Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 4 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, May 10, 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 upon 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: To start, I would like to welcome our guests. We have a very busy agenda.
Madam Commissioner, it is always a pleasure to welcome you to discuss the many issues you are advancing for minorities.
You have three reports you would like to tell us about, but we unfortunately have to focus on bilingual services in federal businesses and buildings. But you have two other reports you would like to tell us about.
Ms. Dyane Adam, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: I would like to speak briefly about three reports, since, since our last appearance, we have published an initial audit which was conducted by the Office of Canada Post Corporation, as well as two studies.
I will take this opportunity to introduce my two colleagues. To my right, Gilbert Langelier, Director of Special Investigations, and, of course, Gérard Finn, Senior Advisor to the Commissioner.
[English]
First, with respect to the audit of Canada Post, audits, as you know, allow us to provide Parliament with an objective evaluation of the status of the official languages in institutions, subject to the Official Languages Act. They also provide institutions with an external appraisal critical to the continuous improvement of their performance. The Canada Post audit pertained to service at postal outlets. The corporation manages 7,000 postal service points throughout the country, about 800 of which are designated bilingual. A number of them are dealer outlets operated by third parties on behalf of Canada Post. Every year, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, OCOL, receives complaints from clients using bilingual service counters who have difficulty obtaining services in their official language.
During this audit, OCOL officials met with Canada Post managers at various levels and audited 64 corporate and dealer outlets in six regions across the country, of which 36 are dealer outlets and 28 were corporate service counters. Finally, the team reviewed policies, documentation, key reports and the procedures implemented to oversee postal outlets. This audit yielded some positive findings. In terms of its management framework, the corporation has an official language policy that complies with the act and the regulations. It communicates the policy's requirements to staff responsible for postal outlets and to its partners operating dealer outlets. It has also implemented a number of mechanisms to monitor compliance with these requirements.
[Translation]
These administrative measures are, however, not always sufficient to provide service of equal quality in both official languages. In our sample of 64 corporate and dealer outlets designated bilingual, one out of four did not offer service of equal quality in both official languages. The results varied widely among the regions visited. With regard to service provided in person, the results ranged from 100 per cent of service points meeting language requirements in the Eastern Townships of Quebec to only 50 per cent in Alberta. Moreover, there are significant gaps between the service offered at Canada Post outlets and that offered at dealer outlets.
While one in five Canada Post outlets could not provide service of equal quality in both languages, nearly one third of dealer outlets were unable to do so. However, it is worth mentioning that in four out of six provinces audited, in person service provided by dealer outlets was either equivalent or superior to that of corporate outlets.
Canadians rely on the services offered by Canada Post and the Corporation must take the necessary measures to provide services of equal quality in both languages.
I have therefore issued fourteen recommendations to help Canada Post better serve the Canadian public in both official languages.
The Corporation must in particular review its interaction with dealer operators to ensure that they are in line with their linguistic service obligations and responsibilities. Monitoring mechanisms should be enhanced in this regard. In terms of services, the Corporation should also take the necessary measures to ensure that the public can readily locate outlets offering service in the official language of their choice.
I wish to emphasize that Canada Post was extremely cooperative. The Corporation acknowledged the shortcomings in service in both official languages and committed to addressing them. Moreover, while this is not directly related to our audit, I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate Canada Post for deciding to maintain bilingual service at over 60 offices that would have lost their bilingual designation based on the 2001 census data.
In accordance with our audit policy, we will conduct a follow-up in 12 to 18 months to evaluate the implementation of our recommendations. Given their commitment, we expect to see clear improvements in Canada Post's performance.
After having reinstated this audit function, we wish to conduct three more major audits in 2004-2005. In the coming years, we intend to increase this number to four, while also conducting the required follow-ups.
Now let us switch to another subject, which I believe will be of greater interest to you today.
[English]
Regarding the study on commercial leases for federal buildings, for a number of years, the availability of bilingual services at these businesses has been a source of concern to the public and parliamentarians alike. Under the act, the federal government is required to include language-related clauses in its commercial leases in the National Capital Region to inform its tenants of their official language obligations and to ensure that these provisions are upheld. In the National Capital Region as a whole, however, 41 per cent of the 207 businesses audited as part of this study had clauses in their lease requiring them to have bilingual signage and to offer bilingual services. This percentage was 78 per cent for leases for which the National Capital Commission was responsible, compared to only 18 per cent for those that fall under the responsibility of Public Works and Government Services Canada. The study also highlights the poor performance of businesses located in federal buildings located in Ottawa when it comes to providing bilingual service. For over half the businesses audited, written material, namely, signage, menus, promotional material and Web sites, was in English only. While service for the telephone and in person is somewhat better, at 70 per cent and 60 per cent respectively, the results are still unacceptable.
Businesses occupying federal buildings in Gatineau provided, in this case, exemplary services over the telephone and in person, and written material was overwhelmingly bilingual. The results on the Ottawa side are disappointing. This is a long-standing problem. In fact, the joint standing committee on official languages already considered this matter in 1997 and made a number of recommendations in this regard. They were more or less republished in our own study in the appendices.
To address the shortcomings, I made recommendations to the National Capital Commission, Canadian Heritage and Public Works and Government Services Canada. You can appreciate that this not only involves the federal government's legal obligation, but it is also a matter of respect for both official language communities in the capital region, and for Canadians and others visiting our region.
[Translation]
The third article concerns our second study, which was released on March 29. That study examined the issue of language of work in federal institutions in the National Capital Region.
With more than 460,000 employees working for departments and organisations subject to the Official Languages Act, the federal government is the country's largest bilingual employer. In regions designated bilingual, such as the National Capital Region, employees in bilingual positions have the right to express themselves, be supervised and have access to working tools and internal services in the official language of their choice.
It should be noted that some progress has been made with respect to language of work in the last fifteen years. French is nevertheless still underused, as shown by two recent Treasury Board studies. In bilingual workplaces, for instance, anglophones speak French 14 per cent of the time while francophones speak English 43 per cent of the time.
The purpose of our study was to go beyond this simple, well-documented finding in order to better understand the socio-linguistic environment and the intercultural dynamics that characterize a bilingual workplace. We sought to identify the factors conducive to the full use of both official languages.
In particular, we noted a number of factors among francophone employees that lead to the underuse of their language, such as a better understanding of their second language as compared to their anglophone co-workers, a tendency to favour the supervisor's language, the perception that English is the language for career advancement and, lastly, a lack of availability of working tools in French. The result is a highly disturbing degree of professional assimilation.
[English]
Anglophone employees are, for their part, exposed to an organizational culture that leads them to use English more often than they might wish. They have in fact indicated that they lack the necessary training to become functionally bilingual and feel that this limits their advancement opportunities.
Our study also shows that the language training offered to anglophone managers is insufficient to allow them to supervise staff in French, which, in turn, has a significant impact on the language used by employees. That is why one in four francophones feels that their work must be done in English.
Therefore, I have made 10 recommendations to address this issue. I also propose a management framework that would highlight and fully recognize the official languages in the workplace. This framework rests on three priorities. The first is clear and consistent leadership; in other words, managers must set an example. The second priority involves the strengthening of individual abilities through training as well as by ensuring that the workplace allows recently trained employees to practise and use their language skills. The third priority involves strengthening institutional capacity, because language training and tests must not be an end in themselves. The next step is to encourage and support the daily use of both languages. In addition, to increase senior management accountability, the actual use of the language and the adoption of concrete measures to foster a bilingual workplace must be among the criteria used for performance evaluations and in promoting senior officials.
In the next two or three years, we will also turn our attention to other bilingual regions in the country. The socio- linguistic context in Montreal may, for instance, differ from that of the National Capital Region or New Brunswick. Moreover, the working environment in a Crown corporation may differ considerably from that in a department. In addition, it should also be noted that over half the employees of institutions subjected to the act work for Crown corporations and privatized agencies. This, therefore, requires closer examination.
