Skip to main content
Start of content;
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 19, 1996

.1535

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): I will now call the meeting to order. The Standing Committee on Official Languages is holding its first meeting today to study the enforcement of the Official Languages Act in the National Capital Region.

We will be hearing from two witnesses today: Mr. Marcel Beaudry, Chairman of the National Commission, and Mr. Michael Nurse, Assistant Deputy Minister, Real Property Branch, Public Works and Government Services. I would like to welcome them to our meeting.

Mr. Beaudry, who was the mayor of Hull formerly, is the Chairman of a Commission with a unique mandate. I'm sure he is eager to tell us about its successes. Before turning the floor to our witnesses, I think I should point out that all members of this committee share the same objectives: to promote linguistic duality, which is at the heart of our identity as Canadians.

The committee will try to ensure that all Canadians feel at home in the National Capital area. One of the reasons why we invited you to appear before us is that you are the custodian of buildings that belong to both anglophones and francophones. No one should feel left out because of his or her language.

We are eager to hear your statement, but before you begin, I would like to ask you two brief questions that I am sure will be answered in the course of your remarks.

One of the questions that interest the committee concerns leases signed by commercial tenants in buildings owned by the National Capital Commission or administered by Public Works and Government Services. Do these leases contain clauses that require that service to the public, including commercial signs, be in both official languages? If so, what steps are taken when tenants do not comply with this clause in their lease?

I will now turn the floor to you.

Mr. Marcel Beaudry (Chairman, National Capital Commission): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to take part in this meeting of the Official Languages Committee.

With me today is Ms Suzanne Gustafson, who is the Acting Vice-Chair of Human Resources, and Mr. Luc Bégin, who is an Intergovernmental Relations Officer.

The National Capital Commission is a Crown corporation that has been in existence for close to 100 years. We will be celebrating our 100th anniversary in 1999. We have jurisdiction over27 municipalities in the greater National Capital area.

.1540

Our mandate is to provide development, conservation and programming activities in the National Capital area. We also have a mandate to coordinate our activities with those of our federal, municipal and regional partners in this area to ensure that we enhance the National Capital area as much as possible and make it one that represents all Canadians. The National Capital area's mandate can be summarized as follows: to promote Canadian unity and pride among all Canadians who come to the National Capital area and among all other visitors from all parts of the world.

[English]

In the National Capital Act, the mandate stipulates that we have the responsibility to organize, sponsor and promote such public activities and events in the national capital region as will enrich the cultural and social fabric of Canada, taking into account the federal character of Canada, the equality of status of the official languages of Canada and the heritage of the people of Canada.

In accordance with the Official Languages Act, the NCC provides all its services and programs in both official languages. The NCC has an enviable track record when it comes to the active offer of services in both English and French. All our publications, our information and promotional materials, our public announcements and our calls for tenders are made available at all times in both official languages.

[Translation]

All our public meetings are held in both official languages. All discussions at National Capital Commission meetings - whether they are committee meetings, for Commission meetings or board meetings - are in both official languages.

All National Capital Commission lands and activity sites have bilingual signs.

The NCC is a leader in promoting official languages. We have always been considered as the organization par excellence to promote the use of both official languages in the services we provide to the public.

This can be seen in the activities for which we are responsible, such as Winterlude, Canada Day, Cultures Canada and others. All these artistic activities have a balanced, equitable representation of francophones and anglophones. The Capital's InfoCenter, which is located at 14 Metcalfe Street, is also recognized as a very important way of advertizing and promoting the Capital and its area, and is a model of service in both official languages.

[English]

The NCC, of course, works very closely with its many partners in the regional tourism sectors to promote the use of both official languages in visitor services, such as the Ottawa Tourism and Convention Authority,

[Translation]

l'Association touristique de l'Outaouais.

[English]

In the last three years, one complaint only was filed by the Commissioner of Official Languages that was linked directly to NCC's operation. This complaint came in 1995 about the Gatineau Park visitors' centre in Chelsea, and the complaint was because signs in a restroom in the Gatineau Park were only in French: ``exit'' and ``restroom''. As soon as it was brought to our attention, of course we took measures to make sure the signs would also be provided in English.

[Translation]

NCC tenants: there is no doubt the National Capital Commission has large real estate holdings. We manage 750 buildings in the National Capital area which include private residences, farms, heritage buildings and commercial buildings such as those located on Sussex Drive.

In the past three years, the Commissioner of Official Languages has received four complaints about NCC tenants.

.1545

In our view, however, we cannot force our tenants to post signs in both official languages, and I am referring here particularly to section 25 of the Official Languages Act, which reads as follows:

[English]

[Translation]

- this section contains some very important words -

[English]

[Translation]

We therefore think that the Act does not officially require the tenants of these buildings to comply with the recommendations made in section 25. However, since we think that one of the role of the National Capital Commission is to promote unity and pride in Canada, we have included an incentive clause in all of our commercial leases.

It might be concluded from reading this clause that tenants are required to use both official languages in their signs, but we have never implemented the clause in any official way. We see it rather as an incentive, and we have in fact obtained positive results in this way, because many of our tenants have complied with our recommendation that they publish their documents and post their sign in both official languages.

The four complaints that we had about these tenants, which were submitted not to the NCC, but rather to the Official Languages Commissioner, were passed on to us by the Commissioner. Naturally, we got in touch with the tenants in question, one of which was The Mill Restaurant, which had a sign outside the restaurant in English only and whose menu was in English only. We asked the business in question to comply with the Official Languages Act and they willingly agreed to do so. The other complaint was about the Ritz Restaurant on the Canal. In that case too, the restaurant now has menus in both French and English. Service is of course available in both languages.

There were two other complaints about Camp Fortune. The former operator of Camp Fortune, which is a NCC tenant, had not complied with the recommendations made in the Official Languages Act. We ask the new operator, who had been there since 1994, to comply with the Act, and he did so. So you can see that the National Capital Commission prefers to function by encouraging people to do certain things, and by showing tolerance and understanding, rather than by forcing its tenants to comply with this provision.

