Publication Search

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It's always a pleasure to hear from you, Ms. Adam. I would add briefly, with regard to the RCMP and the Department of Justice, that this unfortunately isn't the first time — or probably the last — that we've seen the government flout legislation or its own regulations. We need only think of the Refugee Appeal Division, where the government totally disregards its own act. It's quite startling.

In your report, considerable attention is paid to the distribution of financial resources and where they'll be allocated. What do the regional and provincial allocations of human resources and services to the public look like? Where are the resources allocated? Where are the greatest needs or the greatest demand, in your view? I know you manage both needs and demand. How does that balance out and how does it work?

As you know, Bill S-3 made us fear that there would be a large number of court cases. And as we can see, in the RCMP case, there have been a lot of court challenges by citizens, but also, in some cases, by the federal government.

How do you view the future of your Office if Bill S-3 is passed? Do you think you'll have more work and more cases to handle?

I am giving it some thought.

I do not want to suggest that Mr. Poilievre has not understood the situation. However, I think we would be justified in telling the government that its response was unsatisfactory. The idea, here, is not to reformulate the recommendation.

Thank you once again for coming, Ms. Adam. I'll be pleased to share my time with my colleague when she returns.

I will be brief. As mentioned earlier, I must add that a fellow MP told me, just a few days ago, that during an Air Canada flight, he asked one of the kind flight attendants for a glass of water in French. She was simply unable to give him an answer. This is still going on, even for things as simple as a glass of water.

I give the floor to my colleague.

Thank you.

I would like to come back to Mr. Godbout's earlier comment about the CBC. I my view, the CBC is a very good reflection of linguistic duality. There is a sociological fact here. There are two official languages in Canada, but one of them is a minority language, and you know better than I do that the language is French. Nonetheless, the political reality is that French is the minority language in Canada as a whole, while English is a minority language in Quebec. In my view, RDI much more accurately reflects the circumstances of francophones outside Quebec. At least, that is how I see it. Tell me whether I'm wrong. Am I wrong? I see. In that case, we'll talk about this again.

Ms. Adam, in your report, you said, out of the 10 institutions about which most of the complaints were laid, seven had been in the same position last year. Earlier, we talked about Air Canada. Since this is a relatively new issue for me, I would like to ask whether these institutions regularly receive a high number of complaints. Are they receiving a high number of complaints for two years running because of some random factor, or are they simply not fixing the problems? If so, what can we do about it?

When it comes to National Defence, we regularly hear that services in French are inadequate. Do anglophone in military bases located in Quebec have the same problem?

Yesterday, we attended the meeting for the mid-term report on the Action Plan for Official Languages. The Minister of Canadian Heritage made it a point to remind everyone how significant she considers official languages. However, if I understand correctly, you have come to a different conclusion.

With regard to Canadian Heritage, what, in your view, is the major problem at present?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Dodge and Mr. Jenkins. Roughly a year ago, you mentioned that inflation was a major concern for the Bank of Canada. In view of the fact that we were approaching the upper limit of your range of one to three percent, I asked you at the time whether the Bank of Canada intended to revise it.

Today, roughly one year later, we've witnessed a one-point increase in interest rates. We're now at the upper limit of that range. Today, I'll ask you the same question, that is whether the one to three percent range is still valid? If so, why? If not, do you intend to revise it?

Another question that I asked you last year concerned the strength of the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar. At that time, you mentioned that it was a major concern for the Bank of Canada. You'll understand that, if a strong Canadian dollar can have certain benefits for exports and the competitiveness of our businesses in the international market, it can also have certain consequences that make our businesses less productive. Here I'm making a connection with the theme before us today.

So, one year later, the Canadian dollar is still at a very high level. What's happened in the past year at the Bank of Montreal? Is it time to revise the range?

Do you intend to revise the one to three percent range? Is that still your objective?

If we agree on a specific period, we can check later with our respective whips.

Then we'll get back to the committee. It won't take that long.

Could you explain that once again, Mr. Chairman? I want to be sure I understand.

It won't be really long, Mr. Chairman. Quite honestly, I don't know whether I'm the one who's confused about the amendment we're talking about, but you referred to a line... What amendment are we talking about? The numbers you give don't correspond to the documents I have.

All right.