LANG Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

¿

0910

The Chair (The Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.))

À

1005

Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages)

À

1010

À

1015

À

1020

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

À

1025

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Dyane Adam

À

1030

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Yvon Godin

À

1035

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Dyane Adam

À

1040

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

À

1045

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

À

1050

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

À

1055

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Á

1100

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

---

NUMBER 002

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0910)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (The Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.)): I will now call the meeting to order. There seems to be a problem getting quorum in the House of Commons. I hope we will not be interrupted for that reason. In any case, we will see what happens.

    Our witness this morning is Ms. Dyane Adam, the Commissioner of Official Languages, who is accompanied by various officials. I would like to thank the Commissioner for being here today. As she probably knows, this is the first time I have chaired a meeting of the House of Commons Committee on Official Languages. I would like to welcome you, Ms. Adam, and your team. The entire committee welcomes you here. We are eager to work with you to promote the official languages in our country. You have the floor.

À  (1005)  

    Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

    First, I'd like to present the four directors who accompany me.

[Translation]

    They are Guy Renaud, Director General, Policy, Communications and Regional Offices; Gérard Finn, Special Adviser to the Commissioner; Michel Robichaud, Director General of Investigations; and Johane Tremblay, Director of the Legal Services Branch.

    First, I would like to offer my congratulations to you, Mr. Boudria, on your election as chairman of the committee. I also want to congratulate the vice-chairs, Mr. Godin and Mr. Simard, and I wish to thank everyone involved for their continued support in promoting the principles of the Official Languages Act.

[English]

    I'm pleased to come here today to share with you some of my perceptions regarding the status of official languages in the federal apparatus.

    To begin with, I would like to address my expectations toward the action plan for official languages. I will also address several of the major priorities that will be attracting our attention in the near future, such as the clarification of part 7 of the act; access to justice, health, and education; language of work; and learning the other official language.

[Translation]

    First of all, with respect to the expectations facing the federal government, I cannot help but mention the Action Plan. During this period of government transition, I cannot hide my concern over the implementation of the Action Plan for Official Languages. Unveiled to the public in March 2003, the Action Plan constitutes the strongest affirmation of federal leadership in linguistic matters in the last 10 years.

    Bear in mind that the investments associated with the Action Plan for Official Languages will enable the conclusion of federal-provincial agreements in priority areas for official languages communities, notably, in the areas of health, education and access to the legal process. The Canada-community agreements will also contribute to their development and vitality. Finally, funds will be invested in second language instruction, to help achieve one of the main objectives of the Action Plan, which is to double, between now and 2013, the number of young Canadians who are bilingual.

    We are at a critical moment when it comes to putting the plan into action, because its implementation will require as much coordination and effort as did its design and development. Some of the foundation has already been laid. For example, the government has committed to collaborating more closely with the provinces and territories in priority areas such as health, education, and access to the judicial process. However, we have had the architect's plan for nearly a year now, and one is still left wondering what concrete actions have been taken.

    Looking at things in this light in my last annual report, I recommended to the Prime Minister that he grant permanent committee status to the Ministerial Reference Group on Official Languages. In my opinion, committee status is essential to stimulate decision-makers and to provide the necessary impetus to fully implement the Action Plan for Official Languages.

    Therefore, evaluating the implementation of the Action Plan will make up an important part of my next annual report. I want to evaluate the government's accomplishment in diverse sectors of activity and to obtain information on the amounts expanded and the investments committed before March 31, 2004. This could be called a report on year 1 of the implementation of the plan.

À  (1010)  

[English]

    Another of my concerns at this point relates to the recent restructuring within the government, and its ensuing consequences for official languages. In my last annual report, I recommended establishing a framework for accountability and intergovernmental cooperation in matters pertaining to official languages. The recent changes in administrative structures, notably at the Public Service Commission, Treasury Board Secretariat, and at Human Resources Development, had at first created some confusion in terms of roles. This situation is slowly being clarified, but we do need to ensure that an accountability framework is clearly established within the new structures.