However, we have obtained a legal opinion which states that since the leases existed for a number of years, if nothing were done to cause compliance with a clause in the lease, there would be a tacite agreement whereby the owner does not acknowledge that the tenant is required to comply with the clause in question.

Theoretically, the situation today is that we could tell a tenant that there is a clause in the lease requiring that he publishes material in both official languages. As I said earlier, as far as services go, I think they are available in both official languages. However, signs are a different matter. I don't think a court of law would appalled an argument about the clause in the lease.

In addition, I am quite sure that using the stick rather than a cad would be a good of achieving our objective of ensuring proper recognition of the two official languages throughout the region, and throughout Canada. We want the use of the two official languages to be a constructive way of promoting unity and pride in Canada. However, we think that the steps we have taken to date are much more positive than court proceedings, particularly if the National Capital Commission's case were to be thrown out of court. This would look rather bad and would have quite a negative impact on everything that has been done in the past, by both the Commission and other government bodies, to promote the Official Languages Act.

.1550

We published an action plan which is however not yet official, since it has just been sent to the Minister,

[English]

an action plan for francophone and anglophone minorities.

The NCC does practise what it preaches in terms of promoting the use of both official languages in the national capital region. Its actions with respect to the promotion of Canada's official languages extend beyond the boundaries of the national capital region. The NCC just tabled its action plan designed to foster the growth of anglophone and francophone minority communities in Canada. It includes educational programming, a poster contest, teacher guides, programs to provide Canadians with the opportunity to learn about each other, family capital experience, and the capital youth ambassador.

The National Capital Commission has a mandate that reaches across Canada. We have a capital family program, for instance, that brings into the capital region twice a year twelve families from each province and territory across the country. While they're here, they're billeted with families in this area where they can appreciate the culture of the French or the English, depending on where they come from. They are called upon to visit whatever monument we have in this place - the museums, the House of Commons, Rideau Hall and other activities of this sort.

It provides our people with a better understanding of each other. It provides them with a better knowledge of what Canada is all about and what this capital region is all about. We want this capital region to be set out as an example for the rest of the country of compassion, tolerance and understanding.

We have in this region a unique opportunity, I believe, in Canada: the fact that this region encompasses both main provinces, or the provinces that are the most

[Translation]

not popular, but densely populated. I would not say ``popular'', because there are premiers and politicians from other provinces who would not be very happy with me. In this area, we also have roughly 1 million people with different backgrounds, both cultures and languages are well represented, the economy is well integrated, programs are shared well and on the whole, people are very tolerant of each other and display compassion and understanding for each other. That is why we want this area to be set out as an example for Canada. It would be good to bring in families, as I said earlier, or to use

[English]

the capital youth ambassador. For instance, 200 students 16 to 18 years of age come here each year. They take courses and meet people. They visit some of the institutions of Canada. They then go back to their regions to let the good words and the good news be known by people of their schools, of their environment. I think this is the way we're going to build this country, and the National Capital Commission is very much involved in these programs.

[Translation]

We also promote the region through advertizing. During last year's Canada Day celebrations, we put an insert in 5 million newspapers that were distributed across the country. The insert was prepared by the National Capital Commission once again to promote the institutions found in the region. I must add that sponsors paid 80% of the insert. Naturally, the insert was in both languages. It is safe to say that this type of advertizing shows the importance that the Commission attaches to the fact that this country is a bilingual country, a country that promotes both official languages.

We also have TV programs, be it for Canada Day or Winterlude, that are widely broadcast and that many TV viewers watch on national networks. On Canada Day, for example, roughly1.5 million viewers watch the activities that took place.

.1555

There were even more viewers for Winterlude, because the event lasted three weeks.

So we have a very large public that is very much aware of the Commission's efforts to promote both official languages.

In conclusion, Madam Chair, I would like to say that the Commission will continue to work on promoting official languages. It will do so in a spirit of cooperation, in a spirit whereby we will attempt to continue encouraging the people with whom we do business, particularly with respect to commercial leases - you ask me about this at the beginning - to offer their services in both languages without necessarily resorting to coercive means. I think that it is preferable to continue this promotion as we have in the past, to ensure that those who implement the regulations and sections of the Official Languages Act do so willingly, with enthusiasm, and with a view to promoting the use and recognition of both official languages.

I do not think that using force and strong statements will enable us to make everyone accept the Official Languages Act. By pursuing our efforts as we have in the past, we will succeed and we will have a better country that everyone will be able to enjoy.

If this committee makes a decision or has recommendations for us on how we can improve our past actions, it is clear that the Commission will always be prepared to consider and implement them. We are here to work together, to try and improve the quality of all government bodies and to ensure that all Canadians feel better at home and can continue to promote this country of ours which, in my view, is the best in the world.

Thank you, madam.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Thank you, Mr. Beaudry. Your intervention is most helpful.

Mr. Nurse, you have the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Michael Nurse (Assistant Deputy Minister, Real Property Services Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada): Thank you.

[English]

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Michael Nurse, and I am assistant deputy minister, real property services branch, Public Works and Government Services Canada. Today in these opening remarks I want to outline the current situation with regard to signage on and in commercial properties leased to retail tenants by the real property service branch at Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Our department is custodian of about $6.8 billion worth of federal real property holdings, primarily office facilities to house public servants. Since the early 1970s we have also been active in the leasing of retail and office space in major urban centres, including Ottawa, Montreal, Hull and Vancouver.

In the national capital region we lease about 29,000 square metres of space to retail businesses, primarily in Ottawa at 240 Sparks Street, on the north side of Sparks Street, and in Hull at the Place du Portage complex. This generates more than $4 million in gross revenues annually to the Crown and contributes significantly to the economic viability and vitality of the Ottawa-Hull core.

[Translation]

The policy regarding signage for buildings under our custody is very clear. All such signage must adhere to the requirements of the Federal Identity Program policy of Treasury Board. This Treasury Board policy is designed to enable the public to clearly recognize federal activities, and to project equality of the two official languages. Accordingly, signage in all buildings under the custody of federal institutions must display French and English with equal prominence.

