LANG Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, December 9, 2002

1545

The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.))

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

1550

1555

1600

1605

1610

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance)

Mrs. Dyane Adam

1615

Mr. Scott Reid

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Scott Reid

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Scott Reid

Mrs. Dyane Adam

1620

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)

1625

Mrs. Dyane Adam

1630

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ)

1635

Mrs. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

1640

The Chair

Ms. Christiane Gagnon

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mrs. Dyane Adam

1645

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Michel Robichaud (Director General, Investigations Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages)

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mrs. Dyane Adam

1650

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Dyane Adam

1655

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.)

1700

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mrs. Dyane Adam

1705

The Chair

1710

Mrs. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mrs. Dyane Adam

The Chair

1715

Mrs. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mrs. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mrs. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mrs. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mrs. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Dyane Adam

1720

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mrs. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Michel Robichaud

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Dyane Adam

1725

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Dyane Adam

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mrs. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mrs. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mrs. Dyane Adam

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 006

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, December 9, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1545)

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Good afternoon, Ms. Adam. We have got an interesting situation today in that some of our members are not here; that leads me to think that there might be some by-elections somewhere. There are, however, enough of us to hear from witnesses, as the quorum for that is 4. The proposed quorum for the committee is now nine, whereas it was 7 when there were 25 members. Out of a total of 16, the quorum is 9. Life is interesting. But that is our problem and not yours.

Welcome. We have asked you to come to talk about your third annual report and to answer our questions on it. You may make your presentation and introduce the people who are with you. We will proceed in a normal way, in other words we will alternate between questions and answers until we are out of time or until there are no further questions. Ms. Adam, you have the floor.

Mrs. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): Thank you for the invitation. I am happy to finally meet with you, even though we are nearing the Christmas adjournment. But as we say, it is better late than never.

I would like to start by introducing my four colleagues who are here today: Mr. Guy Renaud, Director General, Policy and Communications Branch; Mr. Gérard Finn, Policy Advisor; Ms. Johane Tremblay, Director, Legal Services; and Mr. Michel Robichaud, Director of Investigations.

My presentation before you today gives me the opportunity to discuss my key priorities with you; I will briefly cover some of the issues of interest to me, that is: political and administrative leadership—that is a recurring theme for me—; revitalizing language rights; the use of both official languages within the federal public service; my monitoring role, which has led me to intervene in areas like immigration, health care, access to justice in both official languages; and my office's auditing function. I will also take this opportunity to explore some courses of action with you.

With my last Annual Report, I once again made a diagnostic of the linguistic situation. But I also publicly responded to the Prime Minister's request to recommend some tangible actions by including seven recommendations. My report also highlighted achievements and progress made, including the first Léon Leadership Award presented by my Office.

[English]

On political and administrative leadership, we have noticed some tangible evidence of coordinated and committed leadership. As well, the government's formal commitment, renewed in the latest Speech from the Throne, gives us reason to hope, if words really do translate into action. The commitment reads as follows:

Linguistic duality is at the heart of our collective identity. The government will implement an action plan on official languages that will focus on minority-language and second-language education, including the goal of doubling within ten years the number of high school graduates with a working knowledge of both English and French. It will support the development of minority English- and French-speaking communities, and expand access to services in their language in areas such as health. It will enhance the use of our two official languages in the federal public service, both in the workplace and when communicating with Canadians.

¹ (1550)

[Translation]

With respect to revitalizing language rights and as regards the government's commitment regarding remedies or official languages renewal, we are still missing a key element, that is, the action plan promised by Minister Dion. I do not need to tell you that to my mind, time is of the essence. We are eagerly awaiting this plan.

The loss of previous gains, the integration of official languages in government operations, and the implementation of our recommendations require innovative approaches and a firm and sustained commitment from all levels in the government.

Resource allocation is an essential condition for revitalizing language rights. I hope that Cabinet as a whole will make it a priority. The government must not limit itself to a succession of incoherent reforms without a clear end goal.

Once more, I call upon the government to develop an overall vision supported by objectives, deadlines and mechanisms to assess results. These are essential to insuring that the action plan is implemented successfully.

Since 1990, investment in official languages has stagnated and declined and the number of officials responsible for bilingualism in the federal government has dropped by more than half. We must now correct this situation.

I have recommended that the government allocate sufficient resources—human as well as financial—to allow the Treasury Board Secretariat to fully assume its role of overseeing and evaluating institutions subject to the Official Languages Act. It must fulfill its roles as language trainer, educator and auditor. I continue to express my concerns about the slow pace of change, which is why I am insisting on the need for diligence.

There must be integration and continuity with respect to language rights. By setting the Ministerial Reference Group on Official Languages, chaired by Minister Dion, the government has thereby made it possible to act horizontally in a well-structured way. I therefore recommended to the Prime Minister that this group be given a permanent committee status in order to encourage sustained leadership at the highest levels of the public service and to support the implementation of the government's action plan.

Allow me to mention some of this year's success stories. In the annual report this year, as I mentioned earlier, for the first time, we awarded a leadership prize. The pacesetter in terms of administrative leadership is, without doubt, Ivan Fellegi, Chief Statistician of Canada, who received my first Léon Leadership Award. His institution has distinguished itself by the excellent bilingual services it provides to the public, by its workplace conducive to the use of both languages, and, more generally, by the management of its language program. Of course, many more similar examples are required in the rest of government.

[English]

Recent studies on the use of both official languages within the federal public service clearly show that an enormous amount of work remains to be done. Language of work is a priority, since I believe the public service must embody a dynamic culture of linguistic duality. The Treasury Board study “Attitudes towards the Use of Both Official Languages Within the Public Service of Canada” shows that public service employees support the basic principles underlining language policies.

The study also confirms that support among public service employees is especially high with respect to service to the public: 92% of public servants believe it is important for them to serve the public in both official languages, and 86% stated they would be willing to make a personal effort to encourage bilingualism in the workplace. On average, bilingual anglophones working in a bilingual environment speak French 14% of the time, while bilingual francophones in the same bilingual environment speak English 43% of the time.

The study also reveals there is still a lot of confusion or lack of knowledge about the way these principles can be put into daily practice. This is after 30 years of official bilingualism within the public service. The President of the Treasury Board, Madame Robillard, who shares this view, has taken a proactive approach in this regard. In fact, to remedy the current situation I recommended numerous courses of action, and most of them have been retained by Madam Robillard.

One of these arises from the unanimous view that it is time for a change in culture, and that senior management must lead by example. I have therefore recommended that the achievement of the three objectives of the Official Languages Act remain one of the priorities of the Clerk of the Privy Council for the next three years. Public service administrators must allocate the time and resources needed to implement the official language program in their workplace.

¹ (1555)

[Translation]

Another approach focuses on the modernization of the management of human resources underway in the federal government. I have suggested that, during this exercise, the public service should fully integrate official languages into its activities. The culture change will be achieved through the modernization of the public service. During this process, action must be taken to: make senior federal management more accountable by redefining the government framework for official languages; promote bilingualism as a basic skill; staff bilingual positions with people who have a knowledge of both official languages (imperative staffing); rethink language training; and emphasize receptive bilingualism.