    I would like to look at a subject that is very much in the minds of decision-makers at the moment, this being expenditure review. It's well understood that the government wishes to concentrate its resources on national priorities. As mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, “Linguistic duality is at the heart of our identity. It is our image in the world. It opens doors for us.” Furthermore, official languages represents fundamental values, which fit perfectly with the government's priority of re-establishing the social foundations of Canada. Thus, our linguistic duality should be at the very heart of these priorities. The current exercise to examine expenditures should serve therefore to reinforce, not weaken, these values. The expenditure review must not become a pretext for curbing official languages programs, as was the case during the program review of the 1990s. This curbing was in fact the reason that a strategic redirection had become necessary, and that the federal government launched the action plan for official languages in March 2003.

[Translation]

    I would like to review with you some of the major priorities before we get into a discussion. Clearly, in spite of its importance, the Action Plan is not a 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 attention. Notably, these concern the clarification of Part VII of the Act, access to justice, health, language of work and second-language learning.

    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 concern 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 obliged to proceed before tribunals to obtain rulings forcing the government to respect its commitments. At this time, the francophone community of New Brunswick is committed to two claims 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. I hope Senator Gauthier's Bill S-4, which aims to clearly confirm the government's obligations and to underline that Part VII is not just a political commitment, will soon be introduced in the House of Commons. I know that you will give it your undivided attention.

[English]

    Now to justice. 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 again regarding the Contraventions Act. There are also mechanisms for intergovernmental collaboration put in place by the federal-provincial working group on access to justice, which aims to put into practice the necessary solutions.

    Nevertheless, one of the remaining obstacles is the shortage of bilingual judges among the Superior Court justices and on federal tribunals. These problems were identified by the Minister of Justice and my predecessors in the 1990s. Recently the Prime Minister announced that he hopes to modify the procedure for nominating judges to the Supreme Court so that MPs can have an input on the candidates.

    This would also be an opportunity to review the process of nominating judges to the Superior Court 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.

    Now to health. Under the leadership of Monsieur Bélanger, your committee examined the state of health services offered to official language minorities. With 14 recommendations, including two addressed to me, the eighth committee report, tabled in October 2003, is witness to the seriousness of your work.

    The committee wanted to know to what degree the Government of Canada respects the Official Languages Act in terms of the direct health care benefits available to certain groups. Furthermore, they asked me to verify that the government will fulfill its obligations when it transfers certain responsibilities to a third party. An inquiry is under way, and I will definitely keep you informed of the results.

    A second recommendation addressed to me was to organize a national forum to bring together experts to identify and examine solutions--among which would be the possibility of adding to the Canada Health Act a sixth principle of linguistic duality. I intend to follow though with this recommendation over the next fiscal year.

À  (1015)  

[Translation]

    As regards the language of work, another major priority is establishing a public service that is exemplary in its use of official languages. This requires respecting the rights of each and every person as regards the provision of services and the language of work.

    In the regions designated bilingual for the purposes of language of work, the act gives public servants certain fundamental rights, and progress with respect to the official languages 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 personal and organizational motivations that influence the choice of language used in the 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 the expression and growth of the two official languages in our federal institutions.

    In closing, I mentioned previously the Action Plan's objective to double the number of bilingual young Canadians by 2013. With this goal in mind, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, in partnership with Canadian Heritage, Intergovernmental Affairs and Canadian Parents for French, is organizing a conference, which will take place from March 2 to 4. This symposium will bring together the heads of key sectors, who together will identify the course of action to ensure that the next generations, in every corner of the country, have the essential linguistic aptitude needed for their personal growth and for their future in Canada and the world of tomorrow.

    For several years, I have appreciated the work of those MPs who have championed, from within various committees, the principles of the Official Languages Act and of sections 16 and 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The members of the Senate and House of Commons committees on Official Languages renew their commitment daily and never shirk their responsibilities and their efforts to make progress on current issues.

