or regional. It is federal. They are federal territories. They are federal institutions. And, if they are federal institutions, according to section 16, both languages have equal status in the territories. There is no getting around that, unless the court rules that they are not institutions. In that case, my reaction would be: well, what are they then? And where are we going by taking this path, which is a long and costly one? But I do think it will be successful. Mr. Forest won his case, and if he had not done what he did, it might have taken an additional 20 years in Manitoba to secure bilingual legislation. It is either that, or getting the politicians to move. Make them move. I would be delighted to see that happen. I will jump on the bandwagon. As a member of the legal profession, I am well aware of how much these things costs. Making lawyers rich is not my problem. One of the solutions is just to keep struggling along, while the other is to go before the courts. It is one or the other.
I agree with Senator Corbin when he says we have to do something. If we ask for the support of the Minister of Justice and the government, that certainly will not hurt. But I do not advise setting aside the legal process, because if you do that, what will you have left? That may be your only hope in the long run. I told Mr. Forest he would win his case before the Supreme Court, and he did.
Taking a case to the Supreme Court is extremely costly, but barring the Supreme Court, a miracle would have to occur, as you say.
Mr. Denault: The Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and the Yukon are little known jurisdictions. I do not know much about the Forest case, but it probably has to do with a sovereign province, a provincial Crown, and thus it had to go as far as the Supreme Court of Canada. But there is no provincial sovereignty in the territories. That's the difference between the Forest case and our case. That is what needs to be given serious consideration in Ottawa. Our federal government claims to be a champion of official languages, but is it acceptable for our federal government, in its own area of jurisdiction, to simply accept the outrageous situation that we are currently facing? There is no ambiguity where a provincial Crown is concerned.
Senator Beaudoin: That is not the complicated part as far as the law is concerned: that's the easy part. You say that New Brunswick won, but there, francophones represent 34 per cent of the population. In your case, you only represent 2 per cent. It is clear that victory will be more difficult to achieve in your case, given the small percentage of francophones in the territories. But that is not a reason to say no. As Churchill once said: "We shall never surrender.'' We have to have a good understanding of what weapons are available to us.
New Brunswick carried off quite an incredible feat. Good for New Brunswick! The federal government has done some excellent work with the Official Languages Act. But the federal government has to do more, according to the Charter. That is the part that has not been done. It is as simple as that. And that is what the debate is all about. Either you get a court of justice to say so or you get the politicians to reach a settlement. I see no other answers, other than a miracle occurring.
Senator Gauthier: The Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories is currently unsatisfactory. In late March, the government of the Northwest Territories tabled amendments to the Official Languages Act. Are you satisfied with those amendments?
Mr. Denault: No, because without regulations, they are just words on paper.
Senator Gauthier: There were no regulations previously and there are still no regulations now, but there are guidelines. The federal government's control under the new Official Languages Act is absolute. The Department of Justice has told us that if the bill made improvements to the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories, there would be nothing we could do. We could only get involved if the Department of Justice repealed, cut back or changed the Official Languages Act. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Denault: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: It is up to us to take our responsibilities. If the bill that has been tabled is not appropriate or beneficial to you, I see no problem with our committee recommending to the Senate that changes be made, but do not delude yourselves either. There are five political parties, which means five different points of view.
Is the Court Challenges Program paying your legal expenses at this time?
Mr. Denault: Yes.
Senator Léger: New Brunswick officially carries some weight. As Senator Beaudoin was saying, the percentage makes no difference. It is the principle of equality that counts in Canada.
Senator Beaudoin: Yes, we agree on that.
The Chairman: I want to thank Mr. Denault for all the information he has provided and for his requests. I would ask committee members to give serious thought to what has been discussed. Senator Gauthier already has a plan of action. The committee is committed to discussing this matter further in order to follow up on your recommendations and on what is a very important issue. This issue falls within our responsibilities. Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before the committee.
Senator Gauthier: Madam Chairman, with your permission, perhaps I could ask one last question. You mentioned earlier that you would ask the Auditor General of Canada to look at the books, did you not? How are you going to go about that?
Mr. Denault: We have filed a request with the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, but the latter does not release information about the audits it carries out. That is the answer we received.
Senator Gauthier: She is not the one that decides. The government could ask that the books be reviewed, if you have evidence to back up such a request.
Mr. Denault: The evidence is pretty obvious. The Government of Canada has spent $37 million since 1984 for services and legislation, but nothing has been done. The $37 million was to be spent helping francophones, but it was actually used for something else. There was about $60 million for the Aboriginal peoples, but $37 million was to be used to provide services to our community. So, this request is completely warranted.
Senator Chaput: That is the point that I focussed on with Mr. Dion, when he made his presentation.
When the federal government provides money to the provinces or territories for francophone activities or services, there should be a common objective set in each case, which is to ensure that the money is actually spent on francophones. For years, we saw that it was quite the reverse in Manitoba. I believe that is what Mr. Denault meant.
Mr. Denault: Our community receives federal government funding and is accountable for the money it receives. A certain amount of work has to be carried out and the community is required to issue reports. It would be logical to conclude that that same accountability applies when the federal government provides funding.
The Chairman: We will take a ten-minute break and then resume.
The sitting was suspended.
The sitting resumed.
