LANG Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, December 4, 2002

1535

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

Mrs. Diana Monnet (Assistant Secretary, Official Languages Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

1540

1545

1550

1555

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi (Senior Advisor, Official Languages Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

Mr. Scott Reid

1600

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Carole Bidal (Counsel, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

Mr. Scott Reid

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

1605

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

The Chair

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

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Carole Bidal

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Carole Bidal

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Carole Bidal

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Diana Monnet

1610

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Gérald Groulx (Advisor, Official Languages Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Gérald Groulx

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1615

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mrs. Diana Monnet

1620

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Gérald Groulx

The Chair

Mr. Gérald Groulx

The Chair

Mr. Gérald Groulx

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

1625

Mr. Gérald Groulx

The Chair

Mr. Gérald Groulx

The Chair

Mr. Gérald Groulx

The Chair

Mr. Gérald Groulx

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

1630

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Scott Reid

1635

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Carole Bidal

1640

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1645

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mr. Gérald Groulx

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

1650

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

1655

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

1700

Ms. Carole Bidal

The Chair

Mrs. Diana Monnet

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 005

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, December 4, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): With your permission we will begin, because the quorum to hear witnesses and ensure that the rest of our colleagues get their testimonies is four and there are four of us right now.

Mrs. Monnet, there are usually more of us, but this is the end of a session. There are at least three of our colleagues, and probably more, who are with a specific committee to do the clause by clause review of a bill. So, as you will understand, we will do the best that we can. There may be some comings and goings, but we feel it is important to hear what you have to say and we will give you the time necessary to do so.

So, you can begin and, perhaps, introduce those who are accompanying you.

Mrs. Diana Monnet (Assistant Secretary, Official Languages Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and hon. members. I was pleased to accept your invitation to come and speak to you about the project to review the application of the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations.

Before I begin, I would like to introduce my colleagues, friends and experts: Gérald Groulx, project coordinator; Joseph Ricciardi, senior advisor; and Carole Bidal, counsel.

Our goal today is to explain to you the process known as the Compliance Review of the Official Languages Regulations on the basis of the data from the 2001 census, to receive your comments and to better understand your concerns. Ms. Robillard wants this exercise to be transparent.

At the outset it should be stated that offices that automatically have service-to-the-public obligations will see no change to those obligations, because they are not subject to the population rules.

The census data will also not affect any federal office that has a special nature or provides specific services.

It is too soon to know whether the obligations of some offices will change. Some offices could lose the obligation to serve the public in both official languages, but others that previously did not have such an obligation could now have it.

What is certain at present is that a decline in population does not necessarily mean a reduction in the services provided in both official languages.

In situations where there would be a reduction in services, it will be necessary to proceed case-by-case to consider means of mitigating the possible impact of the exercise on the communities. It should be pointed out that the communities will be consulted at each important step of the exercise.

Before giving you more details about the exercise, which will begin shortly, I would like to elaborate on the rationale for the Official Languages Regulations and on its application.

As you probably know, the Official Languages Act, adopted in 1988, reflects Article 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which defines the delivery of services in both official languages in terms of three key concepts: the head of central office; significant demand; and the nature of the office.

More specifically, section 22 of the Official Languages Act provides that:

22. Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that any member of the public can communicate with and obtain available services from its head or central office in either official language, and has the same duty with respect of any of its other offices or facilities (a) within the National Capital Region; or (b) in Canada or elsewhere, where there is significant demand for communications with and services from that office or facility in that language.

The Official Languages Act stipulates that in prescribing the circumstances in which there is significant demand, the Governor in Council may have regard to: the number of persons composing the English or French linguistic minority population of the area served; the particular characteristics of that population; the proportion of that population to the total population of that area; the volume of communications or services between an office or facility and members of the public using each official language; any other factors considered appropriate.

the Act also states that in defining the nature of the office, the Governor in Council will have regard to such criteria as: the health, safety or security of members of the public; the location of the office of facility; the national or international mandate of the office. The Regulations complete, so to speak, certain key provisions of the 1988 Official Languages Act.

In that sense, they amplify certain provisions of the Act, particularly those concerning federal offices where there is significant demand in both official languages and offices whose mandates justify the provision of services in both languages.

Thus, the Regulations specify the circumstances in which persons have rights and federal institutions have obligations.

They protect the right of members of official language minority communities to receive federal services in their preferred official language.

In fact, the approach taken in the context of the Regulations makes it possible to ensure that the vast majority of Canadians can receive services from federal institutions in the official language of their choice. Thus the Regulations are an important complement to the Official Languages Act. They are a concrete expression of the government's commitment to support the development of the official language minority communities in accordance with Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

¹ (1540)

[English]

I'd like to stress the fact that the regulations apply consistently to all federal institutions subject to the Official Languages Act. Of course, since the act already requires federal offices in the national capital region and heads or central offices of federal institutions to serve the public in both official languages, the regulations do not apply to those offices. They have obligations that flow directly from the act.

I believe you were provided with a CD-ROM that explains the principles and conditions relating to the application of the regulations. It's in the package that was distributed. As well, you have been given two tables, one of which is a synoptic table of the official language obligations for services to the public. The other contains a series of questions to be answered by deputy heads in order to determine whether or not organizations have the obligation to provide service to the public in both official languages. Essentially, it's a guide to the application of the regulations.

[Translation]

In these two tables, the light brown bars indicate obligations that flow directly from the Official Languages Act; the green bar indicates obligations related to the nature of the office; the red and light blue bars indicate obligations related to significant demand. It should be noted that the order in which I have just presented the colours to you is the order in which deputy heads must consider each of the questions so as to determine whether their organizations have service to the public obligations. The process stops as soon as there is an obligation.

For example, to determine whether an office has a service to the public obligation, the deputy head must first consider whether the office in question reports directly to Parliament, whether it is located in the National Capital Region, and whether it is a head or central office. If the answer to any of those questions is yes, the office systematically has an obligation to provide services in both official languages. If it is no, the deputy head proceeds to the next question: does the office have a special nature? In other words, are its services related to signage concerning health, safety or security, are they national or international in nature, or is the office a national park? If the answer is yes, the office systematically has an obligation to provide services in both official languages.

If the answer to the question on the nature of the office is no, the deputy head must move on to the questions related to the special rules for significant demand. Does the office provide specific services or services to travellers? If it does, the obligation may be systematic or conditional on the demand for the services, depending on the individual case.