    Thank you once again for your commitment, and I would like to assure you of my complete collaboration with your work.

    I am ready to take your questions, Mr. Chairman.

À  (1020)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Commissioner.

    Normally the floor is given to the official opposition. Therefore, if anyone has any questions--

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): I do.

    The Chair: You have the floor, Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

    I would like to welcome Ms. Adam and her loyal colleagues. I appreciate your speech, but I think you're being very optimistic. I would have expected you to be somewhat more alarmist. Perhaps the word “alarmist” is not an appropriate one, but I would at least have hoped for less optimism. The minister who is supposedly responsible for coordinating the action plan says that half of the $751 million is going to be cut from the plan, without knowing how it's going to be done, although the $751 million was already insufficient. You say that you're concerned about this. Personally, I am more than concerned and I think that Mr. Arès and all those interested in this issue in Canada should also be more than concerned.

    Do you not think that for the past four or five years—and I'm going to use two of your own analogies—the train has been in the station, the architect has been busy building the station, but there is no budget for providing fuel for the train and for building up the station with bricks? Do you not think that that is the sort of direction we are headed in?  

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Would you like me to answer now, Mr. Sauvageau?

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: As I have said publicly several times, at, for example, meetings with ministers responsible for official languages—and I say ministers because there have been several— I think it is essential that the current government publicly and openly state its commitment to the action plan. I have said, and I will say it again, that I was very disappointed that there was no statement in the Speech from the Throne that the plan would be extended and that the resources that had been promised would be allocated. We have not yet heard a clear answer like that. Therefore, in that respect I am concerned. I am not alarmed, but my message is clear and I have stated it publicly.

    Yes, there has been significant investment over the past three or four years. There have been consultations, and many people, citizens as well as decision-makers, at an administrative as well as a political level, have worked hard on this recovery plan, and it is essential that we not lose ground. As I said in my statement, I have other concerns such as the expenditure review which, in my opinion, is very worrisome, because history has shown us that in that type of context, official languages are always neglected and ground is lost. That is why I wanted to bring this to your committee's attention, so that not only the commissioner, but also the parliamentary committees are being vigilant.

    The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You are asking the government to clearly restate its support for the action plan. The purpose of the action plan is to make the act operational. Could you also ask the government to comply with the Official Languages Act? The government is having difficulty committing to making this act operational through its action plan and it is incapable of stating that it wants to comply with the act, an act that we know is not being complied with, given all the complaints that you have received. Therefore, when you ask the government to implement its action plan, could you also ask it to comply with the Official Languages Act?

    I am now going to ask you a question about the human resources management agency of the Public Service of Canada. The act states that Treasury Board is responsible for implementing the act at the public service level, but this responsibility has now been given to an agency.

    First, is this legal? Does that reflect the spirit of the Official Languages?

    Second, the Auditor General told us that agencies' accounts could not be audited. When a responsibility is transferred to an agency, is the accountability also transferred? Will accountability, which has already been flouted throughout the federal government, be insured or strengthened by this transfer from Treasury Board to the agency? And if there were a problem, who would be responsible?

À  (1025)  

    Ms. Dyane Adam: According to our legal experts, transfers of responsibility are legal. That being said, your concern is similar to the one I expressed earlier. When there are changes in responsibilities, there is an in-between phase. I have always been of the opinion that in the official languages area, the accountability framework has to be strengthened. That was the purpose of one of our recommendations in our last annual report. We have already spoken about this. Even if there are responsible agencies, do they have enough tools to provide the monitoring and evaluation? I am referring in this case to the former Treasury Board Secretariat. Apparently the new agency will be responsible for implementing the act.

    I would say that this in-between phase will weaken accountability. Those involved will have to adapt to a new structure and that takes energy. Of course, during this time period, there will not necessarily be the necessary checks and balances and effective mechanisms needed to ensure that each institution is doing its job well. To come back to the action plan, we need, for example, to see whether or not, in terms of the government's commitments, year 1 really did yield concrete results.