[Translation]
I would like to end my remarks by touching on a current issue that may have an impact on the linguistic rights of the travelling public.
I am referring of course to the future of Air Canada. For some time now, I have been concerned about whether Air Canada would continue to comply with its linguistic obligations, in light of its restructuring. We are following these developments very closely.
Canadians expect their rights to be respected and any relaxing of Air Canada's linguistic obligations would be unacceptable. This has been the government's position until now, and I would hope that it will be maintained. The proposal to subject Air Canada's main competitors to the same business conditions could be interesting, as long as there is no reduction in the bilingual services provided by Air Canada. The matter of competitive equilibrium among carriers is a complex issue that the federal government will eventually need to examine. Obviously, this equilibrium must be achieved without the language rights of Canadians being infringed.
I am seeking your support to help me monitor and move ahead on these matters, in particular by meeting periodically with the appropriate ministers and senior officials, as you will subsequently be doing for the study on leases. This would be a means for you to encourage accountability among the institutions in question. More specifically, with regard to language of work, I invite you to meet with those in charge of the new agency to identify potential solutions relating to our linguistic objectives. The establishment of new institutions such as the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency and the School of Public Service provides an opportunity to modernize practices and make changes to programs. Consideration must be given not only to language training but also to the training of officials in the management of a bilingual workplace. On another note, it would also be helpful to analyze the models used in other countries to optimize our efforts.
Thank you again for your commitment and you can be assured of my full cooperation.
Senator Gauthier: I was not expecting to hear about Post Canada this evening. I unfortunately did not have the time to read the document we were sent this afternoon. I have filed complaints about service on a number of occasions, and part of the investigation probably resulted from those complaints.
You refer in your report to leases in the National Capital Region. I would like all leases in federal buildings owned by Canadians to have language clauses in the case of commercial tenants, persons operating stores for tourists or others. Those persons must know that, in Halifax, Vancouver and Ottawa, we are required by law, by the contracts we sign, to respect the two official languages and to provide service where it is possible to do so.
The current debate concerns the actual scope of Part VII, which some take more seriously than others. All that may shape the commitments and behaviour of our federal institutions.
In this case, two institutions, Public Works and Canadian Heritage, have proven to be very open to our recommendations and want to make a commitment to improving the situation. They believe it is important to inform, oversee and ensure that active measures are actually taken so that the Canadian public and visitors are able to receive bilingual services.
It is also important to recognize that, with the direct contribution that the federal government can easily make, the face of the National Capital will be more bilingual than it is at the present time.
Senator Maheu: Air Canada could decide to listen to those who encourage it to disregard the recommendation that a bilingual person be put on every one of its flights. If that were the case, I would ask you to monitor that file very closely because I believe we would witness a terrible scene in the government if such a thing occurred.
My second comment concerns language training and official language exams in the public service. This used to be a genuine farce. Anyone could be considered bilingual.
Has the quality of services improved today? Has the language training of anglophone managers who have trouble working in French improved?
Ms. Adam: We did not look into the matter of language training or that of quality of service. This will henceforth be the responsibility of the Public Service Commission, which will be responsible for testing. The new school will be responsible for language training.
Language training professionals have designed the courses and tests. I must say that we have not really checked the quality of courses and tests.
Senator Léger: I cannot wait for the day when being bilingual will be natural. That will not happen tomorrow, but, this morning, there was a children's choir singing in both languages. I have to admit I had trouble singing the English part because I did not know it. It must be said that young people are increasingly bilingual, but not everything has been done.
You said that progress had been made on language of work, but that French is still underutilized. You also said that leadership in the public service was inadequate. Could anglophones who understand and speak French require that half the day take place in French and the other half in English? Are they required to speak both languages?
Ms. Adam: I am not sure I understand your question.
Senator Léger: There are anglophones who pass tests in French as a second language. They could require that one half of the day take place in French and the other half in English. With proper leadership, could that happen?
Ms. Adam: The key element in complying with the Act is still based on the supervisor, the manager or the senior manager. In the federal institutions, managers must ensure that the employees under their supervision are able to use the language of their choice.
It depends on the linguistic make-up of their institutions. Arrangements may differ by work context. For example, if anglophones and/or francophones around the same table understand what is being said, the meeting can be conducted by alternating between the two official languages.
However, if some absolutely do not understand what is being said, and there is no simultaneous interpretation, the manager must then find a linguistic arrangement enabling people to speak in the language of their choice. What is said can be translated. So that requires a specific linguistic arrangement.
Of course, since compliance with the Act depends on managers, they should be required to have the greatest linguistic competence. The study showed that the most important factor determining whether Francophones use French is almost directly related to supervisors' linguistic proficiency in French.
Senator Léger: Does every federal employee have to be bilingual?
Ms. Adam: No, roughly 35 per cent must be; that is only people who have designated bilingual positions.
Senator Léger: A lot of employees complain that they don't have the opportunity to use the knowledge they have acquired. They are happy to take language training but rarely have the opportunity to put what they have learned into practice.
Ms. Adam: The Anglophones who took part in our study told us exactly the same thing. They would like to use French more, but they do not meet conditions favourable to the use of that language. Perhaps they feel they have not become proficient enough to speak the language or that the environment is not conducive to that. Often, time is short and they have to write quickly and speak quickly. All that results in the easiest solution, that is to say the use of the language that is easiest for people.
Senator Léger: If I understood correctly, the person took French courses throughout the month of January. That person wanted to take those courses. Where are the gyms where people could shout in French in order to be heard? That could be done after the courses, not just during them.
Ms. Adam: You are proposing workplace measures or actions promoting the use of the second language or French, in this case, in the National Capital Region. That is precisely what we are proposing. Language tests and training are not an end in themselves. For example, taking golf lessons and hitting golf balls off the practice tee but never playing on the golf course are two different things. I believe that the persons responsible are considering other ways — and I mean considering — of leading people to master their second language skills.
For example, learning in the workplace rather than in the classroom, or, at least, having a training component in the workplace. We know that, for most skills, linguistic or other, you often have to practise them in the workplace. This question is currently being examined by the departments and institutions responsible, and, right now, we are talking about the Public Service Commission, the Human Resources Agency, and I know that the School is also looking into this question.
Senator Léger: I have another question regarding Air Canada. I have been very pleased a number of times by what I hear. It was announced to us today that Air Canada can provide service in five languages: English, French and also other languages such as Chinese and so on. I thought that must surely be our bilingualism of the future.
[English]
Senator Keon: Thank you very much, Ms. Adam, for your appearance here and for the quality of your work. I do congratulate you.
I should like to take issue with what you said about the lack of leadership in such organizations as the National Capital Commission, the Department of Heritage and the Post Office with regard to providing and then sustaining the linguistic duality of Canada. I do not think it is the fault of the people in these departments. As I have told you before, I lived this for 30 years as a health administrator. I did retire with equal numbers of francophone and anglophone doctors in the institution that I led. However, I can tell you that the struggle to recruit an equal number of francophone doctors to anglophone doctors was tremendous and expensive. Despite my good relations with federal and provincial governments, the institution could never, never be properly reimbursed for this.
I come back to Air Canada. The axe is coming down now on Air Canada. The general public is saying that Air Canada must get its act together and perform up to the same economic standards as everybody else. It must compete with Cathay Pacific Airways internationally and with the little airlines locally.
Unless there is a commitment on the part of government to pay for the implementation of whatever is necessary to sustain the linguistic duality and the bilingualism of Air Canada and separate that out from the overall budget, there will be a huge problem.