Lastly, the deputy head must answer the questions related to the population rules. These rules require consideration of the number of persons in an official language minority population, the percentage that population represents in a Census Metropolitan Area (that is, in a major urban centre) or in a Census Subdivision (that is, outside major centres, in small towns and rural areas), services considered to be key for the official language minority communities, the number of offices providing the same—proportionality rule—and the region served by the office of the federal institution (area of service).

[English]

Because these rules include provisions based on the data from the most recent decennial census, federal institutions must now reapply these rules using the data from the 2001 census. This is done through an exercise known as the compliance review of the official languages regulations. To better understand this exercise, I would ask you to please refer to the present document that you have been given. With the permission of the chair, I propose that we go through it with you to explain it a little bit more carefully and in more detail to see exactly how the regulation works, because it is not an easy one. We can then better understand your preoccupations, and you can understand the process that we intend to go through. We'll start on page 1.

On December 10, Statistics Canada will release the 2001 census data on the language composition of Canada and on the first official language spoken. These data will be used by most institutions subject to the Official Languages Act, to determine whether the service offered at their offices or service points should or should not be provided in both official languages. This review will start early in the new year.

Once the review is complete, it could be that some requirements concerning a certain number of points of service will have changed. For some offices and service points, the language obligations could therefore change.

Turning to page 2,

¹ (1545)

[Translation]

I will start with a brief overview of the Official Languages Act and Regulations: communications with and services to the public. Then I will describe the role of the Official Languages Branch of the Treasury Board Secretariat, and give some of the key target dates for the exercise.

Part IV of the Official Languages Act gives members of the public the right to communicate in the official language of their choice with the head or central office of any institution of Parliament or of the government of Canada, and with any other offices where there is significant demand or where justified by the nature of the office.

A total of 84 institutions comprising some 139 offices and service points are not affected by the compliance review because the obligation to provide services in both official languages falls directly under the Official Languages Act. This is the case, for example, for head or central offices, offices located in the National Capital Region, and offices reporting directly to Parliament, according to the nature of their mandate.

For the other 98 institutions, comprising some 12,300 offices and service points, whether or not they are obliged to provide service in both official languages depends on the Official Language Regulations. This is also the case for offices subject to the nature-of-the-office requirement, because the Regulations specify the services in question.

Generally speaking, therefore, all institutions with regional operations are affected by the compliance review.

Continuing with page 4,

[English]

on the adoption of the regulations. That is a choice made by the governor in council. The advantage of this choice is that the government, rather than the courts, defines the extent of the public's right to service and has established the scope of the obligations of federal institutions. There are a number of rules in the regulations. For the purposes of this presentation, I'm going to present them in order of precedence.

The rules related to the nature of the office cover services of such importance that they must be available in both official languages, regardless of the level of demand. These rules are defined on the basis of four components, which cover public health and security—for example, first aid services in a clinic at an airport; the location of the office—if it's in a national park, for example; a national or international mandate, if such is the case—for example, any embassy; and other circumstances—and one of the important other circumstances is toll-free long distance telephone services, for example.

The rules on significant demand comprise specific rules and general rules commonly called the demographic rules, about which I will speak in more detail. The rules on the nature of the office take precedence over the rules for significant demand. Within the area of significant demand, the specific rules take precedence over the general rules.

¹ (1550)

[Translation]

Significant demand involves two sets of rules: specific and demographic. The specific rules involve certain criteria that are not population-related as well as other factors, and can be grouped in four categories: travelling public, installations; travelling public, routes; maritime communications and air traffic control services; services provided at points of entry into Canada.

The particular rules apply in circumstances where an approach based solely on the presence of a local minority population is not appropriate. For example, in the case of services to the travelling public, demand must be measured. These rules take into account certain notions or factors such as passenger volume, size or percentage of the minority population, and census concepts such as census metropolitan area and census subdivisions.

For census purposes, Statistics Canada divides Canada into census metropolitan areas (CMAs) and census subdivisions (CSDs). CMAs comprise major urban centres in excess of 100,000 population. The concepts of CMAs and CSDs are the ones used for application of the regulations.

[English]

One of the factors that needed to be considered in developing the regulations was that they had to benefit the greatest number of minority populations—nearly a million English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians in minority communities. To do this, it was necessary to consider the two minority groups' characteristics and their distribution in the country; the size of the linguistic population of the area served by an office or facility; the particular characteristics of that population; and the proportion of the minority to the total population of that area. The second factor was the volume of communications or services between the public and an office or facility, and the third was any other factor considered appropriate.

An examination of the distribution of Canadian linguistic minorities showed that 86% of the anglophones in Quebec resided in large urban centres, whereas 42% of francophones outside Quebec lived in large urban centres. The rules were therefore established with this concern in mind if it wasn't homogeneous. This explains the number and the complexity of the rules, and I'm the first to admit that they aren't simple. These rules cover government services available to 92% of the members of the French-speaking minority and 96% of the members of the English-speaking minority, so the complexity does mean that percentage of the minority populations will have access to services.

[Translation]

These demographic rules are based on Statistics Canada census date and bring certain notions into play, such as the rules on: number and percentage of the minority within a census metropolitan region or census subdivision; key services such as all Canadian Heritage and Public Service Commission offices, certain services such as Canada Post, the Employment centres, the Income Security Program, Taxation Services and certain RCMP detachments; and proportionality, when several offices provide the same services. As well, the service area must be taken into consideration, that is the area covered by an office, which must extend beyond the CMA or CSD in which it is located.

The number and percentage of the minority population comprised in an office's service area is obtained by adding up the minority populations in the entire area served by the office. When the concepts I have listed do not make bilingual service mandatory, the regulations can require measurement of the demand.

[English]

Turning to page 8, during this review that we will be carrying out, the Official Languages Branch of Treasury Board will provide information, training tools for institutions, and the global framework for the review. We will evaluate the results of the review, and we will inform the president and the secretary of the Treasury Board, our networks within federal institutions that are subject to the act, the Canadian public, and this committee as well, as it requests.

¹ (1555)

[Translation]

In reference to the calendar you have in the package, which Gérald is going to show you, this is a working instrument for us. It indicates by colour whether the institutions or the Treasury Board Secretariat are to execute the activity. I would like to point out here that certain provisions in the regulations call for measurement of the service demand, when the demographics do not trigger an obligation to provide service in both official languages or when these do not apply, for instance in the case of the travelling public .