Regarding the dynamics of workplace communications, many factors are constantly interacting. In order to identify them, I have commissioned a socio-linguistic study that will focus primarily on the situation in headquarters in the National Capital Region and will extend to regions designated as bilingual. We must make every effort to find ways to increase the use of French in the public service.

Along the same lines, during the Symposium on Language of Work, which took place in New Brunswick in early November, Minister Robillard repeated the government's desire and commitment by sending a clear message to managers who will not be able to meet the language requirements of their positions by March 31, 2003, which is the deadline. She tried to mobilize them by spelling out expectations and punitive measures that could be taken if necessary. I am pleased to see that my recommendations are leading to both political and administrative actions. However, I am disappointed that the measures do not also apply to deputy ministers, who are currently exempt from language requirements. It is puzzling to say the least that the federal government requires its managers to be bilingual but not its senior leaders. As soon as new public service managers arrive, they should be informed of the requirements of the Official Languages Act and its underlying values. They need guidance and preparation to manage the Official Languages Program. They must be made aware that they are the officials primarily responsible for integrating these values into their institution's organizational culture. In short, they must put into practice the government 's commitment to the equality of status and use of both official languages and the right of employees to work in the official language of their choice.

º (1600)

[English]

Now I will speak to my monitoring role. In our last annual report we had a whole chapter on the different roles the commissioner's office plays. One is the monitoring role that has led me, in the last year, to take a proactive approach by getting involved at the drafting stage of acts, regulations, policies, and programs to ensure that language rights are taken into account.

For example, I intervene with the minister responsible and before parliamentary committees to ensure that the policy in the bill and the physical activity in support give consideration to linguistic duality. You will remember that I produced a report in 2000 that showed that francophones are facing major barriers preventing them from fully participating in various sporting activities.

Other key issues are also a priority for me, such as broadcasting, including subtitling, the Internet, the minority press, the broadcast of parliamentary debates, and government online.

Another important dossier was definitely immigration. From the beginning of my term I wanted to raise awareness of the fact that Canadian population growth and the survival of official language minority communities depend on immigrants. The two studies I commissioned on immigration confirmed this. Without effective measures, official language minority communities have a hard time recruiting and integrating anglophone or francophone immigrants.

I worked hard to ensure that the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and regulations pay special attention to the development of both official language groups in Canada and, in particular, minority francophone communities, which are clearly disadvantaged by the demographic imbalance that has been growing for years. According to current data from Stats Canada, in the anglophone population one person in five is an immigrant, whereas in the francophone population, both in Quebec and across the country, the figure is one immigrant in twenty.

So linguistic duality and ethnocultural diversity are at the heart of the Canadian identity.

I recommended in the last annual report that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration develop support programs to implement the language provisions of the new act.

We must also promote our linguistic duality abroad by raising the profile of our official language minority communities and by helping these communities develop an adequate infrastructure to welcome and integrate newcomers.

[Translation]

Another priority issue for all Canadians is, of course, health care. Last May, I made a submission to the Romanow Commission given that linguistic duality was absent from its deliberations on national health. I have reviewed the final report, which was tabled on November 28. The linguistic dimension is now addressed in one of the Commission's recommendations, but this is not enough! Although a number of recommendations include deadlines, there are no deadlines with respect to the provision of health care in the minority official language. Moreover, the principle of giving Canadians access to health services in the official language of their choice should be explicitly recognized in the Canada Health Act. I do not think that I would have to convince the chair of this committee of that. Moreover, I am concerned about the absence of a national legal guarantee. This indicates to me that my efforts to raise awareness must continue, or rather I should say, that our efforts to raise awareness must continue. I therefore intend to present my views before the House and Senate parliamentary committees. As a clinical psychologist, I know firsthand about the importance of communication and fostering a climate of trust between patient and physician, or any other health care professional. It is a very important condition of any healing process. In order to provide care, you must first be able to understand the patient.

º (1605)

[English]

Now to justice. Access to justice in both official languages is also a major issue. Last August the Department of Justice published its “Environmental Scan”--“État des lieux” in French. This study identified barriers to obtaining legal services in English and French across Canada, as well as a variety of possible solutions from the minority communities. The Department of Justice, in cooperation with its provincial and territorial counterparts, must now make efforts to review the solutions proposed in the study and implement those that are most likely to address the needs of the minority communities.

In this regard, the department's initiative to set up a federal-provincial-territorial working group, spun off from the forum of deputy ministers of justice, is certainly a step in the right direction. I therefore expect to see this initiative result in tangible actions from the department. The necessary measures must now be taken to help provincial and territorial governments set up the appropriate institutional structures to allow Canadians to access the justice system in both official languages.

In one of its last reports, the joint committee addressed a series of recommendations to the Department of Justice, the first of which dealt with enforcing the application of part VII of the Official Languages Act, and the importance of working with the communities on this question. I recommended in my annual report that the government clarify the legal scope of the commitment set out in section 41 of the act and take the measures required to effectively fulfill its responsibilities under this section--in other words, to keep this item on the radar screen.

On another matter, I encourage you to examine the relevance of the current provisions of the official languages regulations pertaining to communications with and services to the public developed by the Treasury Board Secretariat. I believe the time has come to review them, and I have made my position known to Ministers Robillard and Dion.

[Translation]

Before concluding, I would like to give you a few details on my Office's auditing function.

My role involves a number of areas, one of which pertains to complaints and investigations. That is probably the Office's most well-known role; people are very familiar with complaints. It is a way for citizens to directly air their concerns so that steps are taken and investigations are conducted to examine these complaints. Complaints remain a powerful tool for change when our recommendations are implemented. Beyond complaints, however, we must remain proactive. I need to be able to report accurately to Parliament on the language situation within the federal government and Crown corporations, agencies and privatized institutions that are not under Treasury Board's responsibility or do not have it as their employer. There are over a hundred such institutions. I therefore intend to enhance the auditing function of my Office, as we are the independent body responsible for monitoring compliance with the act.

Among the key courses of action I am encouraging you to examine is the government's action plan, the Environmental Scan Study, modernization of the public service, the State of official languages in Crown corporations and other institutions subject to the Official Languages Act, language of work, the accountability framework, and, of course, my Office. We will have a host of studies and research material that will support you in your parliamentary work.

The government must act, but I reiterate, it must act with diligence. It can no longer afford to turn a blind eye. It must take action in a timely manner and refuse to accept unjustified delays or evasion.

In conclusion, I can see that you have already started the ball rolling by inviting the CRTC and the Treasury Board to appear before you. Even though I was unable to attend your first meetings, I have followed your proceedings with great interest, and I notice that you are closely monitoring Air Canada's performance. I know that I can count on you, and likewise, I also wish to pledge my full co-operation. Your meetings are among my priorities and I will try to take part as often as possible. Of course, there will always be someone from my office here who is in a position to answer questions if you so desire. If I am made aware ahead of time of the issue that you plan to examine or study at each meeting, it will be easier for me to send you the people from my office who have the most knowledge in those areas.

Thank you for you attention. I will now be pleased to answer your questions.

º (1610)

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Adam.

Mr. Reid, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to our committee, Commissioner.

