Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 2 - Evidence, March 1, 2004
OTTAWA, Monday, March 1, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:30 p.m. to study the operation of the Official Languages Act, and of regulations and directives made thereunder, within those institutions subject to the act, as well as the reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The Hon. Maria Chaput (Chairman) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. Today we will hear from the Commissioner of Official Languages, Ms. Dyane Adam, as part of our study of the operation of the Official Languages Act, and of regulations and directives made thereunder.
We will then move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-4, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act, presented in the Senate by the Hon. Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier. Third, we will discuss budgets.
Allow me to introduce myself: I am Maria Chaput from Manitoba, newly elected Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I would like to introduce to you the members of the committee. To my left, the Hon. Senator Wilbert Keon from Ontario, cardiac surgeon and founder of the University of Ottawa Heart Institute; the Honourable Senator Jim Munson from Ontario, distinguished Canadian journalist who has twice been nominated for a Gemini Award in recognition of excellence in journalism; the Honourable Senator Viola Léger from New Brunswick, grande dame of the theatre, teacher and cultural ambassador for Acadia; to my extreme right, Senator Gérald Beaudoin from Quebec, a leading expert in constitutional law in Canada; and the Honourable Jean-Robert Gauthier from Ontario, champion of minority language community rights and sponsor of Bill S-4.
I would now invite the commissioner to introduce her team and take the floor.
Ms. Dyane Adam, Commissioner of Official Languages: Before introducing my colleagues, I would like to congratulate you, Senator Chaput, on your election as chair. I would also like to congratulate Senator Gauthier on his appointment as honorary chair, an honour richly deserved, seeing that you mentioned earlie that he was the champion of our French language. Congratulations also to Senator Keon on his appointment as vice-chair. It is always a pleasure for me to come and meet and work with you.
First of all, I am going to introduce my colleagues. To my right is Mr. Gérard Finn, Special Advisor to the Commissioner; to my left, Ms. Louise Guertin, Director General, Corporate Services; Mr. Michel Robichaud, Director General, Investigations and Audits, and Ms. Johanne Tremblay, Director General, Legal Services.
Within the budget review context, I would like to present a report on our activities and share my expectations vis-à- vis the government. I will identify a few key priorities we will be focusing on in the near future.
[English]
I would like to speak to you about our activities within the current funding context. In 2003-04, our planned spending is about $18.3 million. Next year, we plan to spend a comparable amount, about $18.5 million. It is worth recalling that the budget of the Office of the Commissioner was substantially reduced during the 1990s. The increases of the past few years have simply allowed us to refocus our activities and to be more proactive in priority areas. The additional funding has enabled us to accomplish a number of activities.
First, we have improved our capacity to evaluate the linguistic situation in federal institutions subject to the act. We have resumed our auditing function and in so doing, we are modelling our approach on that of the Office of the Auditor General. An audit is currently underway at Canada Post. We intend to complete three major audits during fiscal year 2004-05. In the future, we hope to increase that number to four annually.
We have also enhanced parliamentary monitoring and regional liaison while expanding our areas of action. We carry out our liaison role with federal institutions, communities and the various orders of government across the country in order to intervene in issues that are important for communities and to act as an agent of change. We have also enhanced regional liaison in all regions in order to better meet the needs of communities. In terms of monitoring, the Office of the Commissioner takes preventive action by intervening when legislation, regulations and policies are being developed to ensure that language rights are a central concern for decision-makers.
This funding has also enabled us to intervene before the courts to defend the rights of Canadians. The number of court cases in which we have intervened this year has nearly doubled. It is unfortunate that communities are still obliged to resort to the courts to have their rights respected. As you know, resorting to the courts is very demanding for both individuals and communities, not only in terms of cost but also in terms of energy. It would be a wonderful achievement if governments showed more leadership in working with communities to find solutions rather than waiting for the courts to impose them. However, given the reality of the situation, the Office of the Commissioner will need the additional resources provided to intervene before the courts when that proves necessary.
Finally, allow me to draw your attention to the fact that, like other government organizations, my office has adopted modern management practices and principles and is encouraging measures that make it a learning organization. Specifically, the plans and priorities of the office for 2004-05 bring together key elements of the Treasury Board Secretariat's management accountability framework.
As an Officer of Parliament, I have to show great diligence in the management of my work, and I intend to continue my efforts to improve the management practices of the office. Beginning this year, for example, the financial statements of our office will be audited by the Office of the Auditor General.
[Translation]
In terms of our expectations with respect to the federal government, I would like to expand our perspective slightly in order to share with you my expectations with respect to the government and in order to present my key priorities. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since I presented my first Report to Parliament four years ago. Having observed a lack of leadership with regard to linguistic duality, I sounded the alarm and called for a recovery plan. That call was heard, and in March 2003, the federal government announced its Action Plan for Official Languages.
In terms of the implementation of the action plan, I was delighted to hear Minister Pettigrew publicly confirm two weeks ago the government's intention to maintain the fund that had been allocated to implementing the action plan. During a period of transition and expenditure review, this assurance was necessary, in my opinion.
But, to ensure this investment yields results, in the coming months, the government must conduct an interdepartmental dialogue so that all key players can work closely together and in consultation with minority communities. There must also be additional effort made to obtain the support of majorities. This is still a critical time, since implementing the plan will require even greater coordination and energy than its development. In order to give it the necessary priority, I still hope, as I recommended in my last annual report, that the Prime Minister will give the Ministerial Reference Group on Official Languages the status of a permanent committee.
