Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 6 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, May 5, 2003
The Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages is meeting today at 4:05 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.
The Hon. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Chairman) presiding.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Our witness today is the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, President of the Treasury Board. I have been told that there is currently a vote in the House of Commons. Ms. Robillard will join us within 10 to 15 minutes. We will therefore have to wait until she joins us before we can start.
Senator Gauthier: Since we have the time, could we not move to the report we were going to study today?
The Chair: You are referring to the report on Environmental Scan?
Senator Gauthier: I would like us to study the report on Environmental Scan that was prepared by our researcher, Ms. Marie-Ève Hudon. You have the report in front of you. I brought some proposed amendments that I would like to discuss. If we have the time, while waiting for the President of the Treasury Board, we could study it.
The Chair: I would like to remind members that this is a report that will be studied in camera. If we decide to commence with the study of this report, we will have to ask everyone to leave the room so that the study of this report can be done in camera. It is very important that this report be discussed in camera. It is a report that is to be tabled in the Senate, and you know it is preferable to study this report prior to it being made public.
Committee members, I am in your hands. Would you like to take 15 minutes for an in camera session now and that we postpone the meeting?
Senator Gauthier: This report is not complicated. It is two or three pages long, and you have no doubt read them. But we could discuss it anyway. If you prefer that it be done in camera, I have no objection to that.
The Chair: Would one of Ms. Robillard's witnesses like to comment?
Mr. James Lahey, Associate Secretary, Human Resources Reform: We are willing to wait.
Senator Beaudoin: Perhaps you would like to make a few preliminary remarks before Ms. Robillard comes.
The Chairman: Do you have a presentation?
Mr. Lahey: We would prefer to wait for Madame Minister.
Senator Léger: Rather than suspend the meeting for 15 minutes, I suggest we use this time to get better prepared for our guests.
The Chair: I suggest we read this very confidential report a second time. That way, when we study it in camera, we will no doubt be better prepared, as was just suggested by Senator Léger. I would also suggest that at the same time we look at the documents prepared by Marie-Ève Hudon.
I suspend the meeting until the arrival of the Honourable Ms. Robillard.
The meeting is suspended.
(The meeting resumes)
The Chair: Welcome, Madame Minister, to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
The Honourable Lucienne Robillard, P.C., M.P., President of the Treasury Board: Madame Chair, I am delighted to be with you today because the sustained interest of members from your committee for the promotion of official languages in our country is a most important incentive for the public service of Canada. The year 2003 will be significant for the public service. On the one hand because we are modernizing the whole way in which we manage our human resources, and on the other hand because we aim at revitalizing the official languages program in the public service.
This action plan was made public by the Prime Minister on March 12, 2003; one feature of the plan is an exemplary public service. What exactly do we mean by an exemplary public service? In my view, a truly exemplary public service would be able to offer services of the highest quality to Canadians in the official language of their choice. It would allow employees to work in the official language of their choice in regions designated bilingual and it would promote the development of the official language minority communities.
Naturally we have made considerable progress since the Official Languages Act came into force some 30 years ago. I must say that much remains to be done before the public service is exemplary where the official languages are concerned.
In 2002, we surveyed federal employees across Canada in order to ascertain their perceptions and attitudes about the use of the two official languages in Canada's public service. This survey, a first for our organization, showed that public servants support the basic principles underlying the policies on the official languages. This support is particularly high where services to the public are concerned: 92 per cent of respondents indicated that they consider it important to serve the public in both official languages.
[English]
Thus we can say that federal employees have great goodwill. Still, this does not mean that the situation is perfect. The survey also showed that there is a lack of basic knowledge and this deficiency brings about different reactions from public servants.
The study also shows that there is a close link between being exposed to linguistic duality and adhering to the official languages policy. It is of the utmost importance for us to refocus our aim in order to convey a clear vision of consistent bilingualism in federal institutions.
Achieving this objective will require everyone's support. Our approach will be based on profoundly transforming the public service corporate culture and on strengthening the linguistic capacity of our institutions in order to provide them with the resources needed to fulfil their language obligations.
Clearly, if we want results to be sustainable, a change in corporate culture is required. Although an approach based on rules and compliance with the Official Languages Act has its advantages, it also has its limitations. Instead, we intend to aim for excellence where bilingualism is concerned. We need to bring our approach up to date and to ground it in the values that Canadians cherish inclusiveness and respect for others. Indeed, serving members of the public in the official language of their choice is a way of showing respect for Canada's minority official language communities.
At the heart of the strategy that we plan to implement will be an awareness campaign throughout the public service. One objective will be to transform public servants' attitudes and behaviours to create an atmosphere that is more conducive to the use of two official languages.
Senior management in the public service will be prominent in this endeavour, since managers must act as role models. We will encourage managers to demonstrate ongoing leadership and to work with their employees in making bilingualism a more integral part of workplaces. Real steps have already been taken toward this goal.
[Translation]
In 1998, the government introduced a policy on the language requirements for executives in the public service. Under this policy, these executives must have a high level of bilingualism if they are to encourage their employees to use the language of their choice at work. Most of these executives were required to attain this level of language proficiency no later than March 31, 2003.
Early in April 2003, I announced that 2,107 of these persons had attained the required level, and I want to take this opportunity to announce that this number has now risen to 2,137, so an increase of 30 people. More than 90 per cent of the people meet the requirements. These results are certainly encouraging. Still, we must continue our efforts: I want to stress that those persons who have been unable to meet the deadline cannot remain in their positions. Each one of us is responsible for fulfilling our obligations.
Linguistic duality is a form of wealth, an advantage that expands our options and broadens our horizons, both professionally and personally. Having two official languages is a significant asset for the public service and for Canadians. In a global economy, Canadians need a public service that is modern, that can serve them in both official languages, and that is representative of the various communities that make our society. Bilingualism definitely provides a competitive edge, which can only benefit our organization.
We can implement this new strategy only if it is backed by consistent policies, and so the time has come to review our policies and to ensure that they convey a clear, renewed vision. The time has also come to ask ourselves whether some practices are still justified and valid in light of the objectives we have set ourselves.
[English]
In regards to staffing policies, I have stated more than once that we are considering phasing out nonimperative staffing from the top down and concentrating on hiring bilingual candidates when staffing bilingual positions. This practice would make bilingualism one of a number of criteria for employment in bilingual positions in the public service.
I want to point out that on-the-ground present staffing of bilingual positions is approaching imperative staffing, with 96.6 per cent of incumbents in bilingual positions meeting the language requirements of their position when they were appointed.
Further to the staffing of bilingual positions, we are also considering the proposals of the Commissioner of Official Languages. First, concerning the internal appointments, she proposed that nonimperative staffing be eliminated for executives starting in April 2004, and for other positions, starting in April 2006. Second, concerning external recruitment, she proposed that the option of recruiting persons who do not yet meet the language requirements of their positions be retained for an unspecified period of time.
Of course, the government does not want to cut itself off from competent employees or executives. We must continue to assist public servants who have not attained the required level of proficiency in their other official language. Instead of adopting the radical approach of eliminating nonimperative staffing, we are considering a gradual approach combined with better access to language training for employees who are beginning their careers.
The additional funding for language training allocated to our action plan will allow us not only to reduce waiting lists for training, but also to computerize teaching materials and diversify learning methods, thus adapting them to employees' needs.
[Translation]
As well, the Treasury Board Secretariat has made a commitment to helping departments and agencies develop new service delivery methods and make linguistic duality an integral part of their basic values and practices. For example, two new funds will be created shortly. The Regional Partnerships Fund will be available to help the Regional Federal Councils fund projects aimed at improving services to the public. The Official Languages Innovation Fund will provide matching funding for departments and agencies to set up innovative projects aimed at improving services to the public, the language of work in regions designated bilingual, and access to employment and advancement for the two official language minority communities.
The additional funding for the official languages allocated to our action plan will allow us to strengthen monitoring measures with departments and agencies and to ensure that the Treasury Board Secretariat's Official Languages Branch becomes a centre of excellence. This entity would be the resource centre to which departments and agencies subject to the Official Languages Act would turn for the support, advice and information allowing them to seek and achieve excellence where bilingualism is concerned.
Other aspects of this entity's work would be setting policy direction, evaluating action taken by departments and agencies, and publishing the results. One of the usual steps in the preparation of the annual report on official languages is an evaluation of activities by departments, agencies and Crown corporations. To make the evaluation exercise even more effective, we intend to develop new performance indicators as well as assessment and selfassessment tools that the federal institutions can use to measure their capacity to provide bilingual services.
[English]
As you can see, there is no shortage of activity in the field of official languages. On various fronts, a number of current projects are changing the public service corporate culture in order, ultimately, to make our organization more effective, more efficient, and most importantly, closer to the public it serves. The study on employees' perceptions of and attitudes toward bilingualism confirmed that this is the right direction to take.
[Translation]
The approach to bilingualism the TBS has adopted goes beyond rules and aims at nothing less than excellence. This approach is grounded in the fundamental values that characterize Canadian culture, and is part of a spirit of respect for Canadians and for the federal employees who serve our country.
We have reached a crossroads. The path we are about to take will be decisive for the future of our organization, since it will lead to exemplary public service and I can assure you that it is a privilege for me to play a leading role in this tremendous project.
I have with me today, Madame Chair, the Associate Secretary, Treasury Board Secretariat, Mr. James Lahey, and the Assistant Secretary, Official Languages Branch, Ms. Diana Monnet. We will be quite happy to answer your questions, but also to hear your comments and ideas to assist us in improving the official languages program of the public service of Canada.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister, for your presentation. In order to take full advantage of your being here, we are going to go straight to question period.
Senator Beaudoin: I would like, first of all, to congratulate you. A public service is something huge and important in a democracy. Making a public service increasingly bilingual is a beautiful thing and a wonderful accomplishment.
I only have one question for you.
On page 3 of the document, it says that we must continue to assist public servants who have not attained the required level of proficiency in the other official language, and instead of adopting the radical approach of eliminating non-imperative staffing, we are considering a gradual approach combined with better access to language training.
In practice, how will that training be carried out? This option is certainly preferable to getting rid of people. In that sense, it is a very good idea. But are you achieving reasonable results toward equality in bilingualism?