[English]

I want to ask you about an issue that you didn't raise today but I know must be on your mind, and that is an issue that I've raised in the House of Commons regarding the issuing of unilingual citations, unilingual traffic tickets, within the national capital region by the RCMP, in violation of section 25 of the Official Languages Act, which states that all federal departments must offer all services within the national capital region in both official languages.

I note, of course, and I suspect you're aware of this, that the Official Languages Act also states that when section 4 of the act comes in conflict with any other federal statutes--section 4 includes the provision on services to the public in the national capital region--it shall prevail over that other act.

Therefore it has been my contention that although the federal Contraventions Act allows the federal government to enter into agreements with provinces on the nature of the tickets they may issue, that doesn't change the fact that these tickets are being issued in violation of the Official Languages Act. That's what I've been contending. I wonder if you agree with the assertion I've been making.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: That is an issue that not only are we quite aware of, as you know, but it's directly linked to one of the court actions that we had against the government, more specifically the Department of Justice, where in fact the judge gave reason to the position or the interpretation held by my office on this issue, and the department has been given initially a year to redress it. It was in Ontario, as you will recall, under the Contraventions Act.

I think the issue at stake here is basically the same one you are raising, but it's in Quebec. Where we are at with respect to the department is that they have been slow to address the issue with Ontario first. Evidently the judge wanted them to redress the situation, and gave them a year to do it. They did not achieve it in that period of time, so there was an extension for another year. So what we are being told by the department is that they are focusing on Ontario first, to meet the judgment. But at the same time, they have started to discuss it with the other provinces, because it does have an impact on the other provinces. We have also received a complaint on this specific issue linked to the Quebec side.

º (1615)

Mr. Scott Reid: When the departmental officials were before this committee last week, I got the impression they were arguing the parallel with Ontario was not there. This is the Blais decision in Ontario.

It seems to me the parallel did exist. One is talking about a situation in which one level of government is issuing tickets, or is effectively undertaking an enforcement function for another level of government. Therefore, the parallel does exist between the situation Judge Blais was referring to in his decision and the situation raised in regard to the national capital region.

I'm just wondering if you see the connection there as well, that they are essentially parallels.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: Oh yes, definitely. The obligation in the judgment was clear. If the federal government transfers responsibility to another level of government, or let's say to the private sector, it cannot avoid the obligation. It must ensure the third party will in fact respect the Official Languages Act. If the third party does not, then they have to negotiate other terms of agreement.

So that judgment or decision of the court applies to other provinces. They will have to rectify or redress the situation, at least in my expectation, if they violate the Official Languages Act through other types of transfers of responsibility to other parties elsewhere in Canada.

Mr. Scott Reid: For my own benefit, I'm not aware of when the deadline is for the second extended period authorized by the court.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: It is March 23, 2003.

Mr. Scott Reid: I have trouble adjusting to the idea we're in a series of years that don't begin with the number 19.

On a different subject, I wanted to ask you about the President of the Treasury Board recommending the changing of a number of positions at the executive level, essentially from bilingual designated to bilingual imperative. The impression I have is this will have the impact of causing it to become more difficult for members of both of Canada's unilingual majorities—the French-speaking unilingual majority in Quebec and the English-speaking unilingual majority outside Quebec, which are both fairly substantial majorities—to get positions within the federal public service and work their way up. There seems to be an expectation you will come to the job fully armed with a set of linguistic skills that most Canadians, both of francophone and anglophone background, do not actually have. I am very worried about this.

I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on this, particularly with how there could be some form of mitigation of this particular concern of the unilingual populations of Canada, should this be implemented.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: I think we have to clarify exactly what Madame Robillard is targeting. It's nothing new. There are a number of positions in the federal public service that are designated bilingual, and you need to have competency at a certain level; it may be A, B, C, or whatever. There are different levels, and you need to have a specific level to be eligible for that position because it has been judged through an objective process that either because you're a supervisor or because of the nature of your work serving the public, you will need to have that skill.

What Madame Robillard is saying is that for those positions, you should at the moment you win the competition be able to serve the public or be able to supervise your employees in the language of their choice. You should be competent, and this is what they call imperative staffing. In the past there were some individuals who were allowed to more or less take the position, and they were given a period of time that might be two years or more, extended periods, to become bilingual. What she is saying now is that we have an exclusion order.

In fact, it was almost an exception to allow people. It's like allowing someone who's not, say, a doctor to practise even though they don't have their licence. It's an exception, and I've seen that. We find that funny, but when you're practising in the rural regions, we might be surprised to see how many of the professional orders have exceptions at times to allow you to practise where we would not allow that in an urban setting.

It's almost an anomaly in a way to let people occupy a position where that skill is judged to be needed. So what she is saying is, this is no more. Now we have sufficient people who are bilingual, and the proof is that of the people who have been hired for those specifically bilingual-designated positions in the last two years, I believe over 90% of them already had the skills. That's an incredible improvement over the years before the exclusion order existed or was created.

º (1620)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

We went over our time, so I'll have to compensate in the second round.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Adam, on pages 54, 55 and 56 of your 2001-2002 Annual Report, you provide an update on parliamentary debates broadcast on the Cable Public Affairs Channel, CPAC.

We met the CRTC two or three weeks ago, and I was immensely disappointed to learn that they had decided to renew CPAC's licence not for five years, as they normally had done, but for seven years. That means we are currently grappling with a problem that might not be resolved for seven years, unless you know how to overturn the CRTC decision or at least block it until the situation has been resolved.

Here's the problem. You mention the Quigley case, which concerns a man from New Brunswick who wants to watch House debates in the language of his choice. To date, he has been successful, and I congratulate him. Even our chairman is involved in the appeal, and I congratulate him as well.

However, that has a negative impact on the CRTC decision to renew CPAC's licence. The National Capital Region should reflect the principles of the Canadian government as regards official languages, regardless of the party in power. But in Ottawa, Canada's capital, a francophone will not be able to watch House of Commons proceedings in French on TV for the next seven years.

Nor will an anglophone from Gatineau, Quebec, be able to watch House of Commons or committee proceedings in English. So in the National Capital Region, both minorities are at a disadvantage.

The CRTC justifies this situation because new SAP technology exists. This technology enables the person who is watching TV to switch from English to French or French to English.

As for me, I have a new Sony TV. It is a TV with a good reputation, and what's more, I signed up for Rogers digital service. It is also very new, but there are some limits: first of all, you need a new TV; secondly, you probably have to be signed up for digital service; and thirdly, you need to know how to use this SAP technology. I can confirm that several other members and I have had trouble understanding how to operate this system. It may be a question of age, or all those damn buttons.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, decorum!

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The chairman loves the word “decorum”; he uses it each time I raise this topic.

Fourthly, even people who can and know how to use this technology are not able to switch it quickly enough to move from one language to the other.

I gave it a try, and I did finally find the French version.

º (1625)

By the time I managed to find the French, the MP had started talking in the other language. Since I wanted to hear him in English, I had to go through it all over again, and so on. Before, under the old system, with an old television set, all you had to do was watch channel 21, which was in French, or channel 22, which was in English. You yourself, in your presentation, alternated between English and French. If I had listened to your speech under the new SAP system, I would have had a hard time listening to you in another language without having to punch buttons quite quickly in order to get the language of my choice.