The Chairman: We are ready to resume. I would like to welcome our witnesses, Ms. Andrée Duchesne and Ms. Suzanne Poirier. We will now be reviewing the report entitled "Environment Scan: Access to Justice in Both Official Languages'' published by the Department of Justice last summer. You received a copy of this report several weeks ago, and I imagine you have had time to review it.
Last week, you received a copy of the report issued by the previous Joint Committee on Official Languages, tabled in June 2002, with respect to Justice in both official languages. Recommendation 3 of that report asked the federal government to inform Committee members of any measures it intended to take in response to the problems identified in the report.
In November of 2002, the federal government forwarded a report to the former joint committee, stating that it had established a federal-provincial-territorial working group for the purposes of studying possible solutions to the problems identified in the report.
Last week, we received a copy of the working group's mandate.
Ms. Andrée Duchesne is Joint Chair of the Working Group. She is also the Coordinator of the National Program for the Integration of Both Official Languages in the Administration of Justice (POLAJ). She will be providing information about how the Working Group's study is proceeding. Ms. Suzanne Poirier is General Counsel with the Department of Justice. She is also Coordinator of the Justice in Official Languages and Bijuralism Section.
I would remind you that this study is part of a reference from the Senate to review the report entitled "Environment Scan: Access to Justice in Both Official Languages.''
Ms. Suzanne Poirier, General Counsel, Francophonie, Justice in Official Languages and Bijuralism: Honourable senators, my group is coordinating the departmental approach with respect to justice in both official languages. Ms. Andrée Duchesne is Coordinator of POLAJ, as well as being responsible for coordinating the department's access to justice in both official languages file.
To begin with, it is important to state that the Department plays three roles with respect to the Official Languages Act. First, the Minister is responsible for the general implementation of the Act. Second, the Department is a federal institution subject to the legislation, and finally, the Department acts as legal advisor to the government and all departments with respect to official languages.
It is in the context of our role as a federal institution subject to the legislation that we appear before you today. We have been asked to discuss the results of the "Environment Scan'' commissioned by the Department of Justice, as well as follow-up of that study.
Last February 6, the Honourable Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, on the strength of the report entitled "Environment Scan: Access to Justice in Both Official Languages,'' called the attention of the Senate to the following matter, and I quote:
... the need to develop a real policy of active offer of judicial and legal services in the minority official language, and that the federal government take all necessary steps to provide services to vulnerable official language communities.
I would just like to begin by telling you something about the "Environment Scan: Access to Justice in Both Official Languages.'' This was a national study commissioned by the Department in order to get an overall picture, region by region, of access to justice in minority official languages in certain areas of federal jurisdiction. The goal of the study was to develop possible solutions based on the specific needs and circumstances of each region.
I want to repeat that this study was commissioned, rather than carried out, by the Department, and that the results were published exactly in the state in which they were received. Some administrations have informed us that they do not agree with some of the study results. But beyond the actual details, the study does allow us to draw certain conclusions and generally shows that Canadians who are members of minority official language communities do not have access to judicial and legal services of the same quality, compared with those available to the majority.
A number of specific obstacles have been identified, including the absence of active offer, the small number of judges able to hear a case in the accused's official language, and the lack of civil servants able to support a bilingual legal system.
Consequently, to ensure complete implementation of existing language guarantees related to the justice system, support for affirmative action is essential, based on the situations identified in each of the region. In the immediate future, our actions will be aimed at bringing governments and communities closer together, because we cannot and will not act alone to achieve results in this area.
Our first action was to establish a federal-provincial-territorial working group, the creation of which was approved by the Deputy Ministers of Justice Forum in June of 2002, based on the principle of voluntary participation by the provinces and territories.
I am sure I do not need to remind you that the cooperation of the provinces and territories is an absolute must, since we are working in an area of shared jurisdiction.
Further to a request by our Deputy Minister of his counterparts that they designate a representative, seven administrations did initially agree to join the group. In fact, there were six and a seventh was added. They are: Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Alberta, Yukon, British Columbia and Nunavut. Saskatchewan was added in the course of the last month. It is possible that at least one other administration will name a representative in the coming weeks. That would mean a total of nine administrations would be represented.
Senator Corbin: The Northwest Territories.
Ms. Poirier: The Deputy Ministers also agreed that the network of government officials responsible for Francophone Affairs also have a representative. The Director of Francophone Affairs plays an important role as regards the development of minority official language communities.
The network's participation in the Working Group on Access to Justice will enable us to make linkages between considerations related to the justice system and litigants who are members of an official language minority.
You mentioned that the Joint Chairs of the Group are Ms. Duchesne, representing the federal government, and Mr. Marcel Castonguay, representing Ontario, for this year. The position of Joint Chair representing the provinces and territories will be rotational.
[English]
The group held two conference calls. The first, on October 22, was for an initial meeting and a preliminary discussion of the mandate. The second, on December 12, was for a more thorough discussion of the mandate, which was finally approved by the deputy ministers' of justice forum at the end of January, 2003. A copy of their mandate was submitted to you earlier.
All the administrations agreed that the next meeting should be held only after the announcement of the government's action plan for official languages. As you know, this announcement was made on March 12, and a subsequent meeting should thus be called in the next few weeks.
[Translation]
Following the establishment of the Working Group, and as an activity separate from this group, we will be creating a consultation mechanism this year aimed at bringing together our two client groups, lawyers and litigants.
In close cooperation with this advisory committee, we will be providing follow-up of the "Environment Scan,'' both in terms of departmental activities, policies and programs, and also with a view to giving a more bilingual face to the justice system in Canada.
