[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 9, 1996
.0900 
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): My friends, I call the meeting to order. May I call this meeting to order?
I call Vote 25, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, under Privy Council.
Commissioner, it is not necessary to introduce you since we saw you only a few days ago. If you have a few introductory comments to make to us in presenting your report, please do so.
Dr. Victor C. Goldbloom (Commissioner of Official Languages): Just a few words, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to draw attention to the gradual reduction in the Office's budget over the last five years.
[English]
If I take the total figures from 1992-93 through 1996-97, they have gone from $13.1 million to $12.3 million to $11.8 million to $11.1 million to $10.5 million. There has been a progressive decrease. There has been concomitantly a decrease in the numbers of persons constituting the staff of the office of the commissioner.
[Translation]
I will limit myself to these figures for the time being, Mr. Chairman, and I am at your disposal.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Before giving the floor to the other members of the committee, Commissioner, since there is a cutback of close to $700,000 in the budget this year compared with the budget for the previous year, could you indicate to us which activities of the Office of the Commissioner are most affected by these cutbacks?
Dr. Goldbloom: I just indicated that there is a decrease in the staff. Obviously, the "salaries" item is always the largest within the budget of any agency.
We lost 22 persons out of some 160 in 1995-96. We will lose eight this year and eight next year. This is the major expenditure reduction.
.0905
The second is in the communications sector. We have had to reduce substantially the amounts spent, for example, on informational products for public consumption. In particular, many senators and MPs have been acquainted with our publication Language and Society and, with great regret, we have had to suspend it. I think in fact that this suspension will have to be permanent. We have replaced some of our publications with more modest and less expensive things. Those are the major reductions we have had to make as a result of the policy announced by the government.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): If I understand correctly, Commissioner, apart from this reduction in staff, which is of course regrettable, and the abandonment of Language and Society, services to citizens will not be affected.
Dr. Goldbloom: Services to citizens will not be affected and we will continue to be able to respond to requests that are made, for example in the form of complaints.
We have, however, dropped one aspect of this activity: systematic audits of the performance of various federal institutions. As I pointed out the day before yesterday, we have continued some systemic reviews in a number of significant areas. This compensates, to a large degree, for the vacuum left by the abandonment of the audits.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Thank you, Commissioner.
Mr. Marchand (Québec-East): I regret, to a point, the reduction in the Commissioner's budget.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Please speak up a bit. They say the senators are hard of hearing.
Mr. Marchand: Well, last time I was criticized because I was speaking too loudly. But I will speak up a bit.
The Commissioner's budget is about 10 million dollars a year. This is a considerable sum, particularly in this period of federal government cutbacks, and I wonder whether it is money well spent. I sometimes ask myself this question, always from the standpoint of helping the Francophones who live outside Quebec. I am particularly concerned by this, because I have lived...
Dr. Goldbloom: Me too, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Marchand: Well, you have experienced it differently, of course, since you are an Anglo-Quebecker. If you were so kind as to find the time to debate it, Dr. Goldbloom, I would be at your disposal.
Ten million dollars is substantial. Of course, many things are being done. I don't want to underestimate the improvements that have been made here and there over the last 25 years and since you have been there, for the last four or five years. I don't want to minimize those accomplishments.
However, and I come back to the central item, ten million dollars, it is a lot of money. The problem, once again, is this annual report. It is one of the publications that you produce each year and it is perhaps the most important publication because, unlike the studies that were done previously, it is read by many people and perhaps even used as the central document in interpreting the situation of the minority Francophones and Anglophones in Canada.
.0910
Of course, you have done a number of studies - which have cost I don't know how much - including the studies you referred to the other day. I have read them, moreover. They are studies showing a situation quite different from the one you present in your annual report.
That's where there is a problem. We are to approve ten million dollars in order to get an annual report that, it seems to me, presents an interpretation of the situation, an unfortunate one for the Francophones outside Quebec, that prompts the government to ignore the problem.
As Ms Bissonnette was saying in her editorial of May 3:
- ...the report spews over 122 pages of omissions and small disguises...
- Those are her words: "omissions" and "small disguises". When you put these 122 pages of
omissions and small disguises end to end, a tendency emerges, and it is this tendency that I find
problematic. We should think about the fact that we have spent ten million dollars, or at least
some part of that amount, to produce this annual report.
I don't say that because I have no respect for the Anglo-Quebeckers. I do respect them. In fact, in Quebec there is a whole-hearted desire that the Anglophones be well protected. There is a very distinct tendency, then, to draw an equal sign between two communities that are in no way comparable, whether in terms of their history or in terms of their present institutions. I will not go into detail, since we are well acquainted with the situation.
It is even possible to argue that there is also a tendency to gloss over the reality of the situation of the Canadian and Acadian Francophones, and to reinforce the concerns of the Anglo-Quebeckers.
Dr. Goldbloom, your annual report contains so many cases that I could cite to you. I could spend an hour citing to you some cases that confirm that this tendency is very clear, very distinct. I wonder whether it is not done deliberately.
I wonder whether, as the Commissioner, you haven't been just a bit influenced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, for example. We have seen worse things, in the federal government, than influencing a Commissioner to get him to portray, in his annual report, a situation or portrait of a situation that prompts the officials and the federal government to fall asleep.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Marchand, I would point out to you that you have only four minutes remaining and I would remind you that we are discussing this morning the budget of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Mr. Marchand: Indeed. I am asking my questions in the context of this ten million dollars that is spent on the Commissioner. I am really asking myself some questions, since this annual report makes a series of statements that are misleading, although not necessarily erroneous.
I have only four minutes. Perhaps I might...
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): I just said two by now.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: I come back to that statement. I find it fundamentally disturbing, and I cannot let it go by. If I had more time, I would like to debate this issue with you, Dr. Goldbloom, if only to restore to you the credibility you may deserve.
.0915
At this point I question your credibility, because this tendency is so flagrant in the annual report. I may get an opportunity to cite the very numerous cases that confirm this. That is why I wonder if it is really worth spending ten million dollars for a report that tells us things that are not accurate. I will give you three examples out of the 25 I have here.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Could you formulate a specific question, please?
Mr. Marchand: That is the question. I am giving you three examples. At page 3, the Commissioner is very happy to note that there has been an increase in the number of Francophone employees in the public service. He says that in 25 years they have increased from 21 percent to 28 percent, and that is true. However, he fails to say that basically the situation of French has not changed in 25 years. The work is still being done in English. Eighty percent of the meetings in the public service take place in English and, in about 10 percent of the cases, the Francophones may write their reports in French. That is the problem. And he says so in his report.
He says a lot of things that I could cite. He says that in Alberta, for example, there are 29 French-language schools while, essentially, there are only 14. He lumps together the French-language schools and the schools in which French is taught as a second language. They are all lumped together in order to say that things are fine in Alberta, since there are 29, but basically, there are only 14.
At page 6, he suggests that Saskatchewan has complied with section 23 and that Quebec has not complied. Basically, Saskatchewan vigorously resisted the implementation of section 23 of the Official Languages Act. Moreover, that is the case in all the provinces, while the Constitution prevents Quebec from enacting legislation to create language-based school boards. Quebec wants to enact such a law, but it is prevented from doing so. On the one hand, there is this. On the other hand, he does not mention the fact that all the school entitlements in the West are precarious.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): For more than a minute you have been taking your colleagues' time. Could I ask you to put a specific question?
Mr. Marchand: You are very kind, Mr. Chairman. Basically, that's it, my question. Dr. Goldbloom, do you really think you deserve this ten million dollars a year to present reports that, in my opinion, are biased?
Dr. Goldbloom: I will have some difficulty responding within a reasonable time to all the items that Mr. Marchand has brought up. First, I would like to categorically reject his questioning of my motives. I have absolutely no intention of hiding anything whatsoever. If it is the interpretation of Mr. Marchand and of some other people that the presentation of figures is done with the intention of not indicating the problems, I categorically reject that accusation.