How can we have that decision changed? Is it up to cabinet? Can you yourself intervene? Do we have to beg CPAC? There is a fundamental principle at play here, because this is the capital of Canada. If my friend Yvon Godin were here, he would talk about New Brunswick, as he has always done brilliantly. But I am speaking for the capital of Canada, the National Capital Region. We are going to have to wait another seven years to correct this situation, unless there is another way to intervene.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: I am going to try to answer briefly, because it is a rather complex matter. What I understand from what you have said is that you have many concerns and you believe that the CRTC decision will prevent francophones or anglophones from being served in the language of their choice when it comes to the television broadcasting of parliamentary debates.

I have had the CRTC decision analyzed and I can tell you it is a huge improvement over the previous situation. But before I say that, I should say that it is important for me to remember that we are currently before the courts on the underlying question of whether the House of Commons or Parliament of Canada is required to provide Canadian citizens access to either the English or French audio accompanying the video image of parliamentary business. This issue is before the courts and you know what our position is. We say that has to be ensured at all stages of transmission. If CPAC is responsible for recording, it must make sure that the other parties involved in the process comply with the legislation. We will not be involved in that.

What matters to me is the result. At the end of the day, I want you to have access in your living room to the signal in the language of your choice. How are you going to get that? That is where technology may create problems for us. That was your question. The latest CRTC decision imposed many more requirements than CPAC formerly had. It requires CPAC's programs to be bilingual and translated. It is more demanding for analog than it was for digital. It also requires that there be original productions, so to speak, in French, which was not formerly the case. I could give you a more in-depth analysis of this CRTC decision, if you want. I did not say it was perfect, but it is a huge step forward. Will technology allow us to truly have ready access to our signal? I am not an expert in that field, and I should not go out on a limb and say that this will be a huge improvement in that regard. I too am a bit like you: I have to try it out and my team has to examine it more closely. The CRTC decision is relatively positive at first blush.

º (1630)

The Chair: I will put you back on for the second round.

Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am happy to be here today, Ms. Adam. I sit on the committee that is studying the Broadcasting Act, and we have a lot of work to do. I wonder whether one day, we may be able to think that bilingualism in Canada is not utopian. I look at what Mr. Mauril Bélanger is doing and I congratulate him on his perseverance.

However, you have to ask what's the panic over bilingualism in certain communities like Vancouver and others. I have travelled all over Canada. In the context of the Broadcasting Act, there's the 50% rule. There's also the issue of the availability of signals, which cable carriers do or do not provide, as well as the satellite issue.

You will have to look into satellites because they are not subject to the same rules as cable carriers. They have to choose their own signals, and what's even more serious, you can't even get access to local programming, local news anymore. They need to be given the necessary tools, which are very expensive. Having visited the various regions of Canada, I know that in Newfoundland, for example, the francophone community lives under difficult conditions. I have a lot of sympathy for them. These people have a hard time living their francophone culture because not enough money is invested in it. They don't have the tools they need to develop and do their own programming. So, something has to give. I don't know what shape the minister's policy could take, but action needs to be taken on every level.

I have been to every airport. I would like to know how we can get French newspapers or literature, from Quebec or elsewhere, in the airports for the francophone communities. I systematically asked in every airport whether they had French newspapers. “No” was the answer. I have been to Sarajevo and Moscow, Russia, and you can find French newspapers there. In Canada, you can't. Internationally, we pride ourselves on being a multilingual or bilingual country, and yet on the facts, it isn't so.

When you see on the news that the number of allophones is going up and that English is being used less and French even less, what image of Canada does that create? It projects an image of a unilingual English country or a country where people cannot identify the community they decided to belong to when they chose Quebec or Canada.

I find that the official languages committee is doing excellent work. You do an excellent job when you raise this issue, but on the facts, I'm wondering how to get more investment in this area. There has never been any money. Technical support is what is needed.

Some francophones from Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island told me they were very embarrassed at first about doing a show in French, when they got radio, because they were ashamed of their French. They hadn't had the chance to learn French properly and couldn't use the right words to express themselves. In Quebec, we've been through the same thing. We've given ourselves more room to manoeuvre based on numbers, but our numbers are now declining. Indeed, the francophone community in Quebec is apparently shrinking in percentage terms.

So something has to give, and I hope the minister will hear what your committee is calling for, Mr. Bélanger, because he doesn't seem to think action is urgently needed.

º (1635)

Mrs. Dyane Adam: I think we are saying the same things in many ways and are also concerned about the urgent need for action and diligence.

I would like to comment on a number of points you made. On the issue of satellite signals, I have to say we have indeed received complaints. In the Quebec city area, for example, people are not getting the regional signal; they only get the national signal. We are dealing with that issue; it is under investigation, and we have begun to intervene in that area.

I would like to point out that under the CRTC decision, CPAC is now required to broadcast parliamentary business in both official languages as part of the cable carrier's basic service. That was not the case before, and it is a very positive change.

I believe you also raised the issue of access to newspapers and literature in places like Air Canada's Maple Leaf lounge, where such material is often in short supply. I encourage you to make a complaint about that.

With respect to minority language proficiency, a study was published just a few days ago, if I am not mistaken, by Statistics Canada. It shows that particularly in minority situations, one out of every two francophones has a great deal of difficulty writing and understanding the written language, and that the same percentage has literacy problems. This problem reflects in part the fact that French language schools are a relatively recent phenomenon in many of our communities. So the recovery is not yet complete; there is still work to be done.

The Chair: Ms. Gagnon, you still have about 40 seconds. We could also do another round.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I had a question to ask about airports but I also wanted to make a complaint; I had intended to write to you about this. Last Thursday, in a little green bus, I spoke to the driver in French. I never would have imagined he would be unable to answer me in French. But he said to me, "I don't speak French". So I shot back that he had to speak to me in French and that since he worked on Parliament Hill, he should be able to provide service in French. Nevertheless, he went on responding in English, a bit disdainfully, letting me know he would not speak French. In my opinion, he did not want to speak French, because he understood what I was saying to him.

Should I be complaining to you? I am going to try to get his name. I remember his face very clearly; so I am going to go look at the photos of bus drivers in order to identify him. I really had the impression he did not want to speak French. Had I been sick and needed medicine from my purse, how could he have helped me? If he is unable to provide the service in both languages, and there is an emergency, is he again going to stubbornly refuse to speak French? I also asked him the name of the street he was taking, because a taxi was to come and get me. But I had to go inside to ask. Coming from someone who works at the House of Commons, that is a clear sign of ill will.

º (1640)

The Chair: You have a couple of letters to send, then. Seriously, I hope you are going to do it.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I will do it because the situation frustrated me. In Prague, for example, there is a francophone community with access to French literature.

If we want to show the rest of the world that we are a community that is both francophone and anglophone, we should act like it. In Russia, Prague and Sarajevo there are francophone communities; those people are proud to speak French. We tell them that in our country, there are francophones, but when you are actually here, you...

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Simard.

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

Welcome, Ms. Adam. I'm not sure if what I have to say are questions or observations; so I would invite you to make comments. There are four points I would like to raise.