Ms. Robillard: I am hopeful that some time this year, I will be able to come back before you with a new policy on this whole issue of imperative/non-imperative staffing and language training. Currently, only assistant deputy minister positions have to be staffed from the outset with bilingual candidates who have already achieved a relatively high level of bilingualism. I am referring in bureaucratic jargon to EX4 and EX5 positions, that is, assistant deputy minister positions.
Other senior managers at the EX1, EX2 and EX3 level are not required to be bilingual when they are appointed. They have two years to comply and become bilingual. After two years, they are required to meet quite a high standard. That is true in particular of all management positions in bilingual parts of the country.
For the public service as a whole, 80 per cent of senior management positions are bilingual, 75 per cent of which are in bilingual regions. So the standard is higher. There are also service providing employees in bilingual positions.
This is what we would like to do and what we are working on. We want to phase out non-imperative staffing. That means an end to filling bilingual positions with people who are not bilingual. It has to be done gradually. This policy currently applies to assistant deputy ministers. It will gradually extend down the hierarchy, one level at a time, until non-imperative staffing is completely eliminated. At the same time, language training must be promoted much earlier in a person's career than at present.
Often, individuals wait until they get a promotion or are appointed to a bilingual position before beginning their language training. The message we want to send out to our young public servants who are just joining the public service is that it would be advisable for them to include this policy in their long-term training plan, because some day, when they are seeking a promotion, they will have to be bilingual in order to get the position.
Senator Beaudoin: In other words, you have a gradual policy?
Ms. Robillard: That is correct.
Senator Beaudoin: Rather than shunting aside individuals who do not have the required level, you help them achieve that level. That is much more transparent than appointing individuals who do not have the required level of bilingualism when they get the position. I like this gradual approach. This could be done for the official languages as well.
Our committee makes frequent reference to sections 16 to 20 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that too is gradual. Even the ultimate vision of the equality of the two languages is gradual that is apparent in our constitutional documents. I think that is very good, and I congratulate you on it.
Senator Gauthier: I too would like to congratulate you. You have character. In the many years that I have been in the Senate, I have always been impressed by determined people. Very few believed in your deadline of March 31 but I was one who did. And you kept your word.
Nevertheless, the fact is that 10 per cent of all senior managers still do not meet the language requirements of their positions. Are these cases where exemptions were granted for humanitarian reasons? There were some proposals in the past that whereby individuals were to be exempted because of their age or a particular handicap. Does the 10 per cent figure include this category of senior managers?
Ms. Robillard: The people who receive the exemptions for humanitarian reasons are included in the 10 per cent figure. That figure is now less than 10 per cent. There will always be humanitarian reasons for granting an exemption. Our requirements remain flexible when we can document why individuals cannot achieve a certain level of bilingualism. The public service will do an evaluation in such cases and will grant an exemption if this is warranted.
The other individuals, who did not receive an exemption for humanitarian reasons, can no longer hold the positions they held formally. In an effort to achieve our objectives, we allowed employees to work in the language of their choice in designated bilingual regions. Consequently, managers will be transferred to different responsibilities or they will go back to language training, this time on a full-time basis.
A certain percentage of these managers will be retiring this year. Therefore, we must be realistic. We are going to establish some transition measures so that employees are supervised in the language of their choice.
We are waiting for the report from each department to find out what is the plan for each of the individuals who have not met the CBC standard with the exception of individuals who received exemptions for humanitarian reasons.
Senator Gauthier: You know my position on the bilingualism bonus. You raised the issue of the change in culture. We agree on this point as well. For 30 years now, I have been speaking on the bilingualism bonus, and the various Commissioners of Official Languages have supported me on this. Why not make the bilingualism bonus more in keeping with reality? There is an additional responsibility when a position requires institutional bilingualism. There must be compensation for this additional responsibility and necessary skills. We should make them negotiable and assign them their proper value. Do you intend to change the bilingualism bonus?
Ms. Robillard: This bonus has been in place for many years. Let us take a close look at the results being obtained at the moment. This is an important time to question the bilingualism bonus.
Moreover, I would like to tell you, honourable senators, that as the representative of the employer, I cannot call the bonus into question unilaterally. This is something that was negotiated with our public service unions. However, I can tell you that we have opened up a dialogue with the unions. The associate secretary began this dialogue with the unions in an attempt to look at what the two sides could do together to better meet the official languages objective and to determine how, after 30 or 35 years, it is appropriate to question this tool. I will not hide the fact that this initiative involving all the unions represents a significant challenge.
Senator Gauthier: I will not hide my impatience, either, after all these years of waiting. However, as I mentioned earlier, I think you have the character required to get this major job done.
I am quite familiar with the unions' position. I have argued many times, including during election campaigns, that this bonus is not indexed to the cost of living, and that it is still set at the same amount it was 25 years ago $800. It would be much preferable for employees who have the additional responsibility of being bilingual to get indexed compensation in their salary, which would be negotiated by the unions. How can we agree to situations where individuals who do not meet the bilingualism requirements of their position get paid a bonus of $800 a year?
Ms. Robillard: I do not know whether this was discussed with the unions a very long time ago. I will be starting my fourth year at Treasury Board, and in the collective bargaining I have seen, this issue was never raised by the unions.
As the employer's representative, the reason we are putting it on the table this year is to determine whether we have a good tool to encourage and promote the official languages with the new announcements made about the official languages program in the public service. We think this requires some adjustments. This must be done with our union partners, and I am hopeful that we will be able to make progress.
Senator Gauthier: You mentioned the Public Service Commission, which is responsible for some programs involving merit. The Commission makes decisions about exemptions, for example.
There were some rumours to the effect that Bill C-25 would change the Public Service Commission. There was even some talk about transferring these responsibilities to the management centre located on Sussex Drive. I am told that is no longer the case. The Public Service Commission will continue to be responsible for enforcing the merit principle.
Ms. Robillard: There are two things, senator. There is no doubt that Bill C-25 changes the rules and responsibilities of the Public Service Commission. Over the years, we have been giving more and more roles which I would describe as operational to the Public Service Commission, in addition to its basic mandate. What we try to do with Bill C-25 is to refocus the Public Service Commission's mission on protecting the merit principle. This is an agency that reports to Parliament and whose main mandate is to protect the merit principle in the public service. I could go into this further, but I believe I will have the pleasure of coming back to the Senate soon to discuss this bill, and I will be able to go into more detail at that time.
I will conclude by saying that all the operational aspects that the Public Service Commission was handling will be transferred to other institutions and to the Treasury Board Secretariat. We will be patriating some of these responsibilities. It is clear for me that language training must be taken away from the Public Service Commission. When the Commissioner of Official Languages appeared on Bill C-25, she put forward two options: one to establish an official languages institute and the other to establish a public service school.
We are going to be merging the Canadian Centre for Management Development with Training and Development Canada, which was part of the Public Service Commission. One option would be that language training would be the responsibility of this new school. We are in the process of studying this possibility at the moment.
Senator Gauthier: When will this happen? After Bill C-27 is passed? There is no mention of that in Bill C-25.
Ms. Robillard: No, this is not mentioned in Bill C-25 at all. This concept of the new public service school would have to be provided for in the bill. I will see how the bill will go forward in the House of Commons and the Senate. I should however tell you, Senator, that above and beyond governance and structure of language training and who is to be responsible for it, we have set aside funding from the official languages action plan to determine how language training will be provided and what tools should be used.
We believe the way in which language training is delivered should be modernized. Teaching someone a second language is one thing, but making it possible to maintain the language skills acquired over the years is something else again.
Moreover, our public service is increasingly representative of Canada's general population. In other words, a significant percentage of public service employees have neither English nor French as a mother tongue. When we teach English or French to someone who has neither as a mother tongue, the teaching tools have to be appropriately adapted. This is something we have not been used to doing, so we will have to adapt our teaching tools in order to teach both official languages more effectively.
Senator Gauthier: Statistics Canada recently published other demographic figures, demographic/linguistic figures. Every 10 years, the Treasury Board Secretariat has to review how language of work provisions in the Official Languages Act are actually applied.
Following your review of the application of Official Languages Regulations, communication with the public and service delivery, could you tell me what point negotiations have reached? What is Treasury Board doing about the review exercise? What are the real costs of the review? Will the review have any impact on language of work in regions designated bilingual?
Ms. Robillard: I will begin by answering your last question, then I will ask Diana Monnet to provide additional information. Will this change anything about language of work in bilingual regions? No, bilingual regions are designated in the current legislation, as you know. The fact that the census provides new figures does not necessarily mean that we will review the bilingual regions designated in the legislation. The government has absolutely no intention of changing bilingual regions, and the concept of language of work will therefore not change either. As for your other question, I wonder whether Ms. Monnet has had an opportunity to explain our procedure here.
Ms. Diana Monnet, Assistant Secretary, Official Languages Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: No, not yet.
Ms. Robillard: I will ask Ms. Monnet to speak to you about this. At present, we have a whole process underway with official languages communities and with the Official Languages Commissioner's Office to follow up on the census study.
Ms. Monnet: I might add that a committee is working with us to review all procedures, and to determine how we should review compliance with the regulations given the statistics generated in the 2001 census. The process also involves the Privy Council, Justice, the Quebec Community Groups Network (GCGN), as well as representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada. The committee is working with us in applying the new data and the Regulations.
At present, we are reviewing service hours with a number of departments. Service hours could have changed over 10 years, and we are checking the hours that each office provides. Using the new figures established in the 2001 census, we are applying computerized systems that help us determine the obligations of each office. At present, this data is being finalized and should be completed by early summer, if everything goes well.
Ms. Robillard: If I may, Madame Chair, I will answer this from memory and ask my officials to help me along. As your committee was being struck, I wrote to you officially, suggesting a meeting specifically devoted to a review of the Regulations. This is a complex exercise.
If committee members wish, the review would merit an entire meeting, which will give us the opportunity of showing you the factors that we have to take into account in reviewing the Official Languages Regulations, a process in which Parliament has a role. If you wish, I believe that Ms. Monnet and her team would be available to appear.
The Chair: We did receive your letter. I was waiting to hear your remarks. We should establish a task force and examine the procedure, as well as the work you have already done in this area, Ms. Monnet.