According to Treasury Board directives on measurement of demand, the results of this measurement are valid for ten years. The expiry date is 2003 or 2004, depending on the directives. Consequently, the schedule you have in front of you illustrates the deadlines for the two distinct parts of the review exercise. These are carried out at the same time, and in parallel, but differ in that one is based on demographics and the other on demand.

The activities are grouped under three heads, and the dates indicated may change slightly—I must forewarn you of that—except for the start and end date of measurement of demand.

We have application of the rules to the demographic data, application of Treasury Board directives A, B and C—available on our web site if you want to consult them—and measurement of demand. As for the outcome of the exercise, with respect to the demographic rules specifically, we estimate that most results will be available by summer 2003. For the results concerning measurement of demand, we estimate most will be available by the end of March 2005.

[English]

I'm now on page 10.

There are three key messages that I would like to convey to you today. Without the analysis of the application of the new data, it's not possible to predict the impact of the 2001 census on the linguistic obligations of institutions. No obligation will change until such time as Treasury Board has confirmed the accuracy of the analysis. Once confirmed, the new obligations are to be implemented with due diligence. We will keep the minority communities informed at every important step through the committee that we're working with, and they have their representatives on this committee. Their concerns will be considered and all efforts will be made to mitigate the impact of any negative changes.

Thank you very much. We would be pleased to try to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, given the number of members here, I'm guessing that I may be able to do a second round.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Scott Reid: It will affect how I structure my questions.

I have five questions. I was going to ask you to be quick, but now that I've been told there's a possibility of a second round, I won't be quite as insistent about that.

Regulations under the Official Languages Act regarding services to the public were promulgated in 1992. Have they changed at all since that time, or are they still the same, unchanged regulations?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi (Senior Advisor, Official Languages Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): They're exactly the same.

Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you.

My second question concerns where I can find a list of all service outlets currently designated according to the existing census information. I ask this because when I wrote a book on the subject of bilingualism about nine years ago, I had the experience of trying to locate some of these service locations. Specifically, I tried to locate locations in Toronto where service could be obtained in French. There is a legal obligation to provide French post office services, among others, in Toronto. I started the process in November, telephoned every day, and proceeded by a variety of other routes, but I didn't get the answer until February. That's how long it took while pursuing it daily, which means that, in practice, they were not available to all but the most dedicated searcher. I'm wondering if there is perhaps some centralized location at which one can locate those today.

º (1600)

Mrs. Diana Monnet: There is indeed. There is the Burolis website, which lists all federal points of service and gives you the linguistic obligations of each point of service.

Mr. Scott Reid: So if I were to go and look for which...I think something in the neighbourhood of nine or ten post office outlets in Toronto are required to provide service in French, to take into account the percentage of the total population within the metropolitan area that has designated French as its mother tongue. I would find those nine or ten outlets located on Burolis, is that right?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: Yes, you should.

Mr. Scott Reid: Are the current service outlets based on the 1991 census data, or are they based on data from the 1996 partial census?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: It could only be based on 1991. The validity of the application is for ten years, because it follows the decennial census.

Mr. Scott Reid: That's required by statute, is it?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: That's right, by the regulations themselves.

Mr. Scott Reid: I realize this is less relevant right now because we're about to see the release of the results from the decennial census, but in your opinion, looking to the future, would it be possible to base services on the results of the five-year census and make adjustments accordingly?

I see someone shaking her head.

Ms. Carole Bidal (Counsel, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): No, not under the current regulations. If you look at subparagraph 3(a)(ii) of the regulations, it specifically says you are to use, “after the results of the 1991 census of population are published, the most recent decennial census of population”. It would therefore require modification to the regulations.

Mr. Scott Reid: One of the things we do as legislators is make suggestions with regard to the possibility of changing legislation and regulations. From a technical point of view, would there be any technical difficulty that would prevent one from doing that? For example, I could imagine that in very small census districts in rural areas, you wouldn't get enough. The five-year census only goes to one in every five or ten people, am I not right? But in large urban areas, I can't really imagine a similar problem existing when we get more up-to-date tracking of the population trends. Am I right?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: It's a valid question, but it would require a change to the regulations, as Carole has indicated. We would have to take a look in more detail at what the implications of that would be.

Mr. Scott Reid: The implication that I'm wondering about is whether or not there is simply a technical problem that makes it impossible, based upon, for example, the number of questionnaires that go out, thus causing statistical error or that sort of thing.

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: I think I can answer that.

There wasn't a technical problem, but you have to keep in mind that once you have an institution that knows where its obligations are, they have to implement the regulation. It was thought at the time that a ten-year period would be an appropriate one, rather than having more frequent change, given the possibility that there are possibly some losses and some gains every time you do the exercise. It was thought to be a more appropriate period, but it was not a technical problem.

Mr. Scott Reid: All right.

Six days from now, on December 10, some mother-tongue language data from the most recent census will be released. Is this going to include sufficiently detailed information to allow us to determine where sufficient demand exists under section 5 of the regulations?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: Actually, the straight answer is no, because that's not the formula used for the regulations. It's a formula that attempts to be as specific as possible in regard to how many speakers of English and how many speakers of French there are. It therefore uses three variables in the census. The first is the official language that a person can speak. If there is need for clarification, one goes on to the mother tongue. If there's further need for clarification to arrive at the answer, the formula then takes into account the answers to the language spoken at home.

º (1605)

Mr. Scott Reid: So some of that data will not be released next week, it will come out later on, is that right?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: We understand that the data will be for the official language spoken, which combines all three of those.

Mr. Scott Reid: So some information on language spoken at home, for example, will be released next week.

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: Yes, it will. Statistics Canada will clarify this when they present it, but I understand that the information is separately available. The information on the first official language spoken is going to be released on December 10, as we understand it.

Mr. Scott Reid: And that's not just by province, it's broken down by local municipalities and so on?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: It's broken down by the subdivisions that Madame Monnet was referring to.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare.

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

In your opinion, does the implementation of the Official Languages Act depend on the number of persons or on the principle of the official languages?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: The charter talks about a significant demand and the regulations define what this means.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: So, you only follow up on a request or a reaction? In your opinion, if there is no reaction, there is no request?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: No, because the regulations is precisely aimed at the opposite effect...

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: What opposite effect?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: For example, the fact that a number of people from the minority community of a town trigger one of the obligations stated in the regulations automatically forces the federal office to provide services in both official languages. The minority does not...