Finally, to encourage and facilitate cooperation between the federal government and the provinces and territories in terms of official languages, we need a framework for intergovernmental cooperation.
From the start, the entire issue of accountability has been for me a chief concern with respect to the action plan. In my most recent annual report, I had recommended that the federal government establish an accountability framework for implementing the plan. It does not seem clear what impact the current government restructuring will have in that respect.
Recent restructuring included the creation of the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency, which now includes the Official Languages Branch, which used to be a part of the Treasury Board Secretariat. This new reality has created a certain degree of ambiguity for both the public and the public service in terms of responsibilities.
For example, currently the Official Languages Act stipulates that the President of the Treasury Board must report to Parliament annually. Given the current situation, is it he or the President of the Privy Council who must table this report? Furthermore, the act also states that I must send my investigation reports to the President of the Treasury Board. As commissioner, I am required to comply with this provision even though the Official Languages Branch no longer reports to this minister.
The government must come up with an accountability framework that is clearly established within these new structures. Our role at the Office of the Commissioner will be to monitor how the plan is implemented and act as a facilitator to make sure that institutions respect the spirit and the letter of the Official Languages Act.
[English]
Now, I will address the priorities. In spite of its importance, the action plan is not panacea. The new government will need to demonstrate sustained leadership on several levels, so as to keep official languages firmly on target. I would like to present to you some major priorities that, in my opinion, must receive the government's immediate action. Notably, these concern the clarification of Part VII of the act, access to justice, language of work and access to education in both official languages.
Those priorities ground the studies started this year at the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, which are, for example, looking at the language of work of federal public servants, the place of linguistic duality in Canada's international activities, and the availability of bilingual services in commercial outlets located in federal buildings. Many other projects are in the works, including a study on the demographic, sociological and institutional realities of the Anglo-Quebec community.
[Translation]
In my last annual report, I reiterated a recommendation aimed at defining the judicial scope of section 41 of the Official Languages Act. This issue is a preoccupation for our official language communities and one that has given rise to considerable debate. I must regretfully note that the government has chosen the judicial route — in the case of the Forum des maires de la péninsule acadienne — to clarify the legal scope of Part VII rather than considering regulatory or legislative routes. I find it unacceptable that communities are again obliged to use the courts to force the government to respect its commitment.
At this time, the francophone community of New Brunswick is involved in two cases in which I have decided to intervene. The time has come to act, and the legislative route seems to me to be the most appropriate. It is my hope that Senator Gauthier's Bill S-4, intended to clearly confirm the government's obligations and to specify that Part VII is not limited to a political commitment, will soon be sent to the House of Commons.
I wish to congratulate Senator Gauthier for the considerable work he has dedicated to this issue.
[English]
Access to justice in both official languages continues to be one of my priorities. In spite of the weaknesses that persist, there has been significant progress, due notably to the Federal Court judgments regarding the Contraventions Act. There is also a mechanism for intergovernmental collaboration, put in place by the Federal-Provincial Working Group on Access to Justice, which aims to put into practice necessary solutions. Nevertheless, one of the remaining obstacles is the shortage of bilingual judges among the Superior Court justices and on Federal Courts. These problems have been identified by the Department of Justice and by my predecessors since the 1990s.
Recently, the Prime Minister announced that he hopes to modify the procedure for appointing judges to the Supreme Court. This would also be an opportunity to review the process of nominating judges to the Superior Courts and to federal tribunals. We should aim to endow the courts and tribunals with an adequate bilingual capacity. A selection criterion in the evaluation process for candidates should be linguistic competence.
[Translation]
Another major priority is establishing a public service that is exemplary in its use of official languages. This includes respecting the rights of each and every person with respect to the provision of services and to the language of work.
In the regions designated bilingual, the act confers public servants with certain fundamental rights as a means toward allowing them to choose their language of work. Progress in matters relating to the language of work is slow; many studies and polls confirm that the federal public service is still far from being a truly bilingual institution.
That is why I have asked for a sociolinguistic analysis, which will provide a better understanding of the motivations, as well as of the personal and the organizational constraints, that influence the choice of language used in a workplace. The study that I will publish shortly will include many recommendations, which I hope will permit the federal government to create the necessary conditions for valuing and supporting the growth of the two official languages in our federal institutions.
[English]
Finally, as part of the action plan, the federal government will be investing additional funds to increase access to minority language education and to promote learning a second language. One of the main objectives of the action plan is to double the number of bilingual young Canadians by 2013. With this goal in mind, my office, in partnership with Canadian Heritage, Intergovernmental Affairs and Canadian Parents for French, is organizing a conference, which will take place in Toronto this week. This symposium will bring together the heads of key sectors, who together will identify a course of action to ensure that the next generation, in every corner of the country, has the essential linguistic aptitude needed for their personal growth and for their future in Canada and the world of tomorrow. The government must carefully target its investment in order to establish adequate measures that, with help from the provinces, will fund quality second-language instruction and anglophone and francophone minority-language education that will give new momentum to immersion and provide bilingual graduates with opportunities to benefit from their skills.