Under the Federal Identity Program, PWGSC and other federal custodians are also responsible for specifying and negotiating signage requirements for real property leased from the private sector.

.1600

[English]

This is not the case with regard to the signage posted by tenants in leased space in federal buildings. Neither the Official Languages Act nor the federal identity program policy requires bilingual signage for these retail businesses.

The Province of Quebec's Bill 86 permits signage in more than one language if French is predominant. Municipalities on both sides of the river and the Province of Ontario have no specific bylaws regarding bilingual signage.

[Translation]

Public Works and Government Services Canada's standard retail lease does not require tenants to provide bilingual signage.

[English]

In September, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada embarked on a campaign to encourage Ottawa retailers, particularly on the Sparks Street, to have bilingual signage. There are some logistical problems with such an initiative.

It would be difficult for PWGSC's departments to police such signs, which may change from day to day or week to week. As well, it is a concern whether real property organizations should undertake such a move that is not consistent with industry norms. Some merchants could view intervention by us as a landlord as a case of over-regulation.

[Translation]

Another issue arises from the fact that we are a national organization; the current policy requires us to carry out our programs consistently across the country. Changes in our signage requirements for Ottawa tenants could have implications for our retail tenants elsewhere.

[English]

PWGSC is only one of several federal landlords that lease property to commercial tenants. Any change in lease requirements would need to be closely coordinated with the federal organizations and with Treasury Board.

Our approach therefore has been one of strongly encouraging but not prescribing bilingual signage in space released to retailers. We have distributed to our tenants at 240 Sparks and Place du Portage signs indicating the availability of bilingual service.

In addition, we have worked with the Sparks Street management board to make these signs available to all merchants on Sparks Street. Our overall participation in this initiative is expected to be in the area of 75%.

To conclude, I want to emphasize that our department, Public Works and Government Services Canada, recognizes and respects the delicate linguistic balance in communities such as the national capital region. PWGSC, is working hard to fulfil its obligations under sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act to provide services to minority language communities. Recent examples include supplier seminars in French in Sudbury, Winnipeg and Vancouver, and participation in the first Mondiale de l'entrepreneuriat jeunesse held in Ottawa in September.

In addition, we are working closely with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. In this context, the committee's broad mandate to analyse the situation on both sides of the river is of great interest to us, and we truly look forward to your recommendations.

Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Thank you, Mr. Nurse.

[Translation]

Mr. Marchand, you have the floor.

Mr. Marchand (Québec-Est): Thank you for the presentations.

I am especially interested in what the National Capital Commission does. In your presentation, you painted a rather rosy picture of the situation in the National Capital, but you know that the FCFA held a demonstration on Sparks Street, last summer, to protest the lack of signage in French in Ottawa. It is a well-known fact. We have been talking about it for years. We could even quote articles by Michel Vastel and others who say that Ottawa is far from being a bilingual city, but rather a unilingual city.

That is part of the reason why we want the National Capital Commission to do a little more. You were also asked to prepare an action plan to implement part VII of the Act, precisely to help promote the French language. But your action plan was deemed inadequate and even worthless, by both the FCFA and the Commissioner of Official Languages. In fact, you did not even have a specific action plan to implement part VII.

.1605

It is important for the National Capital Commission to promote French. Moreover, it is part of your mission, at least as it is defined in the charter. But I also wonder if you have time to oversee the promotion of the French language in the National Capital, because you also have a mandate and rather broad powers over buildings and land in the National Capital.

You said that you managed 750 buildings, if I am not mistaken. I assume that, given your mandate, you do not have as much time to deal with French and official languages as you do buildings and land, and that that is perhaps one of the reasons why French is lacking in Ottawa. What do you think?

Mr. Beaudry: Are you asking me a question?

Mr. Marchand: Yes, I am asking you a question.

Mr. Beaudry: First of all, I would like to thank you for complimenting me on the positive picture I painted of the National Capital Commission. My mandate as president is to try to make the National Capital Commission as attractive as possible and to ensure that the Commission fulfils its role and is well understood by all people who live not only in this region but throughout Canada.

I think the action plan you are referring to dates back to 1994. Since then, we have submitted another action plan to our minister, but unfortunately it has not yet been made public, because it has just been submitted.

We have not yet received the minister's report. This is the 1996-1999 action plan. I believe this plan will be received very positively by the minister. It refers specifically to the issues I mentioned in my comments, that is, the various plans we have in mind to promote the two official languages, not only here in the national capital region, but throughout Canada.

You referred to the fact that we own some buildings. It is true that we have 750 buildings, of which 125 or 130 are commercial in nature. In many of these buildings with tenants, services and signs are in both official languages. Service in both official languages is provided in the vast majority if not all of the buildings, but I must admit that signs are not always in both languages.

As I mentioned before, if the Commissioner received a complaint, we would immediately get in touch with the tenant to ensure that corrective action was taken. We received four complaints over the last three years about some of our tenants, and we got in touch with them so that they could correct the problem and provide not only service but also signs in both official languages.

I think this shows that the Commission is concerned that the two official languages be recognized and used in all federal buildings. However, in my opinion and according to our legal advisor, there is no formal requirement that they provide bilingual signs and services except if they are agents of the Commission. That is what is stated in section 25 of the Act.

Agents of the Commission, acting on behalf of the Commission, must provide signs and services in both official languages. I don't think a tenant renting space on Sussex Drive to sell wedding gowns can be considered an agent of the Commission. I don't think this individual is selling wedding gowns for the benefit of the National Capital Commission. This individual is selling wedding gowns for his or her personal benefit and, consequently, is not a agent of the Commission.

The same cannot be said of Minto, which, since June 1, has been responsible for administering the 700 or 750 buildings for which we were formally responsible. Minto is considered an agent, because it is working for us. The company has to have its signs and advertizing in both official languages, which it does in the case of buildings we own.

So this is obligatory in the case of agents, but not in the case of tenants who are not agents. However, we are trying to encourage these tenants to comply with the Act and to make it clear to the rest of the country that things can be done with tolerance, understanding and enthusiasm.