Senator Maheu: Minister, I am happy with your stated position on official languages. If anyone can get things moving, you can.
I will come back to a subject we have already discussed the well-known bilingualism standards. As an anglophone in Quebec, I tried to hire someone who was genuinely bilingual. There are people who have passed the Public Service Commission exams and have been classified bilingual. I do not know what the standards are, but they are supposed to ensure an acceptable level of bilingualism.
But when we meet these people in our offices, we find they are not really bilingual at all. Genuinely bilingual people are few and far between in our offices. I find them more easily along Acadians. They have mastered both languages sufficiently well to call themselves bilingual. They can write in both English and French.
I am very frustrated about the bilingualism bonus, the bonus of $800. There is genuine bilingualism among the new generation, among young people today. We do not have to give them $800. Yet the bilingualism bonus is still there, and will remain there. There are reasons why many Canadians joining the public service have neither English nor French as a mother tongue. Increasingly, we will be finding genuine bilingualism among those people. I really do not understand the $800 bonus. This is something that should be discussed more often when you meet with the unions, until such time as you are in the position to eliminate the bonus altogether.
According to your office, are existing standards sufficient to meet bilingualism needs? The situation in your offices is the same as in ours: bilingualism is essential in Quebec and the rest of Canada, regardless of whether a position is political or public service.
Ms. Robillard: The level of bilingualism required varies with individual positions. We look at a variety of criteria, including whether the incumbent provides direct services to the public. We look at the attributes of the given position, then establish the bilingualism level required. Bilingualism is then checked through language tests delivered by the Public Service Commission. This has to be a completely independent process. In the public service overall, 37 per cent of positions are now considered bilingual, at all levels. The bilingualism level varies with the position. It is determined through a test administered by the Public Service Commission. I have never had any reason to believe that the Public Service Commission is not requiring an acceptable standard. On the contrary, people sometimes find the tests very difficult. Senior managers, for example, have to achieve level CBC: A is the minimum and C is the maximum, the highest standard of understanding for written texts and speech in the other language. The tests are therefore different, depending on the bilingualism level required. At present, I think the level of bilingualism among the people I work with in my organization is excellent. Today, I have with me two people who are bilingual; their mother tongue is English. In our offices, we always work in both languages.
Could Diana add something to what I said?
Ms. Monnet: Like Ms. Robillard, I think we have to look at the level at which the positions in question were evaluated. Perhaps is where the problem lies. For us, this emphasizes not only the importance of training, but also of retention, because people who have achieved a certain level may forget what they have learned if they do not use their knowledge.
Ms. Robillard: Since you have come back to the issue of bilingualism bonus, I could ask Mr. Lahey the person who deals with the union representatives on this issue to give you a little more information.
Mr. James Lahey, Associate Secretary, Human Resources Reform, Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada: It would perhaps not be advisable to try to present the unions' position. From what I understood when we discussed this issue, the bonus is seen more or less as an entitlement for a number of employees. There are some 54,000 employees who get the $800, and even though, as we have already explained, the real value is reduced from year-to-year because of inflation, it is nevertheless an entitlement.
In the broader context, to which the chair just referred, in which there would be a system that would encourage people to learn the second language earlier in their careers, and in which imperative staffing would be more wide spread, we might assume that there would be greater interest in this. However, to be quite frank with you, from the views I have heard, I do not have a great deal of hope. But we continue to hope nonetheless.
The Chair: I would like to ask a supplementary question. You spoke about levels of bilingualism and skills, Minister. One problem that is mentioned frequently in the newspapers and I remember a comment by Michel Vastel in Le Droit last January has to do with the poor quality of French in various government communications. Can Treasury Board do something to improve the quality of French as part of your reform program? This may not be your department's responsibility, Minister, but the Dion Plan talked about the language industries, Web sites and communications.
Is there a solution to this problem? If there is a problem, there is a solution.
Ms. Robillard: Exactly. You have raised a very real problem. It is one thing to want to have all our documents in both official languages, and it is quite another to have high-quality texts in both English and French. If you regularly surf the Government of Canada's Internet site, you will see that everything is in both official languages, but you may be a little disappointed with the quality of the language you find in some documents. Sometimes I have to go to the English version to understand what is being said in French.
We are very aware of the problem. Should this be part of the action plan? Yes, both as regards the departments' evaluation and self-evaluation tools, and as regards the language industries. Perhaps Ms. Monnet would like to add something to this.
The person responsible for the government on-line must make information available to the people of Canada. This individual is very concerned about all the virtual information we provide on-line and the quality of the language used in these communications.
Beyond the Internet, there is also the quality of translated documents. A translation will always be a translation. When we talk about linguistic duality, we have to go beyond speaking or writing in the two languages and adopt an open approach to the other culture. That is why we need as many francophones as anglophones in various workplaces. Writing and thinking in French and writing and thinking in English are two different things. In order to understand the other culture and approach, we need people in the language and culture groups. Could you add something, Ms. Monnet?
Ms. Monnet: Often the horror stories we hear about in the media are caused by automatic translation. We must emphasize that we are far from a 100 per cent perfect technological solution. A human being must reread and correct machine translations. At the moment, self-evaluation tools are being developed to enable departments and institutions to evaluate their own sites. With the amount of information in circulation, Treasury Board is not able to review all the sites and the material they contain. It would be preferable to give them the tools they need to help them evaluate the work themselves.
There are already some self-correctors that may be helpful, but although the tools are becoming more and more refined, they are inadequate and imperfect. We are working with the language industries to see whether other tools could be developed to improve the situation.
The Chair: A training program would be important as well.
Senator Léger: It is pleasant to hear that act two is about excellence. Act one is over, it went on for 30 years, and now we are on to the next act. My question is about training. Once a person has of all the basics, they need to do daily maintenance work. There are gymnasiums so that people can stay in shape. If we want to play the piano, we have to play our scales every day. If we want to skate, the same principle applies. People need a methodology and new approaches. If I understand correctly, the Public Service Commission has this responsibility.
I have trouble understanding that the remaining 10 per cent do not want to learn the other language. They want to, but the method is not working. That is clear. It is not necessarily a book method that would work. In act two, the ways of providing training are crucial. A 50-year-old does not need to spend four years to learn something. I do not know how much it costs to provide training for an individual. The methods must vary.
In addition, I do not think any immigrant would refuse to come to this country because they have to learn English and French. In fact, the opposite is true, they want to learn. This is not a handicap, but rather a source of enrichment. You talk about bilingual regions, and now we are in act two. For example, in Calgary, there may be a need for a francophone judge. Not all judges have to be bilingual. I know that.
Thirty years ago, people got upset because cereal boxes were bilingual, but since then, they have adapted. I understand that we had to take one step at a time. Now we are beginning Act two. There will definitely be an Act three and an Act four.
Ms. Robillard: I will start by clarifying the issue regarding bilingual regions. In bilingual regions, public service employees may work in the language of their choice as long as they are not providing service to the public. We have some offices in British Columbia where a certain percentage of the population is francophone. The same is true in Calgary and in the North, particularly north of Edmonton. Service to the public must be provided in all offices designated "bilingual" throughout the country. We have such offices everywhere and bilingual service must be available.
Working in one's own language means the ability to write a document in one's language and to take part in meetings on a daily basis in that language. This applies to bilingual regions, and at the time, these regions were set out the act. The National Capital Region includes Northern and Eastern Ontario.
In Quebec, the regions are Western Quebec, Greater Montreal, part of the Eastern Townships, part of the Gaspé Peninsula and all of New Brunswick. So this is specifically for the language of work.
That said, you have raised an excellent point about methodology and the way in which language training is done. You are right, we must review this and help our people retain what they have learned. This is valuable for each of us who speaks the two official languages. When meetings of this type are held in the public service, people should continually use both languages, so that all participants can use their second language. In addition, a greater use should be made of information technology to help people retain what they have learned. We all have computers on our desks. We could very well be given the tools we need to maintain what we have learned, speak loudly and clearly, and understand each other.
Senator Léger: I understand what you mean when you speak about service in French. For example, in 1997, I was invited to christen a Canadian ship, HMS Moncton. Naturally, I said that this would be done bilingually. They agreed. Of the 12 ships, only 2 were bilingual. I christened the Moncton, and Ms. Chrétien christened the Shawinigan, but all the other ships from the non-francophone region had the ceremony in English only. Everything that is official, and the high levels of government activities should be bilingual. Will that happen in Act III or Act II?
Senator Chaput: I have nothing but congratulations for you, Minister. You have my greatest respect when I look at the monumental task you have taken on. I am a francophone from Manitoba and when we talk about changes, transforming departmental culture, sustainable results, and evaluation, all of this gives us a glimmer of hope. That makes us feel stronger. These are more than just words, there is a political will and an action plan designed to achieve sustainable results. There is even provision for evaluations.
I took part in the Western Canada caucus. It is really a very English meeting. With the exception of Mr. Simard and myself, who are from Manitoba, I do not think there were any other francophones. People asked a lot of questions about your action plan. You offered to answer the questions and you did so firmly but diplomatically, showing that you are perfectly familiar with the issue. This was so well received that no one had any criticism. That is a feather in your cap.
The census study has to do with service areas, for example. There are service areas in Manitoba designated regions and offices where service may be obtained in French in certain parts of the province. When you do this study or survey, will you be using questions similar to the ones used by Statistics Canada? The numbers have dropped in Manitoba. We are at a dead end. Apparently 60 per cent of our young people are living in families where one of the two parents does not speak French. The question asked by Statistics Canada which refers to the use of French at home is a good one, but it is causing our numbers to drop. We did a little survey in our own family when the statistics came out. In my immediate family, which is composed of 75 people my children, my grand-children, my brothers and sisters, said that they did not speak French at home, which is true, either because the spouse does not know French or is learning it. French is used, the children go to school in French, but 75 members of my family are not included in the number of those who speak French at home. So how are you going to go about conducting the census in our area to ensure that the numbers really reflect the francophone reality in Manitoba?