[Translation]
In closing, I wish to express how much I appreciate your unwavering commitment toward linguistic duality. It is always a great pleasure to hear your statements and your support in the Senate and in public. You are indeed valuable allies. Thank you for your attention. I will be pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Gauthier: A few years ago, there was some discussion of the need for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to have the necessary funding for, among other things, external linguistic audits to see how federal institutions were doing with respect to official languages.
Ms. Fraser seems to be doing a very good job when it comes to accountability. However, I cannot say the same for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages when it comes to complaints.
Today, I received two complaints with respect to certain federal institutions acting as though they were organizations independent not only of Parliament, but of any act of Parliament.
The Office of the Commissioner, in 2002-2003, posted a surplus of some $500,000. If I am not mistaken, you can carry forward 5 per cent of your budget to next year. We still do not have Part III of the Estimates. We have Parts I and II, but they do not give us very detailed information.
Was the $500,000 you transferred from 2002-2003 to 2003-2004 used judicially to meet the set goals, improve certain programs and set up a linguistic audit system?
Ms. Adam: The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, like any federal institution, is authorized to carry forward up to 5 per cent of its budget from one year to the next.
Any serious administrator, who is not authorized to run a deficit, has to aim for a budget surplus. Last year, we posted a surplus. The office has received additional funding in recent years.
The staffing process often takes longer than the time provided in a fiscal year once the budget announcement is made. As a result, significant amounts are carried forward. This enables us to fill positions according to the Public Service Commission's required staffing procedure.
Funds will likely also be carried forward for the current year, as we have not necessarily managed to fill all of our positions. The amount will not exceed 5 per cent of the budget.
Senator Gauthier: The Treasury Board and Public Service Commission theoretically have to audit the administration on a regular basis, in terms of staffing for the Public Service Commission and accountability for the Treasury Board.
Has the Public Service Commission or Treasury Board ever had to investigate your management or has there ever been a complaint about your management?
Ms. Adam: Are you asking me whether we have ever been investigated to see whether all staffing practices, policies and guidelines had been followed?
Senator Gauthier: There have never been any complaints about you with respect to staffing?
Ms. Adam: No.
Senator Gauthier: But you are experiencing some delay.
Ms. Adam: The delay is only natural. Some competitions are unproductive. Sometimes, we have to start the process internally. If that attempt is unsuccessful, we then have to broaden the area of competition. That is standard practice, we follow the prescribed procedure. We have never had any complaint about that.
Senator Gauthier: Let me explain the reason for my question.
The Commissioner of Official Languages is one of the five officers of Parliament. The others are the Auditor General of Canada, the Human Rights Commissioner, the Information Commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley.
The Public Service Commission and Treasury Board have not exactly meticulously monitored these officers. As a matter of fact, there was an admission that mistakes were made in connection with the Radwanski affair.
Would you be prepared to do a linguistic audit of your four officer of Parliament colleagues?
Ms. Adam: Yes, I could.
Senator Gauthier: By the way, from now on, Ms. Fraser will not hesitate to audit your books, and that is a good thing. Are you in a position to tell us here tonight that you are going to audit the application of the Official Languages Act in these federal institutions?
Ms. Adam: My office now has an audit function thanks in large part to the support of both the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and the House of Commons Official Languages Committee.
We now have a team that will be able to do about four audits per year, according to a three-year plan. All agencies to which the act applies, including companies like Air Canada, are subject to audit.
We have set up our schedule for next year. Our first audit report is soon to be tabled. Our first audit was at Canada Post. The audit will wrap up on March 31, 2004. We have begun another audit at Industry Canada. The economic agencies attached to Industry Canada are also currently being audited separately.
To answer your question, the commissioner could audit how the other officers of Parliament implement and comply with the Official Languages Act.
[English]
Senator Munson: I have three questions. Regarding access to justice, you talked about the Prime Minister announcing his plans to modify the procedure for appointing judges. You mentioned that you hoped to endow the courts and tribunals with an adequate bilingual capacity. What do you mean by "adequate" capacity? For example, if one were appointing a judge with great qualifications who is a unilingual judge from British Columbia, where would the balance be?
Ms. Adam: We have done two studies, including one done by my predecessor. We recommended that, for a tribunal or a court, the collective group of judges should have sufficient or adequate capacity to meet the needs of the persons they are hearing. That means it is not necessary that all of them be bilingual but that, as a group, they can serve the public in either official language in the same quality. There should be no delays to serve a client of a certain language. That is how we define adequate.
Senator Munson: That would include the Supreme Court?
Ms. Adam: Yes.
Senator Munson: I am curious about that.
Ms. Adam: What is important, is not that all the individual judges be bilingual, but that they have a sufficient bilingual capacity as a group.
Senator Munson: You have been asked this question many times regarding Ottawa becoming a bilingual capital. You have used the phrase "necessary steps." In your estimation, is Ottawa any nearer than it was 10 years ago to being a bilingual capital, and what are those "necessary steps?" Where is the political will, and how do you add pressure to ensure there is the political will?
Ms. Adam: I know there are different perspectives on this issue. Some believe that the federal government could take action based on our Constitution. Others have other views.
If it came from the province of Ontario, and our current premier were to change the act to fully recognize the bilingual status of the capital of Canada, then you may not need to consider other means.