.1610

Mr. Marchand: As the owner of many companies in the region, do you...

Mr. Beaudry: Are you referring to the National Capital Commission?

Mr. Marchand: I know that you personally own about 60 companies.

Mr. Beaudry: I would certainly like to be involved in 60 companies, but I am not. In any case, I don't think I am here representing Marcel Beaudry as an individual, or a shareholder in companies which might own some buildings. However, I must tell you that in my buildings, both official languages are used.

Mr. Marchand: Are you saying that you are not involved in 60 companies?

Mr. Beaudry: Not in 60. I am involved in a number of buildings, but not 60. Personally, I'm not involved in any company. If you want to know exactly what's going on, I transferred all my shares to my wife since the Commissioner told me that this would be simpler.

I can tell you that at the moment I'm involved in my wife's company, which is mine as well, because I am married to her.

Mr. Marchand: Am I to understand that you told us all that so that we understand that you are not in a conflict of interest with the National Capital Commission?

Mr. Beaudry: Are you talking to me about conflict of interest?

Mr. Marchand: I think it all goes together.

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): What is the point of your questions?

Mr. Marchand: Let met come to my point. I know that Mr. Beaudry owns a number of buildings and properties and that he may not have time to concern himself about problems such as the enforcement of the Official Languages Act.

Mr. Beaudry: Let me tell you, Mr. Marchand, that I concern myself fully with the National Capital Commission. I am not on any board of directors of any of these companies. I am neither on the board nor a shareholder of any of the companies and I devote all my time to the National Capital Commission.

Mr. Marchand: That is not true, Mr. Beaudry, because your name is mentioned with reference to 60 companies.

Mr. Beaudry: What is the date on your document?

Mr. Marchand: It's not the date that counts.

Mr. Beaudry: But it is important. If you are talking about 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991, that's a different matter, because I came to the National Capital Commission in 1992. If you are talking about the companies in which I've been involved over the last 40 years, I would tell you that your list is incomplete if it mentions only 60 companies. You should look harder, you might find more.

However, that does not mean that all these companies were operating or were not operating. You have to look at the situation since 1992 and the statements I made to the Ethics Commissioner. The important point is that today I have no shares, I'm not the President, a shareholder or a board member of any company. My wife owns everything, and I devote 100% of my time to the National Capital Commission.

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): You'll have to wait for your next turn, Mr. Marchand. I would like to say that I am more interested in Mr. Beaudry's ideas for promoting our official languages.

Senator Losier-Cool, you have the floor.

Senator Losier-Cool (Tracadie): I appreciated your presentation very much, Mr. Beaudry. Last October, with the Canada-France group, I attended a National Capital Commission presentation. I must tell you that our colleagues from France liked the Commission's presentation very much.

I am one of those who believes that the best way of promoting French is to speak it and to speak it well. So let's stop talking about defending French and let's start by speaking it well.

Could you tell us what percentage of the staff hired directly by the Commission is French-speaking.

Mr. Beaudry: I think the figure is over 50%, but I say that subject to correction, because as you know, we're in the process of reviewing all our programs and organizations at the moment. A year ago, we had 905 employees, and today, we have about 630.

.1615

While I'm not sure that my percentages are still correct, I can tell you that a year ago, I believe 52% of our employees were francophones. I can also tell you - and the Vice-Chair will correct me if I'm mistaken - that at least 90% of the Commission's staff are fully bilingual.

Senator Losier-Cool: Fully bilingual?

Mr. Beaudry: Yes.

Senator Losier-Cool: And what about Francophones?

Mr. Beaudry: I am talking about people who speak both languages.

Senator Losier-Cool: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Mr. Allmand.

Mr. Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I would like to ask Mr. Beaudry if he would mind tabling with the committee a copy of the lease that contains these incentive sections.

Mr. Beaudry: Yes, I will.

Mr. Allmand: Then if there are more types of incentive clauses than one, could you table leases that contain the various kinds of incentive clauses so we could examine exactly the wording of them?

Mr. Beaudry: Yes, I will.

Mr. Allmand: I want to ask Mr. Nurse why the Department of Public Works, or whatever it's called now, doesn't have incentive clauses in its lease similar to those of the National Capital Commission.

You are both federal government agencies or departments. You are both leasing to private tenants. Why wouldn't you also have incentive clauses in your lease?

Mr. Nurse: For the record, it's Public Works and Government Services Canada.

There are several reasons. First, we have a more diversified portfolio in terms of a national presence. We were concerned about the broader impact of having this kind of item that's mentioned in the lease with the National Capital Commission. However, we are consulting with Justice and our colleagues at Treasury Board to determine what kind of impact that would have and are making that consultation. That's why it's so important to us to receive and look forward to the recommendations of this committee.

So we are looking at that, what the implications are from our aspect, to see what impact that might have on us and some of our fellow custodians in the federal government, and what the views of Justice and Treasury Board are. We are investigating that.

Mr. Allmand: I've looked at all the sections in the Official Languages Act and other regulations and statutes, and for good or for bad, from what I can determine, there is no section in the law now that would allow either the NCC or the Department of Public Works and Government Services to force private commercial establishments to put up bilingual signs in the national capital unless they were carrying out services for the government as set out in section 25 of the Official Languages Act, as referred to by Mr. Beaudry. I think what that has in mind....

For example, in some pharmacies you have postal services being given. I presume in those cases they would have to provide.... They're giving federal government services, although they're a private business. There are some bookstores that have agreements to sell government books, since a few years ago the government closed the federal government bookstore.

Mr. Beaudry, is that not more or less the distinction? In section 25, if you leased to a private business that was in fact carrying out the services of the federal government, such as selling stamps and other postal services or selling government publications or whatever, then under section 25 they would have to comply with the Official Languages Act; but if they're selling wedding gowns, as you point out, you can't really force them. You can put an incentive clause in. Is that correct?

Mr. Beaudry: That's our interpretation.