Despite, over the years, everybody paying lip service to this, they are not prepared to do that. There are people complaining about what we have spent on our bilingual programs. However, when you come down to the bottom line, the leaders and managers in the various areas cannot sustain this without sacrificing major portions of their own operating costs.
It is our responsibility; we are senators. In watching Senator Gauthier, I am convinced that you can say whatever you like and you cannot get fired. He has been leading a one-man campaign in this area and I am sorry that he will not be here next year. I think we in government are the people at fault. We must do this and we have to put dollar signs on it. I should like your comments.
Ms. Adam: The federal government should look at overall transportation, because it is under its jurisdiction, and determine what is the minimal bilingual service required, let us say, in the air. This is one message that I recently delivered to the Minister of Transport.
There is one thing, though. Air Canada, over the years, has not shown that having bilingual staff is more expensive than having unilingual staff. It is the same staff. What Air Canada has been confronted with in the past is the fact that the Official Languages Act was often seen as not being able to be respected because of union agreements. The staff that were most bilingual were often the most recently hired, and were laid off. While Air Canada was making progress in getting sufficient bilingual capacity to deliver service and meet the requirements of the act, in periods of restructuring or financial difficulty, it often had to lay off, because of union issues, its bilingual staff.
This is an area where we, at the OCOL, felt that the Official Languages Act has precedence over other legislation. It is even written in our own act. If you put aside the law concerning the human rights legislation, the Official Languages Act has precedence over other legislation.
This is an area that we could never get resolved with Air Canada, but I think many of its additional costs are linked to that issue. I agree with you when you talk about the responsibility of the federal government. With regard to security in all aircrafts, if all they have is a tape being played, if something happens and there is no one on the flight who can speak to the passengers in the two official languages, would that be a security issue? There is a way for the federal government, both under the Aeronautics Act as well as the Official Languages Act, to look into the issue of bilingual obligations in transportation.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: I want to pursue the questions and continue on about the action that you must take as Commissioner of Official Languages to follow up on these reports. First, I deplore the fact that we do not have more time to study those reports. We have a meeting from time to time and that's not really enough. What kind of follow-up has the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages given to the Official Languages Committee's eight 1997 recommendations, none of which was followed, and to the 13 recommendations that you're making today? That makes 21 recommendations in all. That is a lot of work! If you implement that, you'll need $200 million instead of $20 million.
Ms. Adam: There is no doubt in my mind that the Office is responsible for conducting follow-up and exercising pressure. The Commissioner, I must recall again, has a power of persuasion, of recommendation, but she needs other levers, of course, to induce the institutions to in fact follow those recommendations. In that respect, of course, I think your parliamentary action is fundamentally important.
As regards our follow-up, I will let my colleague who is responsible for audits and follow-up tell you, in somewhat greater detail, what we intend to do with regard to the study on leases in particular.
Mr. Langelier: First, we have already informed the three institutions concerned, and we have met with one, Public Works and Government Services, to tell them that we were going to conduct follow-up in approximately 12 months. So we have warned them. We are also going to meet with the people from the National Capital Commission and Canadian Heritage to inform them that we are going to conduct follow-up so that they can immediately take the recommendations into account instead of simply waiting for us to do the follow-up. We have really stressed the matter with the institutions. They have been warned that there will be follow-up.
At the time of the follow-up, we will go and meet with the managers of the three departments concerned once again. We will go and look at what they have done to implement the recommendations, and we will probably, though perhaps not as thoroughly, check with a number of businesses to see whether the situation has improved.
Senator Gauthier: Mr. Langelier, I do not want to interrupt you, but we made recommendations seven years ago. No follow-up has been done. Do not come and tell me you are going to conduct any in the next 12 months for the 21 recommendations you have now.
Mr. Langelier: Those recommendations by the committee were indeed made six or seven years ago.
Ms. Adam: It's because the Standing Joint Committee's recommendations are aimed at the government and the federal institutions concerned. I cannot talk about them because I was not there at the time, but the Office definitely could have conducted follow-up. Lastly, however, those who are accountable on this are the institutions themselves and the government. In the case of our study, which reviewed a number of recommendations by the Joint Committee, it could be said that there was a chance to do something between 1997 and 2003. We see improvements in some cases, but, in spite of everything, this is unacceptable.
We have to create the feeling within the federal institutions that they have to Act. They have to feel obliged to act and to comply with the Act. In my view, there are a lot of players: the government, parliamentarians who exercise their influence, the Commissioner who prods and regularly makes her recriminations known. There are also citizens. So it is a whole dynamic.
Senator Gauthier: You have gone to the heart of the matter: it is the ability of the departments or central agencies to set an example. When you have an act which is interpreted by some in the government as declaratory, civil servants say: it's simply declaratory; it is symbolic; we have no obligation to use both official languages, to promote them, to protect them and to develop them. I tried to do so with the bill. You supported it; it was Bill S-4. God knows I received letters from all kinds of people, who felt insulted because I dared talk about Part VII, the advancement of English and French, Canada's two official languages.
I have a brief question. I am told you referred to Public Works Canada earlier; in all these studies and reports you do, have you recently spoken to the National Capital Commission and Canadian Heritage? Can you give us a brief report on that?
Ms. Adam: As regards the National Capital Commission, and you'll note moreover that this is a new fact in these studies, we have the comments of the institutions. We didn't used to ask them to react to recommendations before even publishing them. The reason why we have done that is that, by involving them in the process, we believe we'll achieve better results. We allow the institutions to ``buy in'' so that they will respond. I met with the Minister of Public Works to discuss this matter, and, of course, my team also met with the administrative team. That study was of course covered by the media so that Canadian citizens could be informed of the situation.
So we are actually conducting meetings to raise their awareness, inform them and create this pressure of a duty that must be done.
Senator Gauthier: I thank you for that, but, in the National Capital Region, it is far from being exemplary for the rest of Canada when 18 per cent of leases signed by Public Works Canada do not have a language clause. If there is one, it is utterly disregarded. Go to Sparks Street, and I challenge you to find a sign in French. And yet it seems to me these are all federal buildings. I am talking about the north side, not the south side. Patience, I imagine, has its limits. Go and get angry once and say: the joke is over; linguistic duality is a serious matter.
Ms. Adam: I am not sure whether me getting mad will change anything, but it is important to persevere, not to let go, and to do as you do, Senator Gauthier. You're preaching to one of the converted. As regards the federal institutions, you will have the opportunity to gauge their commitment when they appear before you in the near future.
The Chairman: Thank you all very much for your work; as you can see, we're going to monitor this matter very closely.
The Chairman: We now welcome from the National Capital Commission, Mr. Marcel Beaudry, Chairman, and Ms. Gustafsson, Executive Director, Human Resources.
Mr. Marcel Beaudry, Chairman, National Capital Commission: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to present the National Capital Commission's roles and responsibilities regarding the application of the Official Languages Act and to address the recommendations from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages Report issued in March 2004.
The National Capital Commission is a Crown corporation created by Parliament in 1959 and is responsible for building Canada's Capital Region on behalf of all Canadians. Our mission is to make this region a symbol of pride and unity. In order to achieve this, I strongly believe that we must be ambassadors of Canada's official languages which are at the heart of our nation.
We are committed not only to applying the Official Languages Act to all our sectors of operation, but also to preserving our two official languages in Canada's Capital Region. In the delivery of our mandate, the importance of bilingualism transpires in all aspects of our day-to-day operations.
[English]
The NCC presents the National Capital Region to visitors as a place to experience Canadian heritage, culture and achievement through varied services, events and programs. Our public programs and services are not simply offered in both official languages but are described to reflect the cultural diversity and linguistic uniqueness of our region and of our country.