Ms. Monnet: The regulations require that we use the statistics on the first language spoken. There is an additional question that was asked by Statistics Canada for the 2001 census about the language spoken regularly at home. However, the regulations are worded in such a way that, for this time, we are using the first language spoken. At the moment, there is a committee looking at the impact of the use of the other question. Is it significant? Are there any suggestions about the regulations? We are looking at how the data from the 2001 census are being used for the purposes of this exercise. In the light of this use, would the committee perhaps have some suggestions for the Chair, since she said she was open to suggestions at the outset?
Senator Comeau: My question is about language training for public servants. You want to reduce waiting time, computerize teaching material and diversify teaching methods. Will this be done by agencies inside or outside the government?
Ms. Robillard: At the moment, language training is provided by the Public Service Commission, but a department may always decide to send their people for training outside the government. That possibility already exists. But when we talk about waiting time, we were talking about waiting time at the Public Service Commission. The amount of $36.1 million over three years that was mentioned in the action plan tabled by the Prime Minister has been set aside to eliminate the waiting time for training in the Public Service Commission. Some departments do send their employees outside the government. We should look at what is happening in this regard in our study on the governance structure.
Senator Comeau: That is why I raise the issue. As you know, this is a very specialized field. Some schools are in the forefront in this area, because they have been working in this very specialized field for a number of years. Since these schools train people from industry, young people from high school, young university students and people from all segments of society, why would the federal government do this training internally, rather than externally? Why not use all these very specialized schools? This could be helpful to those involved in training federal public servants.
Ms. Robillard: You raised an excellent point. It is true that there is a great deal of expertise in various schools and universities. Some of them actually specialize in training new immigrants. All the work to develop methodologies for training our official languages is already in place in a number of schools throughout the country. We will definitely be looking at the idea you have suggested. We think it might be a good idea to bring together several of these schools. I was discussing this possibility this week with the Commissioner of Official Languages, who told me that it would be interesting to hold a forum for these various schools and to see how the Canadian government could benefit from this expertise that already exists in our country.
Senator Comeau: We will come back to that, because I certainly appreciate your comment. Let us come back to the issue raised by Ms. Chaput. The census is a very important issue and she described it very well. I would like to make a second point regarding the census, even though I know that this is not your area of responsibility. However, this could have an impact on the response we get.
There was a list of nationalities in the last census that included Vietnamese, Chileans, Japanese, Chinese, and so on. I think there were about 20 nationalities mentioned. French-Canadians were mentioned in the list as well. However, the list did not mention a very important group of people in Canada: the Acadians. Very often, Acadians do not call themselves French-Canadians.
Ms. Robillard: My grand-mother is Acadian, so I know.
Senator Comeau: Perhaps that might have had some influence. I know that this does not come under your jurisdiction, but perhaps you could apply some pressure on the people in charge of the census. Next year will be the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first Europeans to this great country. Perhaps in the next census, you could help us get the Acadian nationality included on the census list.
Ms. Robillard: We have noted your comment, but there is nothing stopping your committee from writing to the chief statistician of Statistics Canada, or from having him come to discuss this matter with you. However, as regards the census and the impact on minority communities, I think that initially, before the results were published, there was a great deal of concern. I even remember some of the public comments made by francophones in Nova Scotia who were afraid that some of the bilingual offices would be closing down the next morning.
Senator Comeau: That was in Prince Edward Island.
Ms. Robillard: Yes, you are right. It did not happen, but we must monitor this situation very closely. That is why this committee exists. If you invite Ms. Monnet to come back to discuss this issue, I would appreciate getting your ideas and comments after you hear the presentation on this subject.
Senator Comeau: We will certainly continue this discussion.
The Chair: The committee has a mandate to do an in-depth study of Part VII of the Official Languages Act, Minister. The issue of the census and Statistics Canada will definitely be part of this study, because there is an impact on the minority communities.
Senator Gauthier: Treasury Board does both auditing and evaluation. In the report entitled "New Momentum for Canada's Linguistic Duality" commonly known as the Dion plan, there is a promise to invest some $64.6 million to make the Canadian public service exemplary. One of the problems mentioned in Mr. Dion's report is the question of language use: 14 per cent of anglophones in bilingual regions use French, while 44 per cent of francophones in bilingual regions use English. There is under-representation in some regions. In Quebec, for example, there are far fewer anglophones in the public service than there should be, based on their percentage of the population. The same is true in the West, in provinces such as British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Could you send the committee clerk the figures on the regions showing the number of public servants in each region that is designated bilingual, as well as the minority community representation within the group, with the exception of the National Capital Region, of course, whose situation is unique. I would like to have this information for all the provinces and territories.
I come now to my question. You will be getting $64 million for audit and evaluation purposes. Could you give us some more information, that is tell us how you are going to spend these $64 million? That is a significant amount of money.
Ms. Robillard: I would like it very much if the $64 million were invested in the Treasury Board Secretariat to improve our services, but that is not how it will be used. Of the $64 million, $38.6 million will go to the Public Service Commission. Of the $38.6 million, $36.1 million will go to language training, to eliminate all the waiting time for language training, and the other $2 million will be used to help us do the studies on governance and methodology that I mentioned.
There is a $14 million amount for the two funds that I discussed in my opening remarks: the Regional Partnerships Fund and the Innovation Fund. The $14 million will go to various departments to help simulate innovation in the official languages sector. These funds are not for Treasury Board either. Of the $64.6 million, $12 million over five years will go to the Treasury Board Secretariat to increase its ability to do evaluations and audits and to help departments. That is exactly the amount that was earmarked in the action plan. We are very pleased about this, because it is an increase over our current budget, which had been cut back considerably in recent years.
On your second point, I would be pleased to send you that information. You want to know how many bilingual positions there are in each province. I have here a table which shows that 3.3 per cent of our public service positions in British Columbia are bilingual, 4.4 per cent in Alberta, 3.8 per cent in Saskatchewan, 7.7 per cent in Manitoba, and so on. This table gives the figures for all the provinces and territories. We could provide you with these figures.
Senator Gauthier: Your job is to inform Parliament when you receive the so-called official languages reports from federal institutions.
Ms. Robillard: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: You received one such report from Air Canada. I never saw it, but I know you received it. Last year, we asked Air Canada to give an action plan on official languages. They said that they would do so. We know that the company is having financial problems, but the plan does exist. We know that. Could you send us a copy of it?
Ms. Robillard: I am wondering whether it has not been tabled with the House of Commons Committee on Official Languages. Was it tabled, Diana?
Ms. Monnet: I do not know, but Air Canada's statement was tabled. We will check into this. What we received was mainly a training plan. Yes, I do think that was submitted, but I may be mistaken. In any case, we will check into this and send it to you. We already asked Air Canada for permission to share the report.
Senator Gauthier: Are all the action plans you get from the departments evaluated by Treasury Board?
Ms. Robillard: They must be evaluated.
Senator Gauthier: Evaluated or shelved? There are two central agencies: yours and Heritage Canada. Heritage Canada gets reports from the 29 federal institutions, and I have been unable to understand what type of evaluation these reports receive. All I know, is that they have been shelved. Does the same thing happen at Treasury Board, or is there a follow-up to these reports? What are you doing to affirm your responsibility or your authority in the area of official languages?
Ms. Robillard: I think that is a very good question. Far be it from me, senator, to tell you that everything is perfect at the Treasury Board Secretariat. In light of the limited resources we had, I do not think that we have done any in- depth audits of all these reports in recent years. In the government's action plan, there was an increase in resources for Treasury Board, and that is so that we can do a better job, and provide better follow-up. The issue has not been shelved. Each year, the Treasury Board Secretariat decides on the audit points that will receive a higher priority. Often, the Secretariat works in cooperation with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, so that we do not both audit the same data. For example, a specific audit was done in airports across the country by the Treasury Board Secretariat to see what is happening in each airport and whether or not the practices were in accordance with the Official Languages Act.
We will be choosing more focussed subjects to do our audits, but there is certainly a great deal of room for improvement in what we do. We do plan to introduce these improvements as a result of the additional funding we will be getting under the action plan.
The Chairman: The Dion report talks a great deal about accountability. It talks about evaluating the official languages programs. On the one hand, Treasury Board provides the funding, and then the institutions provide the programs. Who will be responsible for the principle of accountability? Who will be evaluating the programs? Both Treasury Board and the institutions?
Ms. Robillard: The general principle of government operations is that the Treasury Board Secretariat issues policies and directives to departments, and each department is accountable for its actions.
Consequently, the deputy minister, and the minister of a particular department are accountable for what goes on within that department. Departments must comply with the Official Languages Act. It is a quasi-constitutional act that takes priority over all of our statutes. The minister must be accountable for what happens in his or her shop. The deputy minister and the minister are accountable for compliance with the Official Languages Act.
Senator Gauthier: Who is responsible for the evaluation or the audit, is it you, the Treasury Board Secretariat or the department in question?
Ms. Robillard: The department must always evaluate its own programs and must be accountable but the Treasury Board Secretariat also has an additional responsibility to verify what is going on in each department. That is the mandate that we have to fulfil more fully, and the action plan will enable us to improve our practices in this regard. Right now, the secretariat works very closely in cooperation with the departments.
Right now, we have an official languages champion in each of the departments. This is a senior official who wears the "Official Languages Champion" hat and who must promote official languages within his or her department. We do a great deal of work with this network of champions throughout the public service. Perhaps Diana can give you more concrete examples.
Ms. Monnet: When a department makes a presentation before Treasury Board to obtain funds, we are in charge of reviewing it to ensure that thought was given to official languages and that this important issue related to the presentations has been addressed. We have to make sure that that aspect was covered.
Ms. Robillard: Ms. Monnet is quite right to mention that because it is part of the accountability framework presented by Minister Dion. It is an effective tool. When the time comes to go before Treasury Board to request funds, in concrete terms, the department places a submission on the table to have access to a certain amount. We are in a position to evaluate the impact the request will have on official languages, if indeed there is one.
The Official Languages Directorate examines each of these submissions and some are returned to the departments to have them make some corrections before the submission is accepted by Treasury Board. This is truly an essential role for a central agency. I can tell you that it is very effective.
Moreover, last year we adopted a new policy on the diversification of service delivery methods in which departments have very clear obligations. We have just had one or two examples of presentations before Treasury Board, which enabled us to verify whether these obligations had been met. That is one of our responsibilities.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I would like to remind senators and members of the committee that the minister must leave at 6:00 p.m.