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: You did not answer my question. Are your regulations based on the principle of the official languages or on the number of people who make a request?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: In the case of some regulations, such as those dealing with the travelling public, the criterion is the number or the volume of requests, while for key services, for example, it is simply...

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I want to go back to that presentation. If, for one reason or another, an airplane full of francophones from Trois-Rivières stopped in Lethbridge, Alberta, where the majority of the population is anglophone, and if these passengers were visiting the town, would services provided to them in English?

The population of Lethbridge is anglophone. Are francophones not welcomed there? At least, should they not feel at home in their own country?

Ms. Carole Bidal: This would depend, among other things, of the nature of the office and of a number of other criteria established under the regulations.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: You are not answering my question. Stick to my example.

Ms. Carole Bidal: It is possible that they may get services in French if they go to the post office, for example, or to various offices.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: It is rather rare that an aircraft would stop for a visit to the post office.

Ms. Carole Bidal: That was an example. Under the current regulatory context and under the legislator's position, these people would not necessarily be entitled to services in French.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: They would not necessarily be entitled to such services. It is necessary here to use the word “necessarily”? Would francophone passengers arriving in Lethbridge be entitled to services in French? I am not talking about going to the post office to buy stamps; I am talking about services that are provided, for example, at the airport, other than the signs indicating in both official languages, where the washrooms are located.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: When it is related to security and health, they are also entitled to services in both official languages.

º (1610)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: But they are not entitled to such services just to feel at home?

Mr. Gérald Groulx (Advisor, Official Languages Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): If the airport has been designated as a location where the demand is important, they would be entitled to the regulated services under the Official Languages Regulations.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: If, on the contrary, it is people from Calgary who arrive in Loretteville, will these people be entitled to services in French, other, of course, than in relation to the post office or the washrooms?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: In French or in English?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In English.

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: Are you talking about an airport in this case?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes, one in Quebec City, which is, according to the statistics, majority francophone. People from Calgary fly in there to attend some event and have questions on arrival. There are no security problems and no one wants to frustrate them, but people want to deal with them exclusively in French. Are they not entitled to services in English?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: You are referring to the Quebec City airport.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes, located in Loretteville, I believe.

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: I think it is required to provide services in both official languages, as is the Calgary airport.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In Quebec City?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: Yes.

Mr. Gérald Groulx: The airport has that obligation under the Act, yes, that is true.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In Calgary and in Lethbridge then, also?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: In Calgary, yes.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In Lethbridge?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: I do not have the answer to that at the moment, but I can get it for you. In Calgary, definitely.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: So it depends on the population?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: No, the number of travellers.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Travellers?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: Yes.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: This is a place for measurement of demand.

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: In the case of Calgary, however, if I may say so, Ms. Monnet, it is in fact automatic. It is an automatic obligation for Calgary.

The Chair: If I recall from our discussions with Air Canada, it is because there are one million or more passengers. All airports with a million-plus passengers are required to provide services in both official languages.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): [Editor's Note: inaudible] Quebec, Ontario, or New Brunswick.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: What is your definition of mother tongue?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: It cannot be other than the one used by Statistics Canada, which is the first language used and still understood. This is a paraphrase, Mr. Bellemare. The question may be a bit different, but it is like that.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: There is a couple living very near me. He is francophone and she is a Scot, who now speaks exclusively and solely French and raised all her children—. In this case, is this lady's mother tongue considered to be English or French?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: That depends on how she answered the—

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: She is from Scotland.

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: In this case, if the answer were given accurately, she would have indicated that she spoke English and French.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: And her mother tongue is—?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: English.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: English?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: Yes.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Even if she wishes to be exclusively francophone, because she has adopted that. Then is it yes or no?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: If, in answering the question, she has indicated that she speaks English and French, as you tell me is the case, and has indicated that her mother tongue is English.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare:Is English?

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, we can come back to this if you wish. I have just one reference for the committee members. Our researcher has prepared this binder for us. I refer you to tab 6, which addresses the entire question of definitions of language spoken, language spoken at home, speaker and so on. It might be something — and I admit this myself — our researcher is the one who brought it to my attention.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes, because I am leaving.

The Chair: I understand, but you will have to come back, because your time is up.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I have a plan.

The Chair:O.K.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I understand the answers. I know the answers.

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We are at point 1. Good day, ladies and gentlemen.

If I may say so, I know our time is very limited, but I still want to tell the Chair and the committee members that we might well send a letter to Air Canada about their complaint form, thanking them for it but pointing out that there are some changes needed when it is reprinted. There are some major translation errors in it. It says “Nous attachons beaucoup de prix à l'expérience que font nos clients”. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, and I suspect neither do they. So we need to write them and propose sending their copy to “linguistic affairs” and the Commissioner of Official Languages.

º (1615)

The Chair: We will come back to that.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I think the letter needs to be done promptly.

Ms. Monnet, ladies and gentlemen, I find your table very well done. Do you not, however, find it a bit paradoxical, to put it mildly, 32 years after adoption of the Official Languages Act, to have to draw little pictures like this in order for people to understand who has to provide services to francophones and who does not? Do you not find it a bit odd that people have to have illustrations provided when an act has been in effect for 32 years?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Admittedly, the regulations are complex, but they exist. They were approved and implemented. That is why the table was made, to facilitate the use of the extremely complex regulations. As I tried to underscore in my presentation, the regulations are complex because an attempt was made to protect as many minorities as possible under the Official Languages Act.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: By making it so complex is there not the risk that no one will apply it under the pretext that it is too complex to understand and apply?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: It is the responsibility of federal institutions to apply the regulations. They are not allowed to disregard them. They must apply them and we are conducting a follow-up.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I am going to make a connection between “they”, that is federal institutions, who “must apply them”, your last key message and some statistics. Your last key message on tab 10 says: “Once confirmed, the new obligations are to be implemented with due diligence”. It is a federal definition of “due diligence”.

Should this same due diligence be used in closing positions that are designated bilingual, for instance? Should closing a bilingual position be done with the same swiftness that was used for filling positions designated bilingual with bilingual staff or bilingual services, which have gone from 76% in 1994 to 66%? Should the same diligence be used to provide the service that was used to remove it?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes, diligence applies both ways.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It applies both ways, but for 32 years, the act has not been respected. Can you wait 32 years before closing a service provided to francophones?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: No—

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Terminating a service does not take nearly as long as providing it.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: No.