Our ability to generate partnerships, not only with provincial and territorial governments, but also with the communities, lawyers, associations and non-governmental organizations, will guarantee our success.
Thus, with the help of the federal-provincial-territorial group and the advisory committee, we expect to be able to develop the levers needed to improve access to justice in both official languages, and particularly to support complete implementation of existing language guarantees in the Criminal Code.
The government's Action Plan for Official Languages identified a certain amount of money for the creation of a fund to support access to justice in both official languages.
With that money, and obviously subject to obtaining the required administrative approvals, our intention is to take action along the following lines.
The Department will provide stable funding to associations of French-language jurists and their national federation. We know that this essential client group of the Department must have the funding it requires to organize or better organize its activities so that it can play an effective role with litigants, as well as governments.
In addition, over the next five years, we will be allocating funding for projects to be carried out with the provinces, territories and non-governmental organizations. We favour innovative projects likely to lead to positive results. Thus we would look favourably upon projects involving several partners that could be transposed to other regions, with the necessary adjustments.
The Official Languages Law Group, under the direction of Mr. Marc Tremblay, will also be ensuring that the Department's legal advisors and Crown attorneys working in the different departments are made aware of language rights and receive training in this area, in order to be better able to provide appropriate advice to their client department.
Of course, during the question period, we will be providing additional details regarding the solutions that have been identified and that we believe we can act on. The weaknesses identified in the "Environmental Scan'' have posed a problem for many years, as evidenced by the incomplete implementation of language rights under the Criminal Code. The administration of justice is an area of shared jurisdiction, and I would therefore again emphasize that the cooperation of provincial governments is a must.
We want to act as a catalyst to provide the necessary momentum to create conditions favourable to meeting our objectives.
The "Environment Scan'' is a tool that will be used as a reference for setting useful and realistic objectives that will lead to lasting results.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Ms. Duchesne, do you have a presentation?
Ms. Duchesne: No, ours is a joint presentation.
Senator Gauthier: The application of certain laws in Canada is asymmetrical.
I am thinking of three or four statutes in particular. The Divorce Act, the Bankruptcy Act and the Criminal Code. And there are others that I have forgotten.
In the report "Environment Scan: Access to Justice in Both Official Languages,'' what strikes me is the need to implement a truly active offer of judicial and legal services in both official languages, particularly in minority official language communities. It is not always easy to be a francophone in Ontario or in the Western provinces. It is easier in Quebec, and even New Brunswick, where there is an Official Languages Act.
In two provinces in particular, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, very few changes have occurred in terms to access. Access is easier in Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. As I just said, application of our laws is asymmetrical. In some areas of the Province of Ontario, it is impossible to have access to a judge that speaks our language. I do admit, though, that the situation is improving.
Will you have any impact on access to justice in French in the provinces I have just mentioned — Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta? I am not talking about Quebec or New Brunswick.
Ms. Poirier: I should point out that the philosophy behind the Action Plan on Official Languages announced by the federal government is to achieve results. So, in that sense, with the creation of the support fund we will be emphasizing — and we have already begun to do so, since we have had conference calls with lawyer associations and other groups — and be guided by results. The "Environmental Scan'' demonstrated that implementation of the language provisions of the Criminal Code is unsatisfactory and that we needed to support measures aimed at consolidating gains, rather than trying to cast our net wider. We will be taking specific measures and we believe we will have an impact, primarily as regards enforcement of language rights provided for under the Criminal Code. That will be our priority. It will not be our sole area of activity, but there is no doubt that our efforts will focus to a large extent on protecting existing language rights. Some of our actions could also impact on the civil justice system. You mentioned the Divorce Act, and I know that our colleagues responsible for the divorce file within the Department have or will be taking certain measures to ensure that the provinces clearly understand that official languages is a priority for the Justice Department and that that priority must be acted on through concrete initiatives at certain levels. Now, if you have questions regarding the details of those initiatives, with us today in the room is Ms. Lise Lafrenière Henrie, Senior Counsel with the Family Section of the Department, would be pleased to provide you with additional details.
The Chairman: Ms. Lafrenière, could you please come and join us?
Senator Gauthier: In the report "Environment Scan: Access to Justice in Both Official Languages,'' mention is made of what is called restorative justice. You said earlier that you had identified certain guide posts or points of reference in relation to the report and that you would be changing things. I accept that. Let me take a more specific case — offences. This was recently settled in Ontario. It took some time before the courts could make themselves heard. Justice Canada dragged its feet for two years and there was a one-year extension of the ruling made by Judge Blais. In the Dion Action Plan, $18.5 million are allocated for justice, if memory serves me well.
With respect to offences, we were told that this would cost between $13 and $13.5 million over five years. Is that correct?
Ms. Poirier: As regards offences, as a result of agreement being signed with all the provinces to do what we did in Ontario, it will in fact be a little more. We are talking about overall funding of a approximately $25 million for offence- related measure.
Senator Gauthier: How much more is that? $18 million? In other words, are you going to be dipping into the $18 million provided for under Minister Dion's Action Plan to resolve the problems associated with offences?
Ms. Poirier: No, not at all. They have a separate allocation, which is $25 million.
Senator Gauthier: That is a categorical "no.'' You will be receiving money elsewhere. Is that new money?