At this point, I am waiting for Mr. McGuinty to deliver on his promise to recognize what the municipalities wanted — namely, a change in the Municipal Act, but so far we have not had any resolve on this issue.
I believe that in the Senate you will be looking at other options.
Senator Munson: I have another question that deals with Don Cherry. You have an investigation on Mr. Cherry's comments. Where is that investigation? Would it make any difference to the Canadian public what you said about Don Cherry and his comments?
Ms. Adam: I am investigating complaints regarding the CBC — not necessarily Mr. Cherry — and how the corporation ensures, through its policies and guidelines, that all employees know their obligations and responsibilities to ensure that they fully respect both the spirit and the letter of the act, and therefore show respect for the official languages, and the people who speak those languages. This investigation is underway. It is always hard for me to give you more information while an investigation is currently underway.
Senator Munson: Do you have a viewpoint on this temporary solution of the seven-second delay, which some people would view as censorship?
Ms. Adam: I do not have a point of view because it is CBC's decision. In a way, my opinion is not very important. My role is to ensure that CBC fully respects the act.
I cannot comment.
[Translation]
Senator Beaudoin: Ms. Adam, you come back, and rightly so, to the issue of binding legislation and court remedies. I have always said that the legislative branch does not do its job very actively; and then, people criticize the courts. They are wrong. If you have to go to court, perhaps it is because we have not done our job, and perhaps it is because we do not have the courage to follow through on the legislation. I just do not understand how we can drag out a debate like the debate on section 41 of the Official Languages Act. Imagine, people are wondering whether the Constitution is directory or mandatory. It is incredible! The Constitution is mandatory!
I agree with what you say on page 6 of your brief. You note with regret that what needs to be done is not being done. But on the other hand, if you have to go to court, then that is what you have to do.
You raised the issue of bilingual judges. That goes without saying. All federal legislation is bilingual. All federal legislation can be interpreted by the courts. So it is very hard to say that judges do not increasingly have to become bilingual. I think that we have won that debate at the Supreme Court. They are all bilingual. The judgments are published in two parallel columns — in French and in English — and that should continue.
I believe that the appeal courts are moving in this direction. I do, however, understand your reaction; as I said earlier, what you said does make sense. But we will have to go back to the courts from time to time. It does cost money, and it takes time, but unless we smarten up — and I do not think it is too strong an expression to use — the courts will have to tell us what to do. I am a little disappointed that it is taking us so long to achieve something.
Senator Gauthier introduced a number of amendments. He is right. I think that they will eventually be adopted by our two legislative Houses. However, this cannot be done without the involvement of the courts, since the attempts at the legislative level have been unsuccessful. I do not think we are asking too much in requiring that the highest courts operate in both languages.
The other day, Senator Gauthier asked me if we could demand that judges be bilingual: when the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice appoints a judge, he can take into account the person's linguistic ability in both languages. But this cannot be found in constitutional texts. There are important criteria for appointing judges, for example, one must have been a member of the bar for 10 years, and so on. But since they have a great deal of leeway, they can, indirectly, enforce bilingualism by appointing bilingual judges. I think that is the way to go. If laws are passed in both languages, they must be interpreted in both languages.
And who interprets the statutes? The judges. So I think we must continue in this direction. For the time being, I see no other way around it. We must continue to raise issues relating to interpretation because the Official Languages Act is well drafted — and that is a fact — but the 1982 Constitution Act is even more important than the Official Languages Act. And we cannot change that. We cannot say: We are going to approach this slowly, carefully. I do not know. I am trying to respond to your concern, but I feel that we will have to continue to seek the help of the courts.
Ms. Adam: I would like to add a clarification while attempting to ensure that I have properly understood Senator Beaudoin. At the criminal level, the administrative courts must provide services in the language of choice of the person who is being heard. In criminal cases it would be the accused or, for other courts, those who are called to appear.
The obligation is real. These courts must provide a fair and equitable service to the Canadian public, so it is their duty to understand. This is not interpretation. The challenge, then, for some administrative tribunals, lies in the fact that some of them have few members; if there are only three members, and only one is bilingual, it will be difficult for the tribunal as a whole to properly serve the Canadian public in a fair and equitable way.
Our recommendation to the government and to those who are responsible for the appointments is to ensure that, as a group, each administrative tribunal is able to provide the same services in each of the official languages. That is clearly stated in the act. Of course, the Supreme Court is different because it is exempt from having to hear a case in English or in French without the help of interpreters. Therefore, my recommendation to the government involves mostly the federal tribunals and superior courts.
Senator Beaudoin: There are nine judges on the Supreme Court. I remember that when I began my law career, the nine judges were not bilingual. Some were bilingual, others were not. In today's world, with all of the cases that are brought before the Supreme Court, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is an important area, as well as in the field of criminal law which is also very important, I cannot understand how a judge could not operate in both languages.
In the case of criminal proceedings, people used to say: "The important thing is to have access to interpretation during a criminal trial." That does not make sense, in my humble opinion. When someone is arguing a criminal case and questions the witness, who is then cross-examined by the other lawyer, you destroy the fine British-inspired criminal justice system. It is important to cross-examine witnesses. And if you wait for the interpreter to understand the question that has been asked, it is much too late. It makes no sense. This does not suit the criminal trials very well.