I would like to make a distinction between identifying a need and the capacity to provide the service. I am not here to tell you that there are no problems in delivering services and the capacity to do so. We have already talked about that. We are working hard to improve the capacity and quality of services in all bilingual positions and points of service in federal institutions.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You are working hard, but today, Ms. Robillard sent a response to Le Droit, as she was concerned about an article on a reminder of the Treasury Board policy indicating that positions designated bilingual must be filled by people who are bilingual. This caused a stir among people in the Nation's Capital and elsewhere, who said that francophones are going to steal more jobs. Articles on this subject got a little out of hand. To correct the situation or to appease people, Ms. Robillard felt obligated to respond. Mr. Ricciardi said earlier—I wish to paraphrase, this is not a direct quote—that in terms of imperative staffing, you are going to have to progressively ensure that bilingual positions are filled by bilingual staff. It seems to me there was a cut-off date: March 31st.

What does that mean, after March 31st, “to progressively ensure”?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: You mentioned a number of things. First, Ms. Robillard, in her speech in Moncton, asked whether it was time to review the manner in which bilingual positions are staffed and whether we should slowly begin requiring candidates for bilingual positions to be bilingual already, in other words that staffing be imperative.

º (1620)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: May I interrupt?

Is that not obvious?

Let me see if I follow. You are questioning whether a position designated bilingual should be filled by a bilingual person?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: For now, there is still a policy that allows, under certain circumstances, a position designated bilingual to be filled by someone who is not bilingual provided that the person meets the linguistic requirements of the position within two years.

Ms. Robillard wondered whether it was time to slowly require candidates for bilingual positions to be bilingual.

Therefore, for EX 4 and 5 top-level positions, there will be a bilingual requirement before filling a bilingual position, unless it is the exceptional case of a country-wide competition, instead of simply within the public service.

She wonders whether we should begin to review all three and work our way down, giving people the time to learn the language as part of their career training.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Perhaps the concept is completely beyond me, but I do not understand how, by March 31st, we can require all positions designated bilingual to be filled by bilingual people and until March 31st, we will hire people who are not bilingual to fill bilingual positions.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: March 31st refers to something else, the second phase, and affects people who have held top-level positions for less than two years, but who do not meet the linguistic requirements of their position. The deadline for them is March 31st. Those who have been in their position for more than two years must attain level CBC before that date, which is a high requirement. The cut-off date applies to top-level positions.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Do I still have a minute?

The Chair: No, but we will have another round.

If I may, I will ask two or three questions first.

To help the committee and its members who are not here today, I would like to clarify a point. I noticed on the back of the CDs that you provided to us that there was a reference to “16 minutes”. What does that refer to?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: They are explanations on the regulations and how they work.

The Chair: Are the regulations in question on it?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: No, not the regulations as such, however, they can be found on the website.

The Chair: But not here.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: No.

The Chair: Can we get a copy? I am a little old-fashioned, I would like to see it on paper. Could we have a copy provided to all members or to the Treasury Board clerk, in both official languages so that we may refer to it, please?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: Mr. Chair, I would like to point out that in addition to the text there is a description of the regulations, which is laid out in simpler terms. Between the legal text and this version, there is a description of the regulations, which is at a moderate level of difficulty.

The Chair: To do our work properly, we must have the text itself.

Furthermore, during your explanation I did not fully grasp what each colour corresponded to.

I know there is a constant, but your explanation was so fast, Mrs. Monnet, that I missed it. Could you go over what the colours represent again?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: It is explained on the first table. I will ask Gérald to help me.

Mr. Gérald Groulx: Orange represents—

The Chair: Orange represents the act?

Mr. Gérald Groulx: Exactly. This refers to requirements that stem from this act: the head office, institutions that are directly related to Parliament and offices located in the National Capital Region, for instance.

The Chair: Then there is a narrowing down, if I understand correctly.

Mr. Gérald Groulx: Exactly. There are, in a way, different filters, the Official Languages Act is the first and second given the mandate of the office. Then there is location.

The Chair: Is the nature of the office found in the regulations?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes.

º (1625)

Mr. Gérald Groulx: It is set out in the act, which stipulates that the regulations define the areas where certain services are applicable.

The Chair: If I may, I would say that you may be missing a filter, meaning the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is entrenched in the Canadian Constitution; it should include this too.

Mr. Gérald Groulx: You are right.

The Chair: It is a technicality.

Mr. Gérald Groulx: Next, there is the area of significant demand.

The Chair: Is this in the regulations too?

Mr. Gérald Groulx: Yes.

The Chair: And it gets progressively smaller. Thank you, I think I understand.

Third point. In table 4 of your presentation, you talked about precedence in the application, the nature of the office, and, under “other circumstances”, you have the word “communications” in parentheses.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes.

The Chair: This term is also found in table 6 of the section on significant demand. What does this term include?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: 1-800 numbers, for example.

The Chair: Long-distance services and 1-800 numbers?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes, 1-800 numbers.

The Chair: Would radio and television broadcasting, as well as what is referred to in English as web casting, be included in this category?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: Your question is not a very easy one to answer; perhaps this issue should be examined. Still, it would likely be covered by section 22 of the act, and not by the regulations. This should be verified, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

In table 5, you address an interesting issue that was previously raised by my hon. colleague Mr. Bellemare. I am referring to the travelling public and routes. Could you briefly give us a few details about this? I have one or two brief questions remaining.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: With regard to routes, it depends on where the trip begins and where it ends. An example would be trips that begin, stop over or end in the National Capital Region. Moncton and Montreal must also provide services in both languages, and these conditions also apply to trips within Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick.

The Chair: Within the scope of your study, which draws upon a wide range of groups, the joint committee had made a recommendation to the government for a study that was not, unfortunately, retained. This study concerned applying the 5% rule with regard to travel by Canadians from one part of the country to another.

It is not wishful thinking to try to apply a 5% rule when all Canadians have the right to travel, and that it is, furthermore, impossible to predict that 5% of francophones will go to Prince George, the Gaspé, Caraquet or elsewhere?

As part of this study that you are going to conduct in collaboration with community groups, will you re-examine this whole issue?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: We are committed to re-assessing the demand. The demand should be assessed over a one-year period. This would give us a good idea of the number of people on the different flights.