I think it goes a little further than that, Mr. Allmand. I think what the section states when it says every credible institute has a duty to ensure that ``where services are provided''...services may not necessarily mean they're a tenant of yours or they're leasing from the organization. It could be services as in the case of Minto Developments, or Minto Realty, which today provides services to the National Capital Commission through a contract for being responsible for the administration of our real estate portfolio. Even though they are not tenants of ours, they are providing services to us, and in those services they have to make sure they're providing them in both official languages. I think the article goes to that extent.

.1620

But if on top of that they are tenants, and have occupancy of a building they are leasing from us, then of course at that point, if they are providing services in the name of the National Capital Commission - or in the name of a federal institution, as you have pointed out before - I think it's their obligation to respect the law, because section 25 is out there. But it depends on which tenant you're leasing to.

Mr. Allmand: Yes. Section 26 is more specific, in that it says when activities relate to health, safety or security, then they must also be bilingual in the national capital region. So I would presume in restaurants, even if it's private and whatever, signs relating to smoking - any type of health, since it says health, safety and security - would have to be bilingual.

Mr. Beaudry: I'm not sure that in this case it wouldn't be for a federal institution as such - one that does regulate. When they do regulate, then I think they have to use both languages to make sure it is understood properly, especially when safety or health are involved.

Mr. Allmand: The section that bears most on what you're doing, I guess, is section 43 under part VII, especially paragraph (f). The section says that the Government of Canada, through the minister and the department, shall take measures appropriate to:

(f) encourage and cooperate with the business community, labour organizations, voluntary organizations and other organizations or institutions to provide services in both English and French and to foster the recognition and use of those languages;

I haven't read your incentive clause, but it seems to me that your incentive clause may be in conjunction with paragraph 43(f). I'll make a judgment once I read it. But according to that section, while you can't force the business community - the general business community that are lessees or whatever - you have an obligation to encourage and cooperate to provide services in both languages and to foster the recognition and use of those languages.

Have you taken note of paragraph 43(f)? This committee has been studying plans - action plans, as Mr. Marchand points out - under part VII.

[Translation]

Mr. Beaudry: That is exactly what I was saying in my opening remarks, Mr. Allmand. Although the clause in our lease states that tenants should publish materials and post signs in both official languages. The word used is ``shall'', not ``may''. We see this clause as encouraging certain action rather than forcing it, because while we could obviously take our tenants to court and ask that the lease be cancelled, we do not think the court would uphold our arguments. However, we think that the present wording of the clause provides an incentive for tenants to comply with it. That is within the context of section 43.

That is our interpretation. These leases have been in effect for a number of years now, and the same wording has been used. In many cases, the results show that tenants voluntarily use both languages - they posted signs and promoted their business in French and English. We think this is a reasonable way of achieving our objectives. We prefer not to use more drastic methods.

[English]

Mr. Allmand: My final question, Madame Chair, is to both witnesses. I would like to ask them whether they apply the provisions of the Official Languages Act with respect to their departments, their leases, their work, throughout the entire national capital region the same way. In other words, do you have the same application in the municipalities on the Ontario side as you have on the Quebec side? I understand you have three or four municipalities on the Quebec side and several more on the -

Mr. Beaudry: We have 11 on the Quebec side and 16 on the Ontario side. The same policies apply on both sides of the river. There is one exception to this - all the signage of the NCC is in both languages. You can see them throughout the parks, the parkway, and all that. That's all in the two languages.

.1625

There is one exception. On the Quebec side, there was one complaint, actually,

[Translation]

regarding a road sign for the National Capital. The sign was posted along a highway in Quebec and because the Quebec Department of Transport states that such signs must be in French only, we did not want to get into a war of words, and we tolerated this sign being in French only. However, this is the only exception with respect to road signs. Everywhere else, they are in both languages.

[English]

Mr. Allmand: I would like to have the answer to the same question from Mr. Nurse.

Mr. Nurse: We have a very similar approach. Our approach in the department has been, asMr. Beaudry talked about, to really encourage. We work with various associations. Our services are very similar on both sides. We operate in the very same fashion.

Mr. Allmand: Thank you.

The Joint Chairman (Ms Guarnieri): Thank you, Mr. Nurse.

[Translation]

Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Beaudoin (Rigaud): Mr. Beaudry, I think you've already answered to a large extent the question I was going to ask you. In law, of course, there is a fundamental distinction between an incentive clause and one that is mandatory. There was even a very famous case in the Supreme Court on this subject.

In this case, however, we are talking about a real federal institution, and you clearly see section 25 as being mandatory, if I understood correctly. However, in the case of another person or organization with objectives different from those of the Commission, such as business, you have decided - and you are probably right, to try to encourage it to take certain action. Clearly, if the question were brought before the courts, they would provide an interpretation of section 25. Since section 25 seems to make a distinction between the two, you think the trial might do more harm than good. Have I interpreted your policy correctly?

Mr. Beaudry: I think you have properly interpreted what I was trying to do. If you read the section, Senator, that is the only possible conclusion. I think the situation regarding agents is clear. I don't think a merchant operating a business on his own behalf is an agent of the Capital Commission. An individual whose operations are in the interests of the Capital Commission becomes an agent of the Commission, but not an individual who operates on his own behalf. I am thinking of a restaurant, which pays us a rent, which sells its food and which makes a profit or loss. That has nothing to do with the Capital Commission. He is not operating for the Commission, and consequently, he is not an agent of the Commission. He operates on his own behalf.

Clause 25 reads as follows:

25. Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that where services are provided or made available by another person or organization on its behalf, any member of the public in Canada or elsewhere...

Senator Beaudoin: On its own behalf.

Mr. Beaudry: Exactly.

The English reads as follows:

[English]

[Translation]

``every federal institution... on its behalf''. I interpret that as applying to cases where another person or organization acts as an agent for us. In cases where this third party is not acting as an agent for us, I don't think we can force him, under the Official Languages Act, to function in both languages. However, we do have these measures to encourage third parties to work in both languages, because they are in a federal building.

Senator Beaudoin: Do you have a legal opinion on this?

Mr. Beaudry: I don't have a written opinion, but that is the opinion we were given verbally.