Secondly, Mr. Marchand says the annual report is the centrepiece among the publications by the Commissioner during the year. In doing so, he turns a deaf ear to what I have said publicly, and what I said again to this committee the day before yesterday. I urged everyone to read the annual report in conjunction with the four systemic research reports that I have published.
.0920
Mr. Marchand states that the annual report is read by many people and that, for that reason, it is the most significant item among the Commissioner's publications.
I will respectfully point out to him that the systematic studies are addressed to the decision-makers, thus to those who are supposed to be serving the public or determining the policies, programs and actions of the federal institutions.
I will give you an example. Mr. Marchand agrees that there has been an increase in the number of Francophone civil servants. He emphasizes the fact that this is not concomitant with an increase in the use of French.
Mr. Chairman, that is precisely the reason why I conducted a study of the linguistic working conditions of federal government employees. That is precisely why I got Treasury Board to publish, in conjunction with my office, a pamphlet setting out the obligations and rights of public employees and, by extension, the rights of the public.
It was to get some improvement that these reports were published.
Mr. Marchand again turns a deaf ear. I was careful to say in my opening statement of the day before yesterday that there had been no consultation with anyone: no one, no agency, no minister.
I had a meeting with the Minister of Canadian Heritage to talk, for example, about school management. Our respective officials have met to discuss this. It was to plead the cause of the community media, the community newspapers and radio stations, particularly the newspapers which, in may instances, throughout the country, are struggling financially. I sought to draw the Minister's attention to the importance, to each community, of its newspaper. I cited several French-language newspapers by way of example.
Mr. Marchand says that in Saskatchewan there was, for a lengthy period, resistance to the establishment of management and control of their schools by the Fransaskois community. He is right, but that was two years ago. After the second judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, a judgment in which the Commissioner participated as an intervenor in the court proceedings, Saskatchewan ended up enacting legislation, and school management and control now exists in Saskatchewan.
I am somewhat perplexed at Mr. Marchand's statement that the Constitution prevents Quebec from enacting legislation in the area of language-based school boards. The law was adopted and, to my knowledge, was not challenged in the courts. The National Assembly adopted it in the expectation that it would be implemented.
I will not go further, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Marchand is entitled to his opinions, to his interpretations. I am entitled not to share them.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Thank you, Commissioner.
.0925
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz, you have the floor.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wish to introduce to you, Mr. Chairman, to the committee and to you Dr. Goldbloom, my colleague, who is the public accounts critic for our caucus. John Williams is a member from St. Albert, Alberta. John is a chartered accountant, so he'll be asking questions about a lot of numbers.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Williams, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Mr. Williams (St. Albert): Good morning, Dr. Goldbloom, and welcome to this meeting.
Dr. Goldbloom: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Williams: You were in the news a little while ago, Dr. Goldbloom, as having received accommodation here in Ottawa courtesy of the federal government. It was costing somewhere around $15,000 to $16,000 a year. Are you still in receipt of that accommodation?
Dr. Goldbloom: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Williams: Dr. Goldbloom, are you being taxed on that accommodation that's being provided to you in Ottawa by the federal government?
Dr. Goldbloom: No.
Mr. Williams: It was also in the news that you have a limousine to recognize the importance of your position, which you of course use in your duties.
It was also reported in the news, Dr. Goldbloom, that you have chosen to live in Montreal, while the appointment that was offered to you is here in Ottawa, and that you had chosen to use the chauffeured limousine that is provided to you to perform your duties to travel back and forth from Montreal to Ottawa. Is that still the case?
Dr. Goldbloom: Yes.
Mr. Chairman, may I go a little further? I have been very up front about all of this from the beginning and I would like, for clarification, to go back over the development of this situation.
I was appointed, after a vote by the House of Commons and the Senate, Commissioner of Official Languages. Shortly after my arrival I was asked to meet with a senior official of Privy Council. The question was put to me very simply as to whether I intended to move to Ottawa. I had not had that intention and I said so. The official of Privy Council said that I would therefore be entitled to a second residence allowance. I said that whatever is standard practice would be satisfactory to me.
That was the end of the discussion. Some time later I was informed that there was a certain amount that would be provided for that purpose.
Subsequent to this becoming a matter of public discussion, I was again asked to meet with a senior official of Privy Council. I did so. I had a full discussion with that person, answered all the questions that were put to me, and subsequently received a questionnaire that I filled out. I have not heard anything further since that time.
There was at no time any demand on my part and at no time any negotiation on my part. I simply said that whatever is standard practice is satisfactory. If the government or Parliament decides to modify the standard practice, it is their full prerogative to do so and I will obviously abide by whatever is decided.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Dr. Goldbloom.
One of my questions was whether these particular benefits were offered to you and the manner in which you received them, and you're saying they were offered to you on that basis.
Dr. Goldbloom: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Just for clarification and for the record, is the transportation back and forth from Montreal also on a tax-free basis?
Dr. Goldbloom: I have more difficulty in answering that precisely, not being an accountant. I would have to check how that is accounted for, but I would assume that it is a part of the operating expenses of the commissioner's office.
.0930
Mr. Williams: Okay, thank you very much.
What is the name of the person at the Privy Council with whom you dealt who made this offer to you and confirmed that this is the government's position?
Dr. Goldbloom: He was the Secretary of the Privy Council, Mr. Paul Tellier.
Mr. Williams: Thank you.
I don't have any further questions at this point, Mr. Chairman. I would like Mr. Breitkreuz, a member of the committee, to continue with his questioning. Thank you very much for the opportunity.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Breitkreuz, Mr. Williams has used five minutes of your time.
Mr. Breitkreuz: For goodness' sake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Marchand, in his ten-minute lecture this morning, raised interesting scenarios surrounding francophones and anglophones across the country and in their respective minority areas, which of course is anglophones in Quebec and francophones in the rest of the country.
I understand that if you use the home language, the numbers of francophones outside the Quebec heartland - by that I mean francophones in northern New Brunswick and along the Ontario-Quebec border - roughly equal the number of anglophones inside the province of Quebec.
I'm interested to know, Dr. Goldbloom, is the money spent on official languages roughly the same then for each respective minority group?
Dr. Goldbloom: No. If we take into account the number of complaints that are handled, 84% or 85% of the complaints come from French-speaking Canadians, while only 15% or 16% come from English-speaking Canadians.
Incidentally, within Quebec generally, that breaks down to half and half. So within Quebec, there are a fair number of French-speaking Canadians who have reason to complain about service provided by federal institutions in French.
With regard to the way in which we carry out our activities, it is obvious that as there is one province with an English-speaking minority and nine provinces and two territories with French-speaking minorities, more time is necessary to visit those parts of Canada than is necessary to visit one particular province.
But in terms of philosophy and respect for Canadians, that respect is entirely equal. The concern is the same concern according to the problems experienced by people.
Mr. Marchand has placed a great deal of emphasis on the fact - it is a fact - that the English-speaking community of Quebec has resources that are not comparable to those of most French-speaking communities in other parts of the country. That is a difference that shows up obviously in the complaint figures.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I understand that the number of inquiries is about half the number of the pieces of correspondence you receive each year.
Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, I'll make it clear again that both complaints and requests for information are grouped together. When the request comes in, we aren't immediately certain whether it falls into the request-for-information category or the complaint category, of which 84% or 85% are from French-speaking Canadians.
I mentioned that within Quebec we do get complaints from French-speaking Canadians as well as from English-speaking Canadians and that they generally break down to about half and half in that province.
.0935
Mr. Breitkreuz: Do you have a breakdown of the correspondence you do receive such that you can tell for sure whether they're complaints or just correspondence, and you then correspond to the writer to put their correspondence in the form of a complaint?
Dr. Goldbloom: We treat everything as a complaint if we can objectively perceive that the person writing or calling us has not received appropriate service or a response from a federal institution. We try to be as open as possible to the consideration that there may be a legitimate complaint.
Most of the communications we receive do turn out to be legitimate complaints. Most of the complaints we identify as such turn out to be justified, so we make recommendations accordingly.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I understand that according to the report -
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Breitkreuz, could you save that type of question for a second tour? You still have a minute. I'm giving you an extra minute.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Thank you very much. I appreciate your generosity.