The Chair: It is not necessarily a question of re-assessing the demand, but of seeing if the demand is meaningful or relevant, as Mr. Sauvageau said.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: To assess if it should be 5% or not—

The Chair: We are not talking about people living in a community, but rather about those travelling.

Would the Treasury Board be willing to re-assess the relevancy of this criterion?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Mrs. Robillard has said that she is open to the possibility of contemplating a change in the regulations that would be done in a particular way.

You should ask her this question.

The Chair: My seven minutes are up. I will come back later, too.

[English]

Mr. Reid, for a second round of five minutes.

Mr. Scott Reid: This suggests to me, Mr. Chairman, that we might want to consider asking Madame Robillard to come before the committee at some point in the not too distant future.

[Translation]

My hon. colleague Mr. Bellemare has raised the very interesting case of a child whose mother is francophone and whose father is anglophone, and who lives in both languages at home; as a result, this child has two mother tongues, and this is what is indicated in the census data. If we wanted to determine in which language services would be provided, would this person be considered part of the majority or the minority population?

º (1630)

Mrs. Diana Monnet: If an individual indicates on all three questions that English and French are spoken at home, in other words, that both are used, then, it is split 50:50.

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: That is correct.

First, it is essential to remember that this is only done to preclude all ambiguity. In most cases, this step is not necessary. However, if people speak both official languages, if both are their mother tongue and both are spoken at home, for the purposes of a census subdivision, the formula would divide their minority in half. It is very difficult to know which group to add these people to.

Mr. Scott Reid: If an individual speaks a third language, which is his or her mother tongue, under Quebec law, from what I understand, that person is considered part of a majority. Under federal law, is that person considered part of the majority or the minority? Or, is that person simply excluded in this regard?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: These people are never excluded. Under federal law, there are anglophones and francophones; there are no allophones. Someone whose mother tongue is Italian—like me—has the right to decide in which of Canada's official languages to request government services.

[English]

Mr. Scott Reid: Another question that I wanted to ask relates to collecting census data on mother tongue and home language. Currently, my understanding is that only one person in five receives the long form and is therefore asked about their home language, as opposed to the question regarding mother tongue, which everybody is asked. If you go back 35 years, the bilingualism and biculturalism commission recommended that the home language question be included, and it seemed to me that their intention was that it be included for every census form.

Am I not correct in assuming that this would allow us to provide more accurate determinations of where services ought to be provided, particularly with regard to smaller municipalities, smaller areas? I'm not so much concerned about a large area like Toronto or Montreal, but about when you get down to the level of a small, rural municipality, for example.

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: My best recommendation to you, Mr. Reid, is that you should put this question to Statistics Canada. I can tell you from memory, however, that we have put that question to Statistics Canada, and without meaning to do them any offence—because my memory might be faulty after a number of years—I think they said they thought the procedure was reliable enough for the formula that you need for the regulations.

Mr. Scott Reid: The problem that I have—and I'm just expressing an opinion here; this is not to fault anybody—is that they always round numbers up or down randomly to a five, in order to protect the identity of individuals. If you ever review the data on how many people speak French and English in a town in rural Quebec, for example, the number always ends with either a zero or a five in order to protect people's identities. In addition, if only one person in five is answering—and that's determined randomly, of course; it's not simply every fifth house going down the street—you're starting to get a margin of error that is growing and growing in proportion.

Again, that's not really an important factor in a large city like Montreal or Toronto. But when you're trying to determine whether or not service should be provided in a fairly small municipality—which is often where the most endangered of the minority populations are—it seems to me that you're introducing a larger and larger factor of randomness into the equation.

º (1635)

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: I must retreat from this here, Mr. Reid, because I'm not an expert on the census insofar as these purely statistical procedures are concerned. I only know it in terms of the application of the regulations.

Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chair: Are there any comments?

[English]

Mrs. Diana Monnet: I was just going to suggest that we could get back to Statistics Canada or you possibly could ask Statistics Canada, because I agree that we're not—

The Chair: Our list of possible witnesses is growing by the question. If you would get back to us, we would certainly benefit. Please make it available to the clerk so that everybody gets it.

Mr. Bellemare.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[English]

Let's move away from numbers, since numbers can be a game that people play. Let's go to principles.

You mentioned the public's rights to service in the language of their choice, and

[Translation]

Mr. Ricciardi, you used the words “speaker's choice”. There is, however, a difference between “speaker's choice” and “mother tongue”. What is the difference? Did you say “speaker's choice” instead of “mother tongue” due to a slip of the tongue?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: I can go back to my example, if you do not mind. In my case, my mother tongue is Italian, but I must admit that I correspond with federal institutions in English because I find this preferable, and I use English when I am in federal offices. But most of the obligations we are discussing with regard to the regulations are based on census answers that, to a certain extent, reflect the answer given. If someone says that they only understand French, that person is considered a francophone for the purposes of the census and the regulations.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Let us come back to the principle again.

I can easily understand why allophones and even some francophones—I will admit—often prefer to get correspondence, for example, in English. English is easier. English is easier to write than French. French is more difficult.

Does this mean that the regulations or the Official Languages Act will depend on the ease with which people communicate rather than on the basic principle, according to which there are two official languages and, therefore, that services should be provided in both?

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: It is true that federal institutions must provide services in both languages, but it is also true that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms refers to significant demand. This indicates, therefore, that there may be circumstances where the demand may not be significant.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In a situation like yours, I do not find “speaker's choice” at all problematic with regard to services provided to a person like that. If we use statistics, statistics scare me, because people with good intentions can use them in a good way, but those with bad intentions can also manipulate them for their own purposes.

Should we not work from the principle rather than the number, when providing services to a group?

Ms. Carole Bidal: The present legislative framework is binding, no more, no less: it must be applied according to the number. In the regulations, the legislator decided to express the principle stated in the Charter and in the act, notably in Section 22, this way, based on the numbers, so that significant demand could be concretely quantified. So, it is precisely to prevent statistics from serving the interests of those with good or bad intentions and to have figures with which to work. So, your question is more one for the legislator. In the current legal or legislative context, we are bound by the numbers.

º (1640)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare The person with bad intentions is not the applicant, as in Mr. Ricciardi's case, it is those who will look at the figures and say that the majority of allophones want to speak in English; it is a question of communicating subito presto, fast and easily. Many French-speakers outside Quebec ask to speak in English, for the same reason.