There are at least two areas in which bilingualism must be extended further: in criminal cases and in cases having to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I do not think it is asking too much of these individuals who have the talent required to be on these high courts to have in addition the talent to understand our two languages. That is not in the Constitution. They are not required to do this, and they could say that there is no provision in the Constitution that we must be bilingual. However, the Constitution does provide, for example, that the judicial authority has the last word, and it does interpret bilingual law. I think that logically, these individuals should understand the two languages. That is my view.
[English]
Senator Keon: I want to take you back to the ministerial reference group that you feel is not functioning at its optimum or maximum. I would like you to expand on the way they are functioning now and why you say they would function much better if they had the status of a permanent committee.
Ms. Adam: I made that recommendation two years ago. Twice in as many years that I have recommended that the government make it a permanent committee. My reasoning is as follows.
There seems to be a problem in managing the linguistic duality in official languages file or dossier because it is a horizontal issue. It crosses all departments and all agencies — even those that are not under the authority of Treasury Board — even private companies such as Air Canada. We need to ensure that not only the administrative arm of the federal apparatus but also the governmental or political arm have a concerted and focused view on what needs to be done.
For me, it was important that the decision-makers, at the level of deputy minister, have their own committee of deputy ministers on issues linked to official languages so they have a concerted and cohesive approach to management of official languages and ensuring full respect of the Official Languages Act.
However, we needed the same approach for the political arm of the federal apparatus so that this is not put on the backburner, because there are other priorities of the current government, or any government. Official languages, although it is an issue that has been with us now for 36 years now, is still a work in progress. Because it is not new and not as fashionable as it was in the 1960s, it is easy to forget. Therefore, you have to have a way of keeping it on the radar screen of the decision-makers. This would mean not only one individual, but a group that has the critical mass needed to push this agenda, because there is resistance to such an issue.
It was very important for me that the Prime Minister or the government create an atmosphere of a think tank and that those decision-makers think about this issue and push it and ensure progress, because it will not happen on its own.
Senator Keon: Obviously this group, at the present time, is a rather ad hoc group that meets when it suits.
Ms. Adam: Yes.
Senator Keon: Have they not been meeting? I appreciate your point that you want a regular agenda with milestones, et cetera. Have they not been meeting?
Ms. Adam: The commissioner is arm's length of the government. I may be informed, but I do not know. I know they met recently, but I have no idea whether they meet on a regular basis. That is why I think it has to be permanent. It is not something that should be ad hoc. It should be regular, and monitoring should be done at that level.
My office monitors how federal government institutions deliver on the Official Languages Act. The decision-makers and those responsible for delivery have to do their own monitoring and ensure that proper actions are being taken on a regular basis toward the advancement of official languages in the federal apparatus. I would rather have people doing their own monitoring, and then we can evaluate or audit. It has to start at the top.
Senator Keon: I understand.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: I would like to tell you that so far, the reference group does not exist. It has not been re- established. There is a group that looks after official languages, but heaven only knows who is on that committee. I tried to find that out today. I called Ms. Claire Maurice, and I still have not had a reply. People tell me that I have to submit a request in writing.
Last year, the Prime Minister told me that this was a matter of cabinet confidence. He told me on July 25: "I regret to confirm that the list of members of the Ministerial Reference Group on Official Languages cannot be made public." I did not understand what was going on. I called regularly to find out whether or not this group or committee had been re-established. I was told: "No, now it is the official languages." I said: "It is a mess. Who is in charge?" The minister responsible for this matter is Mr. Pettigrew. The minister is actually Mr. Coderre. The minister who is working on this is supposed to be Ms. Scherrer.
It is also time the Minister of Justice woke up as well and told us what is going on here. I am rather negative on this point, and I think I am quite right. Everything is all confused. No one knows where they are heading.
[English]
Senator Keon is absolutely right. If they do not and cannot meet, they no longer exist.
[Translation]
Ms. Adam: I would just like to provide you with one piece of information. Since in our most recent annual report we made some recommendations to the government, we asked the government to keep us informed about the progress made during the first year of the action plan. I think Minister Pettigrew will be replying on behalf of the government. He will be collecting all the information and should be submitting to the commissioner's office the information we require for inclusion in our 2003-2004 annual report.
Senator Léger: I am pleased to see you again, Ms. Adam. My question is about education. Are there any diagrams available — and they would have to be more visual and not too explanatory — that show the progress that has been made in this country in the last 30 years, in both the public service and in the country as a whole? Is there any such material available that I may not be aware of? Has any progress been made? Can this be illustrated?
Second, I am wondering about the teaching methods used. Is it your office's role to question the methods used and the results obtained? I am wondering about the methods used. Is this part of the mandate of the commissioner's office?
Third, what happened in the city of Moncton in three years might be helpful to Ottawa. What happened was incredible.
You said that there is tremendous resistance. Has that resistance been declining over the past 30 years? It is tangible?
I come back to my first question; the public service should indeed be the model to work from, and that is where we are trying to move things forward. The action plan is calling for the proportion of eligible students — since the whole country is not eligible — among all Canadian citizens, including aboriginal people, registered in francophone schools, to rise from 68 per cent to 80 per cent over the next 10 years, and for the proportion of bilingual graduates to double from 24 per cent to 50 per cent over the next 30 years.