    That is essentially the question I will be putting to the ministers responsible for official languages and, of course, to the responsible agencies, so that they are accountable for this year.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Simard, did you have a question?

    Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Ms. Adam, we have just seen the reports evaluating the official languages programs and the results are more or less satisfactory.

    I would like to know if the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages ever assessed the action plan in order to determine whether or not the expected results were realistic.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: On March 18, 2004, we will be celebrating year 1 of the action plan, which is spread over five years. One of our office's goals is to evaluate that first year and to report on it in our next annual report. For now I cannot tell you what our evaluation will be, given that we are in the process of doing this analysis. The report will probably be tabled in Parliament—depending on whether or not it is sitting—after this fiscal year. That may be in June, in August, in September or in October.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: It would be important to do it as soon as possible in order to know, in the event that there are problems, which route to take.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, if Parliament is sitting, I will be tabling it sooner rather than later.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: To come back to the question put by my colleague, Mr. Sauvageau, I would like to point out that I, personally, did not hear the minister responsible for official languages say that 50 per cent of the budget would be cut. That is not what I understood.

    If I am not mistaken, the situation is the following: approximately 50 per cent of the funds are normally provided to the provinces. Apparently, these funds are untouchable, but the government's review could affect the other 50 per cent.

    That is how I have read the situation. Do you agree on my interpretation of the facts?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Two public statements were made by two different ministers. The Minister of Finance, Mr. Goodale, stated that the plan would remain intact—those are the words he used—and Minister Pettigrew was quite firm with respect to the 50 per cent affecting federal/provincial agreements. In terms of the other 50 per cent, there was mention of it being targeted by the expenditure review.

    Statements such as these underscore the importance of the government clarifying the situation and making a decision. In my opinion, if that had been done, we would not have to be discussing this this morning.

À  (1030)  

    Mr. Raymond Simard: I have one last question.

    It seems to me that this is a good time to evaluate the whole affair. I wonder, among other things, if this would be a good time to invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage to review the results that she has obtained over the last five years under the program evaluation. I was truly surprised to learn that 60 per cent of the organizations had received less than $25,000.

    Furthermore, there may be some streamlining to do amongst the francophone communities outside Quebec. There are several organizations that have incurred outrageous costs. Have you thought about this? In francophone Manitoba, for example, there could be 30 organizations instead of the current 60; they could do the same work but at a lower cost. Is this something you have considered? Perhaps that isn't your role.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: I must admit that I have not looked at this. I think we're talking about community leadership, that is the way in which communities acquire tools to represent themselves. I don't think it is my responsibility to look at that. My role is to intervene at a federal level, to ensure that the government is living up to its obligations and that it is consulting the communities. I think community leadership is an issue that belongs to the communities.

    The Chair: Mr. Godin, do you have a question? Fine, then you have the floor.

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I' m not sure if my question is along the same lines as Mr. Simard's.

    First, I would like to welcome you. You are always welcome at this committee.

    Was there not a statement—I'm not sure if it was Minister Pettigrew who said this—that the new government would not make imperative bilingualism amongst senior officials a priority over the next few years?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: We monitor the government's statements very closely and I do not remember having heard that.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: This would be a new policy.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Ms. Robillard brought forth new policies for imperative staffing. They will ensure that officials in bilingual positions are truly bilingual. It is not a perfect policy—I have criticized it myself—but it is a step in the right direction.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I know that this part of the meeting is reserved for questions and comments. But what will follow will be mostly a comment on my part followed by a single question. I know I also have to stay within my time.