Ms. Poirier: Yes, absolutely; again, under the Action Plan, the Department will be allocated a total of $45.5 million.
Senator Gauthier: I would like to have a copy of the agreement signed with Ontario. I made that request to the Minister, but do you think you could send me a copy?
Ms. Poirier: We will refer that request to the group responsible for the offences file. I see no problem there. The agreement has in fact been signed.
Senator Gauthier: But some topics are still under negotiation. Certain kinds of offences justify imposing a fine on Senator Lapointe if he parks his vehicle in the wrong place at the airport, for example. Those are revenues. I would like to know what your estimate is of the revenues that will be generated as a result of this new Offences Act.
Ms. Poirier: We will ensure that your request to receive a copy of the agreement is passed on to the persons responsible for this file. And you also have a question with respect to the revenues this will generate.
Senator Gauthier: Yes, I would like you to give me an estimate of the revenues you will be administering with the provinces. I imagine there are administrative costs, are there not?
Ms. Poirier: I know that the amounts allocated under the Action Plan are for recurring costs in the provinces — for example, to pay bilingual staff and similar expenditures. However, we will pass on your comment and questions to the people responsible for this file.
Senator Gauthier: You referred to legal training and training for lawyers with respect to official languages. That is certainly a good thing, but they should also provide them with training so that they are able to speak French in front of a court of law. Many feel uncomfortable speaking French in the courts. Do you have any program in place to raise awareness and encourage them to take a greater interest in their own language?
Ms. Andrée Duchesne, National Coordinator, Justice Canada, Francophonie, Justice in Official Languages and Bijuralism: With the $18.5 million set aside in Minister Dion's Action Plan for Access to Justice in Both Official Languages, we have developed a strategy called "Partnerships.'' In that context, we intend to work with provincial and territorial governments, as well as with associations of French-speaking jurists and their national federation, to respond to the very important concerns of these groups. As you say, Crown attorneys are not necessarily bilingual or do not feel comfortable speaking French when the opportunity arises. This is a concern identified in several different parts of the "Environment Scan'' and it is very much a priority. We are aware that the justice system is not bilingual enough, and that will certainly be a very important initiative for us as part of the partnerships strategy. Indeed, a number of projects have already been submitted in that area.
Senator Beaudoin: My question is on the criminal law. The Supreme Court ruled that any accused in Canada has the right to legal counsel and a trial in his mother tongue. But how does that work in practice? Do you have trouble finding enough lawyers or bilingual, francophone or Anglophone judges? Implementing the Beaulac ruling is a very simple matter. First of all, this is a Supreme Court ruling. It is a ruling in which Justice Bastarache played a significant role. All they have to do is appoint francophone or bilingual judges. It is quite straightforward. But how does it work at a practical level?
Ms. Poirier: The appointment of judges is a prerogative of the minister.
Senator Beaudoin: But we can make suggestions to the minister.
Ms. Poirier: The minister is aware of the observations and recommendations made in the "Environmental Scan.'' As for the situation from province to province, I would like to ask Ms. Duchesne to answer that question.
Ms. Duchesne: You are right to mention this because it is, indeed, one of the weaknesses of our current system. The nature and scope of the problem, however, is not the same everywhere. There is no doubt that in provinces like Ontario or New Brunswick, and to a certain extent Manitoba, perhaps — although, there again, with certain reservations — the justice system is certainly more able to provide an accused with the possibility of having his trial entirely in his own language. However, the further west you go, the more the situation changes.
I have worked in this area for more than 20 years. Of course, the entry onto the market of new francophone common law graduates from the Universities of Ottawa and Moncton and, in some cases, McGill, means that we now have a pool of bilingual candidates for the judiciary. They come from official language minority communities and should, even now, allow us to achieve a result different from what we have in the past, where we found ourselves in difficult situations that forced us from time to time to borrow staff in order to satisfy a request. That is the kind of thing we are seeing in the West.
Of course, it is a matter of supply and demand. And at that level, I think one of the initiatives we are looking at, which involves training Crown prosecutors, is certainly already underway and will be developed in a much more organized and concerted fashion. We intend to work closely with provincial governments in that regard.
As for the appointment of judges, I believe that beyond the question of the minister's prerogative, it is important to recognize that previously, there was no pool of bilingual candidates. However, that pool is now in place, and growing, and it will continue to do so. That is in fact one of the weaknesses that has been identified.
Senator Beaudoin: The Beaulac ruling states clearly and unequivocally that this is a constitutional right. It is therefore an obligation. Canada has excellent law faculties that prepare lawyers to work in both languages. The common law is taught in both French and English, and now the civil law is being taught in French and English. Back when I was dean, there were 22 faculties of law.
No one can be more delighted than I am about the positive changes occurring in that regard, because we believe this can be done. Everyone believes it. We will certainly succeed eventually. You are saying that the West may be somewhat of a problem, but it is a problem that can be very easily resolved. There are francophone judges in Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. The Chief Justice of Canada speaks excellent French, and yet she is originally from Alberta or British Columbia. Everything has changed.
I suggest you keep up the good work, because you are certainly on the right track. Congratulations. Do you have the necessary funding to achieve all that?
Ms. Poirier: With respect with the Beaulac ruling, I have said a couple of times that our efforts would focus primarily on the application of language rights set out in the Criminal Code, so that clearly is a direct result of the Beaulac ruling.