I know that we have major obstacles to overcome, but I am wondering whether there are any tangible results that I could be proud of and that would show the progress that we have made and the value of work in the area of official languages.
Ms. Adam: There are success stories, many, in fact, in the official languages field. The commissioner is a little like the Auditor General. Even when the Auditor General is successful in her work, what people remember are the problems.
To come back to your need for a document that could give you a quick list of successes, the Office of the Commissioner published a document a few years ago, when we celebrated our 30th anniversary, that gave a sort of chronology of the progress that had been achieved. It covered various areas, including education. The document did not go into the numbers — although there are a few — and concentrated instead on gains in areas such as justice, which we were talking about earlier, education, and the public service, which is much more bilingual. I can send you a copy of that.
With respect to teaching methods, language teaching, particularly in the classroom, is under provincial jurisdiction, as we know. The Office of the Commissioner looks carefully at research on minority education, for example, homogeneous models as opposed to bilingual models. That is the kind of study that the office could have done in earlier years. Right now, the most recent study that we have done was on the number of young people eligible for education in the minority language and the difficulty our schools have in achieving full participation of those eligible.
Two or three years ago, we published a study which talked about recruitment strategy and community issues in the hope that school boards and schools responsible for recruiting students in our minority language schools would take these data and use them to adjust their approach and their actions.
So the Office of the Commissioner can play a role as a promoter and educator and as a facilitator. In those cases, it does not have the same role as in the federal apparatus. As for what happened in Moncton, I think that it comes down to one thing, and we spoke about this earlier, which is political will.
Part VII could be interpreted as binding if the government decided to interpret it that way. That is up to decision- makers and elected members. There was or still is one type of recourse; the Attorney General of Canada says that this part of the act is not binding. He has said this publicly before the courts. That is a choice that the government has made. It is not what I and others would like to see. That is why we have gone to court. It is also why the Office of the Commissioner needs funding in its budget for court interventions, since this is one of the roles we must exercise and we will do so as often as necessary. But we do not do so by choice.
As for resistance, when I refer to "resistance" I am talking about the issue of official languages, or of official languages within the federal public service — there is always a certain degree of resistance. Please understand that this is not always active resistance. Take the idea, for instance, of integrating official languages in the place of work within federal institutions. It is completely normal for people to take the path of least resistance, that is, to do as the majority does. Everyone understands one language, so it is easier and faster to communicate in that language. But that is when it becomes important to create an environment in which people feel free to speak in both official languages, which are equal, and to support that choice. This means that people in positions of authority must constantly work at creating such an environment. Of course it is normal to adapt to the majority, to the factors that blind the group.
As for the question which was asked a little earlier with regard to doubling the number of bilingual youth, that is a ten-year objective. Is it attainable? Yes, because provincial governments, with the help of the federal government, have greatly invested in the teaching of official languages. There are now more young people who speak both languages. We have to stay on course and even become more aggressive in our approach.
I recommend that you read the study published by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada, which was just published at the end of March. According to the study, in the last 30 years Canadians have become much more attached to their official languages. Canadians feel it is part of their identity, whether they are bilingual or not. It is part of our values. The same holds true for new immigrants. These languages have to be accessible to all young people.
Senator Léger: Of course, when you become bilingual, you become free. You can choose either French or English. That is one of the assets of being bilingual. If you can speak English, you are free. It is not just a question of choosing the path of least resistance. Do public servants who take language training within government become bilingual?
Ms. Adam: The vast majority of people pass. But I am not interested in the tests, because they are not required by law. Under the law, Canadians have the right to be served in both official languages and to have access to the same quality of service, be it in English or in French. Those are the results we look for: whether employees have the right to work in the language of their choice and whether they actually do so. Employees need a range of tools at their disposal to work in the language of their choice and to be supervised in this language. I am not interested in whether the supervisor has passed a language test, but whether the supervisor is able to supervise his or her employees in the language of their choice, and whether the supervisor can speak that language. That is what is really at issue. We will soon be publishing a study on the language of work. The study will reveal that we have not yet created conditions conducive to employees freely speaking either official language within our federal institutions.
Senator Gauthier: If every federal institution is to undergo a language audit, including officers of Parliament, who will be the language auditor within the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages?
Ms. Adam: When we receive complaints against the Office of the Commissioner with regard to official languages, and they come to us both internally and from the outside, we always distance ourselves so as not to be judge and dependant. Rather, we call upon another commissioner, who is also an officer of Parliament, to investigate and decide on the issue.
Senator Gauthier: There are two official languages committees in Parliament. You are the only commissioner for these two committees, one from the Senate and one from the House of Commons. Perhaps you can ask either committee to look into your operation from time to time. Could you also send us an organizational chart of your office as it now exists?
Ms. Adam: It is on our web site.
Senator Gauthier: I have a supplementary to the question I asked earlier. Who amongst those people still has the linguistic intelligence of their position?
Ms. Adam: Every position within the Office of the Commissioner is bilingual.
Senator Gauthier: I would also like to receive a list of the regional staff of the Office of the Commissioner.
Ms. Adam: I have been told that we may have to look into the privacy rights of the staff if you want their names.
Senator Gauthier: In that case, I am interested in the classification of the positions.
Ms. Adam: We can give you the titles for each category, and so on.