Great attention is given to staging events and activities on both sides of the Ottawa River and to offering visitors an opportunity to experience and discover Canada's cultural diversity. The NCC is a leader in providing service to the public in both official languages. The Capital Contact Centre, the Capital Infocentre the Gatineau Park Visitor Centre and sites such as the Canada and the World Pavilion continue to be models of exceptional visitor service in both official languages. Our publications, promotional material and information available to visitors, including the NCC's Web site, are bilingual.
In addition, NCC festivals are marketed nationally to attract visitors to the capital region, and, whenever possible, celebrations are televised nationally by means of French and English media. Special efforts are also made to reach linguistic minorities across Canada to televise programs on local television networks. The NCC's newly approved ``Five-Year Marketing, Communications and External Relations Plan'' also underscores the importance of reaching linguistic minorities nationwide.
[Translation]
Our responsibility to safeguard and preserve our national treasures goes beyond the region's built heritage. It also encompasses the preservation of the Capital's natural and cultural heritage on behalf of future generations of Canadians.
Both French and English cultures are very alive in the Capital Region. The NCC continually strives to showcase this diversity and authenticity, by making the cultural and social fabric of the region notably rich and active.
The NCC also values its commitment to official languages in the workplace. The NCC makes a constant effort, and takes concrete measures, to create and maintain a work environment conducive to the use of both official languages. For example, in an effort to further increase the bilingual capacity of employees, oral interaction language training has been offered on-site to employees who expressed an interest in this type of training, regardless of the linguistic requirements of their positions.
In addition, when staffing actions are open to the public, steps are taken to attract candidates of both official language groups by advertising positions in both languages, posting jobs as bilingual non-imperative where possible and using bilingual members on selection boards. The organization is committed to achieving equitable participation in its workforce.
[English]
The NCC is proud to play an important role in promoting both official languages in Canada's capital region while doing business with partners, community leaders and residents. We ensure that our Web site, publication, planning documents as well as public notices, publicity and calls for submissions are available in both official languages. All public meetings and consultations are conducted in both official languages on both sides of the Ottawa River, and all properties and activity sites display bilingual signage. The NCC also plays a leadership role in working with municipal governments to promote the important matter of linguistic duality in Canada's capital region, which, in turn, can serve as an example for the entire country.
Furthermore, the NCC has communicated with business leaders in Canada's capital region to discuss the topic of linguistic duality and to consider possible initiatives to reinforce and make the bilingual character of establishments both in Ottawa and in Gatineau more present. This could include bilingual signs, menus, greetings and services. Service in both languages in the capital's federal and commercial establishments is a goal that can be achieved and that can also serve as an example for the entire country.
The NCC ensures performance and compliance with respect to its obligation to provide services to the public in both official languages, including any concessionaire or entrepreneur who provides a service on its behalf.
[Translation]
This being said, we clearly recognize that despite our best efforts, there are still improvements to be made in certain areas. Our greatest challenge remains within our leasing portfolio. We have made significant progress and have put various measures in place. Having said this, we are committed to take additional steps in order to ensure that commercial tenants in NCC leased properties comply with the official languages provisions for their leases. We are prepared to work with our tenants and to offer them the necessary tools to facilitate the process and to impress upon them the benefits of bilingualism.
Furthermore, the NCC has jointed the City of Ottawa's ``Business Assistance'' pilot project which helps businesses wishing to improve client services in English and French by providing them with practical tools.
[English]
In response to the March 2004 report of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, we have also developed an action plan that includes the following steps: ensure that NCC leases include clauses that clearly reflect the tenant's obligation with respect to official languages; identify and implement measures for incentives, penalties and/or enforcements that are practical and acceptable industry practice; ensure that the process of new leases and lease renewals specifically includes discussion about the tenant's obligation with respect to official languages; manage a monitoring program to regularly evaluate compliance with lease obligations; communicate with tenants to address their lease obligations and non-compliance issues; and provide tools and assistance to tenants in meeting lease obligations and to increase awareness.
[Translation]
In closing, I would like to reiterate on behalf of the NCC, our strong commitment to pursue our efforts in meeting the highest standard of bilingualism requirements within our organization. I recognize that this on-going challenge will require constant effort on our part and we are prepared to meet that challenge.
Senator Maheu: You say in your presentation that you require tenants to comply with the obligations contained in the leases and that you ensure they are signed in a certain way. Where? When? Why do they not comply with them?
Mr. Beaudry: I would like to be able to answer you simply and tell you I do not know why. Since I have been at the Commission, the commercial leases we sign with our tenants contain clauses requiring tenants to comply with the clauses on official languages, bilingualism. Unfortunately, that is not always the case, and I willingly admit the fact. We conducted a survey last year in all the businesses, all the restaurants that have leases with the NCC, and we noted that many of those businesses were not complying fully with the bilingualism clauses. Sometimes there are bilingual menus, sometimes there are bilingual waiters and waitresses, while, in other cases, there are not any at all. In some cases, menus are posted solely in English in restaurant windows, and there are occasional deficiencies virtually everywhere. On the other hand, some fully comply with the leases as signed.
We have taken steps to ask those tenants to comply with lease conditions. A certain number have done so, others have made appreciable or significant progress in discharging their bilingualism responsibilities. We intend to continue monitoring those tenants so that they comply with the clause in the leases we currently have.
We have put forward an action plan under which, when a new lease is signed, a special box will be attached to the bilingualism clause. We will have that part of the lease initialled — a lease can consist of 25 to 30 pages and the bilingualism clause gets lost in all that — to ensure that the tenants understand they are undertaking to comply with that bilingualism clause. A list of things considered essential will be submitted to tenants, such as bilingual menus, bilingual service, bilingual signage, to ensure that, when we audit those places, we can point out existing deficiencies and take the necessary corrective action.
Those who don't want to comply — there are always some hard-headed ones, but not the Chairman of the NCC — we will try to soften up a bit and tell them that, when their lease becomes renewable in five years, perhaps it will not be renewed. That may be an incentive.
At our visitors centre — this will be effective soon — we've also posted a list of establishments providing bilingual services. That list will be published so that 300,000 persons visiting our information centre opposite Parliament can know that, if they go to such and such a restaurant, store or boutique, they can be served in French and can obtain advertising in both official languages. There are other initiatives, but these are examples that we intend to put forward in order to put a little pressure on these people.
I must admit that it is not the effort that is lacking; it is often good will that is lacking. It is often a one-way street, as we say in English and in French, and it's not always easy to achieve.
Senator Gauthier: Are there linguistic clauses in all long-term leases, emphyteotic leases? When your tenants sublet to a tenant, are they required to comply with the language clauses, or, as you have already said, have they long been encouraged to do so? There are buildings in the region that are major historic sites leased to corporations. They lease them to other individuals. It is those persons who want nothing to do with bilingualism. I do not need that.
Mr. Beaudry: The language clauses, which are in our leases, apply not only to tenants, but, if they sublet, they have to obtain the NCC's permission for the subtenant to be accepted, and the subtenant is required to comply with the same conditions as in the original lease.
Senator Gauthier: There are two communities in the National Capital Region, one anglophone, one francophone. You comply with the Official Languages Act. One of the conditions of the Act is that you consult those communities regularly to determine whether things are working, whether they are satisfied with your services. You have to promote the National Capital. That is what is in the national interest, and that is your obligation. Do you occasionally meet with the anglophone communities in Quebec in order to talk to them? Do you meet with the Francophone communities in Ontario to talk to them about their needs as a minority group in the National Capital Region?
Mr. Beaudry: We consult the anglophone and francophone communities in various areas of the commission's activities. I cannot say we have consulted those communities solely on official languages. When we develop projects or when we have any kind of programs — we are responsible, for example, for Canada Day, Winterlude, Christmas Lights, various programs — and, at those times, the communities are obviously consulted on a regular basis.