In Manitoba, we have recently established bilingual service centres; two of them have already been opened and the third will be opened within a few weeks. It's a real success in Manitoba. The three levels of government are actively providing services in both official languages. It is a truly unique event and things are going well.

I have to tell you, though, that the experience proved rather difficult. People who went to the departments to recruit employees ran up against some formidable resistance.

But if this experience is positive for us, could it be considered for other provinces, like New Brunswick, for example?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: I was in Winnipeg just last week and I visited one of those centres. We did an evaluation of that and in fact are soon going to publish a study on this concept of integrated services among different levels of government. So I will be able to elaborate on that in January.

During my visit, I met with provincial ministers and people who had been involved in the exercise. In my opinion, we have to focus on the level of federal involvement in this type of service delivery. They've really come up with a new model, and the federal participation is somewhat tentative. What I hear is that people are under the impression that if the federal government isn't calling the shots, they have a hard time cooperating or being a partner. So I think it might be important for you, as MPs, to raise awareness among your colleagues.

I do plan to keep an eye on that because it's an interesting concept. At single-window service centres, an integrated service in both official languages is provided, but they have also created environments where the language of work is French. I think that's unique in Canada, and if it turns out to be a model that should be copied, then that will raise more interesting questions for the federal government. Except in designated bilingual areas, our minorities cannot work in their language. So in places like Manitoba, if that works, we will have to see what exactly the Official Languages Act provides us in terms of opportunities and development support for our minorities under part VII, for example. That might be a new way to support our communities by giving them the option of working in their own language. In short, this raises a lot of interesting questions.

Mr. Raymond Simard: My second comment has to do with the devolution of federal responsibilities. I know that some federal programs have fallen to the provincial minister responsible for education and training. I had the opportunity, in my former life, to meet the person responsible for that provincially. She told us she had no responsibility, no obligation to comply with the Official Languages Act, that that wasn't part of the agreement. That really struck me because previously, minorities were protected. I don't know whether you're doing something about that. Obviously, when the federal government signs those agreements, it seems to me there should be some conditions attached.

What do you have to say about that?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: Not only do I agree, but we have looked into that and published studies on the impact of government devolution. One of the cases that went to the very heart of the diagnosis of the negative impact of federal government devolution on language rights was the transfer of responsibility for labour from the federal government to the provincial governments. From what I understand, in Manitoba, there was a problem attributable to the lack of language clauses.

There is also the fact that the issue of training is different for francophones. The employment rate is very low, almost zero, and a large part of federal funding was designed based on the unemployed. Thus, the francophone community, which still has training and development needs, is virtually deprived of all training programs. This problem was brought to my attention during my visit to Winnipeg.

º (1645)

Mr. Raymond Simard: My third comment has to do with the public service.

We have a number of examples in Manitoba of bilingual people being encouraged to apply for designated bilingual jobs only to be quite quickly eliminated before seeing the positions go to unilingual anglophones. The problem, clearly, is that the conditions are not tough enough to ensure that these positions are filled by bilingual people. I am told that if the people are not qualified, they can be quite quickly eliminated and the positions filled with unilingual anglophones.

Is that so?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: Are you talking about the federal public service?

Mr. Raymond Simard: Yes.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: It would require specific cases. If you have any, feel free to make formal complaints so that we can at least investigate, because we had a number of complaints in the past.

Isn't that right, Michel?

Mr. Michel Robichaud (Director General, Investigations Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): Absolutely. If you have a specific case, I would like to know about it. We could get in touch with you.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Fine.

My last point is about immigration. Quite recently, in Manitoba, francophones held a conference on immigration. It was very interesting. Obviously, we have established that we have quite unique needs; I think that was no surprise.

Minister Coderre announced a few weeks later that we had a clause for francophones. Usually, the problem is that those clauses do not come with funding. And if there is no money to set up the infrastructure, then they are not worth much.

How do we give those things some teeth and ensure that the recommendations are acted upon? It is all well and good to have all the good intentions in the world, but if there is no funding to follow through... That is more or less our challenge.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: I think the federal government not only has an obligation to treat both languages equally, but also has an obligation to produce results. The latest immigration bill and regulations do contain some obligations, a commitment to minority official language communities.

Since you are particularly interested in immigration, you will also note the latest study I have published. We documented in detail the type of tools minority communities need in order to play their reception role, so that they have the required resources as well. Because the federal government, along with the other levels of government, provides the resources. There are reception and integration services available across the country, but they are often developed only in English or in the language of the majority.

We now have to make sure that the department follows through. That is why this is part of one of the recommendations in our annual report. I think the committee may have a key role to play in making sure that the resources needed for minority official language communities to truly become full actors and players in this process are forthcoming. It is not that the will is not there: our study clearly shows that there are very good lessons and ways of doing things in minority communities that work well, but we still need to equip and educate our communities.

It will be a pleasure for me and my team to follow that very closely. We are quite aware of what is going on in Manitoba, but like you, we find that the federal government should provide more resources.

º (1650)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming to meet with us today.

Earlier, I heard some people saying that in the Atlantic region, we will not have regional television or radio programs because we do not speak French well enough. I find that a little bit insulting and that is not going to help communities develop. I think we need to respect the origin of communities; otherwise, we would not have la Sagouine.

As you know, we have a lot of problems. I would like to mention a few of them and perhaps also ask a question.

Earlier, you spoke of deputy ministers. Have you already done some research to ascertain how many deputy ministers here, at the federal government, are unilingual anglophones and how many are unilingual francophones?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: In the year covered by this report, we published a study on the senior federal public service and in that study, we made a number of recommendations. We noted the rate of participation of francophones and anglophones at the highest echelons of the federal public service. To my knowledge, for assistant deputy ministers, it is over 25%. In fact, for assistant deputy ministers, on average, I think we are at around 30%. For deputy ministers, we are at about 20 or 25%.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Twenty-five per cent of what?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: Francophones.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Francophones who do not speak a word of English?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: Oh, no. Sorry, I misunderstood.

Mr. Yvon Godin: My question was: how many unilingual anglophone deputy ministers are there in the federal government, and how many unilingual francophone deputy ministers are there in the federal government?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: I cannot answer that question because there are no data. Because it is not an official requirement for deputy ministers, we do not evaluate deputy ministers. So, there are no data. You could tell me they are all bilingual, but I could not verify that.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Are assistant deputy ministers also protected?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: No, there is a requirement for them.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Okay.

Can we have the data on assistant deputy ministers?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: Yes, I could give you that.

Mr. Yvon Godin: How many assistant deputy ministers do not speak...?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: Their second language, right?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, for both languages.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: Yes, I can give you that.

The Chair: Please send that to the clerk, Ms. Adam.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There's something else. I understand Mr. Bellemare's frustration in light of the recent CRTC decision. When the CRTC appeared before us, they told us that it was up to people to buy the necessary equipment to pick up CPAC, the proceedings of the House of Commons, in their language. I find that frustrating, because the country should be providing that to Canadians free of charge. Some people cannot afford to pay for it.