Senator Beaudoin: Your opinion is based on the wording of a section in French and English at the same time, which is obviously a good thing, since the two versions both have force of law in the courts. I fully agree that if we are talking about an agent of the Crown, and if it is specified somewhere that this person or organization is an agent, then it is the same as if it were the federal Crown itself.

Mr. Beaudry: Exactly.

Senator Beaudoin: Of course, if this is not stated explicitly, it becomes less clear and certain, except perhaps in the case of a post office. That is a different matter, because it comes under exclusive federal jurisdiction. However in the case of the non-federal matter, perhaps a local business, the situation is different.

Mr. Beaudry: That's right.

.1630

Senator Beaudoin: You say that in such a case you can add a clause to your lease, but it is understood that the clause will be seen as an incentive only, and not as being mandatory.

Mr. Beaudry: What I said earlier is that when I came to Commission, the leases were already in existence.

Senator Beaudoin: They were already there.

Mr. Beaudry: And the clause contained in these leases had never been enforced. We had never taken tenants, who were not acting on behalf of the Commission, to court to force them to comply with the clause.

The interpretation we were given is that if a clause and a lease is not in force, there is a tacit acceptance on the part of the owner that he does not want to enforce it. We were told that if we were to take them out to the courts, they would conclude that there was tacit acceptance on our part not to force the tenant to comply with this clause.

In addition, we are not sure that this clause, with respect to the Charter, would allow us to force an individual to function in both languages, here in Canada, where the Act, does not force businesses to function in both languages.

Senator Beaudoin: There is also the fact that the territory covered by the National Capital includes areas in both Quebec and Ontario.

Mr. Beaudry: Yes.

Senator Beaudoin: And the laws in force in Quebec are not the same as those in Ontario with respect to official languages. I am referring to the provincial legislation,

Obviously, you are basing your argument on the federal Official Languages Act, given that this Act applies to federal institutions as such and not to other persons or organizations.

Mr. Beaudry: We are also basing our argument on the two charters. There is the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both charters can be used, as you know, in court proceedings when someone violates the rights of an individual. I think tenants have certain rights when they pay their rent.

It is true that, in theory at least, the courts could have said yes if the clause had been enforced from the beginning, and had been interpreted as a sine qua non. In other words, if it had not been enforced, the lease could have been broken. But that was not done in the past, and because it was not done, we think that the tacit acceptance of the situation that existed over the years would mean that today the courts would not uphold the cancellation of the lease for this reason.

Senator Beaudoin: That answers my question.

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Mr. Marchand.

Mr. Marchand: I would like to set aside these strictly legal arguments. Unfortunately, I'm not a lawyer, but I would like to talk about the matter of image. Mr. Beaudry, you were saying earlier that it was very important that the image of the National Capital Commission be an example for Canada. We know very well that if Ottawa is the example for Canada, the image it conveys is that of a unilingual English country, because Ottawa is unilingual English.

But I think the Chairman of the National Capital Commission must set an example as well, don't you. If the Chairman of the National Capital Commission had many conflicts of interest, I think that would call into question the effectiveness and proper function of the National Capital Commission.

Mr. Beaudry: So, if I understand you correctly, Mr. Marchand, you are concerned about my personal image.

Mr. Marchand: Mr. Beaudry, correct me on this point for which I'm having some difficulty. A person sleeps with a woman who owns 60 businesses totalling almost 2% of the lands and buildings in the Ottawa region, or who has an interest in these properties, I cannot...

Mr. Beaudry: I think you are exaggerating a little.

Mr. Marchand: ...help but conclude that there are many conflicts of interest.

Mr. Beaudry: I don't know where you got your figures, Mr. Marchand. I think you are exaggerating a little, because 2% of the land in the National Capital Region is rather considerable.

Mr. Marchand: No, of the Ottawa Urban Community.

Mr. Beaudry: Even if it were 2% of the Ottawa Urban Community, that would be quite a lot of land.

Mr. Marchand: It is, indeed.

Mr. Beaudry: The figure is not 2% and I do not own 100% of each of these companies. And finally, there are not 60 such companies, as I said before.

Personally, I'm not at all concerned about my image, because in the four years that I have been at the National Capital Commission, I have never been in a conflict of interest situation.

.1635

I'm not at all concerned about my image. I've been at the National Capital Commission for four years and I have never been in a conflict of interest situation. The only case that might have been interpreted as a conflict of interest was the one involving the Champlain bridge. I chose not to take part in the discussions or the decision made on this matter.

I consulted the ethics counsellor to see what he thought and I did exactly what he recommended. He too said that I was not in conflict of interest, although some individuals may think that there is an appearance of conflict of interest. He therefore recommended that I withdraw, and that is what I did. I'm not at all worried about a conflict of interest problem. I don't know whether you are very concerned about it, but personally, I am not.

Mr. Marchand: Yes, I am very concerned about it. We know, a person like yourself who has made a great deal of profit...

Mr. Beaudry: You don't know that. I've been involved in many transactions, but you don't know whether I have made a lot of profit.

Mr. Marchand: Madam Chair, I think the question has to do with the credibility of the Chairman of the National Capital Commission. If the NCC is not doing its job properly, whether as regards the enforcement the Official Languages Act or anything else, I think this is a very important matter.

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): If Mr. Beaudry cares to respond, Mr. Marchand, I will allow him to do so, but...

Mr. Beaudry: In my humble opinion, there has been no evidence to suggest that we were not doing our job. If you walk around the National Capital Region and you look at all the activities offered by the NCC - there're 75 under way at the moment - and all the advertizing it does in the newspapers and all the signs it posts, you will see that everything is always in both languages. We always offer our services in English and in French in everything we do.

We've never received any complaints except the one I mentioned earlier about the signs on the toilets in Gatineau Park. So people in this region must think that we are doing things correctly. If you are very concerned about what we are doing in the National Capital region, I am very concerned about your interpretation of the real situation in the Capital region.