I personally sent a letter to the Outaouais Chamber of Commerce and Industry last year, to the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce and to the Regroupement des gens d'affaires, asking them that those organizations encourage their members to use bilingualism in all the activities of their businesses. I received a positive response from the RGA, but I haven't received an answer from the Outaouais Chamber of Commerce and Industry or the Ontario Chamber of Commerce or the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce. We encourage them to take part because, in our mind, we should not just be promoting official languages in buildings belonging to the NCC or to Public Works and Government Services, but rather in all buildings in the National Capital Region because we are the capital of the country and, as the capital, we should set an example for all other cities in Canada.
Senator Gauthier: Madam Tartempion from I do not know where who comes to her capital city wants to be served in French, and Mr. Taylor from the West wants to be served in English. It is your obligation to make the National Capital welcoming, open, generous and tolerant. The NCC's action plan is very good. I congratulate you on it. Follow- up should be done.
Mr. Beaudry: There will be a follow-up. In our NCC activities, we have received very few complaints from the Commissioner of Official Languages. However, it does happen: sometimes someone asks a question in French in Gatineau Park and the person there answers in English or is unable to answer in French, but, in general, I do not believe we receive more than three or four minor complaints a year regarding all the Commission's activities in the National Capital Region.
Senator Léger: You said ``two sides of the river.'' Does the National Capital Region include both sides of the river?
Mr. Beaudry: Yes.
Senator Léger: If they want the French experience, they have to cross to the other side, and if they want the English experience?
Mr. Beaudry: The area extends over both sides of the Ottawa River. The Commission has jurisdiction over 456 square kilometres in the National Capital Region, and we have activities on both sides of the Ottawa River. For example, the Commission owns Gatineau Park, which has an area of 82,000 acres. The Park annually receives approximately 1,750,000 visitors. Those visitors mainly come from the region, but there are roughly 15 to 20 per cent, year in and year out, who go to the Gatineau Park. These are people who come from the West, Quebec, virtually everywhere. We have to be able to provide them with services in both official languages and make sure we do so on a daily basis.
Senator Léger: The capital is not just Ottawa; it is the region, but, if someone from New Brunswick says he's going to the Capital of Canada, he means Ottawa.
Mr. Beaudry: It means the same thing for us, because the seat of government is Ottawa, but the National Capital Commission has jurisdiction over more than Ottawa. It also has jurisdiction in Quebec, for the entire Capital Region.
Senator Léger: It should be an example for the entire country. It is Ottawa, but people are surely going to go to Gatineau. But for you, and you said that, for you too, the Capital is Ottawa.
Mr. Beaudry: It is important to mention that, in Gatineau, there is a casino, there is a hotel, there is Gatineau Park, and there are activities such as Winterlude, also on the Quebec side. There are unilingual Anglophones who go over to the Gatineau side. Quebec of course has the French language charter, and there are rules regarding bilingual signage, particularly where priority must be given to French over English, but that does not prevent the federal institutions on the Quebec side from having to provide service in both official languages, as we do at the Commission, and that would not prevent merchants on the Quebec side from providing those same services in both official languages. That is why I wrote to the House of Commons. It is not hard to provide services in both languages. We have no reason to be embarrassed about providing service in both languages. On the contrary, that should be a plus that we're offering the clientele.
Senator Léger: You said the word ``casino.'' That will help.
Senator Rivest: Is non-compliance with clauses relating to the Official Languages Act a reason for cancelling a lease?
Mr. Beaudry: It is not stated like that in the lease. I have to admit that I had to consult our lawyers on the subject because it's not clear. It could become a non-renewal clause, because renewing a lease is always at the discretion of the two parties. If we feel that our tenant is absolutely not interested in complying with the clauses of a lease, we could take the necessary measures.
[English]
Senator Keon: Madam Chair, I wish to congratulate our witness on what a tremendous job he is doing. The NCC has been very successful under the watch of Mr. Beaudry and his predecessor. The commission is a tremendous initiative. When I bring visitors from various parts of the world to Ottawa, they enjoy both sides of the river equally. They particularly enjoy the Quebec side, with the interesting things over there.
It is a pity that the City of Ottawa is not bilingual; however, I believe it will be bilingual before very long. I cannot think of anything to suggest that Mr. Beaudry do better.
Mr. Beaudry: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you both. I congratulate you on your action plan, and I can assure you that we will be watching it very closely. The committee will no doubt want to meet you again to hear about the outcome.
Mr. Beaudry: That will be a pleasure for us, Madam Chair, and I must say that Ms. Gustafsson, who is here with me, is the person responsible for the Official Languages Act at the Commission; she monitors the situation very closely and speaks to me about it regularly. We'll try to get there together.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Our next witnesses on the agenda, again on the same subject, are, from the Department of Canadian Heritage, Mr. Hilaire Lemoine, Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, and from Public Works and Government Services, Ms. Sylvie Lemieux and Mr. Denis Cuillerier. Welcome everyone.
You have circulated a copy of your presentation. We'll start with you, Mr. Lemoine. Will it be possible to summarize that in a few minutes in order to move on quickly to the questions? We'll listen to Mr. Lemoine's presentation and that of Ms. Lemieux, and then we will hear questions.
Mr. Hilaire Lemoine, Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, Department of Canadian Heritage: I'm going to circulate the information kit, which is not my presentation. My presentation will last approximately five minutes.
I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to share with you some initiatives of the Department of Canadian Heritage designed to encourage the business community to provide services in both official languages. If Ms. Scherrer were here, she would say, in response to Ms. Adam, that we did not wait for the report in order to take action. But as a public servant, I cannot say that.
First, I would like to talk to you about a pilot project, which is currently being distributed, that we have developed with the City of Ottawa. It is aimed at businesses in the region. The project is called ``Business Assistance.'' It was launched in Ottawa last February. It is the result of a series of consultations conducted with focus groups and business people in the region to identify their needs.
I am not here to advertise for the City of Ottawa — it is quite capable of doing that for itself — but the Department of Canadian Heritage was very much involved in this project. It clearly shows the kind of tools we are trying to develop with our partners.
This project concerns three areas: translation for business people at a preferential rate, oral communications workshops offered by a business in the region, and recruitment support with youth placement services.
The pilot project is aimed at two target publics in particular: business people and entrepreneurs in the Byward Market, first, and those at the St. Laurent Shopping Centre, second. It was felt that those two areas were of greatest interest for the public, which is often francophone in those two areas. There are also a lot of tourists in the region. Once the project has been evaluated, the idea is to be able to expand it to include all business people in the region.
We believe that the experiment could help other municipalities, in other regions of Ontario and in other regions of Canada as well.
Second, we have just created a site where we have a kit to support bilingualism in volunteer agencies and businesses. The kit is called ``Toward a Bilingual Organization.'' We have just put it on our departmental Web site and already, without even doing any advertising, more than 500 persons have sent us requests for more information.
We intend to launch this kit in the coming months. Once again, the purpose of this initiative is to support the volunteer sector and businesses in order to provide them with tips: how to be more open to a bilingual clientele and provide tips for boards of directors and so on.
Lastly, we are working closely with the National Capital Commission to identify other measures we can implement to help businesses. We are also working with other partners in the voluntary sector. I am thinking, among others, of Canadian Parents for French and French for the Future. These are national organizations that help us increase general public awareness about the benefits of bilingualism.
We also worked on an interesting project with the Regroupement des gens d'affaires in 2000. With them, we developed an awareness program for business people.
French for the Future is a new organization whose mandate is to find a way to match young immersion school graduates, for example, so that they are better known and can offer their services to all entrepreneurs in various cities. We think that this will help bring these young people together with the business world, which often does not know where to turn to obtain services.
I'll now be pleased to answer your questions.
Ms. Sylvie Lemieux, Acting Director General, Accommodation and Portfolio Management, Department of Public Works and Government Services: Thank you for the opportunity to make these brief opening remarks. Minister Owen sends his regrets that he could not be here today. However, I will certainly do my best to update the Committee on the measures Public Works and Government Services Canada has taken to improve implementation of Canada's official languages policy in relation to commercial leases.