However, those making the regulations are basing themselves on the figures. I know that I can speak to Mr. Ricciardi, if he chooses to listen to me or hear me, in French. If he insists, I will speak to him in English. If, for example, he comes to my riding, to my office, and he wants to speak to me in English, I am going to speak English to accommodate him.

That is not the problem, in my mind. The problem is that those responsible for determining the potential language of a municipality will base their decision on the numbers, and, in your case, you have just chosen English as your language of communication. So, as a francophone, I am going to say that this person's intentions are bad. This person will use those figures to justify that services cannot or should not be provided in French.

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: The purpose, in fact, of regulations is to define under which circumstances organizations subject to the act are required to provide services in both languages. It is, in fact, to circumvent bad intentions.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Should you be obliged, in view of figures provided by Statistics Canada, to eliminate or diminish the number of bilingual services in certain regions, will you ensure, before you take action, that the other services that should in principle be provided in both languages actually are? What tools will be implemented to ensure that these regulations, these constitutional laws or standards are complied with, when they are not?

What I mean is, if we look at what has happened in the past, we still see that bilingual services are available in only 66% of offices that are supposed to be providing bilingual services. Therefore, in 34% of cases, the act is not being complied with. You had tools, I imagine, to ensure compliance everywhere. I do not doubt your good faith for a fraction of an instant, but we must recognize that this has not worked everywhere.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: It has not worked everywhere.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So, what new tools will you implement to ensure, before reducing services in a region, that the services that should be provided are?

º (1645)

Mrs. Diana Monnet: The two exercises are separate. In the context of this exercise, we are defining, or identifying, the legal obligation to provide services.

The other part of your question deals with the capacity to deliver services in both official languages. I told you, a few minutes ago, that I am not claiming that services are available everywhere or that the quality is what it should be. So, you are asking me about what we are doing in this regard.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I know that the two issues are parallel, but at the same time, they overlap. For example, if in British Columbia we had, right now, before the new data are provided, an obligation in such-and-such a region to provide bilingual services and we were not—

There are three of them. These are not the right figures, I do not have the data, but I will give you an example. Suppose, according to the data provided by Statistics Canada, that one of these three offices had to be closed. But, since the three offices do not provide bilingual services, in closing the office that should provide them, none will be provided anymore. Right?

Before closing a particular office, will steps be taken to ensure that the act is enforced wherever there is an obligation to enforce it?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: In situations where there is a choice, meaning when, for example, there are three offices, one of which provides bilingual services, the community, for example the FCFA, made very clear to us, a few weeks ago, the importance of consulting the community about which office should provide these services. So, inversely, if there is a choice, we will work to make the right choice. If an office must be closed or services eliminated in a given office, we will try, as I said in my presentation, to mitigate the impact. There are several possibilities in this regard, and this is what we want to discuss with the community. For example, is there another office? If there is a choice, are there telephone services that could help? Is there another office that could provide services to this area? Could Government On-Line be used to mitigate the impact?

We also want to ensure that the choice is made in the interests of the community. That is why the community is working with us to do this.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Okay. Either my question is not relevant or it is not clear, but what I want to say, is that before an office in a province is closed, would it not be normal to ensure that all the other offices providing bilingual services really are? It is simple.

You say that you will consult the FCFA to find out which one to close. What I am saying is that I do not want you to close any offices when and as long as those offices that are supposed to provide bilingual services are not providing them. It seems simple to me.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: I understood correctly, except that I must tell you that one is not dependent on the other. The regulations are a technical exercise in which the obligations are identified. On the other hand, the question about capacity is a separate issue.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That is set out in the regulations, but the act compels the others to comply with it.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Absolutely.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You say that you will act quickly to enforce the regulations, even if the act is not enforced.

I would say to you—

Mrs. Diana Monnet: We are also working quickly to enforce the act. It is not perfect, we know. There are various initiatives that exist or are in the works to try to improve the situation.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: My last question is not directly related to this subject, but nonetheless. Are military employees included in bilingual staffing? According to the Annual Report on Official Languages of the Department of National Defence, 60% of positions designated bilingual, regardless of hierarchy, are not filled by bilingual people. The President of the Treasury Board told us that this would be taken care of by the cut-off date of March 31st. Are military employees among the number of civil servants who must fill bilingual positions, or are they a separate entity?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: The March 31st deadline applies to top-level civil servants.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It applies to top-level civil servants only.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes, that is right. Military employees have to comply with the main policies of the Treasury Board in matters of official languages, but they are not managed by the employer, which is the Treasury Board.

The Chair: In any case, they will be asked.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Right.

The Chair: I have four questions, but first, I would like you to thank Ms. Robillard on my behalf for sending you here to field any concerns. You are beginning a process that will be very complex and vast.

What resources will the Treasury Board provide?

Mr. Gérald Groulx: In fact, it is the responsibility of the institutions to cover the costs related to this exercise.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: We have a team to help them. We are in the process of developing tools that will help. There is an automated geomatics program that will help us. Once we have gone from department to department, with the offices and service areas, we will note where minorities are in Canada according to Statistics Canada, and we will see, for each department, how this could help us review their obligations. This will help them too. We are currently developing this.

In addition, there is training available for those who must do the work within the departments. The training is already under way. Moreover, we will help those who have to do the work.

The Chair: Then I have a question. Is that the Treasury Board's intention, or were you asked? If you were asked, what would your intention be in terms of helping to provide both head groups who were contacted, in other words, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne (FCFA) and the Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN)? They have been asked to become involved in this exercise and to include all their groups. Are you going to provide them with resources for this purpose?

º (1650)

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes and no. Let me tell you what we are going to do for them. They are invited to participate in a committee to go through the process with us. As I told you, at each major step, they come to Ottawa. We talk to them, show them what we are doing, what the results are, and discuss problems. We offset the travel costs. All the tools developed and made available to the institutions are accessible to both organizations. Like you, they have received a kit and we are working with them. Are we providing them with a budget for their research and to do the work at their end? No.

The Chair: If, for example, they asked you to do research— There is a question on my mind, maybe I will ask you. Have you calculated or is it possible to calculate—it is probably very difficult—the incidence of the lack of supply to the demand? As Mr. Sauvageau mentioned, in 1994, 76% of the offices met the requirements of the Official Languages Act and Regulations. In 2001, it was 66%, there was a step back.