    I find certain facts regrettable. In your report, you state that the Association des municipalités francophones took legal action against the government because of some things it did. In New Brunswick, the Food Inspection Agency was transferred from Shippagan to Shediac. People living in that area went to court and won their case, but the government is unwilling to accept the court's decision. I don't think it makes sense to spend $750 million simply to say that French should be promoted. In fact, every time a francophone wins a case, the government takes legal action against them.

    Take, for instance, the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission. In your capacity as commissioner, you argued that the notion of community of interest was partly based on Canada's two official languages. Seven thousand postcards were sent to the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs agreed with your position, as did the Standing Committee on Official Languages. The Association des municipalités francophones went to court one more time, but the federal government rejected the decision taken by the Boundaries Commission. As for the promotion of French or the protection of the language—be it English or French—in a minority situation, the spirit of the act is not being upheld.

    With regard to Fisheries and Oceans, there was the Opilio case, which involved a francophone who could not get a job on a federally-owned vessel. In Yarmouth, everyone who works on that vessel is an anglophone; no one there speaks a word of French. But, as I said in the House of Commons, I don't think that the cod speak either English or French in Shippagan. The fact of the matter is that francophones cannot take their rightful place within the federal government, whereas senior officials can get jobs even if they have to deal with the public. The fisherman involved in the Opilio case never had to deal with the public. The case had been referred to you, Madam Commissioner.

    It's the same for CPAC: this is another battle fought by Canadians. It is unacceptable for Canadians not to be able to listen to parliamentary debates in the language of their choice. Furthermore, in New Brunswick, which is the only bilingual province in Canada, we have to fight for RCMP officers who speak French. I'll be frank: I am disappointed and I don't think that enough progress has been made. I know that in Sussex, for instance, they had to close a kindergarten class. Schools can't even get enough money to provide French classes for anglophones. I'm disappointed that 67 per cent of francophones in New Brunswick are illiterate.

    There's something wrong somewhere, and, Madam Commissioner, I find that your reports are not tough enough. I think it's high time that you took the gloves off. Last week, the Auditor General said that the government had violated the spirit of the Employment Insurance Act. In fact, she should have said that the government had broken the law.

    In my opinion, you are much too polite. You say that we have made progress, but I personally find that we have regressed. Every time we take a step forward, it seems that we take two steps back. I have mentioned several initiatives which are included in the program, but there is no point spending $750 million if it's only to hide our problems. Every time we win a battle, the federal government takes us to court.

    I've just said a lot of things which were not particularly polite, but I've had it. As it now stands, 66,000 francophone patients have to go to the emergency room in the Acadian Peninsula, whereas 48,000 patients go to the one in Miramichi. Miramichi receives $41 million for health, whereas the Acadian Peninsula only gets $30 million, and they even want to close down emergency rooms...

À  (1035)  

    The Chair: Mr. Godin, the problem is that there will be no time for Ms. Adam to answer.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I think that she has understood the message I am trying to send.

    The Chair: Ms. Adam.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Mr. Godin, I believe that...

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like an answer on this.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Mr. Godin, what you are saying is right in line with my own analysis to the effect that as long as the federal government uses legal means to challenge its obligations—and here we are talking particularly about part VII of the act, as I mentioned—we will not make any progress. It is unfortunate, but the government needs to take a legislative and regulatory approach, as I have recommended a number of times before this committee. The committee itself has considered legislation that highlighted this issue. We know that where education rights are concerned, even though minority communities have the right to education in their language, since this right is entrenched in our country's Constitution, they have had to go to court 25 or 30 times. They have always won, as far as I know. This comes back to part VII of the act, and I have the impression that things are going in this direction, given that there are two or three court cases—you have mentioned others—whereas it would be much better if parliamentarians could take another approach, such as regulations or legislation. As Commissioner, I do not have that power. You collectively are responsible for passing legislation and the associated regulations.

    I can only point out the problem to you and make recommendations. After that, the responsibility is yours.

À  (1040)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Adam.

    Before we start our second round, I would like to ask a question, if my colleagues have no objection.