I understand there are 44 complaints investigators with the commission.
Dr. Goldbloom: I think that number is correct.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I understand also that, according to the documents, there's a $3-million-plus total amount of salary, which works out to be $70,000 per investigator. Investigating about 1,500 complaints per year, again, works out to about 40 complaints per investigator, which is less than one a week with this $3-million salary.
I want to compare the salary of those complaints investigators with that of the computer experts, which is only $31,000, or less than half. Don't you think that there is a discrepancy? Rather, the secretaries have a salary of $31,000 to $32,000 while the computer people only have a salary of about $29,000. Don't you see some discrepancy there salary-wise?
Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, salaries are determined according to the classification of each person and each position. That is not determined by us; that's determined by the Public Service Commission of Canada.
When a position becomes vacant, it is advertised with its category and salary level.
There are technicians who look after our informatics needs. They have an appropriate level of competence to do that.
Dealing with complaints is a rather sophisticated undertaking. It requires considerable judgment because obviously there will be differences of interpretation as to what's happened according to the person with whom one speaks.
The handling of complaints has become increasingly complex. We get some complaints that are rather simple and in which there appears to have been forgetfulness on the part of somebody who should have done something and didn't do it. It's easy and rapid to find out what happened, to say that this was an error, and to get a commitment for this to be corrected.
We are receiving more and more complex complaints. There are more complaints with regard, for example, to the definition of positions as being bilingual. That definition is being contested in either direction. A person is saying that this job has been defined as being bilingual, and it should not be. Another is saying this job has been defined as unilingual, and it ought to be bilingual. Those require a lot more detailed evaluation of whether or not the real requirements of that function oblige the person to be able to understand and speak both languages. So we are finding that there has been increasing complexity over these last several years.
.0940
Mr. Breitkreuz: I have just a comment, and then I'll pass it over.
I certainly find it absolutely preposterous that the salary of an official languages investigator - or language police officer, you could say - exceeds that of the salary of a member of Parliament, or even that of a senator, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Thank you, Mr. Breitkreuz.
Mr. Allmand, you have the floor.
Mr. Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I think it's important that we put on the record here some positive elements with respect to the commissioner's office.
I was in Parliament when we passed the Official Languages Act in the 1960s, which established the role and office of the commissioner. I was also in Parliament with this committee when we reviewed that act and passed a new act just a few years ago.
I want to say that over the years I have referred many cases to the various commissioners and they have always acted on those complaints and those referrals with diligence. I can recall that just a few years ago, the elderly veterans at the St. Anne's Hospital, the majority of whom were anglophones living in Quebec, felt they could not get service in their own language. I'm talking about old veterans in their 70s and 80s who couldn't get service in English, and they were the majority in the hospital. I referred this matter to the commissioner. The commissioner did a very thorough examination and put out a report that helped to clarify and improve the situation immensely.
You have to point out that commissioners, who are ombudsmen, have no power to force change. They bring about the change by the publication of the report, however. The report is therefore an essential element of any ombudsman. So, Mr. Chairman, I've seen some very positive action come out of the investigative role of this commissioner, and of all commissioners and their reports.
Once again, with respect to the remarks of Mr. Marchand, as I say, there is no doubt that there are francophone communities in Canada that are at risk. There are francophones in Canada in the other provinces who have been assimilated. On the other hand, I think it's an absolute truism that in New Brunswick and in eastern and northern Ontario there has been a great improvement over the years that I've been in Parliament and since the days when I was a child living in northern Ontario and living in New Brunswick. As an anglophone, I could see great improvement in the cultural, educational, and all other sorts of lifestyles for the francophones in those provinces.
But while there was improvement there, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that there was an absolute setback for the anglophones in Quebec. We had this odious signs law that was in effect for years. Little shoemakers on the corners of streets in NDG who had both ``cordonnier'' and ``shoemaker'' on their signs were forced to paste over the anglophone sign; they had to paint it out because they couldn't afford to buy new signs. You had these petty little language police reporting people because they had apostrophes. If a sign said ``Joe's Bistro'', that wasn't French enough because it had an apostrophe in the word.
There has been a virtual disappearance of anglophones in the public service of Quebec. The percentage is so low that they're hardly noticeable. Even in the federal public service in Quebec they're way below their percentage of the population in the province of Quebec.
When there was an attempt to ban.... By the way, with respect to the signs law, the Quebec government appealed it to the Quebec Court of Appeal when the Quebec Superior Court said it was wrong. In the Quebec Court of Appeal, five judges unanimously said it was wrong. It went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously said that it was unconstitutional, and then the Quebec government used the notwithstanding clause to override both the Supreme Court, the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Superior Court, to once again enforce that signs law banning English on signs. Only after some citizens went to Geneva and had the United Nations Human Rights Commission say that this was wrong were there amendments to the law in Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, we were forced to go to the courts in the same way when there was an attempt to ban our right to use English in courts in Quebec, our right to use English in the National Assembly.
So based on what I've seen up until very recently, there has been improvement in New Brunswick and in eastern and northern Ontario for francophones, although I must in fairness say that there's a long way to go. But I must also in fairness say that I have seen a movement backwards with respect to the anglophone community in Quebec.
.0945
As I say, it's not a question of assimilation in Quebec. What it is in Quebec, because the anglophones aren't being assimilated - we've lost over 100,000, although I forget the exact numbers from the province - is a destruction of their cultural and linguistic institutions to the extent that while they're there, their institutions are disappearing.
I felt I had to put this on the record because of what I consider to be a continual, twisted and false impression given by Mr. Marchand with respect to the situation. I've been on this committee since its very beginning and I've listened to the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, Fédération des francophones hors Québec, Alliance Québec, the townshippers, all of these groups that represent the linguistic minorities. If he had listened to them as well, I don't think he would state the same things he has stated in the last few days.
Mr. Goldbloom, I want to ask you something with respect to complaints. There has been a reduction in the number of complaints. I'm wondering whether that is due to the fact that you don't have the budget to advise people that you're there. I still get quite a few in my office from both anglophones and francophones in Montreal. Do you feel you're getting fewer complaints because everything is fine? Have you analysed this? Is it because you've had to cut back on your investigators, or is it because people maybe don't know?
I know that a lot of people don't even know that you have an office in Montreal. They come to my office and I have to inform them. I take the complaints, and if they're serious ones I transfer them to your office. If they're less serious, I go directly to the ministers involved or to the federal departments and I ask why the service isn't being given as it's supposed to be.
But I'm surprised at the decline. Is it because people are resigned to accepting certain things that they weren't resigned to years ago? Have you tried to make an analysis with respect to this decline in complaints?
Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, the numbers of complaints do fluctuate from year to year. I would be reluctant to interpret a decrease in any given year as representative of an overall trend.
Let me say that I attach considerable importance to informing people of the availability of the commissioner and of the location and the telephone numbers of our offices, including 1-800 numbers. We have done a number of relatively inexpensive things - publishing little ads in the form of questions and answers in community newspapers across the country, or developing a program with community radio stations so that people are invited to call our offices and, in so doing, to become aware of the existence and the function of our office and so on.
We have evaluated what happens when a citizen complains. That, after all, is important. As you pointed out, Mr. Allmand, the commissioner has a power of recommendation, not an authority to oblige a federal institution to do or not to do anything, and it is therefore -
Mr. Allmand: You make it public by your report, but it's up to us as parliamentarians to pursue the complaint that you made publicly.
Dr. Goldbloom: That is correct, but because of the possibility that federal institutions would shrug their shoulders and not change anything, we have carried out follow-ups to find out whether or not we get improvement. We have discovered that we get improvement in 92% of the cases in which we make a recommendation, and that is a very significant number. A few of those are partial improvement. The vast majority are complete correction of the thing about which the citizen has complained and about which we have made a recommendation. So in the sense that we do get improvement, there ought to be some decrease in complaints.