Senator Gauthier: The number of the employees also increased from 145 to 162 last year. You said that this increase would be spread out over several years. You were asked whether officers of Parliament were subject to the Access to Information Act. Ms. Adam, would you be willing to abide by the Access to Information Act, except for cases where confidentiality is required?
Ms. Adam: We were already consulted on that matter when Privy Council undertook that process last year. I believe that the Minister of Justice had asked for our opinion. Whatever the case may be, the government had undertaken a formal process and we had agreed to abide by the Access to Information Act. Of course, our inquiries remain confidential, as do, indeed, all the legal opinions.
Senator Gauthier: The law clearly states that if you ask cabinet, cabinet must grant that request. But once you are in the club, you cannot get out.
Ms. Adam: I do not foresee any problems for my office. In fact, I gave the chairman of both the Senate and the House of Commons committees my travel and hospitality expenses from last year. That is in the public domain. I believe that the deputy minister, Mr. Judd, has asked all deputy ministers and their counterparts to do exactly that, and even to post expenses on the web. I have no problem with that.
Senator Gauthier: Under Part VII of the current act, as regards legal action, you are excluded from participating in any legal action taken with respect to Part VII of the act. Is that correct?
Ms. Johanne Tremblay, General Counsel and Director, Legal Services Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Under the act, the commissioner has the right to intervene in any case which affects the status of French and English. Legal action can be taken, in certain cases, under Part VII. The Forum des maires has invoked Part VII in its suit, which is ongoing, and the commissioner will take the appropriate measures; it is no different from the legal action which was taken with regard to electoral boundaries, which also refers to Part VII. This action was not taken under the act, but under the Federal Court Act, and the commissioner has received authorization to intervene in this matter.
Senator Gauthier: I do not have a copy of the act, but there is a section which excludes Part VII from any legal action taken by the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Ms. Tremblay: Yes, you are right, under the Federal Court Act which refers to a breach of Part VII, the law does not provide for that.
Senator Gauthier: Section 18 is clear. I am not referring to that, but to the Official Languages Act. You are excluded, you do not have the right to participate.
Ms. Tremblay: There is no possible legal action under the Official Languages Act for breaches to Part VII; you are right on that point.
Senator Gauthier: Why?
Ms. Tremblay: Because no recourse is provided for under the act.
Senator Gauthier: I was always told that I was wrong in that regard.
Ms. Tremblay: I would like to draw your attention to section 77 of the act which is very clear.
[English]
Senator Munson: Commissioner, I am the new kid on the block here, but I think I have been around a long time. In the early days, as a reporter, I covered the work of Keith Spicer. He used colourful commentary in his reports. He seemed to know how to make a headline and how to spoon-feed a young journalist like myself over the three or four years I was there. He seemed to make the country care about official bilingualism.
Keeping that in mind — and you may speak straight from the heart, to borrow a phrase — I have two serious questions. Do Treasury Board's new policies on official languages meet your expectations for the advancement of linguistic duality within the public service? What means can be used to measure the federal government's commitment to changing the mindset in the public service about official languages? Please speak straight from your heart.
Ms. Adam: Does the current policy and the changes to that policy meet my expectations? No, they do not go far enough. For example, I do believe — and I am speaking from the heart but also from a clinical psychology perspective — that if you want people to behave in a certain way, you must be very clear about the expectations. We are all very adaptable. We will adapt.
The problem is that the current situation is full of ambiguity. For example, the deputy ministers and the associate deputy ministers currently have no formal obligation to be bilingual. The EX positions are obliged to be bilingual because they either provide service to the public or are supervising people who have the right to work in the language of their choice in a bilingual region; yet, we do not apply that obligation to the top levels.
That ambiguity challenges the credibility of the program. That is only one example. If we are committed to the objectives, we must be very clear and not ambiguous. That does not mean one cannot set a realistic course of action to ensure the same obligation for bilingualism exists wherever.
Federal institutions require what I call a culture change. A piece of legislation is about regulations, objectives, setting out both the spirit and the letter of the act. However, we are talking here about the behaviour of people who work together as a team on a daily basis in one environment. We are governing interpersonal space and entering into issues of group dynamics on a daily basis, issues that are not governed by legislation. Anyone who has administered human resources knows that if you want your staff to behave in an ethical way, you had better behave that way yourself. That is the first lesson. It is the same with official languages. If you want people to use their language and to more or less express their own rights, you must create an environment where that is possible. It starts with you at the top, with how you behave and how you relate to this issue. It is not about what you say once in a while, in a meeting or at the Christmas party; it is about how you behave on a daily basis. Is your behaviour in line with policy and regulations? Any discrepancy will send a message to your employees that this is not really serious or, yes, this is serious, according to how you act.
Our studies have repeatedly shown that this is the main factor. You have to be consistent, like any good parent; consistent with the spirit and the letter of the act and the behaviour of authority.
Senator Munson: Thank you very much. Christmas parties are dangerous.
[Translation]
Senator Beaudoin: Obviously it costs you money when you have to go before the courts. Does this funding come from your budget, or is there a mechanism within the government that provides for recourse to the courts? These situations may sometimes happen suddenly. Not everything in life is foreseeable. It would be nice if it were. Do the financial resources from this always come out of your budget, or is there a catch-all budget, so to speak?