    I would like to follow up on Mr. Simard's question earlier today about the Canada-community agreements. In my own province, I think that there are now some 350 organizations seeking funding, with the result that each organization now gets less than $25,000 on average.

    I should say that some of these organizations come to me asking for my support for their request as a parliamentarian. Frankly, there are now subcommittees of subcommittees of minority groups, etc. One has to wonder at some point what the point of it all is.

    Do you not feel that the very funding distribution structure of an organization that is practically not accountable, that is, a group that calls itself the agreement, lessens accountability to Parliament? It is true that we all wanted this at the beginning, a long time ago, but after a few years of watching this... It seems to me that if the Minister of Canadian Heritage were sitting across from me and I asked her why she had given so little money to ACFO, she would have to answer me because she was there. But today there is no one that I can put that question to in order to get an answer. What do you think about this?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Perhaps I do not really know how the structure has changed, but according to our analysis, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is still responsible for the Canada-community agreements.

    The Chair: But she is not the one distributing the funding.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: But she is still responsible, is she not? I imagine that the mechanisms that the department uses to reach the agreements come under the minister ultimately, since she has ministerial responsibility. So I do not believe that I can answer on behalf of the minister.

    The Chair: I was not asking you to answer for the minister, but rather to say whether you agree that the present structure, where everything is done through intermediaries, reduces the accountability. I acknowledge that the minister may ultimately be responsible and if there is misappropriation or something, she has to be accountable for it in Parliament. Do you not agree with me that there is a lower degree of accountability now? The number of recipient organizations have been allowed to grow to such an extent that they are all getting crumbs, and the umbrella organizations are no longer getting very much. That kind of direct accountability has diminished, in my opinion. Accountability in the strict accounting sense may be just as strong, since the minister is still responsible in the final analysis, but accountability in the traditional sense is reduced.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: I understand your concern and I think that your question comes down to whether we are ultimately getting the results we want.

    In my opinion, the result that we really want is the development and increased vitality of our communities. After all, what is the federal government's objective as far as our communities are concerned? I think that this is the question to start with. In the end, what is important is not that money is being provided but rather that the government's initiatives make it possible to achieve the objective of the act, which is to support the development and increased vitality of our communities.

    Once the question has been put in that context, I suppose that we can question the mechanisms used. Are they the right mechanisms? Are they efficient? Do they really allow us to achieve the objectives? In my opinion, those are the types of questions that you are raising.

    As commissioner, I focus on the results. The objectives should really be to have a governance structure that allows us to achieve our results. As some parliamentarians have said, this is a way to meet our objectives and comply with the act. We want to comply with the legislation's objectives and so we need the best governance mechanisms possible.

À  (1045)  

    The Chair: Thank you. We will now go to a second round. Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I will try to be brief. I have several questions to ask, Madam Commissioner.

    What we used to call the Dion Action Plan involved an accountability report. Under the act, however, the person who is the most directly accountable is the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

    So I would like to know whether, when you prepared your annual report, you used—or you intend to use—the 2002-2003 annual report of the Department of Canadian Heritage. Did you receive it? There are 29 organizations that submit a report.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, only one part.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Is that report available?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: My approach is to ask the responsible minister directly to report on the objectives.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: In fact, I believe that the 2002-2003 report is not available. I am sorry, it was not a trick question. I should have asked it differently.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Not at all.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: The report is not yet available, and on the accountability question, it is very unfortunate that she has not sent you that report.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: The fiscal year has not yet ended. My report is not available yet either. Oh, you are talking about 2002-2003; I am sorry, I thought we were talking about this year.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would like to know now whether you have met with Michelle Chartrand or people from the new agency responsible for public servants and, if so, whether they have talked to you about imperative staffing. Setting aside all the consultations, policy studies and strategic analyses that can be carried out to solve this issue, correcting the basic problem of designated bilingual positions is fairly simple. Although I have not studied the problem in detail, I am convinced that if you hire bilingual people for bilingual positions, the problem will disappear in the relatively short term. That is called imperative staffing. Will Mr. Coderre, Ms. Scherrer, Mr. Pettigrew or someone else impose an obligation on the new agency to make imperative staffing mandatory?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: From what I can gather, the new agency will have to enforce the policies in effect. The Treasury Board Secretariat, under the direction of Ms. Robillard, recently reviewed these policies. Some of these policies will not come into force until 2004, and others in 2007.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You refer to the EX-2s, the EX-3s, and so on and so forth. I was referring to the very beginning of the hiring process, when the staffing is designated imperative or non-imperative. These days, for one reason or another, certain departments have been telling us that they are hiring accountants who are accountants. However, they may hire bilingual individuals who are not bilingual.