Last year, Senator Gauthier raised concerns over the level of bilingual services being offered by commercial enterprises leasing space in federal buildings in the National Capital Region, many of which fall under PWGSC's management.
And the Commissioner of Official Languages recently issued a report that criticized PWGSC for not doing enough to ensure that our commercial tenants in the National Capital Region provide services and have signage in both official languages. I want to assure the Committee that we take these findings very seriously.
PWGSC is committed to fostering the full recognition and use of the English and French languages in Canadian society, as well as enhancing the bilingual character of the National Capital Region. It is in that spirit that the department fully accepts the Commissioner of Official Languages' recommendations.
In fact, we have already taken steps to implement those recommendations. Since 2000, PWGSC has required that all commercial leases include clauses covering the provision of signage and services in both official languages in the National Capital Region. These clauses are incorporated into new leases as they come due. Since leases expire at various lengths of time, we have not yet been able to include these requirements in all of our leases. However, this will be accomplished over time.
[English]
We have found that a good number of commercial tenants in the National Capital Region who do not have bilingual clauses in their leases have, nonetheless, provided bilingual services and signage as a good practice. The committee should also note that our commercial leases outside the National Capital Region now include a clause encouraging tenants to promote Canada's official languages policy. This new approach was a key element of an action plan approved by the previous minister of Public Works and Government Services in July 2003 to respond to some of the concerns raised by Senator Gauthier.
Both of these measures were implemented in advance of the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Today, we are tabling with the committee an action plan that responds directly to the commissioner's recommendations.
The key elements of that plan are as follows:
[Translation]
First, a formal process will be initiated to have all new commercial tenants sign a letter confirming their linguistic obligations at the time of execution of the lease. Second, we will implement a monitoring process to ensure that new leases contain the approved linguistic clauses.
Third, PWGSC or its service provider will meet with each commercial tenant to discuss the service and signage requirements of their lease and will follow up in writing by the end of June 2004. Fourth, the department or its service provider will implement a monitoring process to determine whether commercial tenants are complying with their linguistic obligations. Tenants will be notified of the results and encouraged to resolve non-compliant issues.
Fifth, we are taking steps to ensure that the language clauses added to new leases clearly identify what is required in the way of signage and bilingual services and we are investigating with the Department of Justice the use of similar clauses used by the National Capital Commission.
Sixth, we are committed to assisting commercial tenants in meeting the linguistic obligations outlined in their lease. To this end, PWGSC will provide the list of professional associations of qualified translators to these tenants.
Finally, PWGSC will study the feasibility — including the financial implications — of making Termium, the Government of Canada's terminology and linguistic database, available free of charge to our commercial tenants and other Canadians.
Madam Chair, you are no doubt aware that PWGSC is the largest landlord in Canada. We have 600 commercial leases from coast to coast, including 300 in the National Capital Region alone. We endeavour to ensure that all clauses in all leases are followed, including those that relate to official languages.
The very fact that PWGSC's commercial leases include such clauses reflects the department's commitment to the official languages policy of the Government of Canada.
At the same time, it is clear that we can and must improve this aspect of our operations. The action plan tabled today sets out practical measures to address issues that have been raised by the Commissioner of Official Languages and others. I would welcome any questions the Committee might have on the plan at this time.
The Chairman: Are there any questions from senators?
Senator Gauthier: I am going to start with Mr. Lemoine. The $2.5 million agreement with the City of Ottawa was signed in 2002. It's now 2004. As far as I know, this is the first time we have been given anything tangible. I am extremely disappointed by the implementation of this action plan. In the first year, there was nothing. In the second year, things have started to change a bit. You give us a document this evening. It is time things changed. That is not your fault.
Mr. Lemoine: I do not have an answer, but rather a comment. This is indeed the second year of implementation of the agreement. In the first year, the focus was mainly on launching the process. It should be said that, before putting a certain number of specific measures in place, the City of Ottawa had to conduct a lot of exercises, analyses, reviews and so on.
We have an agreement with the City of Ottawa which stipulates that the city must submit to us, each year, a progress report, a financial report showing how funds have been used. The reports that have been submitted comply with the agreement.
The city has been working for about a year on this project, the kit that I've sent you. It obviously would have been preferable to have it last year. But before launching this kind of tool with business people, it is important to check with business people and businesses to see what their specific needs are, so as not to come up with a kit that doesn't seem to respond to what they want.
We think we have hit the nail on the head so far and that this kit meets their needs. The comments we have received from business people and a number of entrepreneurs are positive on this point.
Senator Gauthier: Commercial leases sometimes contain certain clauses under which tenants cannot sublet or have animals. If those clauses are not complied with, the lease is broken.
Seven years ago, we asked that binding clauses be put in place. I was told that these kinds of clauses were incentive in nature.
The Commissioner of Official Languages has observed that there are language clauses in only 18 per cent of your leases.
How can you improve this situation? Binding clauses requiring respect for both official languages in the case of federal buildings should be included in your leases. Those buildings are often the most important buildings in the region where they are located.
Ms. Lemieux: When a commercial lease is renewed, we include signage and bilingual service clauses in all cases. However, our leases are not all renewed at the same time. Certain leases are for a 35-year period, others for five years. Consequently, when a lease is renewed, we automatically include the signage and bilingual service clauses.
It will take some time before the 500 leases under PWGSC's supervision are reviewed. However, starting now and by ensuring that the clauses are included at each renewal, we'll see an improvement in the situation.
Senator Gauthier: Minister Goodale made that commitment three years ago. If the situation improves, that's all well and good. However, I would like to see figures showing that those clauses are included in your leases starting now or within a year.
Ms. Lemieux: Under our action plan, that practice is now customary. The renewal periods for each of our leases are kept up to date, and we'll be keeping a record of those changes as the renewals are done.
[English]
Senator Keon: Ms. Lemieux, some of the critics of Public Works and Government Services Canada feel it is absurd to have 600 leases across the country. They feel you should be doing the reverse: leasing from the private sector, rather than government buildings providing space for lease by the private sector. Should this change occur, what does PWGSC have as a fallback policy to ensure that its effort to sustain bilingualism and linguistic duality continues?
Ms. Lemieux: Are you are talking about a situation in which we are leasing more and owning less?
Senator Keon: I am referring to Public Works and Government Services Canada leasing less and owning very little, which many people suggest should happen. As you know, it is justified for the government to provide buildings for its own services, but to be providing buildings to lease to the private sector does not make any economic sense. This will become an issue in the next few years.
Leaving that aside, there is no question that PWGSC has had a great influence on the promotion of bilingualism and linguistic duality. If you lose the clout of having buildings to lease, what policy do you have to sustain the effort you have going now?
Ms. Lemieux: You are asking me for a projection. Obviously, right now it is easier when you own and can control your leases because you decide on the clauses you want to put in your template. For example, we are now working on a green clause so we can move the sustainability file forward. We are working hard now to include green clauses.
Should the Government of Canada decide that the portfolio is too large and should be reduced, obviously the impact would be potentially less substantial. My only hope is that our efforts at PWGSC and those of my colleagues at Heritage and at the National Capital Region will start to make a difference, and that people will on their own realize there is a business and financial benefit in adopting bilingualism.
At this time, we have no policies except those that we have in our own clauses by being the owner and by leasing. I cannot project beyond that; I am sorry.
Senator Keon: Can you provide for me convincing arguments that your operation now is of vital importance to sustain the linguistic duality of Canada?
Ms. Lemieux: When you are influencing 600 commercial leases in the whole of the National Capital Region, I believe you have a level of influence.