Senator Chaput: My question is about the action plans put in place by federal departments. It is very important that there be a department or a person responsible for accountability for those plans.
I would like to share my experience in Manitoba around 1995. At the time, within each targeted department, there were people responsible for sections 41 and 42. My responsibility was to visit all federal departments and regional offices in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I met with the senior officials of each department who agreed to meet with me. Some senior officials refused to meet with me because they claimed that sections 41 and 42 did not apply in their case. At the time, I was working for the Department of Canadian Heritage and with the Société franco-manitobaine in an effort to find out more about how things were going. So I found myself having discussions with officials responsible for sections 41 and 42 who had not participated in the development of the department's action plan. This had been impose on them. When these people attempted to promote the francophone cause for us in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, they did not have sufficient authority to change things.
I did this work for two years and it was really discouraging. Despite this, I presented a report to Canadian Heritage, to the Société franco-manitobaine as well as to the association in Saskatchewan, because that was the reality we experienced during those years.
Ms. Robillard: We experienced a similar situation here. That is why my colleague Minister Dion introduced an action plan for which there is an accountability framework.
For our part, according to the act, Canadian Heritage also has a responsibility for sections 41 and 42. The central agencies certainly have an important role to play. For the past few years, there was an agreement with Canadian Heritage so that we could support them in assuming that responsibility. Since we are at the centre of all government spending, we can sometimes use what I might call incentives to help the departments comply with this policy.
However, I am not claiming that everything is perfect as far as we are concerned. Nothing would please me more than to see an improvement that would lead us to be more proactive with the departments and reduce the number of complaints or files referred to the Commissioner of Official Languages. I love to work with the Commissioner of Official Languages. However, if we were more proactive in advancing various issues related to official languages, we would undoubtedly have fewer problems that require the intervention of the commissioner. It is a question of prevention and responsibility. We should not be waiting until we get to the stage where a problem goes up to the Commissioner of Official Languages.
That is why we need renewed leadership on the issue of official languages within the government, while respecting the work that can be done by the commissioner. We have to assume more responsibilities, both in the central agencies and in each of the departments.
Senator Corbin: I apologize for not having been able to be here for your presentation, Madam Minister. You were talking about accountability. That is certainly fundamental.
The issue of official languages seems to be extremely important to you undoubtedly because of your Acadian ancestry and you are very active in this regard. Unfortunately, you will not always be there. Are there any guarantees that your successor will maintain the same level of commitment after you are gone, or will we have to go through a low ebb and then some day come back to a period of higher awareness? Does Treasury Board's mandate include guarantees that this interest will be permanent and that the Board will always be proactive?
Ms. Robillard: First of all, I would like to reassure you that I am not on the verge of leaving.
Senator Corbin: In politics, everyone leaves eventually.
Ms. Robillard: You are right. As ministers, we never know what the future holds. But all kidding aside, whoever the President of the Treasury Board might be, he or she has specific responsibilities under the Official Languages Act. The President of Treasury Board is one of the ministers targeted by the Official Languages Act. He or she has specific responsibilities regarding certain parts of the act. Whoever occupies this position is accountable and cannot disregard these legislative obligations.
Now as I indicated today, we want to go beyond these legislative obligations in the public service of Canada, well beyond respect for the basic law and its regulations. I believe that this must start with our approach. Officials must not simply respect the legislation and regulations in the strictest sense, but they have to anchor linguistic duality in their everyday lives and make it one of the values of the public service. If linguistic duality becomes more integrated into the very culture of the public service, this will ensure its long-term continuity far more than if we agree only to respect a law and its regulations, no matter how powerful they may be. When we talk about basic values, it is because we believe in them. It is not easy to change values when we truly believe in them, because they become very fundamental.
It is that comprehensive cultural approach that we have to work on more. For the first time, we have a study covering the entire public service of Canada that has attempted to identify and define the attitudes and perceptions of our public servants. Although these are rather intangible elements, perceptions and attitudes are components of every human being.
In attempting to identify these elements, we realized that we were supporting the basic principles of the law, but we also realized some unbelievable things. We observed a rather blatant lack of knowledge among public servants. We also observed very significant regional disparities. We are used to saying "the public service of Canada", but "the public service" resembles our population.
Take for example a francophone public servant living in the Saguenay Lac-Saint-Jean region who is never exposed to another culture, and an anglophone public servant in northern British Columbia who is never exposed to francophone culture. We find far more reticence among those people.
This issue can be found throughout the population. That is why we need a kind of "social marketing" approach within the public service to integrate the phenomenon of linguistic duality into our culture.
The action plan that was tabled is not a plan by the current President of the Treasury Board. It is a government plan.
Senator Corbin: A government that is making a commitment for the future?
Ms. Robillard: Yes. I therefore believe there are good guarantees for success in the future.
The Chairman: I really like the term you used, "social marketing". I believe that the issue of bilingualism is a marketing issue. As I indicated to Minister Dion when he was here, we have to promote the notion among our young that not only is it useful to be bilingual to get a job eventually, but we could also have a slogan like "Today, it's cool to be bilingual", let's say. I hope that you can communicate your enthusiasm with regard to official languages to all your colleagues.
Thank you for coming and we encourage you to continue in the same vein. We will take a short break before we hear the Commissioner of Official Languages.
The sitting was suspended.
(The sitting resumed)
The Chairman: I am pleased to welcome the Commissioner of Official Languages, Ms. Dyane Adam. I would ask you to please introduce the people accompanying you.
Ms. Dyane Adam, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: I am accompanied by four of my associates: Ms. Louise Guertin, Director General, Corporate Services Branch, Mr. Michel Robichaud, Director General, Investigations Branch, Mr. Guy Renaud, Director General, Policy and Communications Branch and Regional Offices and Ms. Johanne Tremblay, Director of Legal Services.
I would like to thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I will describe the focal points of the work of my office for the coming fiscal year and provide an overview of the key issues we are currently working on. It is all very well to discuss estimates, but they exist essentially to help us achieve our major objectives, our interventions.
You have probably already read our Report on Plans and Priorities. It presents our three targeted strategic outcomes: strengthening institutional bilingualism; the promotion and social acceptance of linguistic duality as a fundamental value; and the vitality of official language communities. I will not discuss each of these topics today since they form the basis for our everyday work. Instead I will look ahead to some of our priorities for the future.
Let us talk about funding and additional funding. Before I begin my presentation, I would like to acknowledge the support of the former Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, which last year adopted a motion asking the government to add $4 million to our annual budget. Some of you sat on the standing joint committee. With your support, I began the formal process of seeking government approval of this request and I am pleased to report the Treasury Board has agreed to provide an additional $3.4 million in funding, increasing our annual budget to nearly $18.3 million for the 2003-2004 fiscal year. In 2004-2005, the additional funding will increase from $3.4 million to $4 million. Once again I would like to thank all members of the former Joint Committee for your appeal on our behalf, since we are all working toward the same goals.
I would also like to point out that this amount was not part of the action plan for official languages. This was a request that was independent from the government and rightly so, since the Office is an agent of Parliament and not part of the government itself. So it is important that we keep our distance from measures taken by the government.
This funding was especially necessary since our activities and areas of intervention have increased tremendously since I took office. So what will we do with these new sources over the coming years? First of all, investments, enhancing liaison, consolidating the audit role and expanding research.
First of all, we will reach out to the Canadian public, to public servants and to parliamentarians. We have already hired regional liaison officers who are now working in British Columbia and Saskatchewan. This is new. We have in addition hired a liaison officer for the Quebec region and there will soon be an officer for Atlantic Canada. We will also create a liaison officer position in Ontario. This will bring us closer to the regions and communities and give us greater insight into public opinion. We also intend to consolidate our audit role in the federal administration in order to check systemic problems before they become too great and additional resources are required and this is the second aspect of our increased capacity. We have devoted additional resources to parliamentary liaison and this will not only keep us in touch with legislative work, but will allow us to support you. This seems rather fitting, considering all the actions that you undertake on major official language issues.
I am thinking especially of your vigilance and commitment when you insisted that the Act to Promote Physical Activity and Sport reflect linguistic duality. In addition, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages intends to expand its activities on solid foundations. We will continue our research work and even increase our research capability. Last year we published studies on single window networks, the language requirements of positions in the senior public service, immigration and community development, the use of the minority press by federal departments and agencies, and the use of our official languages on the Internet sites of diplomatic missions.
Over the coming year, our research will focus, among other things, on the language of work in the federal public service, monitoring the use of the official languages in Canada's sport system, and linguistic duality in Canada's international activities.
We have begun examining the issue of leases for buildings administered by the National Capital Commission and Public Works and Government Services Canada in the National Capital Region and will produce a report in this regard which will probably be issued early in the fall. We maintain our commitment to fostering bilingualism in the capital.
Now let us consider a few priorities for the coming year. First of all, with regard to the action plan, in the coming months, I will be closely monitoring the implementation of the action plan for official languages, in which the government gave a practical dimension to and renewed its commitment to official languages.
I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, and Ministers Dion, Robillard, Copps and their fellow Cabinet members for their leadership in developing this plan. It is a fine example of coordination and teamwork. The members of your committee also urged the government to act, and I congratulate you for that. The investment of just over $750 million over five years will help renew the official languages program.
In the months ahead, we will closely examine the various measures set out in the plan. The next annual report, which should be tabled before Parliament in September, will provide my overall assessment of the plan. For the time being, however, I certainly welcome this plan with its clear objectives corresponding to the needs expressed by the communities. It includes an accountability framework that sets out the responsibilities of each institution and establishes horizontal coordination mechanisms, although the real impact of the plan can only be measured based on concrete results.
I am convinced that it signals a major change that will restore linguistic duality to being a key government priority. Rest assured that I will be closely observing the implementation of the plan, especially the inclusion of the three fundamental objectives of the Official Languages Act in the decision-making process for government policies and programs, and also as regards the accountability and coordination framework.
We must remember that this plan is just the starting point, as Minister Robillard repeated earlier and I was delighted to hear that it is a plan that commits the government, regardless of the players who might very well change in the not so distant future. We must not regard it as a panacea, since it does not address all official languages issues. Many other matters will also require the government's attention as well as your own.