Mr. Marchand: The fact is, Mr. Beaudry, that in Ottawa Francophones have criticized the government very harshly, and this the capital of Canada. They say that it is an English-speaking capital. I don't think any reasonably intelligent person can deny the fact that Ottawa is an English city.

Mr. Beaudry: I may not be reasonably intelligent, but I will tell you that Ottawa is not an English city, but rather a bilingual one, as is Hull. Hull is not a French city. In my opinion, with my intelligence level, I would say that the National Capital region is an absolutely bilingual region, where people can speak and be served almost everywhere in both official languages. That is why I am very proud to be a Canadian and to be able to work in this region.

Mr. Marchand: That is not true, Mr. Beaudry. The FCFA of Canada held a demonstration last summer to highlight the lack of respect shown to French in Ottawa and the lack of services in French. I would invite you to go to the Sparks Street Mall, where all the buildings on the north side are the property of the Department of Public Works. You run the buildings in the capital and in many of them, there are no services in French. I think it is a question of good management. In view of my knowledge of real estate transactions, I have trouble accepting the fact that you do not often find yourself in conflict of interest situations.

Mr. Beaudry: That is because I have taken steps not to find myself in such a situation,Mr. Marchand. That could easily happen, but I have taken steps to avoid it.

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Your five minutes are up. I would invite Mr. Beaudry to respond if he cares to. We can all make speeches, but I think we are all interested in hearing suggestions to advance the cause.

Mr. Marchand: That's what I'm doing.

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): I will give you the last word, Mr. Beaudry.

Mr. Beaudry: I am not saying there is no room for improvement, Mr. Marchand. We can always do better. The National Capital Commission is not perfect; it makes some mistakes. There is plenty of room for improvement. I think it would be a good thing for the National Capital region to do better in the area of official languages. We are continuing to work toward this goal. In addition, the governments in all the other provinces would also do well to increase their promotional of the official languages.

.1640

We're still in Canada, and as far as I know, I've just heard that the Quebec government, in the person of Ms Beaudoin, made a statement that was not very much in favour of bilingualism in this country. If I understand correctly, the issue will be raised at the upcoming Parti québécois convention.

I understand that we are not here to put the Quebec government, Ms Beaudoin, or the Parti québécois on trial, but if we want to promote the two official languages in our country, and as far as I know Quebec is still part of it, we should not always be talking about just one part of the problem. We should be laying blame where blame should be laid.

It is also up to the province of Quebec and the other provinces to promote the two official languages. Many of them do not do this enough. I agree that we must work to achieve this goal and that we should continue our efforts to make this place even more bilingual and better recognized.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Merci. Mr. McTeague, five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. McTeague (Ontario): I don't think I will need five minutes, Madam Chair. I am an Anglophone, but I am not from Ottawa. I am from the beautiful region of Toronto. I would have a few questions to put to Mr. Nurse in particular, concerning the logistical problems he described in his statement earlier about any initiative that would force private sector retailers to post signs in both languages. What are these logistical problems in your opinion?

[English]

Mr. Nurse: It's similar to what we've been talking about in the last few minutes, and the approach we've taken is not dissimilar from what Mr. Beaudry was talking about. We're working with third-party leases to encourage them to participate. We provide every opportunity we can.

The comment I was referring to is that if there was a desire to, for example, ensure that all signage inside a leased premise, a business, was fully bilingual, we would have to be inspecting that at all points of the day or evening to ensure it happens. We were simply indicating that if we operated on the basis of enforcement it would present a situation where we would need more people to do the work. At the end of the day, I don't think that is what we're after.

On the other hand, the organization of Public Works and Government Services Canada, like many other federal organizations, has worked very hard to work with other organizations promoting bilingualism to make these things happen.

So that's the approach we're trying to take. I was really commenting on the basis of moving inside the particular business, and some of the problems we'd face there.

[Translation]

Mr. McTeague: Earlier, you referred to four complaints that had been registered in the National Capital Region. In your opinion, are there other examples of this outside the Ottawa-Hull region, in federal buildings in bilingual regions such as Sudbury or New Brunswick that you are aware of? Are you aware of any similar complaints?

[English]

Mr. Nurse: When I was scheduled to appear here I asked that question of my people to find out if there was anything, either through the Commissioner of Official Languages or directly to us, because we would be concerned about those. Quite honestly, I have to say we have not received complaints in those areas. We have no records of complaints based on the records we have.

I asked that to be verified a couple of times. I wanted to be sure. Each time the reaction was that we have not had complaints. If we had, certainly we would have followed up. Quite honestly, I have to say that's the information I've received.

Mr. McTeague: Okay.

My final question deals with incentives. Would you consider a financial incentive to a private sector business operating in federal government buildings? Has such a consideration been articulated?

Mr. Nurse: We try to look at every possibility we can. It's for this reason we look forward to the recommendations of this committee. The issue of financial incentive is one of the areas we are trying to consider. The point is, how much, where, and what would be the approach? That's exactly why we look forward to the opportunity to listen to the recommendations of this committee. We also must consult with some of our colleague departments and the Treasury Board in terms of the benefits and rewards of doing this.

.1645

Frankly, right now we're trying to move the agenda towards bilingualism, and when there's an opportunity we feel is reasonable we put it forward. We're now looking at a number of options, and the timeliness of this committee will, I think, be a great help to us.

Mr. McTeague: You've been a great help to me. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Thank you. Mr. Allmand.

Mr. Allmand: Having listened to the discussion thus far this afternoon, I'm convinced that as soon as possible we should either get a legal opinion or call the legal officers of the Crown from the Department of Justice to advise us on this question: whether or not, in buildings owned by the federal government, the federal government can insist in a lease that they follow the conditions of the Official Languages Act.

I say that because, generally speaking, in the law of lease you can impose conditions, and if the tenant agrees to the condition.... For example, many leases say you cannot have animals in your apartment. I had a lease at one time that said I couldn't put up an outside sign when I rented an office in Montreal.

In other words, it's not unusual. The general rules of law - I stand to be corrected by my colleague, a former dean of law - are that you can put conditions in leases unless they are against public order and good morals.