We would always like to have more funding, but we also know that it's better to target funding in specific areas to achieve specific results, rather than sprinkling a little here and there and making people happy in a very superficial way. We are very much intent on achieving results. We will be targeting language rights under the Criminal Code, first and foremost, and with the funds we have received, we believe we can make a difference.
Senator Beaudoin: Excellent!
Senator Léger: Ms. Poirier, you really caught my attention when you said that the primary role of your group was to enforce the law. Since we have been hearing witnesses, we have been told exactly the opposite — that the law is not being enforced. So, I want to commend you if that is, indeed, your primary role.
You mentioned that there was a lack of bilingual lawyers and judges, and Senator Gauthier also referred to that. A great deal of progress is being made, however. In the Second Act, Minister Dion's Plan of Action, it says that 90 per cent of lawyers and judges would be more than happy to be bilingual. It is putting that into practice that is difficult. In a completely anglophone environment, the question is whether the funding allocated for training is being used for anything but grammar books, because there are so many good ways of learning a language. More and more people are bilingual, and I believe that in order for there to be good outcomes, the most important thing is to allocate the money for training in the right places.
Ms. Poirier: Yes, money will go to training both provincial judges, who are often in the line of fire, and judicial staff — either language training or training in legal terminology. I find it very interesting that you said that we may need to find ways of providing training other than the ones we've used so far. Andrée Duchesne can provide you with additional details about language training. As she already mentioned, she has been working in that field for 20 years.
However, with respect to language training for judges, we will try to work with jurilinguistic centres and provide training in the regions. There is a need to decentralize training and adapt it to the specific needs of the regions, which is not something that is being done now. People complain that the training available does not necessarily meet their requirements. I would like to ask Ms. Duchesne to take the time to give you a few more details in this regard, because it is a very important component of our response.
Ms. Duchesne: Judges are appointed at an increasingly young age and have family responsibilities. Under the current system, judges have to leave their home, their workplace and their community for three weeks at a time to take immersion courses at various levels. The fact is that many judges don't feel comfortable doing this, given their workload and the costs that have to be incurred, particularly if they are provincial judges.
We have realized that we need to find training formats that are better suited to their professional circumstances and the communities they are called upon to serve. That obviously means providing selective training in the field. In some provinces, the local or provincial Association des juristes d'expression française — particularly in Manitoba — provides training takes the form of simulated trials. The Association also provides an opportunity for judges and judicial staff to attend mini-seminars once or twice a year where specific topics are addressed. These seminars also include legal and language training workshops with simulation exercises where participants are asked to take part in actual mediation sessions or criminal hearings.
A lot of different means and methods are used nowadays. A number of these groups have survived, despite having very few financial resources at their disposal. With the funding provided for under the Dion Plan, we want to help people with lots of ideas to actually put those ideas into practice, because they have already done a great deal of work in this area. It's a matter of working in partnership with the communities. We often talk about governments, but we need to think about the people in the field, because they are the ones who know what they need. We need to seek support from the people best acquainted with the environment.
Senator Léger: In the legal profession, you have to use the exact term, but it is the opposite for languages. You talked about young lawyers. They may already have young children in immersion. We already see things starting to open up and people doing things differently. A fragmented, disjointed kind of approach will not work in this area.
Ms. Duchesne: First and foremost, people's language preferences have to be respected. It is important to realize that 20 years ago, most of these people did not have access to legal training in the common law in their own language. We had to build the common law vocabulary in French. Now it needs to be maintained, and that is a daily challenge. We now have a pool of attractive candidates for the judiciary. These are people who studied in French at their law faculty. But to keep them informed, we have had to develop tools. We have had to translate and develop an entire vocabulary for French-language common law practitioners. Those efforts must continue. We have to maintain what we've developed so far, and continue to build on it.
Senator Léger: In New Brunswick, bilingual candidates are often transferred to the regions. I imagine it is the same in the other provinces, is it not?
Ms. Duchesne: What is increasingly apparent for law faculties and graduates in particular — and this has had an impact on associations of French-language jurists — is that graduates from faculties where the common law is taught in French are highly sought after by large legal firms. Because they come from all over the country to study in Moncton or Ottawa, they do not necessarily want to go back to their province of origin. I'm referring here, in particular, to graduates from the Western provinces. The issue for associations of French-language jurists is that their candidate pool is shrinking.
Senator Chaput: I would like to talk about bilingual judges, judges appointed by the Department of Justice. When the federal Minister of Justice appoints a judge, he makes his selection based on a list of names submitted by a provincial committee. As you know, every province has a provincial committee composed of association representatives, including representatives appointed by the Minister of Justice.
Each of these committees receives a list of candidates and is responsible for assessing them. I have direct experience with this, because I myself sat on such a committee in Manitoba for three years. The fact that a lawyer is completely bilingual and can conduct a trial in English or French is not considered to be an asset when candidates are evaluated. Every provincial committee sets it own criteria. If the Manitoba committee, for example, does not consider bilingualism to be an asset, even after five hours of discussion, I do not think I will necessarily succeed in changing the minds of the six other representatives. That is the situation I faced in Manitoba over a three-year period. That is confidential information, because we are not supposed to talk about what goes on in this kind of committee, but I can tell you that the names of competent, bilingual candidates were put forward and that I was unsuccessful in my efforts to get the committee to put the names of at least one of the candidates on the list to be recommended to the Department of Justice.