[English]
I would like to stress three areas for improvement in the action plan for official languages. I have some reservations about it. Conspicuous by their absence, the three following features would improve the plan.
First, there is no accountability mechanism. The accountability framework simply defines institutions' roles, which is a first step. It fails, however, to set out a suitable performance measurement and accountability system to ensure that the plan, and the official languages program overall, are implemented by federal institutions. The government must develop criteria and specific indicators for this purpose.
Second, the plan's success will depend to a great extent on the essential participation of the provinces and territories. Yet the government has not included a framework for cooperation with the provinces and territories, which are called upon to contribute significantly to achieving the plan's objectives, especially in sectors such as health.
Third, after travelling across Canada for over three years, I have recognized how important it is that the promotion of linguistic duality in Canadian society be a collective and ongoing effort. I have identified this as one of my priorities for action.
You will recall that the former Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages passed a motion a year ago on the need for an awareness and promotional campaign. I agree that it is essential that Canadians understand, subscribe to and fully participate in our linguistic duality.
The latest census data remind us that Canada is undergoing dramatic change and that it has become increasingly diverse in all respects. This diversity is yet another essential feature of our Canadian identity, which continues to be based on linguistic duality. Canada's diversity must be fully expressed in both official languages.
The implementation and success of the action plan for official languages will require a concerted effort from a number of players, including governments, teachers, community stakeholders, school administrators, public servants, communities, students and parents. Official language minority communities already play a role in this regard. In my opinion, the government should nevertheless develop an awareness and marketing strategy directed to communities in order to mobilize decision makers and key players in Canada's Englishspeaking majority if we truly wish to achieve the action plan's objectives.
I am thinking in particular about the objective of doubling the number of bilingual young people within 10 years. I am certainly prepared to support the government in this regard. However, the government must act, and act continuously.
I will now give a brief overview of the modernization of the public service and language of work.
This initiative in the federal public service is certainly a topic of great interest at the moment. I even identified it as a priority at the outset of my mandate.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the progress the government has made this year and to congratulate Minister Robillard for her leadership, which you have fully recognized previously, in holding firm, first of all, on the deadline for senior managers to reach the CBC level of language proficiency. Senior management responded very well to this challenge, since over 90 per cent of them in bilingual positions now meet the linguistic requirements of those positions.
Much remains to be done, however, regarding language of work. The government must announce as quickly as possible the measures it intends to take to make the public service a workplace that truly fosters the use of both official languages.
Madame Robillard mentioned that she would soon present a policy on this matter. It will be interesting to see what she has to propose.
About a month ago, I appeared before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to propose three amendments to the proposed public service modernization act. I would be happy to discuss this issue further should you have any questions.
I cannot come here without talking about Air Canada, evidently. In spite of all the uncertainty surrounding Air Canada, I assure you that we will remain vigilant. We will ensure that the language rights of the travelling public are not left by the wayside in a potential restructuring of the airline sector.
I have written to Minister Collenette in this regard. I ask you to follow this matter and act decisively when the time comes. Should the changes at Air Canada compromise established language rights, we will have to act quickly and conclusively. This potential crisis may require us to review the linguistic obligations of the other airline carriers and propose comprehensive solutions.
[Translation]
A word now about access to justice, the agreement with Ontario and proposed regulations and, in particular, the implementation of the Blais decision regarding the Contraventions Act. The Department of Justice has finally concluded an agreement with the Government of Ontario. This agreement will allow citizens challenging a contravention of a federal regulation to have their proceedings conducted in French throughout Ontario, and to receive judicial services in French where there is significant demand.
I am pleased to see that the agreement signed with the Province of Ontario is consistent with the court decision and that the Government of Canada has made the required investment to truly give offenders access to judicial services in both official languages. Justice Canada has also undertaken a review of its Application of Provincial Laws Regulations, and I wrote to Minister Cauchon recently in this regard.
In my opinion, the draft regulations are not completely consistent with the Blais decision, since they do not require a justice of the peace or a provincial court judge and I see that Senator Beaudoin is nodding in agreement to inform all offenders of their language rights, as stipulated in the Criminal Code.
This is a significant weakness given the impact that the active offer of service has on the exercise of language rights. The studies conducted by my Office and the recent Justice Canada study, Environmental Scan: Access to Justice in Both Official Languages all confirm that citizens appearing in court are reluctant to exercise their language rights if no active offer is made. I have also proposed that Minister Cauchon amend the regulations to include the wording you have before you.
[Free translation] The justice of the peace or the provincial court judge in front of whom the defendant appears for the first time advises the defendant, if he is not represented by an attorney, of his right to request that his case be tried in one of the official languages.
I believe that changes should be made to the draft regulations, and I will follow this matter closely in the weeks ahead. As we all know, the health sector has been a priority not only for all Canadians, but for official language minority communities, of course. This issue has been of particular concern to me. I noted that the first ministers' accord on health care renewal of February 5, 2003 does not in any way reflect linguistic duality, in spite of the recommendations made in the Romanow Commission and Kirby Committee reports.
It is nevertheless heartening to see that, under the Action Plan for Official Languages, Health Canada will invest $119 million over five years for networking, training, recruitment and workforce retention. This is a good start.
I am now waiting to see how the federal, provincial and territorial governments will react in terms of specific measures to ensure that official language minority communities have access to public health services in their language.
The federal-provincial agreements to be renegotiated over the coming year should, in my opinion, include specific provisions regarding minority language health services. Each agreement will have to be adapted to the specific needs of each province or territory.
In closing, I wish to reiterate my commitment to making OCOL an agent striving toward the equal status of English and French in Canadian society, starting with the issues I have presented here today. This is a challenging mission. It requires us to demonstrate leadership, to show courage in being proactive on hot issues, to emphasize coordination on horizontal issues, and to encourage concrete action to stimulate change.
All the work I wish to undertake must be carried out in the spirit of mutual respect and support of your parliamentary work. I know that I can count on the support of parliamentarians and your committee to promote and defend our two official languages. It is now my turn to listen to you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation, Commissioner. With respect to the report on your budget plans and priorities, I would invite you to give us your suggestions during the discussion that will follow between yourself and the senators.
Ms. Adam: I intended primarily to respond to questions or comments about the budget. Financial resources, as everyone knows, are reflected much more by our activities. Does the OCOL have the resources it needs right now to carry out its mandate? My answer would be that we could obviously always use more resources, which is something that everyone can agree on.
However, the OCOL has managed to obtain $4 million in additional funding; we have new areas of strategic focus and we are going to improve existing areas. In my opinion, this is a logical approach for the OCOL. By wanting to take on too much, people sometimes spread their efforts too thinly.
So as far as our financial resources are concerned, except with respect to the promotion and social marketing campaign I will get into that if you wish we can act as an agent of change and play a role in a number of areas effectively.
Senator Gauthier: Will you be intervening in the case of the francophones in the Northwest Territories? Yes or no? That is not very complicated.
Ms. Adam: You know that it is in fact quite complicated to answer yes or no to a question. But since it is neither yes nor no right now, I am certainly not excluding the possibility of asking to intervene in that case. At the moment, however, we are still involved in the legislative review process that is underway. Once the bill has been tabled with, we hope, the amendments that we have suggested, if we still feel that the legislation does not really comply with the Official Languages Act or at least the spirit and letter of the act, we will then make the decision on whether we will seek intervener status.
Senator Gauthier: You have strong precedents for this. You intervened in Quebec on the issue of municipal mergers. You intervened in Ontario regarding the Montfort Hospital. You often intervene. I received a copy today of a letter from the francophones of the Northwest Territories sent to the Prime Minister, in which they are asking for federal government intervention. Since you are an officer of Parliament, I am asking you whether or not you are going to act? It is up to you to decide. I have some other questions for you.
Ms. Adam: My answer is that I have not yet decided. Of course, when we decide whether or not to intervene, our decision will also have to take into account the right time to decide to intervene. That has not yet changed.
Senator Gauthier: All right. The number of full-time employees you have has increased in the budget you have presented for this year; the number has risen from 145 to 162. Could you tell me where those new employees will be working within your system?
Ms. Adam: They will be brought in over a period of about two or three years, since this increase for 2003-04 will be supplemented by additional amounts in 2004 and 2005.
The breakdown by function is as follows. We will have about 17 new FTEs: 3 in parliamentary relations, 2 in research, 3 liaison officers, 4 in auditing and zero for my office. There will be four new people assigned to administrative and corporate service and one additional employee in the research area which includes legal analysis. That comes up to about 17 people for 2003 and 2004.
Senator Gauthier: What proportion of your budget is used for outside contracts? I know that you do a lot of research and that you sometimes contract out the preparation of documents.
Ms. Adam: Our budgets are not broken down along those lines. The information we have is approximate. As far as contracts go, a total of $1.9 million is spent on outsourcing both modern management, such as the evaluation of technological infrastructure, and studies required by the legal services director regarding opinions on thorny issues such as constitutional rights. Or maybe we need a very specific study relating to immigration; barely 20 per cent of our budget goes to outsourcing.
Senator Gauthier: The last time we met, I talked to you about a plan that is absolutely essential in order to convince Canadians of the value of our linguistic duality. This is a national official languages promotion plan. On March 12, Mr. Dion tabled an important report that I take seriously. He has set targets. I have read you criticisms of that report and I agree with them. One of your points that intrigues me somewhat dealt with the need to convince Canadians that having two official languages is a good thing, which can even be financially rewarding sometimes, but which is personally rewarding, in particular. The idea is to increase the proportion of bilingual high school graduates to 50 per cent. It stands right now at 24 per cent. In 10 years, we need to double the number of bilingual graduates.
Having spent 12 years of my life in the education system, I can tell you that if you do not win over the parents, you will not win over the children either, and vice versa. If a program to promote public awareness is not undertaken soon, the lofty objectives of the Dion plan will not be achieved.
You also said that you did not have the money and that you had even estimated that it would cost some $20 million for such a program. I will again ask the question I raised before: Is it possible to establish cooperation among the various departments so that it is not just the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages spending $20 million, but rather the government, with all its agencies and departments, that is moving forward, cooperating, and producing a road map for a comprehensive plan? Is it possible to think along those lines or am I off the mark?