As I told the CRTC, I have a TV that is less than 10 years old. It's time they stopped using the pretext that, if we have a recent TV, we can use the SAP to receive the version in the language we want. I want to invite them to come to my place and show me what to do, or I can bring my TV here, some day, so that they can do a demonstration, because despite my relatively good knowledge of electronics, I still haven't found out how to do it, even with new TVs that were purchased recently. So imagine the problems some people have.

It's simple: I think we're missing the boat. It should be as simple as this: it is time Parliament forces cable broadcasters to provide CPAC in both languages for all Canadians. Back home, we get the floor. Imagine this: the question is in French, and the answer is in English. Neither language group can understand, because they're losing people midway.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: I would like to respond to the question now. As Commissioner, I am interested in clarifying Parliament's obligations. How will it subsequently respect its obligations? Seeing to that will be the responsibility of the CRTC, CPAC and the technicians. But somewhere, if the decision on the matter which is before the courts is in favour of our interpretation, Parliament will be required, at least according to the judge, to provide broadcasts of its proceedings in both official languages. At that point, they will have to find a way of complying with the decision.

To my mind, there are two fundamental issues: until there is agreement, as the House itself does not believe it is required to do so, it will be difficult to pursue a particular approach. As for me, I do not want to compromise; I want the House or Parliament to comply with the act, that's all. Later, they'll come up with the way of doing so.

º (1655)

Mr. Yvon Godin: Earlier on, we were talking about Air Canada and newspapers in the language... I would point out that back home, Air Canada Jazz has even stopped providing newspapers on board. There aren't any anymore. It wasn't enough to cut out the sandwiches, they've also cut out the newspapers. But I think the two things I'm going to mention make me even more afraid.

According to rumour, because it acquired Canadian, Air Canada has had to transfer anglophones into the Atlantic provinces to replace bilingual people. I can see a new problem developing in the Atlantic region or on board aircraft.

Moreover, the company is abolishing a lot of services through regions where Air Canada, when it was owned by the government, was responsible for providing service to Canadians. Now that the private sector is the company's major shareholder, Air Canada has started closing airports and has stopped providing services in these regions. I am going to make an accusation, and I do not give a hoot about how they will interpret it. I think it is a good way of sidestepping their official language obligations, as after that, private carriers will pick up the slack, and they will wash their hands of the entire matter.

I do not know if it is possible for you to conduct an investigation to determine where Air Canada is going and what is happening with its obligations to Canadians. It is not just about international airports; it is about their providing service to all Canadians and subsequently sidestepping their responsibilities by saying that they are no longer providing service to Saint-Léonard, that they no longer provide service to Yarmouth, that they don't provide service here and there, and they're doing the same thing in all regions of the country. So they will no longer need to fulfill their obligations, Madam Commissioner.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: In fact, there was an announcement that services were being discontinued to some of the airports that you mentioned, to small communities that are often bilingual or francophone. One of the things that we did after the announcement was write to Minister Collenette to apprise him of our concern with respect to the services provided by Air Canada and with respect to Air Canada fulfilling its language obligations. We mentioned the impact of the discontinuation of services provided by Air Canada on the development of these communities, for example, under the act, but also under section 41 of the act, and the impact of these services eventually being picked up by other carriers. We asked the minister if he had any plans in this regard. To the best of my knowledge, we have not yet received a reply.

As I think you will recall, in the report she tabled last August, Ms. Ward raised the issue of the federal government's responsibility for ensuring that Canadians... We talk about national access to health care services, but there is also the issue of access to transportation. If there are regions that are deprived of air transportation, that will have consequences in terms of their vitality, in terms of their economic development and, of course, since several of them are bilingual, there will be an impact on the vitality of these minority communities in some cases. They go hand in hand to some extent.

We have already taken action, but I cannot tell you that we have received a reply from the minister.

The Chair: Mr. Binet.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Will there be another round?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Good afternoon, Ms. Adam. I want to congratulate you on your excellent work. Our chairman is also doing good work, and the repercussions are good.

A few weeks ago, at the Quebec caucus, we met with the Minister of National Defence. We told him about the problem francophones are facing at National Defence. I got the report. Of course, it is not a question of numbers, but if we assess the situation based on numbers and establish a ratio, we can see that it is well balanced as regards francophones, regardless of the area.

As Commissioner of Official Languages, how do you see the situation of official languages at National Defence?

» (1700)

Mrs. Dyane Adam: It is difficult to make an overall assessment because right now it is complaints that serve as our main indicator and complaints, of course, are always individual actions. They are filed by a citizen or an employee. As I have always stated, this is a significant but incomplete indicator, explaining why I feel it is so important to develop other ways of assessing or verifying the state of our official languages in our institutions and why we have the auditing function. When the office really has established indicators and conducts a more in-depth analysis of official languages...

There are, however, some important files and we discuss them to some extent in our annual report. There is, for instance, the whole issue of the bilingual ship or the Ville de Québec ship where there were some problems with respect to French as the language of work. We have reported a few cases on this subject.

There is also the matter of technical training. We always receive complaints from employees or soldiers. Not so long ago, in Gatineau, we were told that the technical training was often provided in English only or partially in English and partially in French.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Do you plan to prepare a report or focus on the problem in National Defence soon?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: I do not foresee doing an overall report on the situation in the immediate future. We have not really decided what institutions we will be looking at, but we want to begin the audit in early 2003-2004. I am hoping to be in a better position to tell you which institutions will be targeted every year. Ideally, we should always have a multi-year plan because the institutions themselves have to participate.

Will we be focusing on defence? I cannot answer this question: I have yet to make a decision.

Mr. Gérard Binet: I was taking a look at the achievements. We hear that there is going to be some money for official languages and my colleague referred to this earlier. We know that the budget is coming and that everybody is asking for money. Every MP has a request.

I am looking at the notable achievements of Sport Canada and the Canadian Olympic Association. I do not want to talk about the person who is currently in the position. I am certain that he is doing a good job and that he manages very well in French, but we had a minister from Quebec who really emphasized that. In my opinion, he must not have received a lot more money to reach his objective.

In your opinion, do you feel that having a minister from Quebec who really wants to achieve his objectives makes a difference when it comes to official languages? We see that this has been the case for Sport Canada.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: What I think is important is for all ministers, politicians and decision-makers, regardless of where they come from, to be committed.

Mr. Gérard Binet: It is not only a question of money.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: Of course resources are important, but commitment, will and diligence are what make the difference. This committee too has a responsibility for monitoring the situation. You have a great deal of power by virtue of the questions that you can ask and by being on the lookout.

Mr. Gérard Binet: We are anxiously awaiting the report from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Honourable Stéphane Dion. Everybody is really anxious to see it and to hear your comments.

Given your role of promotion of and education about Canada's linguistic duality, not only within the federal government but also in Canadian society, are you planning any particular action to convince the majorities, francophone in Quebec and anglophone in the rest of the country, that this action plan is justified and timely?

When the minister tables his report, somebody will need to promote it.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: There is no doubt that it is the government that has the primary responsibility. The commissioner, as I have often said, is not responsible for implementing the legislation; the commissioner is responsible for promoting it and this is what I do. However, in my opinion, what resonates most with citizens and for both majorities, is to hear the elected officials using both official languages in their speeches, to hear them talk about it, to see them working with their province or their provincial counterparts, because you are, ultimately, all in the regions. My staff and I cannot be everywhere, but you, you are collectively everywhere.