.0950
What we are seeing is that complaints go down a bit and come up again, and part of the reason is that new areas of concern open up. The most significant - and this was of considerable interest to the media when I made the annual report public - is with the Internet. We have received a substantial number of complaints regarding the Internet, regarding shortcomings on the part of federal institutions using the Internet to communicate with Canadian citizens or with other institutions. Therefore where there have been decreases in the numbers of complaints in some areas, they come back again in other areas, in other forms.
Ideally there should be no problems, and therefore ideally there should be no complaints. Ideally we should see a progressive decrease in complaints because we are doing our job and federal institutions are doing their job in response to our recommendations. Human nature being what it is, things are not perfect. I think we will see a fairly steady flow of complaints year to year.
Mr. Allmand: Yesterday Mr. Marchand complained that the mother tongue of all the commissioners of official languages was English. You rightly responded that this may have been the fact, but they were bilingual. In the official languages commission, in your offices everywhere in Canada, what percentage of your workforce is mother tongue French, what percentage is mother tongue English, and what percentage of all of those are bilingual?
Dr. Goldbloom: It's about two-thirds French speaking, one-third English speaking. The large majority are bilingual, most of them at a high level of bilingualism.
We are doing what we ask other departments to do, which is looking at the linguistic requirements of a certain number of positions to be sure that we are at the right level, that if we require a person to be fully bilingual, the function justifies that. We receive, as I indicated earlier, 84% or 85% of complaints from French-speaking Canadians. That requires a capability on the part of our investigators to be able to respond in French.
Mr. Allmand: Are a good percentage of those francophones franco-Ontarians or Acadians? Are they from other than Quebec?
Dr. Goldbloom: Yes, they are, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn't spontaneously be able to offer specific figures, but we have quite a number of franco-Ontarians particularly, being situated here in the national capital region. We have Acadians in our Moncton office and franco-Albertans in Alberta and so on.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce a couple of elements of additional response to the questions of Mr. Breitkreuz in order for everything to be clear. We do have 44 members of staff in our investigations branch, 30 of whom are professional and 14 of whom are support staff. The figure given me is that the average salary of an investigator is $45,000.
May I return for one moment to Mr. Allmand's question and say that as is absolutely required in public administration, we do not distinguish between candidates for positions on the basis of their mother tongue or principal language. When a job is available and is advertised for competition, the best person gets the job.
The requirement is there, as is appropriate by virtue of section 91 of the Official Languages Act, that certain positions have to be defined as bilingual. Many have to be defined as bilingual imperative. That is to say that the candidate presenting himself or herself must already be able to function in both languages. If that is a justified requirement, then whether the candidate is English speaking or French speaking by mother tongue or by preferred language has no bearing on the merit principle by which the best person is chosen.
.0955
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Serré.
Mr. Serré (Timiskaming - French River): First, I would like to support the comments by my colleague concerning the usefulness of the services rendered by the Commissioner of Official Languages. It is of crucial importance to us, the Francophone minorities of Canada, to have a commissioner of official languages. Even if it is not always perfect, he, like his predecessors, has played a very important role for us, the minorities.
Similarly, I would like to make a short comment on how the journalists report what goes on in this committee. I was very disappointed to read in Le Droit the report on our meeting of last Tuesday. This report was not very objective. They reported the very negative comments by the member from the Bloc Québécois. They ignored completely the comments by our honourable colleagues from the Senate, who had a completely opposite point of view and expressed it very eloquently. So I would like to hope that in future the reporters from Le Droit provide a more objective and more balanced account of our meetings.
Dr. Goldbloom, my question will be on Part VII of the Act. I know that at some point you are going to be reporting to us on the action plans of the various government departments, and that we will probably hold a session precisely on that matter. However, it is my belief that the implementation of Part VII should be a priority. I have the impression that a number of departments are lagging in this regard and need a little kick from behind, either from the committee or from the Commissioner of Official Languages.
This should be the priority of the Office of the Commissioner over the next year, because I get the impression that, if we force the departments to proceed with the implementation of Part VII, the number of complaints will decline and there will definitely be an improvement in the services for both minorities. Do you agree with me that this should be a priority for your Office? What do you intend to do over the next year to ensure that the action plans are adequate and that they are implemented?
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Before giving the Commissioner the floor, Mr. Serré, I would like to point out to you that the committee and the Joint Chairmen do not have a lot of authority over the journalists.
Mr. Serré: I fully agree, but I expressed my view nevertheless.
Dr. Goldbloom: In reply, I would simply say yes. This matter must be a priority for the Commissioner and, I hope, for the committee. This part of the Act was adopted in 1988. Over the eight years since, the words have been there, on paper, but the actions have left something to be desired.
I would not like to question the motives of the federal institutions, but there appears to be a kind of collective lack of attention, a lack of understanding of the importance of Part VII of the Act. That Part imposes on the government of Canada a responsibility in relation to the official language minority communities and an obligation to support their development, growth and vitality. This should not remain on paper and be simply the expression of a wish.
This undertaking must take the form of actions, programs and an equitable allocation of resources to ensure that these communities, in particular the French-language communities in the various provinces and territories with an English-speaking majority, can continue to live.
.1000
It is through the development of action plans that we see the future taking shape in a potentially more favourable way, and that is why I had no difficulty in agreeing to this committee's request that I review the action plans and provide the committee with an assessment of each of them.
I should say - and this was foreseeable - that there is some variation in quality from one action plan to another, and that my objective, in providing the interested parties, particularly the members of the committee, with an assessment of the plans, is not only to criticize but to make such criticism constructive and to get the institutions in question to produce a second generation of action plans that will be distinctly superior in quality to those of the first generation.
Mr. Serré: Thank you very much.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Senator Rivest.
Senator Rivest (Stadacona): Commissioner, would you recall to the committee the percentage of complaints concerning the strict enforcement of the Official Languages Act that come to you from English-speaking Canadians, compared with French-speaking Canadians?
Dr. Goldbloom: I said it was 15 or 16 percent, depending on the year.
Senator Rivest: Complaints by Anglophone Canadians?
Dr. Goldbloom: Yes.
Senator Rivest: Do these complaints have to do with the enforcement of the Official Languages Act or with certain situations? For example, Mr. Allmand was mentioning the issue of signs. Do these complaints from English-speaking Canadians sometimes deal with matters of provincial jurisdiction?
Dr. Goldbloom: We may get some complaints that affect areas of provincial jurisdiction. We are obliged to set them aside, as we don't have the authority to investigate in such areas.
However, under Part VII of the Act and the obligation the government of Canada has set for itself in relation to the official language minority communities, I do take the liberty to request meetings with the first ministers and provincial ministers. In most cases these requests are accepted and I have no difficulty in discussing these issues for the benefit of the minority community in question.
Senator Rivest: Generally speaking, while acknowledging the relevance of the claims that may come from the Anglophone community - whether in Quebec or outside Quebec - concerning the enforcement of the Official Languages Act or certain situations that occur sometimes in some areas of the country, I feel that the primary rationale for the Official Languages Act is to safeguard duality. Now, Canada's linguistic duality is threatened much more on the Francophone side than it is on the Anglophone side. Generally speaking, do you agree with that approach?
Dr. Goldbloom: Certainly.
Senator Rivest: In that sense, the concerns that are felt, on certain issues or certain comments bearing on a kind of absolute equality in treatment, are actually theoretical.
Do you agree that the effort of the Commissioner, as of the other instances involved, should be focused first and foremost on supporting the Canadian Francophone community, because it is the one that is threatened in all respects?
The Official Languages Act is not needed in Canada to save English, whatever problems there may be. Do you agree with that statement?
.1005
Dr. Goldbloom: I would like to suggest two considerations in reply. First, let's talk about the figures themselves. Year to year, the percentage of complaints coming from French-speaking Canadians, largely in provinces other than Quebec, is cause for particular concern in regard to the Canadian Francophone community as a whole. I should also say that I perceive Canada's role in support of the Francophone community, both here and internationally, as being a major one. We have many things we can be proud of in connection with the attention Canada gives to the vitality of the Francophone community both here and internationally.