I am sharing this with you because I imagine your federation is already aware of the way things work. Your federation should look into the possibility of providing all the committees across Canada with a list of criteria to be considered, so that bilingualism would be deemed an asset.
The Chairman: Do such criteria exist elsewhere?
Ms. Poirier: I just want to repeat what I believe the Minister has already stated on a number of occasions. He himself considers a number of criteria — and this answer is not going to please you — when he makes an appointment. However, even though bilingualism is a criterion, in the final analysis, he makes the appointment based on merit.
Now as far as the criteria used by committees are concerned, I am afraid I have no knowledge of that.
Ms. Duchesne: This is an area that we are not very familiar with. French-language jurists's associations and the national federation that represents them have made many representations to various federal ministers of Justice over the years. They recently had meetings with the current minister, Mr. Cauchon. Mr. Cauchon is aware of the issue, but at the present time, the selection process for the appointment of federal judges does not include criteria such as bilingualism.
Senator Chaput: The minister has to make his selection based on the list submitted to him by the provincial committee. If you happen to be in an area with an anglophone majority, with people who may not be open to the idea of bilingualism, or prepared to consider that, all other things being equal, a bilingual candidate has an additional asset, then a candidate will not be recommended. That individual's name will never end up on a list of potential candidates to be submitted to the Department of Justice.
Ms. Poirier: We will pass on your comments to the people responsible for this file.
Senator Corbin: So, six provinces and two territories are part of your group?
Ms. Poirier: Yes.
Senator Corbin: And you say that one other may possibly join the group. Is it a province or a territory?
Ms. Poirier: The decision has not yet been made.
Senator Corbin: You chose your words carefully and seemed to emphasize the fact that the "Environment Scan'' was a commissioned study, and that it had not been carried out by the Department. If you had been doing the study, would you have done things differently?
Ms. Poirier: Well, we certainly participated. We laid out the game plan. We established how the data would be gathered. When the data came in, however, we did not proceed to edit that data so that the results would suit us better in one area or another. We simply presented the data as it was passed on to us.
Senator Corbin: But there was an editorial board.
Ms. Poirier: Well, the interviews were done by a consulting firm, using a questionnaire developed in cooperation with us, which is the normal way to proceed. Once the data had been collected, they collated them and passed them all on to us.
Senator Corbin: So, you did not influence the process at that level; the consulting firm drew its own conclusions, right?
Ms. Poirier: Yes.
Senator Corbin: In terms of the report itself, if I understood you correctly, you had certain reservations about some aspects of the report. It may just have been grumbling, I do not know. Could you elaborate on that?
The committee tends to want to obtain harsh clinical judgments from public servants, whom I respect. I know that you are limited in what you can say, but we might have a better understanding of the issue or a more complete picture of the situation if you told us why and in what specific areas you had reservations. Perhaps without naming any names, you could give us an idea of what those reservations were.
Ms. Poirier: Perhaps we could tell you the nature of the reservations, because this was discussed at two conference calls.
Ms. Duchesne: At this time, the reservations that have been expressed are in two areas — both from governments or administrations represented on the Working Group.
Senator Corbin: Provincial administrations.
Ms. Duchesne: Provincial or territorial administrations or the jurist community. In other words, in some cases, the comment that comes back most often from provincial and territorial administrations is that in most cases, the researchers noted that only in very rare cases was there an actual policy of active offer of services.
The most frequent comment we received from administrations is that some of them consider that active offer of services is in fact a reality. So, the question of what active offer of services really consists of is something that will be discussed in the Working Group. That much is clear.
The other comment that has often been made, especially by representatives of the jurist constituency, is that the way some of the statistical data are presented — and of course, statistics are only so valuable — left the impression that in some regions of the country, everything was solidly in place and there were no problems, or if there were, they would be relatively easy to resolve.
Those are the two main kinds of comments we have received with respect to the "Environment Scan,'' without going into the specific reactions of some jurisdictions. Certainly there were frequent comments with respect to the policy of active offer of services. And in terms of the overall quantitative picture presented in the Scan with respect to some jurisdictions, we were told that people would assume, looking at that data, that things are going fairly well when, in fact, there are still major problems.
Senator Corbin: Fine, thank you. I have the impression we will never see Quebec's name on the list of participants in your group, am I right?
Ms. Duchesne: Participation is voluntary, as we mentioned earlier. Quebec is not currently a participant, but neither are other jurisdictions.
Senator Corbin: I guess there must be quite a bit of interest on the part of a province like Prince Edward Island, since you are keeping them informed.
Ms. Poirier: Indeed, we mentioned in the mandate that the province of Prince Edward Island has specifically requested to be kept informed of progress, although for the time being, it does not wish to appoint a representative.
The Chairman: I am going to move on. If Senator Comeau were here, as a committee member and senator from Nova Scotia, he would probably ask a question relating to his concern about the ability to get divorced in French in Nova Scotia. Not for himself — for other people. He is always saying that it's very difficult. Is the Government of Nova Scotia taking any action to improve access to services — for example, with respect to the Divorce Act?
Ms. Duchesne: They are not currently members of the Working Group. The Association des juristes de la Nouvelle- Écosse has been lobbying the Government of Nova Scotia to get the province to join the Working Group. But, once again, participation by the provinces is entirely voluntary. As for the role the Government of Nova Scotia may play, I certainly cannot say at this time.
Senator Gauthier: That does not leave many people, if you take away Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and the territories. Are the territories new members? Is that recent? They were not on the list.