Ms. Adam: This is one of my major concerns as well. I am very keen to see the plan implemented. We need public support if we are going to see the desired behaviours, such as having more young people register in second-language courses. To do that, we need to create the conditions that will lead to that change in behaviour. The plan and the federal government's commitment are one of the necessary conditions.
To reach that goal, we need to mobilize many decision-makers and key players over the next five years and even longer, since this is an ongoing effort or else it will not happen. If the federal government is prepared to invest $750 million in the official languages area, it needs to think seriously about investing in a major way and seeking expert advice in order to ensure that all the key partners are at the table and that they agree on an implementation plan to reach this goal.
Otherwise, I do not believe that we will get there. I have said this to Mr. Dion and to other ministers that are willing to listen to me. I am going to keep insisting on this because otherwise it will be like making a great soufflé but forgetting to put it in the oven. It is a missing link.
Senator Gauthier: You are preaching to the converted. It is like going to church and saying that we should not sin. I tried, in connection with the leases in the National Capital Region, to convince the responsible ministers, including the Minister of Public Works Canada, to insist on compliance with the linguistic clauses in the lease, since it says that there should be signage and service to the public in both official languages in leased premises. That upset a lot of people. Today, and I am proud to say this, the National Capital Commission has started ensuring that all leases will be complied with. Public Works Canada as well.
Progress can be made. Last Saturday, Moncton Mayor Brian Murphy spoke to the members of the regional section of ACFO. He took the same position that you do: The anglophone majority has to be convinced of the value of having two official languages, otherwise it is a lost cause. Have you seen his remarks?
Ms. Adam: One of my representatives took part in that meeting. I always find it regrettable that, when the issue is raised of the implementation of the act and the need to respect both the letter and spirit of the legislation, the federal government has a tendency to concentrate on just one objective, such as minority communities, and then the public service, et cetera. Promoting official languages to the general public is an ongoing task. It is possible to move ahead on a number of fronts at the same time.
We hear a lot about multitasking these days. The federal government needs to learn to invest much more in promotion. The lease issue, where Public Works and Government Services was involved, is an example of promotion. In spite of its spending power, the federal government does not use this promotion tool to support the two official languages in Canada.
There would be ways, even without additional funding, to promote French and English in society. There is no lack of ideas there. So the government needs to act in a concerted way to take ongoing concrete measures to promote official languages.
Senator Gauthier: You know my position on contraventions. One of the things that struck me in the agreement was that it is impossible to force a judge to tell the person before the court that he or she has the right to a defence in French or English. I found that last year in the report Environmental Scan. I am pleased that you have brought this up today because a report is going to be presented soon. It gives me an opportunity to emphasize my proposal that the government should require not only judges, but everyone involved in the lower courts to do this. It is no longer appropriate to appoint legal counsel from the Department of Justice who do not speak French to deal with cases where the accused are francophone. Even the judge and the lawyers from Justice say: "I am sorry, but I do not speak French." Everything has to proceed in English. The Beaulac case showed clearly that this was wrong.
Do you have anything to add on this topic? I am starting to lose my temper. I think that it is important to follow up on this Environmental Scan report, to put in place structures and people who can communicate, and require judges to do this. Otherwise they will not do it.
Ms. Adam: This is important for two reasons. First, access to justice in both official languages, and second, the connection with the other objective which is about how to motivate young people to become bilingual. It is interesting to have two languages and it is personally enriching. But if young Canadians find that the courts and other places throughout society are looking for those skills, that is one of the most powerful incentives that can be used to foster support by the majority. We need to nurture workplaces and living spaces where both languages are used and flourish. These two objectives are very closely linked.
The Chairman: When we adopted the agenda, we decided to limit our discussions to spending and the Commissioner of Official Languages' plans and priorities. There is no doubt that we have many questions for you about all the work you do. We will have an opportunity to come back to those issues when we do our in-depth study of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
Senator Beaudoin: I have three specific questions I would like to ask you. The first deals with criminal trials in French. There is no reason in the world why this right does not exist everywhere in Canada, regardless of the cost.
Not only is this right set out in section 16 of the Charter of Rights, but it was also established by the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Beaulac and a number of other cases. An accused has the right to be tried in the official language of his or her choice.
If it costs more, it costs more. The Constitution does not make compromises. The Constitution is fundamental. In my opinion, the right to a criminal trial in both languages is fundamental. I congratulate the Supreme Court. It has become much more bilingual than any other Supreme Court that I have ever seen. People argue cases in French and rulings are written in English and French. It costs more, but this is Canada. I think that there can be no compromise allowed.
With respect to Canada's international activities, I have something to suggest to you. On the international scene, the Prime Minister, ministers and our parliamentarians often use French, and I congratulate them all. But when there are international sporting events, our official languages performance is pitiful, in my humble opinion. Everyone watches sports, everyone at the international level as well. Why is it that our parliamentarians use French and English so well in their international activities, but when we have sports activities outside Canada, this is not done as much?
Surely something can be done in this area. I think that you have jurisdiction outside Canada if Canadians are involved. Otherwise, we would be interpreting the Constitution in a very narrow way.
My third point deals with the national capital. I never give up on this issue. A bilingual federation must have a bilingual national capital. There are two ways for this to happen: convince the Ontario minister to cooperate or get the federal government involved. The Ontario government has a new leader and I would like to know whether you feel that things are going better and that they will be more open on this question of bilingualism for the national capital.
I organized a Canada-Belgium symposium, and some of the Belgian ministers were telling us that everything must be done in two or three official languages in their country. If Belgium can do this and it is a federal State like ours I do not see why it is not possible in Canada.
We need to get very serious about this. Ottawa is Canada's capital. Canada's capital must be bilingual.
I draw your attention to these three points, and I imagine that you all agree. The problem is how to find the best ways of getting where we want to go. Where criminal trials are concerned, enormous strides have been made. The Supreme Court is impeccably bilingual, but that is not the case everywhere.
Bilingual judges do exist! If some places do not have any, they will need to be found; it is as simple as that. When our teams are on television, here or elsewhere, the coverage should be bilingual.
Third, we must find a way, sooner or later, to make our capital bilingual. People are always asking why we do not have bilingualism here, whereas they do in Europe and other parts of the world. If there is one country that can make bilingualism work, it is Canada.
I would like to have your comments. We all agree, but what are we going to do?
Ms. Adam: First of all, where trials are concerned, we need to understand that we have legislation and even constitutional rights, but that is not enough if we are not going to do what is necessary to ensure compliance with them. I think that there has been a development that should be pointed out. I am talking about the environmental scan report that was sponsored by Justice Canada in response to a certain number of OCOL studies, which revealed a number of problems relating to access to justice in Canada in both official languages. Since access to justice is partly under provincial jurisdiction, there is a working group that involves almost all the provinces (7 out of 10) and two territories. This working group is in the process of developing concrete strategies that could vary from one province to another, such as itinerant courts.
Funding will be provided by Justice Canada in the context of the Dion action plan, to implement some of these measures. This is a step in the right direction and an issue that should be followed. Where sporting events are concerned, I am very interested in sports at the international level and, with all due respect, senator, I would say that the work must begin at home.
We need to create an environment in which both official languages are present in our Canadian sports system. A study carried out a few years ago showed that the level of participation among francophones was under-representative and that much improvement was needed where the athletes were concerned.
We need to ensure that coaches, doctors, psychologists and physiotherapists can study in the athlete's language of choice. There is a real problem at training centres, and that problem will obviously be reflected outside Canada. If everything is being done in English in Canada, there is little chance that things will become bilingual at the international level.
In June, we will be publishing the followup to that study, which has 12 recommendations. I cannot give you all the details of our followup, but I would say that it shows that progress is being made at a snail's pace.
I will have the opportunity to give you more details in June, and I can tell you that your concern is shared, even about the situation here in Canada and not just at the international level. On the question of bilingualism for the national capital, you mentioned the change in leadership in Ontario. I am wondering if that was a slip and you actually meant Quebec.
Senator Beaudoin: No, I was talking about Ontario. In Quebec the change was expected, but in Ontario a new leader came in a few months ago.
Ms. Adam: Yes, but it is still the same government, and the national capital file is still active. One of the roles of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages is to demonstrate, using studies, the added value of having a bilingual capital.
What does it mean to have the capital in a province like Ontario? We need to find a new argument to convince the leaders, and it is the commissioner's role to do that. My role is to use persuasion, influence and intervention in order to foster a change in attitude and behaviour on the part of the Ontario government.
Senator Comeau: You said that you have funding to increase the OCOL's presence in the various regions of Canada, and you mentioned the Atlantic. Have you chosen where that presence will be located?
Ms. Adam: We have decided to add this additional resource in Moncton. We really agonized about this decision, and what led the team to opt for Moncton was that we felt that it was important to have a critical mass in one location, but that person will certainly have responsibility with respect to other provinces as well.
Senator Comeau: It is clear that services are increasingly available in New Brunswick, where there is a critical mass. It is a bilingual province with a certain openness towards language minorities and it gives the impression that the other maritime provinces Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are finished.
I have heard people in New Brunswick say that the Acadians were finished. I have heard the same thing from Acadians and francophones in New Brunswick. I am not saying that I accept this comment but it is something that people say.
In my opinion, there should be some consideration of positions in places where there is no demand for services. Since there is less demand from Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, the silence in these regions weighs even more heavily.
This is something that is increasingly obvious to me and that is why Acadians from the other provinces are gradually distancing themselves from New Brunswick. It may also be the reason why we are hearing less and less from the Acadians in the other provinces. If that is so, I think we are making a huge mistake and that in the provinces other than New Brunswick we will be losing an irreplaceable treasure. In Prince Edward Island it is already happening.
Ms. Adam: When I talked about a critical mass, I meant that we had to have a sufficiently large office to create a certain impetus. All the regional offices say that in order to have a real impact in a region, there must be a certain number of employees, otherwise they are isolated.
Having said that, I share your point of view. That is why we added one person in British Columbia where, to the best of my knowledge, we have never had anyone. This person is attached to the Edmonton office so that there can be a regional representation and a person was added in Saskatchewan for exactly the reason you mentioned. We should encourage the most vulnerable communities to exercise their rights and it is the role of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to do so.