I want to go on to say that under the employment equity program that we have had under this government for years, we have a contract compliance program for the contracting of provision of services. In other words, if we're going to buy pencils or cleaning services from private contractors, we insist that they follow the principles of employment equity, that they give enough employment to the target groups such as visible minorities, women, aboriginal people and the disabled. That's contract compliance.

This could also be a type of contract compliance: if you want to lease our property, you must correspond to the rules of the Official Languages Act.

So I'm recommending strongly to the committee that before we go too much further we call officials from the Department of Justice to advise us as to whether or not we can go beyond the incentive clauses.

I congratulate the NCC for going that far, but maybe we could go further. Maybe we could not. Let's find out for sure whether we can or not, because, as I say, it's not unusual to have conditions in a lease as long as they are not contrary to public order and good morals.

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): I think that's a helpful intervention, because I myself was somewhat intrigued by the comment on page 2 that ``some merchants could use such intervention by their landlord as a case of government over-regulation.'' To my way of thinking, this wouldn't be a question of intruding on private property, since these buildings are paid for by both French and English taxpayers.

For instance, when you talk about their level of compliance and say that there would be some logistical problems with enforcement.... Could their level of compliance not be grounds for the lease to be renewed? Are these areas that you've done any exhaustive study on?

Mr. Nurse: Where there is compliance there are certain issues in the lease, not necessarily to do with signage. Where there is a need for compliance, we certainly ensure that compliance, and if there is a non-compliance to the extent that we're not satisfied, then the issue of the lease renewal would be raised at that time.

We're merely saying that within our lease at the present time we encourage the tenants offering these services to maximize the offering of these services in both official languages to whatever extent is possible, but we are silent on the signage side. That's the way our lease is right now.

So as you've said, we would enforce the elements that we have in our lease, but since it is silent in the signage area, we do not follow up on any compliance in that area.

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Monsieur Beaudry.

[Translation]

Mr. Beaudry: Madam Chair, I would not want to be misinterpreted. I think Mr. Allmand's suggestion is certainly very judicious.

.1650

As I said, we have a clause that compels us to post signs and operate in both languages. Theoretically, when there is a contract between two parties - , unless this is contrary to public order - we can impose the contract and enforce it. I also said that when a clause is not enforced for a certain period of time, the courts can interpret this - and according to legal opinions we received, have interpreted this as a tacit relinquishment of the obligation created at the outset.

Therefore, in this context, the courts would probably not agree to cancel the lease. Even if we wanted to enforce this today, those enforcing the clause could possibly be accused of discrimination when third parties have grandfather rights, since the clause had not been enforced previously.

We think this would do more harm than good. This is why we feel that this clause should be interpreted as being an incentive rather than coercive. I would like that to be clear.

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Mr. Marchand, you have a brief question.

Mr. Marchand: Among jurists and lawyers, I am completely confused here. When I read the Public Works lease, of which I have a form here, and which the National Capital Commission must use, I don't see anything that can be characterized as an incentive in the French version: it is coercive. When it states point 12 of article 4...

[English]

Mr. Allmand: National Capital Commission roads are Public Works, Mr. Marchand. Is this a lease of Public Works?

Mr. Marchand: In English, it says:

The other paragraph, (f), in English reads:

Mr. Nurse: My understanding of the lease is that we do encourage the offering of the services in both official languages to the extent that the ordinances are possible. I can only say that I did not see in either side of the lease, in French or English, a statement that there will be signage -

Mr. Marchand: Do you want a copy?

Mr. Nurse: - unless ``signage'' is stated in terms of being signage that is within our federal building and in terms of providing direction to these operations and companies. Beyond that, I'm afraid I would have to look at it. I am sure, though, that the only reference I've seen comes in terms of our obligations and requirements as a federal organization to ensure that when the public comes into a federal building, we have the signage to direct them to the appropriate places. I don't think the specific third-party lease has an obligation.

I apologize if I'm incorrect, but I just wanted to give you my understanding.

Mr. Marchand: Listen, the federal government owns 100% of all buildings on the north side of Sparks Street, and it owns many other buildings in Ottawa, on Sussex Drive, etc. So for example, when they rent that space to Four Corners Canada, according to this lease form, Four Corners should be obligated to provide services in both languages and, in the obligation, ``shall'' offer signs in both official languages. That's what's written in the lease, so the federal government should be able to encourage or at least have the law respected, especially in Ottawa, the capital.

Mr. Nurse: We certainly do encourage the offering of the services. Again, I'll look at the document in terms of whether or not I understand the French version. You indicate that it gives an obligation that they have signage, but I would have to look at it. Without reference to it, though, I just wanted to tell you that the signage would refer to our obligations within a federal building. In terms of the particular organization itself, I do not understand that to be the statement in the lease.

.1655

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Thank you, Mr. Nurse. The matter obviously needs some study.

[Translation]

Mr. Beaudoin.

Senator Beaudoin: My initial reaction would be to agree to Mr. Allmand's suggestion. If a legislative text leads to confusion, why not get a legal opinion from a recognized authority? Since we don't have to report this afternoon - I don't think we are going to report today - I would like to think about this for a week or two and come back to discuss the problem. There is certainly a legal issue here, namely what it is a mandatory clause or an incentive.

Secondly, is it to the advantage of federal institutions to obtain this opinion immediately or after the report? In principle, yes. Now, in light of upcoming testimony, we can always decide at the end.

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): I think we will close here on that note of wisdom. Our time is up. I wish to thank you all.

[English]

That was very helpful.

Mr. Allmand.

Mr. Allmand: I had asked Mr. Beaudry to table a copy of his lease - a model of it - but in view of what Mr. Marchand said, I would like Public Works to table a copy of theirs. Could the clerk distribute to the members of the committee copies of those copies so we could all read them? I would like to read the exact clauses.

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): I'd like to thank our guests for giving us much food for thought. It's obviously of great interest to committee members, and I thank you for your patience.

[Translation]

Mr. Beaudry: It was a pleasure, Madam Chair. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Ms Guarnieri): Meeting adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page

;