Ms. Poirier: Nunavut joined the Working Group a little later. We developed the list for the government's response and I believe you are right that Nunavut was not on it.
Ms. Duchesne: Nunavut was added in the early fall.
Ms. Poirier: And Saskatchewan was added over the course of the last month.
Senator Gauthier: I have one comment to make. I believe the documentation prepared by the researcher is excellent. The six questions are excellent and I think we should provide a copy of this to our witnesses and ask them to provide an answer.
I would like to put one of the questions to you now. It has to do with justice and the official language communities. In your opinion, will this accountability framework be sufficient to ensure implementation of the government's commitment to the official language community minorities? Should a regulatory framework not be adopted instead, as recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages? You may recall that we made that recommendation last year. You did not accept that recommendation and you came forward with an accountability framework. Why? You may respond in writing, if you wish.
Senator Corbin: The committee would like to know.
Ms. Poirier: Could I ask Marc Tremblay to answer that question? He is with the Official Languages Law Group.
Mr. Marc Tremblay, General Counsel, Official Languages Law Group, Justice Canada: I am the government's legal advisor on questions related to official languages. The accountability framework which Senator Gauthier is referring to was only announced on March 12. The government's ambitions with respect to that framework are, obviously, that it meet all the goals set out in the Action Plan. The government is relying on that accountability framework to raise awareness among its own public servants and officials with respect to the nature of the commitment made to these communities. It is hoping that by raising awareness, that commitment will be realized when departments all across government develop program thrusts and government policies. The specific ambition of the accountability framework is to — as economists would say — internalize the value of that commitment across the machinery of government.
Will this framework meet all the objectives that could be associated with it? Well, we will have to see in five years' time. To use currently government jargon, formative evaluations are planned. It means that after two years, we will look at what we have done in terms of implementation, to see whether we are on the right track and make any necessary adjustments. Then, in five years' time, which is the term defined for the Action Plan, we will need to carry out an evaluation. We do not want to say it will be a final evaluation, because we hope that everything will have worked according to plan and that we will either continue the program, or that we will not need it anymore. That would be ideal.
However, evaluations will be performed and we will see just how effective the framework has been. For the time being, the regulatory option is not one being considered by government. Minister Dion has answered a number of questions in that regard, saying that the government did not believe the commitment was of a nature to call for regulatory measures.
Senator Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Tremblay. As usual, your answers are to the point. I have a general question for you. One of the problems facing Canadians is that the provinces have difficulty providing documentation, such as an information or complaint, in French.
I am not talking about anglophones, but of the problems facing a person who lives in a province where francophones form a minority. It is difficult to obtain certain documents before the trial. An accused or a litigant may be francophone, but the documents he or she is given are always in English.
The provinces say that it is very costly to translate those documents. But I want the documents to be in French. Is that possible, or am I dreaming in technicolour if I think we can ask the provinces to be a little more disciplined and provide the documentation in both of Canada's official languages?
Ms. Poirier: Although I was prepared to answer a question about the language used for an information, since Marc is here and I have discussed this with him, I will let him answer.
Mr. Tremblay: That is not an easy question to answer. I don't want to bore you by trying to give you a lesson in constitutional law when we are actually here to talk about the Department of Justice's Official Languages Program. So, briefly, there are certain constitutional restrictions in certain provinces. For example, in the case of Quebec, New Brunswick and Manitoba, the Constitution, in its various manifestations, gives citizens the right to use their own language when laying an information — indeed, for all judicial processes and proceedings.
That means that we cannot take away their right to use either French or English to write out the details of an information or complaint, or to testify orally or in writing in proceedings in any of these jurisdictions. The very fact that these constitutional rights exist in certain provinces means that the legislative action we might want to take in relation to the provinces as a whole is limited or restricted — for example, when we legislate through the Criminal Code, to which you are referring here. The Criminal Code contains no provision with respect to an information or complaint laid by an individual, because in that area, the Constitution gives lawyers, police officers, judges, the defendant and the accused the right to use their own language.
However, it is possible to go beyond that constitutional minimum. At the federal level, when our Crown attorneys are acting on our behalf, our policy is to provide translation of the originating process or document in all cases, on request. We did not invent that and made the decision based on the case law applicable in Ontario alone in the Simard case, subsequent to a ruling by the Court of Appeal in 1995, which granted that right in Ontario on request; in other words, the right to a translation of the information or complaint. At the federal level, we have accepted the reasoning behind that and incorporated it into our legal policy.
Senator Gauthier: I do not want a translation. I want it in my own language. That is like deciding that one of Canada's official languages is secondary. Do you understand what I'm getting at? If I were to propose an amendment to the Criminal Code stating that all documents must be provided to the accused in both official languages — not translations — but in both official languages, do you think that might have a chance of passing? It's frustrating. I have some familiarity with the issue. You gave a very good answer to my question, but the fact remains that what we may need is an amendment to the Criminal Code to put an end to the debate.
Mr. Tremblay: I cannot provide legal advice to the Committee. I can only relate what the case law says in section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and what that means for such matters as the language of a complaint or information. We may want to change these things, but the Supreme Court did review them in 1986, and has said that every witness, every police officer, and every judge is free to use his or her own language. So, we are going to have to deal with that basic reality, other than considering the very remote possibility of amending the Constitution. That would not be by amending the Criminal Code, as it would by amending section 133, and now the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which re-stated those same rights in 1982.