Every time we renew our leases, we work at all our commercial leases, and we are making, I think, an impact across the nation. I do not want to go beyond that statement. We have colleagues in other federal departments that are also custodians and are making, through the distribution of their own government services, a difference in providing bilingual services. It is beyond my scope to go beyond the leases at this point.
Mr. Lemoine: If I may respond or add to that, it is an interesting question. It is more than just working with the business people. There also has to be promotion done with the public in general, to make sure that the public understands what this is all about. There has to be partnership with the private sector, and also with the general public. People have to demand those services as well. This is something that I think the Department of Canadian Heritage is working hard on with partners to ensure that people realize that these services are available, that they can be available, and that people can request those services when they go to shops or to restaurants, when they deal with those companies.
Senator Keon: Would you comment, Mr. Lemoine? Do you think, for example, if the operations that PWGSC run in Halifax and Vancouver were not there, that the francophone population of those areas would be deprived of their Canadian heritage rights to bilingual services?
Mr. Lemoine: I would say that I think the Government of Canada has a responsibility to demonstrate that both languages are very active in this country. It is more than just rights of individuals. The government must show that this is important enough to show the public that within areas controlled by the federal government, the official language French is as important as English. That is how I would view it. The government must show a very important leadership image in this area.
Senator Keon: I am very glad you said that. Public Works and Government Services Canada has to become very much aware of that. This must be part of their promotional package in the next number of years, because they themselves are into complex times. They have to sustain the message that they are playing an important role in the Canadian fabric of linguistic duality and bilingualism.
[Translation]
Senator Léger: My question is for Mr. Lemoine. The pilot project you referred to was aimed at the merchants of both the Byward Market and St. Laurent Boulevard.
The Byward Market is a central area, and St. Laurent Boulevard is in the eastern part of the city, where there is a larger number of Francophones.
Why doesn't your pilot project concern the entire western part of the city?
Mr. Lemoine: The City of Ottawa wanted to see to what extent this kit could be useful to the entrepreneurs in those two neighbourhoods because that's where the need is greatest.
If the project has some success — and we very much hope it will — it will of course be extended to other regions in the capital.
However, the city wanted to start with the regions where requests are most frequent. It's important to start by serving the regions where the Francophone population is the largest. Then we can expand the field of action to the Rideau Centre and Bayshore, for example.
Senator Léger: The Rideau Centre is near the Byward Market.
Mr. Lemoine: Yes.
Senator Léger: If I understood correctly, this project is being carried out by the City of Ottawa and Canadian Heritage. So it is not just a project conducted by Canadian Heritage. This seems to me a somewhat timid effort on their part. Canadian Heritage seems to me to be an organization capable of greater effort than that.
The Chairman: My question is for Mr. Lemoine. Earlier you said that there has to be demand. As you will agree, there also has to be an active offer.
In this matter of linguistic duality in the National Capital, has Canadian Heritage made a commitment to establishing a promotional campaign? You have developed a tool. However, do you intend to take your effort further and do a promotional campaign on linguistic duality?
Mr. Lemoine: The department is not currently conducting any promotional campaign. However, it is working with partners who are. We thought it more helpful at the present time to work with our partners because of their clientele and their networks. In that way, this kind of campaign is perceived less as coming from the federal government, and more as a campaign of organizations and municipalities interested in the matter.
For the moment, we have opted for this approach. As such, we are working together with business groups and, for example, with the youth education organization, Canadian Parents for French. We think it is more effective for parents to do the promotion than the federal government.
The Chairman: Mr. Lemoine, I would like to congratulate you on your presentation and the action plan you've provided.
Committee members will be closely monitoring the actions taken. We'll also invite you back to discuss the progress made on the action plan. I congratulate and thank you; thanks as well to Ms. Lemieux and Mr. Cuillerier.
Senator Gauthier: Ms. Lemieux, would you please be kind enough to inform the minister that we would like to invite him to testify before this committee?
We have not had the opportunity this evening to touch on the government services component. That component comprises translation, interpretation and real-time stenotyping services. There is a whole range of interesting topics we'd like to discuss with the minister.
When you seem him, would you please pass on our invitation to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages?
Ms. Lemieux: I am sure he will be pleased.
The Chairman: We will now move on to our next group of witnesses. It is a pleasure to welcome Mr. Francis Potié, Director General of the Association de la presse francophone, and Ms. Annick Schulz, Director of Communications and Government Relations.
We thank you for accepting our invitation to come and tell us about your current situation at the Association. I'll ask you first of all to make a brief presentation, then we will move on to the question period.
Mr. Francis Potié, Director General, Association de la presse francophone: Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to provide you with an overview of the current situation of the Francophone press.
As you know, the Association de la presse francophone comprises some 30 francophone newspapers in nine provinces and two territories. These are markets where it is quite hard to operate, particularly the regional market, and particularly in the provinces slightly further west and east, where the Francophone population is proportionately smaller.
The question that concerns the members of the Association de la presse francophone at the present time is the moratorium on national advertising announced by the Department of Public Works. That moratorium will be in effect from mid-March until early June, and it is having a quite harmful effect on our newspapers, particularly on their financial health. Our papers depend on a fairly significant contribution of federal advertising. For most of them, federal advertising can represent from 20 to 40 per cent of their advertising revenues.
In addition, March, April and May are really the biggest months for federal advertising. After that, it is the low season for those papers. And with the possibility of a federal election, it's really a six-month period where revenues will be affected.
Some publications are starting to lay off staff. Decisions will soon be made to cut publication frequency, and that can lead to paper closings.
The Association de la presse francophone, the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada and RCFO have expressed our concern in a number of places, including the parliamentary committee on official languages. There is some sympathy for our situation, but there is no solution to the short-term problem, which is really an urgent cash problem.
In his presentation to the parliamentary committee, Minister Owen of the Department of Public Works and Government Services clearly suggested that he did not feel it was his department's responsibility to concern itself with the papers' viability. Our reaction to that comment was that this was to disregard the federal government's commitment under Part VII of the Official Languages Act. If there are no more papers in the near future, that will cause him some problems with his primary mandate, which is to place federal government advertising in both minority and majority communities.
We have met a number of persons who are sympathetic to our situation, but we have not yet found any short-term solutions to this urgent situation.
The parliamentary committee on official languages issued a report last Friday in which it made recommendations which we find quite interesting for both our members and for the other minority media. However, they are still responses to medium- and long-term problems.
Senator Gauthier: Mr. Potié, you are familiar with the saying, less haste, more speed. That is government. Do not expect a response to your problem, if I can characterize it that way, by tomorrow.
However, one thing concerns me: you have three events that are beyond your control. It was what would be called the advertising moratorium. Second, there will probably be a federal election in the near future, in one or two weeks, we do not know. Third, you have a cash problem. Those three problems exist. You receive funds from Canadian Heritage under the publication assistance program. How much does all federal assistance you receive represent in your annual budget?
Second question: What is your annual budget? And, third, do you have a national Francophone press association? Not an association of weeklies, but a national Francophone press association?
Mr. Potié: The publication assistance program provides the Association de la presse francophone with nothing. It is a grant for paper distribution costs which represents approximately 80 per cent of distribution costs. The papers as such never see the funds. It is deducted from the postal distribution bill. That nevertheless represents fairly considerable sums, but it is a subsidy available to all Canadian publications and subscriptions.
The budget of the Association de la presse francophone may vary, but I believe that, as of March 31, we had a total budget of approximately $800,000. That amount is for the Association, not for the member papers.
With respect to a national association, the Association de la presse francophone is an association of weeklies and bi- monthlies. To my knowledge, there is no association representing the other publications, that is to say the dailies or magazines.
Senator Gauthier: I understand that the costs are distribution costs, but only in respect of subscribers, not non- subscribers. Your percentage of subscribers is approximately 40 per cent?