There is another important consideration. A distinction has to be made between the situation of the English language and the situation of the English-speaking community in Quebec. The English language dominates the world as never before. The arrival of the information highway intensifies the dominance of the English language. As I showed the day before yesterday, English is used in Canada as the major instrument of communications in the home by a greater number of people than those who claim English as their mother tongue. So there is no danger to the English language, including in Quebec, where our study on service points demonstrated that services are available in English, upon request in most cases, in 98.8 percent of the cases.
However, the community in question has lost some of its vital strengths and has recently lost some institutions in the area of health and social services, institutions created by the community itself. These were not initially public institutions. This community is feeling certain discontents, which are manifested in letters to the newspapers, on open-line shows, etc.
I am not trying to make any quantitative or other comparison, but I wish to note that while the future of the English language is not problematic, the English-speaking community in Quebec is nevertheless experiencing some difficulties and some concerns about its future.
Senator Rivest: These difficulties of the Anglophone community in Quebec are quite genuine. However, aren't you overstating it somewhat in drawing too close a link between the problems and concerns of the community, which are completely genuine and to which the Quebec premier, Mr. Bouchard, indicated his sensitivity in his speech, and the language policies? Don't these problems derive instead from a purely demographic phenomenon? There were political problems and there was a "flight" in 1976. for political reasons, of a significant number of members of Quebec's Anglophone community, but there was also a demographic problem.
This means, for governments, strengthening the institutions of the Anglophone community, regardless of the demographic problems they are experiencing. They must have the firm political will to maintain the institutions of the community; not only to maintain them but also to give them the possibility of developing, for example through additional funding.
There is not necessarily any link between the concerns that are manifested and the enforcement of the language laws. It is not Law 178 on signs, which was corrected as pointed out earlier, that created the concern in the community. It created some quite legitimate frustrations that were corrected by Law 86. Don't you think the problem in Quebec is primarily a demographic problem?
.1010
Dr. Goldbloom: The problem is complex and the demographic factor is important. You have rightly pointed out, Senator, that the low birthrate affects both the French-speaking majority in Quebec and the English-speaking minority. It is the backdrop against which the entire problem must be analyzed. I said in a press conference, as I have been saying for many years, that my objective is still that of promoting reasoned dialogue so that we can examine serenely the problems that affect both of the communities in Canada.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Gagnon.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Commissioner, I was reading in your report that you made a brief analysis of the role of the National Capital Commission. Has there ever been any thought of a pilot project in trying to enhance the visibility of French here in Ottawa, that is to say, maybe some kind of direct relationship with the city itself?
This reminds me of what one of our former Prime Ministers said: MPs are basically nobodies fifty feet away from the Hill. I'm under the impression that the same can be said of the usage and visibility of French here in Ottawa. I would like to know if over the years there has been, or maybe in the months to come there might be, an attempt to inform employers and city hall - the pillars of this community, if you will - of what a good idea it would be to enhance French in the national capital region.
For example, I refer to Brussels, where I think there is some kind of policy in place to try to make sure the country's two official languages are recognized and more commonly used within the business and city community, if you will.
I'd like to hear your views on that and see if anything could be done, or if anything has ever been done, to try to enhance the visibility of French in the city of Ottawa.
Dr. Goldbloom: I think it's fair to say that over the last quarter-century there has been improvement in the balance between the use and the visibility of English and French in the national capital region. We do, however, continue to receive some complaints in this regard, and they tend to come more from French-speaking than from English-speaking Canadians.
We come here again into a jurisdictional question. The Official Languages Act applies to federal institutions and analogous bodies, and the National Capital Commission comes within that category. So when we receive a complaint that concerns the National Capital Commission, it is sent to the National Capital Commission, and I must say that with successive heads of the NCC, we have had excellent cooperation. The problems brought to their attention have been by and large corrected quite rapidly.
The municipal level is not part of the commissioner's jurisdiction, but notwithstanding that, on the same basis of general responsibility for the official language minority and on the basis of courtesy, I have met with most of the mayors in the national capital area. I've said to them very simply, ``I have no official function in relation to your responsibilities, but I would like you to know what my concerns are and what my perceptions are of the shortcomings that still exist, and ask your assistance in improving the situation''. I have been cordially received at every city hall at which I have presented myself.
.1015
To go beyond that, I think, would require a concerted effort, which the National Capital Commission might wish to undertake. I would be happy to see the NCC do that, but it would go beyond the appropriate definition of the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages, except perhaps that some mention might be made in a publication of the commissioner. I don't think I could go beyond that to be the motive force in creating a movement that would concern the municipal level and the private sector.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I understand, Commissioner, but I often hear comparisons, especially from my English-speaking colleagues in Montreal, complaining of the lack of English, if you will, the little recognition given to the English-speaking community. However, Ottawa is 40% French speaking, if I'm not mistaken, and it's a figure comparable in size to that of the Island of Montreal. It would be nice to hear from time to time on my side of the government, if you will, of people saying that what we're demanding for Montreal we could also demand for Ottawa.
I know the federal government, and I believe your office, has taken that into account, but I hope in the future we could probably push city authorities through a special project and force the NCC to increase the visibility of French, which would go beyond simple services from the federal government, extending into perhaps provincial and of course municipal matters.
Dr. Goldbloom: There is no question, Mr. Chairman, but that a capital city is a showcase for the country it represents.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Godfrey.
Mr. Godfrey (Don Valley West): I wonder if you took the long view from the very beginning of your office and went back to, what, 1970...?
Dr. Goldbloom: The office came into being in 1970.
Mr. Godfrey: If you were to take two photographs of the situation then and the situation now, quite apart from what role you might assign the office in terms of changing things, a change agent, would you say by and large, looking at the country in 1970 and 1996, that there has been a sea change in terms of attitudes towards bilingualism as one might compare it with attitudes towards environmentalism, the women's movement, smoking, any one of those huge societal changes. How does one measure that? Does one measure it through reading back to the original reports? Does one measure it through polling data?
So the question is there. Has there been a sea change, and how do we measure such things?
Dr. Goldbloom: There has certainly been a very significant change, and many members of this committee testified to it the day before yesterday. At the same time, there is a complex set of problems that still needs to be addressed, and there is resistance to the correction of the problems that are identified. That forms part of the commissioner's responsibility, to identify and to cope with some of these resistances.
As to how to measure it, I have difficulty in identifying a single measure. One can take, as I did two days ago, the numbers of Canadians who are able to function in both languages. This has grown very substantially. We went from 2.8 million bilingual Canadians in 1971 to 4.5 million in 1991. The figure I quoted the other day of 8.5 million is the total of those able to function in French, and the proportion of those able to function in French whose mother tongue is not French - usually English - has grown over time.
.1020
The other measure of the willingness of Canadians to recognize our duality as an inherent character of Canada is the maintenance of the interests of Canadian parents in French as a language of instruction for their children.
If we take the sector of French immersion, which began about 25 years ago, I have participated in the celebration of the 25th anniversary of French immersion in cities like Calgary, for example. The growth of enrolment in immersion programs was spectacular through the 1980s. It could conceivably have begun to fall off in the 1990s. It has not. It has maintained itself at a level of approximately 300,000 non-French-speaking Canadian children enrolled in French immersion programs, and that does not take account of the much larger number of non-French-speaking Canadian children who are following the regular core programs of second language instruction.
It has clearly not been just a fad. Clearly the word of mouth from year to year, from generation of parents to generation of parents, has been that immersion is good. It is a successful experience. It allows children to participate more fully in the life of the country and to have a more interesting perspective of a future career.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Senator Robichaud.
Senator Robichaud (L'Acadie): I much appreciated the last comments of the Commissioner. They apply somewhat to one of the questions I would like to ask about the existence of the Office of the Commissioner itself.
I had occasion to say, quite recently, that the Office of the Commissioner was an essential agency in this country because of the extreme positions taken by some of our fellow citizens, not only by some fellow citizens who are here with us, but also by some fellow citizens living in the country. That is why some complaints are filed fairly regularly with the Office of the Commissioner.