Ms. Adam: I presume the Department of Justice or the government can draw on the consolidated revenue fund. However, that is not true of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We must function within our budget.
Senator Beaudoin: What do you do if you encounter a problem and have to go to court?
Ms. Adam: Like any self-respecting general manager, I must then look at the other issues and all of my responsibility in the context of my budget. I may temporarily change the way in which the funds are used. For example, if we double the number of court interventions in a year, we may consider delaying a particular study for us to do this. We must therefore maintain some balance in the way we manage our budget.
The Chairman: Unfortunately, time is moving along, and we still have a number of questions left. Consequently, I would invite senators to send their questions to the Commissioner in writing.
I would like to thank Ms. Adam and her staff. It is always a pleasure for us to have them with us.
Senator Beaudoin: Madam Chair, did you invite us to table our questions with you or with the commissioner?
The Chairman: I would invite you to proceed as you see fit.
The second point on our agenda is Bill S-4, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act, which has been put forward by Senator Gauthier.
Senator Gauthier will start by giving us a brief overview of the bill, after which we will proceed with the clause-by- clause study.
Senator Beaudoin: In her testimony today, the Commissioner of Official Languages made a comment that I liked very much.
The time has come to act, and the legislative route seems to me to be the most appropriate. It is my hope that Senator Gauthier's Bill S-4, intended to clearly confirm the government's obligation and to specify that Part VII is not limited to a political commitment, will soon be sent to the House of Commons.
That would be strong support. I have appeared before this committee three times during three different sessions of Parliament.
I brought forward Bill S-32 during the first session of the 37th Parliament. It was passed at second reading, and then sent to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, where it received serious study. The committee heard from 30 witnesses and held 8 meetings. In the end, Parliament was prorogued, and the bill died.
I came back, and used as my basis some of the recommendations made by my colleague Senator Beaudoin and a number of experts on the Constitution and the official languages area. I adopted almost all the recommendations made by the Commissioner of Official Languages and I included them in Bill S-11. Once again, the bill was passed at second reading, and then sent to a committee for study. Once again, Parliament prorogued.
This is now the third session of the 37th Parliament. I am therefore tabling Bill S-4, which is similar to Bill S-11, which I tabled earlier.
I have not made any changes whatsoever to the bill, because it is good as it stands. The bill was passed previously by the committee studying it.
Consequently, I humbly submit that it is high time this committee take action and agree to send this bill to the House of Commons at third reading, without amendment, so that it can be done immediately, once the bill is tabled next week.
The Chairman: You have the document before you. You can see Bill S-4 on the left. The three clauses of the bill are amendments to the act.
Do you agree that this committee should begin its clause-by-clause study of Bill S-4?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: We will come back to the title once we have gone through the clauses. Do you agree that we suspend the adoption of the title?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall this bill be carried without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall I report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
Senator Munson: Senator Gauthier, based on your experience, how long would this take once it gets back to the Senate and goes back into the House of Commons? In other words, can this be a reality? We have seen these things over the years.
Senator Gauthier: If the bill comes back to the house with no amendments, it goes into third reading immediately. Third reading will take place, and after that it goes to the House of Commons.
Senator Munson: How long would it take in the House of Commons?
Senator Gauthier: We will cross that bridge when we get to it — or we will jump off the bridge. I do not know what will happen.
Senator Beaudoin: We will cross the bridge when we come to it.
Senator Munson: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Everything should happen quite quickly in the Senate. The bill will then be sent to the House of Commons.
[English]
Are there any questions for Senator Gauthier?
[Translation]
We come now to the third item on the agenda, review of the draft budget. We have to ask for some funds to enable us to hold our meetings between now and the end of March. You have the estimates before you.
Senator Beaudoin: There has been almost no change to the budget.
Mr. Thompson: The budget is limited.
Senator Beaudoin: It is limited, but it has not been increased very much.
Mr. Thompson: It is only for the month of March.
Senator Beaudoin: Just until the end of the fiscal year? Only 30 days?
The Chairman: Until the end of March.
Senator Gauthier: I would like to speak about an event that I am very interested in. This year New Brunswick will be celebrating the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the great explorer, Samuel de Champlain. I think the committee should send a delegation, not the whole committee, but the chair and a few other interested members, so that there is a presence from the federal Parliament at this event. We attach a great deal of importance to the official languages, and it would be good to request a small budget to cover the transportation and other costs involved for a trip of a few days.
The Chairman: When will that be? This summer?
Senator Léger: Are you talking about the federal opening of the 400th anniversary? That will happen on June 26, in Ste-Croix, Bayside, Red Bank and Maine.
The Chairman: Do you agree to discuss it? We still have two other meetings in March, one of which will focus on what we will do next year with the study we began on education. This study will be included in next year's budget. We could speak about this matter as well. Would that be all right?
Senator Gauthier: I would suggest that you ask our researcher to prepare a document on this to tell us what will be happening and to determine whether it would be possible for some of us to attend this event.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Léger: I will be there on my own behalf in any case.
The Chairman: We will discuss this at a future meeting and our researcher will prepare a brief document on this for us.
Would someone like to move the budget we are requesting, a sum of about $4,000?
Moved by Senator Keon, seconded by Senator Beaudoin. The motion is carried, honourable senators.
The meeting is adjourned.