    This is why I am asking you whether or not the new agency has given you any guarantees that it will be hiring bilingual people to staff bilingual positions. Indeed, I have just had an idea: we could apply non-imperative staffing elsewhere and hire lawyers who are not lawyers or accountants who would not be accountants. In my opinion, you either make the policy applicable everywhere or nowhere. What do you think of that? We could hire a doctor who would be, let us say... a plumber, but who would promise us that, one day, he would study to become a doctor.

À  (1050)  

    Ms. Dyane Adam: You are referring to the exclusion order. It has not been eliminated. That means that it is still possible to hire individuals who are not bilingual to staff positions that have been designated bilingual, but these individuals have an obligation to become bilingual before a certain deadline. That has not changed, despite the fact that I have recommended that we eliminate such orders. The agency will have to comply with all of the existing policies and, unfortunately, the exclusion order is still in effect.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would like to clarify the exclusion order somewhat. Within the armed forces, more than 60 per cent of the designated bilingual positions are covered by the exclusion order. Accordingly, that means that more than 60 per cent of the designated bilingual positions are excluded and are staffed by unilingual people. That is quite a broad exclusion!

    I would suggest that, in your next report, you recommend that an assessment of bilingual levels be made every five years. If my information is correct, we used to have five-year assessments but not anymore.

    An individual in a bilingual position who, right after language training, is able to pass the test will be able to work until retirement without being assessed anymore. This person may never work in both official languages. Consequently, the statistics themselves are probably inaccurate.

    I would first of all like to know whether or not you would be prepared to suggest that a bilingualism level assessment be made every five years. I would then like to point out that, unfortunately, the official languages budget in some departments is in some cases non-existent. If you want to know how much money is in the Heritage Canada official languages budget, you can find out. That is understandable. The same thing applies to the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. However, the Department of Justice of Canada does not have a budget item for official languages.

    What is even more surprising is that this data is not available for the Treasury Board, which is responsible for three parts of the Official Languages Act. The same thing applies to 10 other departments.

    If you really want a train to run well, you have to ensure that there is a train station, fuel and money. Do you not think that we need to know what the budget items are? Do you intend to make such a recommendation?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: There are several different aspects to your question. I will respond to your last point. You are looking for greater transparency, accountability and reporting.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You are reading my mind.

    Ms. Dyane Adam: It is because you are very clear. Let us consider the administrative machinery of the government. It has been given new legislation to modernize the human resources that deal with, in particular, the function of modern comptrollership. There is an accountability framework that we need to respect when we are managing our resources. All administrators must comply with his framework, which ties into what you are looking for.

    As commissioner, it is my role to say how, based on this accountability framework, the institutions will integrate official languages into the accountability framework that they need to comply with for all of the other statutes, programs or policies, and how they are going to account for official languages. You and other parliamentarians have raised this issue, Mr. Sauvageau. Since we consider your interventions, we study the issue. Federal institutions, like any other body elsewhere, must create performance indicators, which is part of what you are looking for. We will be looking at this matter.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask another short question.