We are now discussing the budget of the Office of the Commissioner. The total amount spent by the Office is not exorbitant in light of its mandate, which is to save not one culture but two. What is the price of a culture? It is not measured in terms of dollars, in terms of money. The value of a culture is immense. What is the price of a human life? It is not measurable.
Some sectors of our community say we spend much too much on bilingualism. This is for a culture. It is for the survival of the country. There are some who say we don't spend enough. We have just heard it said that in Ottawa, in the national capital, there is not enough French. I read in a newspaper, very recently, that an Anglophone from Western Canada, arriving in Ottawa, had found that everything was in French. These extreme positions will continue to exist.
That is why I am not scandalized at all by the number of dollars and the budget that we are discussing, even if we are in a period of restrictions. The dollars spent by the Office of the Commissioner are being used to ensure the survival of at least two cultures in our country.
Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, allow me to point out that the budget we are now discussing, which is 10 million dollars, represents less than one one-hundredth of one percent of the total budget of the federal government. It is six one-thousandths of one percent of the budget of the government of Canada.
.1025
It is a drop of water in the ocean of what we are spending to make our country work.
I would also like to say, in reply to Senator Robichaud, that there is, as he pointed out, some contempt within Canadian society. This pains me greatly. I have devoted much of my life to combatting contemptuous attitudes toward others.
But I would say, in all straightforwardness, that the major problem we face is not contempt but ignorance. Without neglecting the fight against contempt, we must fight even more against ignorance.
When I speak of ignorance, I am overwhelmed by the number of Canadians who do not know the history of our country, who do not know the history of our linguistic duality, who forget, if they ever knew, that it was 462 years ago that we became a component of the French-speaking world. They forget that when, through military action, in the middle of the 18th century, we became a part of the English-speaking world, we did not abandon this other language that we had had for two and a quarter centuries. They forget that our linguistic duality is not the product of a decision by this Parliament in 1969 to adopt a law entitled Official Languages Act. Our linguistic duality flows from the human reality of more than four centuries of life.
If Canadians knew more about this reality of our history, there would be less resistance based on ignorance.
I am also struck by Canadians' ignorance concerning the Act itself. The false impressions are terribly widespread. For example, the impression that the Official Languages Act was conceived in order to force everyone to become bilingual is very widespread; there is the idea that the Act was conceived - I am repeating here what is in my annual report this year - in order to force everyone to learn both languages. This is a provincial responsibility that is generally allocated to school boards or commissions.
The idea that the Act was conceived in order to force the entire federal bureaucracy to function in both languages and provide all services in both languages is also very widespread. The truth, which is simply that we recognize the human reality, the actual needs, that where there are concentrations of population we provide services in both languages, escapes a large majority of Canadians. It is this kind of ignorance that I find I have to fight every day in my work.
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Are there any other questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: Yes.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): I think we have exceeded the time for introductory comments and I will ask all members of the committee to limit themselves to one question. I will allow no more than five minutes to each person.
Mr. Marchand: Once again, there are so many things to say that I would really like Dr. Goldbloom to come back before this committee.
Basically, I would add to what Dr. Goldbloom has just said concerning the ignorance of Canadians about history. I fully agree with his statement. The misinterpretation of the Official Languages Act is also a problem.
.1030
However, you failed to refer to the ignorance that exists even within the public service. The departments, after eight years, have not yet managed to understand Part VII of the 1988 Act. This is a big problem.
With regard to the Commissioner's role - I am speaking here to Mr. Robichaud, for whom I have great respect on account of the historical role he played in favour of the Acadians - I do not question it. On the contrary, I think the Commissioner has a very important role to play. The funds he is allocated should enable him to do something positive and constructive to save this French culture that is now endangered in Canada.
Assimilation is wreaking havoc in Canada. Its pace has not been slowed for 25 years. That is why I wonder whether, with this money we are spending, we have managed to counter the devastation of assimilation.
[English]
I also respect Warren Allmand, but I cannot fail to respond to some of his remarks concerning the fact, for example, that elderly persons in Quebec do not have adequate access to English-language services.
My goodness, how many francophone old people in the rest of Canada do not have access to hospitals, old age homes, where everything is in English? That is a deplorable problem, because when we again compare the situation of anglo-Quebeckers, we recognize that in Quebec, anglophone communities have more than 200 institutions for social services and hospitals. Outside Quebec francophones have literally none whatsoever.
With respect to the improvements in Ontario, yes indeed, there are improvements in Ontario. I fought for some of these schools, and these -
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: Excuse me for interrupting you. Why did the Parti Québécois adopt, at its National Council, the idea of repealing Law 142, which in fact guarantees that seniors in Quebec will have access to services in their language?
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): We may be exceeding somewhat...
Senator Rivest: I'm sorry, but I am asking my question on my five minutes. You will give him two minutes more.
Mr. Marchand: Thank you. The Commissioner comments on this point in his report, saying the Anglophones are losing some entitlements in some institutions, particularly in the hospitals, for example. He fails to say that what is happening there is a substantial transformation that affects all Quebeckers. It is not being done to target Anglophones, but from the way he presents the facts in his report, it as if the Anglophones were being singled out. But that is not the case.
To come back to Mr. Allmand,
[English]
you also mentioned, of course, the improvements in Ontario, but one has to recognize that in Ontario where the majority of.... It is the most important francophone community outside Quebec. Still today in Ontario there are only three school commissions controlled by francophones. All the others are controlled by....
Mr. Allmand: Four.
Mr. Marchand: Four? Yes, that's true. There are a great number of them that are not under the control....
In Ontario -
Mr. Allmand: There were none when I came here.
Mr. Marchand: Yes, I know, but I mean Ontario, like many other provinces in this country, still does not respect the Canadian Constitution. They do not adhere to section 23 of the charter of human rights. This is a phenomenon all through western Canada and in some provinces in eastern Canada.
So when you're talking to me about the Constitution in Quebec, about language signs, the Constitution in Quebec is always respected and has always been respected, including when they applied Bill 178 and when Monsieur Bourassa pleaded the -
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Marchand, I think we are talking about a matter of provincial jurisdiction at this point. I would remind you that we are discussing the estimates for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, but I will allow myself to make one comment: the injustices that prevail in one part of the country do not justify the injustices that prevail in another part.
Mr. Marchand: Exactly. I fully agree with you, Mr. Chairman. However, the point of view adopted by the Commissioner in his report means that we are overlooking this fact and that we are also overlooking a lot of others.
.1035
That is why, basically, I have so many things to say in opposition to this report. I don't have time to provide Dr. Goldbloom with all the examples of this kind of equalization. Basically, he has a way of analyzing the situation of the Francophones outside Quebec that overlooks so many factors.
For example, you said just now - and you admitted it because I raised the issue - that the use of French in the public service had not increased in 25 years, while in your report you said the number increased but forgot to say that the use of French had not increased.
You also said just now that in Saskatchewan, there are now French school boards, while Quebec is not fully complying with the Constitutional requirements. But you fail to say that there is just one Francophone in ten who has access to a French school in Saskatchewan, while 100 percent of the Anglophones have access to English schools in Quebec.
It's the same thing in the case of the complaints. You report them in such a way that I cannot say it is not deliberate... For example, you praise the Canada-community agreements. You praise these agreements without saying a word about the fact that they have declined by a third and that this is going to do substantial harm to the Francophone communities.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): What is the subject matter of your question, Mr. Marchand?
Mr. Marchand: The subject matter of the question...
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Even with the two minutes that Senator Rivest had the extreme generosity to accord to you, you have exceeded your time. If you could formulate a question for the Commissioner, I would be very grateful.
Mr. Marchand: I would like to know whether he would agree with me in acknowledging that his task as Commissioner is to send the message that the assimilation of the Francophones outside Quebec is a normal phenomenon.
We speak of normality, of a situation that is acceptable or normal because it has persisted for 25 years. The situation is not resolved, even if the Commissioner has not dared use the word "assimilation" once, which is not an accident, or a coincidence.