Mr. Potié: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: You distribute 60 per cent of your publications free of charge? I read the transcripts of your testimony before the Transport and Communications Committee. Your testimony was quite interesting. Can we say that the ratio is 40/60?
Mr. Potié: It's a bit lower; I should have said 70/30, 70 per cent free of charge.
Senator Gauthier: You said you had a cash problem.
Mr. Potié: The papers, yes.
Senator Gauthier: Can you explain to me the financial impact that the moratorium from March 15 until the end of June will have on you?
Mr. Potié: It shouldn't have much impact on the APF. Our revenues come from other sources than advertising. Among our members — I'll take as an example the papers in the West — we're talking about an average of $4,000 or $5,000 a month, and, for papers such as L'Express du Pacifique, which have only two or three employees, that really makes the difference between being able and not being able to pay staff.
The threat is mainly for the papers in the communities where there's only one paper for the entire province. They are really in the most precarious position of all our publications. The biggest income source has suddenly dried up, and they have to offset it.
Senator Gauthier: Do you have membership dues?
Mr. Potié: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: That's where your $800,000 budget comes from?
Mr. Potié: We have grants, we work a lot, we have projects. We have a support grant from the Department of Canadian Heritage and we have a number of projects with other departments. Like many other non-profit organizations, we make a lot of applications and do a lot of projects to achieve our ends.
Senator Gauthier: One thing I am enormously interested in is the training of your journalists. If I have correctly understood, you have, if I may say so, access to a pool of graduates big enough to support your turnover. Your best journalists are stolen from you by competitors who are a bit more aggressive or have more money. When you have good journalists, Radio-Canada takes them away from you.
Mr. Potié: Yes, they will recruit them.
Senator Gauthier: I am a bit familiar with the system. How do you get around that? Do you have admission criteria for journalists or do you take any candidate?
Mr. Potié: The papers go after the best employees possible. They place ads, they conduct interviews and they set selection criteria. It is up to each paper to select its own staff. The problem that arises is much less recruiting than retaining journalists; in other words, when we find journalists, we have trouble keeping them. Another problem is that, in a number of communities it is very hard to find journalists who are from those communities. As a result, journalists often know less about the community, and they need a certain period of time to adapt. That's a demographic reality, to a certain degree; it's communities that have trouble supplying journalists.
Senator Gauthier: You offer $1,000 scholarships to 10 students a year, don't you?
Mr. Potié: Yes, 10 or 12 students.
Senator Gauthier: Where do you get those funds?
Mr. Potié: We have a foundation called the Fondation Donatien-Frémont. The fund was established by the member papers of the APF. There is a principal amount of $375,000, I believe, which generates interest, which we use to offer the scholarships.
Senator Léger: My experience with the so-called small papers — I am not a big reader of those papers; I like Le Devoir and its editorials — is that, in my view, the influence of small papers in a given community is very great. All advertising and all sales ads are placed in them. I would like to understand one thing. You said there was a great deal of sympathy but very few solutions, and that advertising would come back after June, once you are either dead or too indebted. Is that correct?
Mr. Potié: The moratorium is over on June 1.
Senator Léger: Will things be the way they were after that?
Mr. Potié: I believe there will probably be an election. During the election, the federal government is not allowed to advertise; after the election, it will be summer, when there is very little advertising. Yes, it will come back; I would not want to mislead you; that is not necessarily a permanent loss, but our concern is the cash the papers hold in the short term. If the slowdown continues until the end of summer, I believe some papers will disappear.
Senator Léger: Why is there is moratorium? Did they want to save money?
Mr. Potié: I think it might be for considerations of political speculation, but there was a scandal.
Senator Léger: That business? Mercy, let's not talk about that! That's the second time that I've been caught out.
The Chairman: Mr. Potié, give us a concrete example. For example, L'Eau Vive, in Saskatchewan, which you're quite familiar with.
Mr. Potié: That paper has just laid off two employees; the editor position has been cut back and reclassified to a journalist position. La Liberté in Manitoba has just laid off two journalists. Although I don't have any details on administrative arrangements, Le Franco will have a fairly large loss. The general manager — I do not really want to comment on others' personal lives — hasn't had a salary for some time now, and that's a situation that cannot go on too long. Le Chinook in Calgary, a paper that's not a member of the Association de la presse francophone because it does not publish it at the required interval, currently has major problems. I know that things are also very hard for Le Gaboteur in Newfoundland.
The Chairman: How much money would be needed to get through the critical period and wait for the government to get back in position?
Mr. Potié: I can say that the moratorium represents revenue losses of $210,000 for the member papers of the APF. The loss for the summer period represents roughly an additional $60,000.
[English]
Senator Keon: You have raised something very important. Can you suggest anything we could do to help? This is a very serious predicament for you to be caught in, between now and probably next Christmas, by the time the wheels start to turn.
Have you any idea of anything we could do to alleviate this?
[Translation]
Mr. Potié: The problem is the moratorium on advertising. The government cannot buy advertising from us or anyone else. I believe there's a fairly significant political and perhaps legal problem. We are talking about the short term, not the long term; I believe the solution will really have to be political. I imagine the only department that has the flexibility in its objectives and mandate is the Department of Canadian Heritage. To all intents and purposes, there are all kinds of legislative constraints. It is hard for me to suggest a concrete solution. We are waiting for the government to come up with a solution. It's quite interesting.
As to your question and as to how to help us, I think the Minister of Canadian Heritage, among others, has to be told in your caucus meetings that this problem is a concern to you and that an attempt has to be made to find a solution.
Senator Gauthier: You said earlier that there were 30 members of your association, four whom are on probation. The other 26 are full members, owners or persons responsible.
Mr. Potié: Regular members.
Senator Gauthier: Why do you have four members on probation? What's happening with those people? Have they committed a crime?
Mr. Potié: No; they applied for membership a long time ago. It's a procedure for becoming a member of the association. You file a membership application and you are automatically accepted as a member on probation. Only a general meeting of members can approve membership as a regular member. There is a minor procedure; an evaluation has to be conducted of the paper.
Senator Gauthier: You do not go any faster than the government.
Mr. Potié: We are quite a bit faster. It is done in six months, six months to a year at most.
Senator Gauthier: Are there not any bilingual weeklies in your association?
Mr. Potié: No.
Senator Gauthier: There is the national association of English-language weeklies. Why is there not a francophone association? Except for the major papers, why do you exclude the Quebec weeklies? Representatives of the Quebec French-language weeklies are important Canadians who would no doubt help your cause.
Mr. Potié: Yes. We cooperate with the Quebec weeklies. I am going to speculate — I have not put the question to our members and the question has not been raised in our proceedings — but the members of our association have specific concerns, needs that are considerably different from those of the majority papers. They are afraid of being part of an association that has more than 150 members and would not have the same concerns as them, of not having an association that suits them.
Having said that, we have training projects with the Quebec weeklies. We'll have our annual general meeting soon, and we'll spend a day and a half in a workshop involved in various activities with representatives of the Quebec weeklies. We stay in touch and we help each other, but our associations are separate.
Senator Gauthier: I'm a French Canadian born in Ontario, but who has lived his entire life in Ottawa. Why is Toronto's main French-language weekly, L'Express, not a member of your association? I do not understand why not.
Mr. Potié: It belonged to our association before I joined it. I would have to look into the matter. L'Express withdrew from the association as a result of a dispute.
Senator Gauthier: Take the time to think about it, and you can answer me in writing.
The Chairman: I have a final question for you. In the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, two recommendations were made for the long term. I would like you to send your answer in writing to the Official Languages Committee to see whether you agree with those two recommendations.
Mr. Potié: All right.
The Chairman: As for the short term, I will bring your problem to the attention of our caucus in order to see what we can do.
Thank you once again for appearing before our committee.
The committee adjourned.