This is a very complex matter, and in criminal matters and elsewhere, and through Part III of the Official Languages Act as well, we are trying to strike the appropriate balance between every person's constitutional right to use his or her own language and the benefits for the recipient. There is a balance that allows us to go as far as we can, but not as far as to say that the complaint or information document or process will be in both official languages all across Canada.
Senator Gauthier: It's difficult for francophones in New Brunswick to understand a judge who tells a municipality that there is no requirement for the information or complaint document to be in both official languages. Are you aware of that case?
Mr. Tremblay: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: Mr. Charlebois is challenging the fact that he received the documents in one language only. The judge told him that they were not required to provide the documents in both official languages. I'm sorry, but I do hope you will be on the right side of this issue this time around.
Mr. Tremblay: Well, because the case is still before the courts, I'm sure you can understand that I am reluctant to discuss the details.
The Chairman: With respect to agreements with the provinces, could the plan for one-stop service to be developed with the assistance of the federal government in Saskatchewan, itinerant training and pilot projects such as these be of help in other provinces? Are you making that suggestion? How can we make the other provinces more receptive to these kinds of projects?
Ms. Duchesne: In the "Environmental Scan,'' one of our objectives was to do an inventory of innovative actions taken across the country: pilot projects in Manitoba, the one-stop service initiative, itinerant training — there are certain projects in that area in Saskatchewan — so that other provinces as well would look at these options. That is one of the things we will be considering with members of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Access to Justice in Both Official Languages. Ms. Poirier made the point in our presentation that we are seeking to support innovative projects that will have lasting effects and could be used not only in one province, but possibly serve as a template. That brings me back to our asymmetrical approach with respect to the report entitled "Environmental Scan: Access to Justice in Both Official Languages.'' We do not claim that there is one solution that suits every circumstance all across the country. Rather, there are different situations in every province, and those individual situations have to be respected and taken into account. Any initiatives that are developed will have to be adjusted to meet individual needs. But they are certainly attractive projects of particular interest to us as part of our work.
The Chairman: What is the length of the Working Group's mandate?
Ms. Duchesne: Well, no limit is specified in the mandate. We are very much aware of that. We did not want to restrict this work to the present. A little earlier, we made reference to the idea of a consultation mechanism. The Working Group is a means of consulting the provinces and territories. I'm sure you noted that in addition to Saskatchewan, a representative of government officials responsible for francophone Affairs in the different provinces will also be joining the group, so that we can make the connection to the specific concerns of the communities. Justice is one thing, but services for litigants is another. Coupled with that, we have established mechanisms for consulting the communities and French-speaking jurists.
Senator Corbin: I am intrigued by the absence of certain provinces and/or territories. Do you think a time is coming when everyone will participate?
Ms. Poirier: As Ms. Duchesne was explaining, we know that in Nova Scotia, for example, the Association of French-speaking jurists and other influential members working in that area are pressuring the government to participate. We made it clear to the provinces and territories right from the outset that they could join the Working Group at any time. If any of them show an interest in joining, either today or three months from now, we will invite them to participate.
Thus far, only one other province has shown an interest in participating. I cannot comment for the others.
Senator Corbin: Is it a question of money in their case?
Ms. Poirier: Do you mean, for the provinces?
Senator Corbin: Is it monetary considerations that are preventing them from joining the group voluntarily?
Ms. Poirier: I really could not say. As far as logistics are concerned, there is no cost attached to joining the group.
Senator Corbin: Particularly since the meetings you have had so far have been conducted by teleconference and the Department of Justice is defraying those costs. So, what is preventing them from joining? I really do not understand.
Ms. Duchesne: Deputy Minister Rosenberg wrote to the provinces and territories to reiterate his invitation to them to join the Working Group. The invitation was sent out in the summer and we were told that in some cases, the letter had gone unnoticed. That is one possible explanation.
Senator Corbin: Was that at the political level?
Ms. Duchesne: At the Deputy Minister level — federal-provincial and territorial.
Senator Corbin: The ministers are not involved?
Ms. Poirier: You mean, once the invitation arrived, were the ministers involved or not? I really cannot say. I am aware, however, of one administration where the minister was involved.
Ms. Duchesne: The Working Group is a creation of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Deputy Ministers of Justice Forum. It was created by the Forum. So, it is clearly accountable to that deputy minister group.
Senator Corbin: And we can assume that the ministers concerned are in agreement? There is no opposition?
Ms. Duchesne: Absolutely.
Senator Corbin: I want to commend you on your work. But I come back to what I said earlier: if there is no political will, nothing will ever come of this. I realize that the word "political'' is anathema to you; I understand that. But if we want to be able to serve Canadians in both official languages, politicians have to get involved, Madam Chairman. That's what I meant.
The Chairman: Ms. Poirier and Ms. Duchesne, I want to thank you for your presentation.
I wish to remind members that the next meeting is on Monday, May 5. At that meeting, we will hear from the Minister responsible for the Treasury Board, Ms. Robillard, as well as the Commissioner of Official Languages, Ms. Dyane Adam. We will also be reviewing a draft report on the "Environment Scan'' which you will be receiving shortly.
Senator Corbin: What is the specific topic for each of these two witnesses?
The Chairman: Ms. Robillard will be talking about public service reform and Ms. Adam will discuss budgets.
The committee is adjourned.