    The Chair: I think that we have a couple of extra minutes, but please, be very brief.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: There are now more unilingual anglophone ministers in cabinet than there used to be. In order to protect the rights of officials to work in the language of their choice, have you ensured that the deputy ministers or political staff were bilingual? Are there more bilingual deputy ministers? Since there are more unilingual English ministers than before, have you done any follow-up work with respect to their staff?

À  (1055)  

    Ms. Dyane Adam: There is no doubt that you are asking good questions.

    As far as the deputy ministers are concerned, as I already mentioned, the associate deputy ministers and the deputy ministers, unlike other executives, do not have to be bilingual, reach a certain level of bilingualism or be assessed. So I am not able to answer your question. This information is not available publicly.

    However, I can tell you that, in the course of my job, I meet the management committees from various departments and federal institutions. It is not rare, during these meetings, to discuss the obligations of deputy ministers, managers and senior officials with respect to the implementation of the act. When we talk about language of work, there is no doubt that the deputy minister is responsible for ensuring that the employees can work in both official languages. If there are any requests that come from elsewhere and do not comply, the deputy minister has to find a way to abide by the legislation, namely the right of his employees, while at the same time meeting the operational imperatives of his department. He has to be a good juggler.

    The Chair: Our time is up but I see that there may still be a question. Mr. Simard, you have a question and you do as well, Mr. Godin. You can each ask a brief question, and then we will wrap up.

    The floor is yours, Mr. Simard. I would ask for your cooperation.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Prime Minister recently divided official languages duties amongst several departments, so much so that even we MPs do not understand what is going on. Mr. Alcock, Mr. Pettigrew, Mr. Coderre and Minister Scherrer each have certain responsibilities. Is the commissioner somewhat concerned about the situation, in that it could dilute the importance of the official languages file and also result in some accountability problems?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: This is not a new problem. According to the legislation, there has always been shared responsibility with respect to official languages. That is not new. Moreover, this is one of the problems that we had pointed out a few years ago. We felt that coordinated, coherent leadership was required in this matter. This is what prompted Mr. Chrétien's government to appoint a minister responsible for official languages, namely Mr. Dion, and to set up our Reference Group of Ministers on Official Languages and the Committee of Deputy Ministers of Official Languages, so that there would really be some coordination of the various players. Official languages is a horizontal issue, which pertains to all departments. Consequently, clear, coherent direction is required.

    The responsibilities have changed somewhat as well as the legislation. The Public Service Commission also changed its role; in addition, there is the new School of Public Service . So there are different players who are now involved. We are going through a transition period, and when this happens, you always run the risk that the right hand may not really know what the left hand is doing unless there is some very strong and well-coordinated leadership. So it is really important that we strengthen this coordinated leadership.

    It is unfortunate that one of my recommendations was not accepted, that is, to create a group of ministers responsible for official languages in order to coordinate government action on official languages at the political level. This does exist at the Committee of Deputy Ministers of Official Languages but I think that we need both.

    The Chair: One final question, Mr. Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Ms. Adam, will you be appealing to the court in New Brunswick with respect to Electoral Boundaries Commission?

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, yesterday we tabled a document requesting intervenor status.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Ms. Adam.

Á  (1100)  

    Ms. Dyane Adam: Thank you.

    The Chair: I would also like to thank the people accompanying you.

    I would like to ask committee members a question. Since we still have the room available to us for a few minutes, it would appear, do you want to have a quick discussion on the agenda right now or would you prefer to come back tomorrow as scheduled? Do we have a quorum to do this?

    The Clerk of the Committee: Usually we need... [Editor's Note: Inaudible] unless this is an informal discussion.

    The Chair: If this is to finalize the agenda, do you want us to hold a meeting tomorrow, when we will have a full quorum?

    Mr. Yvon Godin: It would be better to hold a meeting tomorrow, because we have a Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs meeting at 11 o'clock.

    The Chair: We will therefore hold a meeting tomorrow to talk about our future business, if you so wish, as you had requested earlier today.

    The meeting is adjourned.