So, is it possible to define, or to grasp the statistical probability of the incidence of demand to the lack of supply? Finally, if the statistics released on Tuesday show a decrease, can we attribute part of this decrease to the fact that we were unable to meet our own requirements in the past?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: There are two things. First, I would like to ask Joseph to talk to you about—

The Chair: I will ask one last question afterward.

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: It is true this could have an impact on a person's mentality, but when we determine the obligations based on statistics, demographics, the census, this does not change the fact that a federal office is still required to provide the service. Therefore, it is not a matter of doing a bad job in this area that will—

The Chair: I have to tell you, Mr. Ricciardi, not everyone is prepared to do what Mr. Reid described earlier, that is, to call every day for two or three months to obtain an answer. Even if John Ralston Saul said that being a minority requires a daily effort, at some point, people become fed up.

At what point does this obligation become discouraging to them? Can that be measured? Will anyone attempt to measure that? In any case, think about it.

Moreover, are we going to review the contribution of technology or technological solutions?

I have only10 seconds remaining to ask my last question. I believe the minister came before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration with his regulations in order to give the committee an opportunity to review them and make comments, suggestions, recommendations.

Can we expect the Treasury Board to do the same with the regulations in question, that is to go back to the committee and present them to the committee before finalizing anything in order to give the committee the opportunity to have a say?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Are you talking about the application of the regulations?

The Chair: No, I am talking about the regulations.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: The exercise—

The Chair: As we would do with a bill sent here to be reviewed, article by article. Can we expect to be able to do that with the regulations?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: The exercise in question is the application of the regulations. We are not here to discuss amendments to the regulations, which is another matter that we could address if the committee wanted to.

Ms. Robillard said she is prepared to consider different possibilities.

The Chair: If I understand correctly, you are saying yes. Before things are concluded, you would be prepared to come back to the committee to discuss your exercise, even if it is not a matter of reviewing the regulations, but their application.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes, absolutely.

As for the first part of your question, Ms. Robillard will submit her annual report shortly. Could I ask you to verify the numbers on the percentage of bilingual incumbents who meet the requirements?

The Chair: You know them, but you cannot tell us, right?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: No, I do not even have them with me. What I do have is the latest annual report tabled, the 2001 report, which is very accurate.

º (1655)

The Chair: Fine.

Mr. Bellemare?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes.

The Chair:Moving to the third round.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Ms. Monnet, you have just said that the mandate of an office takes precedence over demographics.

Could you explain this to me?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Yes. That is to say, there are some automatic obligations. For instance, where public health and safety is concerned, such as in-flight messages, emergency services or services of a national or international character, there is an obligation to provide services in both official languages. This is, for example, the case where location is concerned, national parks, post offices in parks, airport signage and so on. There are some cases where no measurement is even made, where demographics are not taken into account. It is automatic, either under the act, or because of the mandate of the office and the fact that it is covered by the regulations themselves.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Who carries out the checks on the various departments, agencies, and divisions within departments? Your office?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: You mean as far as meeting of obligations?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare:Yes, I mean the auditing process.

Ms. Diane Monnet:We monitor compliance. We are starting to do a certain amount of auditing and—

Mr. Eugène Bellemare:Treasury Board.

Ms. Diana Monnet:Yes, and the Commissioner of Official Languages does audits as well, far more than we do in fact.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: A step in the right direction.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Absolutely.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The next step is, who will do the enforcing? I have been on this committee for 14 years, and for 14 years I have been hearing the same thing: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. So long, see you next year. Everything's fine, and then we start all over again from scratch.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: The accountability issue is a rather complex one. First of all, the Commissioner is entitled to go before the Federal Court when she deems this necessary. This is a partial response to your question.

Deputy Ministers are accountable. They are answerable to the clerk as far as compliance or non-compliance with the Official Languages Act within their department is concerned.

Mr. Sauvageau has referred twice to the March 31 deadline for government senior managers. It is strongly suggested that those who do not meet the requirements of their position by that date, and their supervisors, face consequences as far as their performance pay is concerned. So this is one effort to ensure compliance with the act, and accountability.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Are federal institutions responsible for the regulations?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: They are responsible for compliance with the act and regulations within their institution.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Is the CRTC answerable to you as far as the regulations are concerned?

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Not as employer, but for the regulations yes.

You take it.

Mr. Joseph Ricciardi: Like any other federal institution, the CRTC must apply the act and regulations applicable to it, as required,but as far as its own regulations in connection with radio and television,no, not to my knowledge. It is not necessarily required to follow the Official Languages Regulations as far as the specific provisions of the Broadcasting Act are concerned, but I am not totally informed on this.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Does Statistics Canada have to comply with the Official Languages Regulations?

Ms. Diana Monnet:Yes.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Stats Canada and the CRTC have caused a headache for me. I will explain. When the CRTC representatives came the other day, they admitted that the City of Ottawa was declared an anglophone market based on the statistics. They laid the blame on Statistics Canada, and added that the Gatineau side is a francophone market. We are talking about the National Capital Region here. The CRTC decided to award a contract—generally a five year one, but now it is seven—and, in my opinion, the error cannot be corrected. It means that CPAC is in English in Ottawa and in French in Gatineau.

What is there in your regulations to protect the francophones of Ottawa and the anglophones of Gatineau, so that they may obtain services in their language of choice, speaker's choice as you put it?

» (1700)

Ms. Carole Bidal: As you know, the CPAC case is before the courts and there are still questions before the CRTC. We are not really in a position to comment at this time on the application of decisions yet to be reached on this.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, if I may make a suggestion, we can get back to CPAC at another time, when we are addressing Part VII and the plans of groups and institutions required to submit an action plan. I think that the CRTC is still not among them. It might be an avenue worth exploring.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare:Thank you.

The Chair:Mr. Simard, I know you had to leave, so do you have any questions? OK.

We will conclude then, unless you or your team have anything else to add, Ms. Monnet.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: Thank you very much for having us.

The Chair: It is we who thank you. We will certainly be seeing you again.

I would remind you all that Monday next at 15:45, give or take 15 minutes, we will be receiving the Commissioner of Official Languages, after she tables her third report, I believe.

I would also like to see whether there is a representative of the Secretariat who would like to add any questions or make any comments in connection with what we have heard today. It is our practice in committee to ask our parliamentary agent whether he has anything to add. He has not.

So that is it. Thank you very much. We will meet again on Monday at 15:45. The notice will go out tomorrow.