This person comes under the Manitoba office. In the Atlantic region, there are four provinces and I think that when we made the decision, there were other requirements that came into play. Is it too late to reconsider our decision? I know that the position has been posted and we have heard from many candidates, and if we change the place of work, it will certainly cause a serious disruption.
This is the second competition that we have posted. The first was not productive, that is, we were not able to find a candidate with the necessary skills for the position. I have taken note of your comments and I want to reassure you that you have been heard.
Senator Comeau: I will not keep flogging a dead horse but I do intend to come back later on to this issue that is of increasing concern to me. I am not saying that there has not been any progress in these regions. There has been some progress but there has also been a certain decline.
In these communities, if they take two steps backwards, they are not going to make up the difference by taking three steps forward.
You raised the question of access to justice. The three provinces that are not involved with the federal government are those where the commissioner does not have any representation.
I would like to invite you to come visit our region. Take a look at the signs of the new businesses in the Acadian regions to see if they are in French or even bilingual. In the Acadian regions, we see an increasing amount of signage only in English. You can also listen to the community radio stations. Compare the New Brunswick stations with those in Nova Scotia. You will see the difference. Go take a look in hospitals where there are lots of nurses and physicians who are francophone, but there is no way of identifying them. It would not cost anything if there were federal government cooperation with the provinces. The federal government says that it does not need to have these three provinces involved in the discussions. The federal government and the Commissioner's Office are going to have to be proactive. I intend to come back to these matters in the future.
Ms. Adam: Nothing is cast in concrete. People come and go. We have investigators in the region. I have taken note of your comments and the team will examine this question of representation and our activities in the Atlantic region. It may well be necessary to go out into the field, specifically the three provinces other than New Brunswick, and take a look at this issue in preparation for the future.
Senator Comeau: About eight months ago, I wrote to Radio-Canada to find out what their budget was for Nova Scotia in comparison to other provinces. I never got an answer from them. I simply wanted to make a comparison of their expenses in the different provinces. They categorically refused to provide me with an answer. Does an agency or an institution such as Radio-Canada have the right to refuse to answer this kind of question from a parliamentarian? We do not have the ability to examine these figures and to understand them in a given context. We do have the ability to vote on their budget every year but we do not have the ability to understand the way they are broken down. Maybe we should take a look at this in the future.
Senator Corbin: I would like to support Senator Comeau. I am quite familiar with Nova Scotia and I lived there for a short time. I travelled a lot as a tourist with my family and I am familiar with the local problems. I met some people there who came to see us, the parliamentarians. Even in the "republic" of Madawaska, people tend to complain about everything being centred in Moncton. There are limits. Most of the university is in Moncton. Actually, everything is done in Moncton. It has become the centre of Acadia. I do not know where Senator Comeau would like to see this office located, in Halifax or elsewhere, but it could be discussed.
Commissioner, in referring to Air Canada, you said:
This potential crisis may require us to review the linguistic obligations of the other airline carriers and propose comprehensive solutions.
What do you mean by that?
Ms. Adam: In its restructuring project, Air Canada advanced all sorts of scenarios. They envisage the dismantling of the Air Canada empire as well as the legislation in its present form, and we worked hard during the preparation of this act on the participation of Air Canada capital. About two years ago, we clarified the obligation of all the Air Canada subsidiaries to be fully subject to the act.
Senator Corbin: They are fewer and fewer in number.
Ms. Adam: There is Air Canada Jazz as well as the other Air Canada groups, as well as the Aeroplan program. It is all broken down. In order for it to be subject to the act as it is now worded, it must own at least 51 per cent of the company. In the restructuring of Air Canada, if these different parts are subdivided and Air Canada is a 15 or 25 per cent owner of this or that, then you can see what will happen. With air transport under the federal government, then only the tip of the iceberg will be subject to the act and the remainder will take place in only one language to a greater or lesser extent, according to circumstances. When you go to pick up your luggage in the Atlantic region, you will be served in English or perhaps in both languages if you are in Moncton. Then, you will be served in English in Toronto and when you get here, there will be bilingual service. There should be standardization of all air services or transportation in the country, no matter what the carrier, as is the case for security.
It would turn out to be much easier for passengers, for citizens, to travel across Canada. After all, we have two official languages. That is what I was referring to.
Senator Léger: I am glad that you talked about air travel. I live in Moncton and I fully agree with Senator Comeau. When people are in a position of strength, they forget about others. They act as if we were the only Acadians. It is human nature. Acadians are very parochial, just like everyone else. At one time, music was all about 1755. Nowadays there is almost nothing in New Brunswick. It is the great dispersal. It goes by waves and you can imagine what it is going be like next year with the world Acadian congress in Port-Royal. You have to hear it.
I never hear about, either from the commissioner or from Ms. Robillard, the question of French among aboriginal persons. Why? Are people afraid? Is it something that we should say out loud?
Ms. Adam: I think you put your finger on a very important question. As a matter of fact, a few months ago, I made a presentation to the senior management committee of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The department recognizes its obligation towards the first nations. However, the matter of its obligation with respect to francophone communities in the north, who are sometimes Métis and francophone, as well as francophones from other backgrounds, is not really recognized and is not considered to be a priority.
We asked, and this was also done by previous commissioners, that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development be designated as having an obligation to develop a plan based on sections 41 and 42. To some extent this would involve having the department responsible for aboriginal affairs embrace linguistic duality and establish a link with Indian and aboriginal affairs. That is not the case at the present time. We have some work to do in changing attitudes so that the department will take action on this subject, like the rest of the government.
Senator Léger: You refer to the government as a whole. If I have understood correctly, it is a problem relating to responsibility. I know there are big problems. There are so many essential things in life that must be considered. It does not only concern the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. People also talk about "immigrants flooding into the country". We have 200 different nationalities in the country but this is the kind of thing that people will say. Maybe we should start with that.
Ms. Adam: There is a particular aspect relating to aboriginal persons. I appeared before a parliamentary committee in the Northwest Territories to make comments about their legislation and to give them certain opinions. One of the priorities for aboriginal peoples is their own languages and as you know, even teaching in their schools does not necessarily take place in the aboriginal language.
First nation peoples do feel the need to reappropriate their own language and culture. That is a very important element. When we talk about linguistic duality, there has been a loss and a certain acculturation, as well as the assimilation of first nations, particularly by the English language but also in more general terms. The dynamics are fairly complex.
Senator Chaput: My question relates to your aim of encouraging the various levels of government to take measures to encourage the development of communities. You mentioned that as part of the Dion plan, there was no provision made for a cooperation framework with the provinces and territories.
My question is the following: do you have the authority to go beyond encouragement in developing such a framework? Can you suggest any particular elements that should be included in the framework? Or will you have to wait until things do not work out and then lodge complaints?
What type of authority do you have with respect to this?
Ms. Adam: My preferred strategy is to be proactive. Ms. Robillard mentioned that she liked to work with my office but in certain respects, she preferred her department and her government to take proactive measures. That is the best solution. People responsible for the implementation of the act or the plan and you are talking about agreements between the federal government and the various provinces should develop the right reflex. We are there to remind them. We are there to give them advice on the way of developing this reflex but like any behaviour, it must proceed from conviction and engagement. Obviously a reflex or a response can only develop if it becomes a habit. Ad hoc action normally does not have an impact.
What we really need is to set up a series of measures particularly in the departments working with the provinces so that this reflex of cooperation and accountability with the provinces is so well established that it becomes second nature. That is not the case at the present time.
The Chair: Are you satisfied with an accountability framework similar to the one in the Dion plan?
Ms. Adam: No, it is not good enough. It is a good start, but it is not sufficient and we will be suggesting improvements along the lines of what Senator Chaput has explained. It will have to be improved.
Senator Maheu: I cannot help laughing when I hear the expression "capital of Canada" and not "capital region". Senator Corbin alluded to the fact that the regions are not mentioned.
Senator Corbin: No, I meant the Quebec National Capital Commission.
Senator Maheu: I mean aboriginal persons in relation to the official languages. We are careful when we speak about Quebec. When we refer to the language of the capital, for example, we mean the language used by the public servants. How many thousands of public servants work across the bridge, in the province of Quebec? And when we speak of Quebec, the same thing applies. We are walking on eggshells, we are watching what we say.
I hope that we will have the courage to go and see what is happening in terms of services and how your office sees the action plan being implemented in both official languages in Quebec.
Do you intend to do anything to ensure that your projects will come to fruition? Is this for the long or the short term, and have the departments responsible for the province of Quebec meaning each minister expressed any interest in increasing the number of public servants working in Quebec? Should the number of anglophones working in Quebec be in proportion to the population?
Ms. Adam: We must point out that Quebec is a rather special case, and not only because the majority of the population is francophone. In terms of service to the public, it is the province that, by far, provides high quality service in both official languages.
I see it as a model. With respect to the language of work, there are problems for the majority when they must deal with headquarters, as Ms. Robillard's study has shown. In Quebec, 22 per cent of the documents that the employees have to work with are in English.
Anglophones are under-represented within the federal public service in Quebec. That is where our priorities must lie. This has been recognized for some years now. The most promising development is that the Quebec council of senior officials, that is, those who do the hiring in Quebec, have made this a priority. They have decided to strike a committee to prepare a work plan.
I recently read the Quebec government's action plan to increase anglophone representation. They consider anglophones to be a target group, a separate group. Each Quebec department is accountable. The Quebec council of senior officials was not able to do that, but it is something they might want to consider. That is what we do. There is an under-representation within our office. It is perhaps normal for the OCOL to have a higher number of complaints from francophones. We want to increase our representation. I have made the minorities within the OCOL a target group similar to the aboriginal group in order to encourage senior managers and those responsible for staffing to take this aspect into account. We are also at this time studying the federal institutions in Quebec; this work is being carried out by the Institut Missisquoi.
The Chair: We would like to thank the witnesses for making themselves available to us.
[English]
The next part of the meeting is in camera. We will take two minutes to make sure that people have time to leave the room. Senators who have members of their staff here will need to ask permission of the committee members for their staff to stay.
The committee continued in camera.