So when Mr. Dion tables his plan on behalf of the government, I will of course comment on it and promote it, if I truly believe that it is... But, as a commissioner, what I am really hoping for is that each of you and the government as a whole, including cabinet, will be behind the plan, and will provide the resources that are required. I am hoping that the committee will see to it that the plan is carried out and that the people are accountable with respect to the accomplishment of these objectives. I am hoping that they will come and talk to you about it, because they are the people who have to implement it.

I think that we will make progress in official languages once we have some synergy amongst the actors and once our elected representatives —we have spoken about deputy ministers—and the administrative apparatus, which is the other arm, truly take responsibility for the issue. It has to work at that level.

» (1705)

The Chair: If I may, I would like to take a few minutes during the first round. We will then begin a second round.

Ms. Adam, I fully agree with you that the government has primary responsibility.

If I have properly gaged the reaction of the communities to the Dion plan, and here I am referring to the francophone community outside of Quebec, which met in Whitehorse in June, when Mr. Dion presented the general outline of his plan, and the Quebec anglophone community, which welcomed him in September and heard, I believe, the same presentation, I would say that it appears that the reaction was, at least as far as the general outline is concerned, favourable.

That is no longer the question; now it is primarily about resources. Will the government provide the necessary resources to implement the plan? On this subject, Mr. Dion has said that he will wait until the budget is tabled to see whether or not he will in fact have the resources.

If I could say something to all my colleagues, I would tell them to wish for the required resources, because the plan, without the resources, will not go far. That is my first comment.

Secondly, in response to what Ms. Gagnon was saying, if I am not mistaken, the CRTC ruling on the broadcasting of parliamentary affairs requires satellite distributors to broadcast in both English and French. That part is clear. But the same thing cannot be said for the rest. We may have achieved some progress in certain areas, but in others, in my opinion, there has been some slippage because now all cable subscribers have to pay 8¢ a month, which include 3¢ for parliamentary affairs, whereas 5 per cent of those households who have cable will not be receiving the broadcast in their language of choice. This is a minimum of 5 per cent, in addition to all those who do not have a television that can be reset so that it receives the bilingual signal, as we mentioned earlier.

Personally, I am very disappointed with the CRTC and I hope that, as a committee, we will take up this challenge because this is not acceptable. But that is something else.

Moreover, we also talked to the CRTC—my colleagues will recall this—about satellite broadcasting of local news programs. Perhaps it would be a good idea to look into this matter again, if my colleagues so wish. I would be delighted to send a letter to the CRTC citing the requests made by the Joint Committee. This committee was expecting the CRTC to require the broadcasting of local news, for example, in Quebec City, with Radio-Canada Québec, and in here, in Ottawa, and probably elsewhere, instead of the national news.

Those are my comments, but, Ms. Adam, I would like you to talk about other things.

Tomorrow, we will all find out the language results of the 2001 census. I recall that when we learned of the results of the 1996 census, which I believe was in 1998, your predecessor said that things had bottomed out. He said that now that we had our education system just about everywhere in the country, that things would start to improve.

Do you share this opinion?

» (1710)

Mrs. Dyane Adam: To begin with, I don't know what exactly the bottom is.

The Chair: He meant that the statistical data, in terms of absolute numbers, in terms of percentages of official language minority communities, would no longer decline.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: I would say that if the trend continues...As I've been saying for nearly three years, immigration is, in my opinion, the most significant factor—and this has been confirmed by experts—that explains demographic growth in the country. Since francophones, whether they live in Quebec or elsewhere in the country, do not receive their share of immigrants, in fact they receive five times less than the number they should be receiving, what is going to happen in your opinion? You don't need to be an Einstein to understand that the demographic weight of francophones in the country will decline further. I do not have the statistics, but this will not come as a surprise: basic logic leads one to such a conclusion.

Linguistic transfers, which occur when francophones adopt another language and stop using their French language completely, are another factor which could explain the relative weight of francophones. What is interesting is that the Office of the Commissioner had requested that Statistics Canada include a new question in its census—and I confess that this is one of the reasons why we are so anxious to see the results—to account for the changing reality of Canadian society, namely, what language, other than French or English, is spoken. If, for example, a francophone says that the language used at home is primarily English, he will now be asked whether or not he speaks another language, the initial hypothesis being that there are more and more couples who are exogamous. Although English may be spoken most of the time, that does not mean that French is no longer being used. Two or three languages may be used at home, just as two or three languages may be used at work. Is it possible to have two languages coexisting in the home while at the same time preserving our francophone identity or culture? This is something that is of interest to me.

The Chair: We can therefore expect a proportional decline. As for absolute figures, we will find out tomorrow.

This all leads me to another question. Some time ago, you presented a report on education and people entitled to this education. If I recall correctly, half of this group, that is, those who were entitled to study in French or in English, did not do so in their first language.

Am I correct in thinking that?

» (1715)

Mrs. Dyane Adam: [Editor's note: inaudible].

The Chair: As any action been taken to remedy the situation?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: Yes, the various stakeholders have taken action.

The Chair: Action has been taken by the Government of Canada because...

Mrs. Dyane Adam: By the federal government?

The Chair: Yes, because we have to deal with the federal government. I would like to hear about the program for education in the second language, agreements that have been reached with the provinces and assessment mechanisms for such agreements. What is the status on this matter?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: All I can say is that the objective of this infamous government plan to remedy the situation is to target one of the problems by providing additional resources for the language of instruction at the kindergarten level...

The Chair: But I do not want to invest new resources if the terms of reference remain the same. Things have to change. We need very specific objectives, specific action plans and all of that. I thought that this had been included in the agreements reached with the provinces.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: No, because we are in the process of renegotiating these agreements right now. In fact, this will be done in a year's time. So the federal government, represented by Heritage Canada, is in the process of reviewing the framework and all of the changes that could be made to these various agreements, or at least how to improve them through additional resources. There was a lot of talk about enhanced accountability. I would tell you, however, that this matter is still being reviewed; the work has barely begun. Perhaps Heritage Canada would be...

The Chair: I will go back to this question at the end of the meeting because I must consult my colleagues and my time is up.

Mr. Godin, this is the second round and you have five minutes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like some clarification on a document about an in-depth investigation regarding a complaint concerning the reorganization of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in its Shippagan office (New Brunswick).

The report states that the investigation showed that the decisions made by the Agency did not enable it to fully meet its obligations under Part IV of the Official Languages Act, which deals with service to the public.

What type of follow-up has been done on this matter?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: We are currently in the process of doing some follow-up, and we think that we can publish the results at the end of January or February.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to make a little suggestion. We said earlier that money and political will were necessary. Perhaps we could make a change and state that we want, from now on, official languages to be recorded; we might obtain billions of dollars that we could invest in the promotion of official languages.

I would also like to know whether or not research has been done on certain implications resulting from international agreements such as NAFTA. Under such agreements, foreign companies can be exempted from Canadian legislation or even institute legal proceedings against the federal government if they feel that they have lost some commercial advantages. Has your office really looked into this issue and what it involves?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: Not to my knowledge. What prompts you to ask such a question, Mr. Godin?