Would he acknowledge with me that his task is to try to convince people in his annual report that, basically, assimilation outside Quebec, in the provinces where they don't yet enforce the Constitution and where the rights of the Francophones are not yet enforced, is a normal phenomenon? The message that you send in your report is that it is normal that the Francophones...
Mr. Serré: We adopted in this committee a motion that the time allotted to the initial statements would be ten minutes and five minutes for the second ones. Systematically, the member from the Bloc Québécois is violating this resolution. He did so on Tuesday and now he is about ten minutes into his second statement. I request that the motions adopted by this committee be enforced and that we limit ourselves to the allotted time.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): I accept your comments, Mr. Serré. I would ask Mr. Marchand again to formulate a specific question concerning the estimates that are allotted to the Office of the Commissioner.
Mr. Marchand: Once again, it is a questioning of the ten million dollars that are spent. I wonder if this ten million is well spent. I wonder whether the role of the Commissioner isn't to ensure that the assimilation of the Francophones outside Quebec, outside of Quebec, is normalized, is considered as normal and that we agree that the Francophones in this country...
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Marchand, I think your question is well put and I would ask the Commissioner to reply to it.
Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, I find Mr. Marchand's interpretation of my report implausible. It is inconceivable that one could accept the assimilation of a minority the size of the Francophone minority throughout this country as normal. This is not acceptable and I conceive my role as being, in large part, one of fighting such assimilation and ensuring that institutions and resources are made available to the communities in question so they can gain a new lease on life and advance.
.1040
I find equally implausible the selective deafness of Mr. Marchand, who just said that I had not mentioned Part VII and the ignorance or lack of respect on the part of federal officials concerning the implementation of Part VII of the Act. That is precisely what I did say in a fairly lengthy reply to the question from Mr. Benoît Serré. I did not want to repeat the same thing by replying to the question that was asked earlier.
Mr. Chairman, I find this search for comparisons absolutely sterile. The problems are real ones. The task is to identify them and to identify the steps required to correct the situation. That is my job and that is what the ten million dollars allocated to me are used for.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Thank you, Commissioner. If there are further questions, I would ask the members of the committee to limit themselves to one minute. Mr. Allmand.
[English]
Mr. Allmand: Bon, I'll try to be very brief.
With respect to the estimates, Mr. Chair -
Mr. Godfrey: Heavens!
Mr. Allmand: If we're going to have -
Mr. Godfrey: Are you talking about the estimates?
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mr. Allmand: If we're going to have language justice in Canada, both for the francophone communities outside Quebec and for the anglophone community in Quebec - and by the way, there is much to be done in both areas - I think the part of the law that we have to examine is part VII.
We have to see whether those sections are being implemented and whether the departments of government have the resources to merely implement part VII, which is to enhance the vitality of those language communities. That may require other witnesses than the commissioner.
I had a question, but my question is to the joint chairs, and it's relevant to this discussion we've had for the last two days. I would think that in addition to inviting the minister or the officials from Canadian Heritage, who have responsibility for part VII, we should be inviting, as we in the old committee had decided to do just before Christmas, the representatives of the minority language communities, whether it's the Association des francophones de l'Ontario, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or Alliance Québec.
Then we will really get some input into these questions, and I would hope -
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Could you keep that question until after we have dealt with the question of the -
Mr. Allmand: Is that this morning? I'd like to have some decisions on that this morning.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Yes, but later on.
Mr. Allmand: Okay. Well then, I'll come back to it at the end of the meeting.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Okay.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I did have some comments to make in reaction to some comments that were made around this table previously, but in the interests of time I can do that at further meetings, so I won't do that.
But I want to make a comment regarding the investigations branch, the numbers I have in the report, and the budget. The dollars allocated for that are $3,066,000 for a total workforce of 44. If there are only 30 investigators and 14 support staff, my God, that makes the number worse than I first mentioned on the $70,000 per investigator.
So having said that, I want to introduce a motion, Mr. Chairman, and -
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): I don't think you can do that now. Wait until there is a formal motion moved for the adoption of the budget, and if you have an amendment to the motion, you can make your amendment at that time. I think I'm right on that decision.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I'll accept your ruling, and I'll do that later on. Thank you.
.1045
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Thank you.
Senator Robichaud.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: We were talking about assimilation, which is continuing to some degree. I would like to say and to declare here that had it not been for the recommendations of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, which was the basis for the establishment of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, assimilation in Canada, outside New Brunswick and a fair part of Ontario, would be virtually complete.
The Office of the Commissioner saved the situation in Canada as a whole. I would like to make that statement here.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Thank you.
Senator Robichaud: That is worth a budget of millions and millions of dollars.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Thank you, Senator. Are there further questions?
[English]
Are there some other questions to the commissioner?
[Translation]
Very briefly, Mr. Marchand.
Mr. Marchand: There is one point that still bothers me, in addition to the others; why is it that in the evaluations of the enforcement of the Official Languages Act we don't have any criteria or standards?
When the Auditor General submits his annual report, he presents his criteria, some objectives to be achieved, and he says that these objectives were achieved by 50 percent, 25 percent or 100 percent.
In the case of the official languages, there don't seem to be any criteria anywhere, or standards, or objectives to be achieved by the Commissioner. This, of course, allows the Commissioner to say that any progress or any improvement is fine and good. In your opinion, why are there no evaluation criteria?
Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, the criteria are in the Act. Each complaint is assessed according to the relevant section of the Act.
In the case of services to the public, we have given some figures. We have demonstrated that, outside Quebec, service was available in French in only 72 percent of the cases. I clearly stated that the only acceptable figure was 100 percent, period, new paragraph.
Mr. Marchand: One hundred percent of what?
Dr. Goldbloom: Of the available services. When a Francophone attends at a federal office that is designated to serve the public in both of the country's official languages, the service in French should be available at all times.
Mr. Marchand: Yes.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Thank you, Commissioner.
I think we have had plenty of time in which to ask questions and that we have received from the Commissioner all the desired clarifications. We could continue for ten days if, around the table, there were nothing but members of your calibre, Mr. Marchand.
[English]
I would be ready now to receive a formal motion for the acceptance of the budget of the official languages commission.
[Translation]
It is moved by Mr. Serré, seconded by Mr. Godfrey.
[English]
Are there some comments?
If I'm not wrong, I think this is the time we can move an amendment, Mr. Breitkreuz.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Thank you. I would like to do that. Especially taking into view that my colleague from the Bloc has questions about the budget as well, I would like to introduce an amendment.
Given that complaints to the official languages commission have decreased by nearly 10% since 1991, I would like to introduce a motion that we reduce the budget of the office of the official languages by 10%.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Is this motion seconded?
A voice: No.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I don't think you need a seconder.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): No, we don't, I'm sorry.
Are there any comments?
Mr. Allmand.
Mr. Allmand: Very briefly. This indicates the attitude we've seen over and over again from the Reform Party with respect to the official languages of Canada. I think that is a total misunderstanding of the role of the commissioner and the role of the act itself.
So I urge my committee colleagues to reject this motion. If anything, I think we might need more money in some areas of the commissioner's work rather than less.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Thank you, Mr. Allmand.
.1050
Are there any other amendments to the...? There are comments, yes.
Mr. Godfrey: I just have a question for Mr. Breitkreuz. By the same logic, if crime rates were down 10%, would he also suggest cutting the police by 10%? Is that the way the game works?
Mr. Breitkreuz: That's not even a logical comparison.
Mr. Godfrey: It's a question.
Motion negatived
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): I come back therefore to the main motion. Are there any further questions or comments before going to the vote to accept the budget for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages?
PRIVY COUNCIL
- Commissioner of Official Languages
Vote 25 is agreed to on division
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Dr. Goldbloom, I am told that you would be free on May 28 and June 4 to come back and discuss with us. Which of these dates do you prefer? Would June 4 give you more time to complete your report on Part VII?
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, did you say, May 22?
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): No, May 28 and June 4.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Because during the week of May 22 the House isn't sitting.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Yes, you're right.