Mr. Yvon Godin: The problem is that foreign companies can compel the government to do certain things; they can even violate Canadian legislation. For example, the UPS company laid charges against the Government of Canada because it felt that Canada Post was engaged in unfair competition. This type of problem could also have an impact on official languages.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: I am trying to...

Mr. Yvon Godin: There have been no incidents to date. I am nearly expressing my concern. The official languages are fragile.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: The only international issue which comes to mind—Canada, other countries and the Province of Quebec have really been insisting on this issue—is the concept of a cultural or cultural diversity exception. We are absolutely clear about the fact that culture must remain outside of the context of free trade. It would be disastrous for Canadian culture and for the French factor should culture ever be considered as a commodity. Right now, in Canada, it is protected and, of course, heavily funded.

» (1720)

Mr. Yvon Godin: This will be my last question given that my five minutes are up or about to be.

The Chair: You have 30 seconds left.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Earlier we talked about Radio-Canada—personally I call it Radio-Montréal, since that is where everything is controlled— and I am wondering what recommendations should be made to the government so that there is some regional programming, so that the regions, and in turn the people who live there, can develop.

I still have reason to believe that this could be done through Radio-Canada. Obviously, we must ensure that not every single decision is made in Montreal. It is important that we ascertain what we can do to help Newfoundland, the regions where the Acadians live, the francophones in Manitoba or Alberta, and so on and so forth.

We need to talk about local problems so that people want to continue living in French. Right now, when you watch television, everything comes from Montreal; the same thing applies to the radio.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: The whole issue of cultural production in Canada does not come under the purview of Radio-Canada alone; there is, for example, Téléfilm Canada, the NFB and others. More and more organizations are governed by their objectives. In order to answer your questions, in my opinion, you should look at the policies and objectives guiding these organizations. Téléfilm Canada, for example, must now spend more money on the production of original programming by minorities than it did in the past. There are many organizations that subsidize culture, television and all of that, which also have a role to play.

Perhaps one day we could do a type of overview of all of these federal institutions that play a significant role in ensuring that we meet the objectives that you have stated. Radio-Canada is not the only player.

The Chair: That is a very good suggestion and it has not fallen on deaf ears.

Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I have three short questions, Mr. Chairman, and I would like three short answers.

When you talk about regions that have been designated bilingual, what is the definition of a designated bilingual region?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: I will let Michel answer.

Mr. Michel Robichaud: The concept of a region that has been designated bilingual applies to the issue of language of work. Designated bilingual regions include the National Capital Region, Montreal, northeastern Ontario and the entire province of New Brunswick. This is a matter that is linked to the whole issue of language of work. A federal employee can use his language in the workplace.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I would like to talk about a CRTC rule, which tells a television or radio broadcaster that the language of broadcast must be the language of the majority in that area. For example, if 51% or more of the population is francophone, the language of the market is French. Why is there no relationship between the language of the market and the language of work?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: This would not be any better if this were the case, because the language of work is much more restrictive right now. That could change, but the standard used for designating a region bilingual in the country for the purposes of language of work is more restrictive than the standard used for the bilingual market.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: But in the case of the National Capital Region?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: It has been designated as being fully bilingual.

» (1725)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: It has been designated bilingual?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: For work purposes, yes.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: For work purposes, but when it comes to radio and television broadcasting, it is the language of the market or the majority.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: I am not sure that that is exactly the case. I do not want to contradict you, but this is a different concept. We are talking more about speakers, the number of bilingual or francophone speakers. We are not necessarily talking about the same... It is the number of persons who, in a given environment, speak French.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: As for the matter of CPAC and the CRTC, and the event that occurred recently, do you intend to intervene or take any action in order to intervene?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: We are assessing what impact the CRTC ruling will have in the field, because this is quite a complicated issue, as someone said. What does "before and after" mean? What will this ruling really give to Canadian citizens? In view of the premise that the federal government is obligated to serve citizens in the language of their choice under the law, my role is to ensure that this decision will really enable the government to meet its obligation. That is what is of interest to me. So we will be assessing the impact of this ruling. It may contain some shortcomings; some people have expressed some concerns on this matter. Our role is to detect the problems and, at that time, we will be in a better position to advise parliamentarians and governments.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: As regards the issue of CPAC and the CRTC, you need the necessary technology, but the technology is not fast enough to enable us to move from one system to the other to catch what we want to hear.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: I understand your concern. This is one of the things that we will have to look at in order to ascertain what impact it has had. In other words, we will have to look at how user friendly the CPAC measure is.

The Chair: Mr. Simard.

Mr. Raymond Simard: I would like to make a final comment to support what the chair had to say about satellite service.

A year and a half ago, in Winnipeg, I decided to subscribe to satellite service, which cost $55 per month, I believe, and I was surprised that I could not get the local news. I received Radio-Canada Edmonton, Radio-Canada Vancouver and Montreal, but not the Radio-Canada from my region. A politician who does not get the news from his community, from his riding... I therefore had to subscribe to cable, which costs me an additional $28, I believe. So now I have to spend nearly $100 a month to subscribe to both services. This really is not acceptable.

I was surprised because I did not think that this would be the case. This whole matter deepens the concerns that we have about this issue.

Mrs. Dyane Adam: I would imagine that you have informed the CRTC about these problems, right?

The Chair: Are there any further questions or comments?

If not, we will wrap up the meeting.

Ms. Adam, the question pertaining to cultural institutions is very good. Does your Office do any analysis of the action plans of the people involved in cultural matters under section 41 of the Official Languages Act?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: Heritage Canada requests that the institutions concerned—and I am talking about a certain group, not every group— be accountable or explain what they are doing. There is a whole series of cultural institutions that should be looked at on the continuum because they are interconnected and this is all very fragmented.

The Chair: But does your Office review or assess those action plans?

Mrs. Dyane Adam: It is done much less frequently than in the past because it is now up to Heritage Canada to do so. When we carry out our special studies, I plan to review one of the special files. That is precisely what...

The Chair: I will contact committee members when the House is not sitting because we do have to plan our agenda for the end of January. I invite all committee members to think about what they would like to do. There is the entire question of part VII of the Official Languages Act that we started. We have tabled reports on justice and immigration, one of which should be adopted. There was also the question of health, human resources and industry. We could also certainly look at cultural institutions.

On that point, I would like to tell committee members that I will be sending a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, a copy of which you will also receive, on the question of education which I raised earlier to find out what progress has been made, because the provincial agreements are up for renewal, given that April 1, 2003 is the start of the fiscal year. It is important for committee members to have the department's input on that as well as on the action plans, especially with regard to part VII and section 41 of the act.

I will get information for the committee to help us in our work. I may also suggest to our researchers that they prepare a report for the CRTC, since so many people seem concerned about this. We could start discussing the matter as soon as Parliament resumes, at the end of January or beginning of February.

Are there any questions on that? Is it clear?

Ms. Adam, thank you very much for your time. I think it is important to find our key points in your recommendations by starting—I think the priority is becoming very clear—with the so-called Dion plan and its adequate funding. In my view, that is where we should be focusing our efforts.

Thank you, and Merry Christmas, everyone.

The meeting is adjourned.