Dr. Goldbloom: It would obviously give an additional week's time, but if it were the wish of the committee that it be May 28, I would have no difficulty with that.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Would the members of the committee like to express some opinions on this?
Mr. Serré and Mr. Marchand.
Mr. Serré: Given the importance of this matter, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to agree to meet on both dates. I know this may mean taking a lot of time from the Commissioner, but I think there is plenty to discuss on this subject and that we would perhaps be better off devoting two sessions to it.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Is it the desire of the committee that the Commissioner come back and see us on both May 28 and June 4?
Senator Rivest: We have to reserve some time for the appearance of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne and Alliance Quebec, as was mentioned, and before the June adjournment.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Yes, indeed. Mr. Allmand.
Mr. Allmand: That was my question, too. I asked, a few minutes ago, if we intended to invite Alliance Quebec, the Association des francophones de l'Ontario or other associations, to discuss Part VII. In order to get a better knowledge or understanding of these difficulties, of these problems, I think we ought to invite them, as well as the Minister or the...
I noted that in December we decided to invite the Privy Council because it has a lot to do with the implementation of Part VII.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Agreed. Mr. Allmand, could I ask you to wait? We are going to discuss this specific question before the end of the meeting.
Mr. Allmand: Very well.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Would we have time to receive some organizations before May 18?
Commissioner, I think the committee would like to see you again. We get such pleasure from seeing you that we would like to see you on both May 28 and June 4.
Dr. Goldbloom: With pleasure, Mr. Chairman. That is the sense of the discussions we have been involved in with the committee's administrative staff since the initial meeting the day before yesterday.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Thank you very much, Commissioner, for your very clear explanations and replies. I will take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee very much for remaining generally within the limits of propriety and trying, inasmuch as possible, to limit their comments to a reasonable length.
Thank you, Commissioner.
.1055
If we have meetings twice a week before seeing the Commissioner on the 28th, that leaves us the 14th and 16th, since the Houses are adjourned the following week.
Mr. Serré: I am going to make a motion, if you will allow it.
I propose that we invite Alliance Quebec and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada on May 30.
We would thereby have an opportunity to hear again from the Commissioner and to examine his report in greater detail. It would also give the two minority communities time to examine this report. We could then hear their testimony before seeing the Commissioner again, in order to follow up on the recommendations of the two communities.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): But we will have seen the Commissioner once already, on May 28.
Mr. Serré: It would be between the two.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Good! Does that meet the wishes of the committee?
[English]
Mr. Allmand: May I clarify? Is this with respect to part VII? Further meetings with the commissioner and with the associations will be to focus on part VII?
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): If I understand well, yes.
Mr. Allmand: Very good.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I thought it might be preferable to meet with these linguistic communities on the 14th and...
The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Ms Paradis): We are receiving the Treasury Board at that time.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): But if Treasury Board is not available, we will have a problem. It is therefore agreed that we will hold two sessions next week.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): If we invite both organizations on the 14th or the 16th, does that give them enough time to prepare?
Mr. Allmand: I think that the joint clerk can confirm this for us. In December, we had indicated our intention to invite these associations. I think they are ready. They were ready at one point. I think so, but I am not sure.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Serré, would you agree to amend your suggestion and say that we will meet with the two organizations on either the 14th or the 16th of May? Let's say the 16th, to give them a bit of time.
Mr. Serré: If we have no choice, I agree. However, I wanted us to invite them between our two meetings with the Commissioner, to allow them to examine the Commissioner's report. On these dates, they may not have read the report yet, and their testimony may not be what it ought to be.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): In my opinion, we are going to lose a little time. There are so many important issues. For example, we were talking about French and the Internet. We touched on other issues that are really urgent, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and even in our opinion. In my view, if Alliance Quebec is already prepared, and the Francophone communities, we should call them for next week.
They have still had close to 10 days to study this report in depth. I think it would be appropriate to meet with them here next week.
The only thing that worries me is the delay that might result from another refusal by Treasury Board to appear before us.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): We'll be discussing that forthwith.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Yes, but we have no authority to summon Treasury Board to appear before us on a particular date. We still have to give ourselves reasonable time in which to call it.
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Without making it a formal vote, could I ask who are the members who are here for May 30 to meet Alliance Québec and the Fédération des communautés francophones.
Mr. Allmand: Rather than next week.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Rather than next week.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Who would appear next week then, Mr. Chairman? Would it be the Treasury Board?
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): There are three.
Who is in favour of next week for those organizations?
[Translation]
You have no preference?
Mr. Marchand: That's fine with me.
[English]
Do you have a preference?
.1100
Mr. Breitkreuz: It doesn't matter.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Can we ask the joint clerk to check and report to the joint chairs? We will then communicate to you the date that has been chosen.
There is one last, very important matter. I took the liberty on Tuesday morning to contact Mr. Marcel Massé and tell him that the committee had a strong desire to see him. He told me that jurisdiction in respect to official languages, and in particular the implementation of Part VII, lay with the Department of Canadian Heritage and that he would consider it a breach of prerogative to report to the committee in place of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
What I didn't know, and I'm sorry, was that the Act clearly stipulates that Treasury Board has direct jurisdiction in relation to the Official Languages Act, and Part VII in particular, and that furthermore, Mr. Massé's predecessor, Mr. Eggleton, had undertaken to come and see us before he was replaced in his position.
I think Mr. Marchand would be prepared to table a proposal which, ideally, could allude to the Act and the previous commitments by Mr. Eggleton.
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I move that the President of the Treasury Board be summoned before the Standing Committee on Official Languages on May 14 to comment on his annual report filed under section 48 of the Official Languages Act.
[English]
Mr. Allmand: I agree with the motion except for the date of May 14. We just agreed that we would be flexible, so I would support the motion but I wouldn't be strict with respect to May 14.
[Translation]
Voice: At the earliest opportunity.
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Wouldn't it be better if there were a reference to the law and to the previous promise of Mr. Eggleton?
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand: Oh, yes? I will reformulate my motion, then.
I move that the president of the Treasury Board be summoned at the earliest opportunity before the Standing Committee on Official Languages to comment on his annual report filed under section 48 of the Official Languages Act and, in view of...
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Perhaps we could begin by "In view of such and such section of the Act...".
Voice: "And the undertaking..."
Mr. Marchand: "And the undertaking by his predecessor, the..."
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Agreed? Then we will rely on our secretarial service to draft the motion. Is there someone to second this motion? Comments, questions?
The motion is adopted
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Please, Mr. Allmand.
[English]
Mr. Allmand: Before Christmas the committee had taken note of the serious situation with respect to manpower training. By the way, on pages 43 and 44 there are severe criticisms by the commissioner of the availability of training in the French language in Ontario and in Manitoba, and there have been some problems in Quebec as well. At that time we were thinking of inviting the
[Translation]
dean of training at the Cité collégiale
[English]
in Ottawa, who is responsible for manpower training, and also the sous-ministre for Human Resources Development.
I just want to impress upon the steering committee and the co-chairs that this is an urgent problem. If we can't deal with it before the adjournment in June, it should be taken up as quickly as possible in the fall. The provision of courses is commented on very strongly in the report and it's a major issue.
I mentioned the letter of Mr. Ron Duhamel from Manitoba, who is very concerned about the provision of French-language training, formation, in Manitoba. There have been problems in Ontario. There are some problems in Quebec. I don't know about the Atlantic provinces. But we should hear from the sous-ministre for Human Resources Development and some other key people who are delivering the training, such as the dean of the Cité collégiale. I would agree with that.
.1105
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Would you agree to refer that to the steering committee?
Mr. Allmand: Yes, I would.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Thank you. Mr. Serré.
[English]
Mr. Serré: I was just telling Warren that we had actually discussed that at the steering committee, and I think we decided that we would wait until we had the report of the commissioner. We will hear on that issue from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, you can rest assured, because they are talking to me every week about this problem. Once we hear the commissioner, then we would decide which department to call before us.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Okay, and that could take place any time in early June.
[Translation]
Mr. Serré.
Voice: I propose adjournment.
The motion is adopted
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.