[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 28, 1996
.1532 
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): I will now call the meeting to order.
Before giving the floor to the Commissioner of Official Languages, I would like to mention two matters.
First of all, we received the Commissioner's evaluation report just this morning. The Commissioner called me this morning to explain that his staff had worked late last night in order to present the report in both languages as required, particularly for this committee. Since we have two meetings on the report, today and next Thursday, I think we will have time to review it.
Mr. Marchand (Québec-Est): Next Tuesday.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Next Tuesday, excuse me. I must be confusing our meeting with another committee meeting. I had written down official languages for Thursday.
Second, you have probably received a copy of a letter the Commissioner wrote to the CEO of Canada Post Corporation, and a letter he sent to the committee co-chairs. Did you receive a copy of these letters?
The Commissioner sent Mr. Clermont a letter about Canada Post's addressing system, particularly with respect with large volume mailers. I understood you to say, Commissioner, that Canada Post Corporation could comply more with the spirit and letter of the Official Languages Act without encountering any technical problems or incurring any significant costs.
.1535
The Commissioner suggests that we ask the CEO of Canada Post Corporation, Mr. Clermont, to appear before the committee. I also understood the Commissioner to say that he would like to be present when Mr. Clermont appears.
We could talk about a possible date later on - ideally, it would be toward the end of June - while still proceeding with our planned meetings on the Commissioner's evaluation report.
Are there any questions?
Mr. Marchand: I did not get a copy of this letter.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): You did not get a copy of it?
Mr. Marchand: Was it distributed to committee members?
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Marchand, Mr. Onu distributed it to committee members from the Senate. Was there a shortcoming on the House of Commons side?
Senator Rivest (Stadacona): That's not very respectful.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Could you please ensure that Mr. Marchand gets a copy of the letter?
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): We don't have one either.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): You will, as soon as possible.
[Translation]
The floor is yours, Commissioner.
Dr. Victor C. Goldbloom (Commissioner of Official Languages): First of all, before getting into the heart of the matter before us today, I would like to inform committee members who, in the past, were particularly interested in the court remedy in which the Commissioner of Official Languages can be involved, that we have begun proceedings with respect to VIA Rail. The case will be heard by the courts in September, if I remember correctly.
I just wanted to inform committee members of this initiative on our part.
[English]
Our purpose today is to deal with the application of part VII of the Official Languages Act. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that this part of the act constitutes a commitment of the Government of Canada, a commitment decided by this Parliament in 1988, to support the vitality and the development of official language minority communities, and also to support the equitable and indeed equal status of French and English as the official languages of Canada.
The purpose of this study, which has led to the production of action plans by 27 federal institutions identified as key institutions for this purpose, is clearly to enhance the effectiveness of the application of part VII. The exercise I have undertaken is intended to be a constructive one. It is not simply a matter of saying that this institution or that institution has not entirely fulfilled the objectives of part VII of the act.
It is also to ensure that the path ahead is more clearly identified, more clearly perceived, to see to it that the institutions in question improve their responsiveness to the needs of the official language communities living in minority situations across this country. For that reason the report, which was made public in February of this year, is entitled A Blueprint for Action.
[Translation]
The French title is Un tracé pour agir.
I should mention that the evaluation of the action plans prepared by the 27 institutions in question must take into account the fact that the initial thrust was provided by the Department of Canadian Heritage, which produced a guide on developing action plans.
.1540
Subsequently the committee asked the Commissioner to evaluate the action plans. For this purpose, we developed an analysis framework which we gave to the institutions. The action plans were therefore prepared without using this framework.
For this reason, I should point out that our objective is to have the institutions prepare a second generation of action plans that have been improved as a result of our analysis and evaluation report, which we have now provided to all the institutions.
We noticed a number of things that I would like to point out to committee members. We noticed that the data bank of the federal government institutions in question is inadequate for the purposes of properly determining what action is required. We make some recommendations designed to improve the collection of the data to be used in preparing the second generation of action plans.
We also noticed that some institutions confuse Part IV and Part VII of the Act. Part IV is about service to the public by federal institutions. Part VII is about support for official language minority communities, as I've said before.
Some of the institutions seem to think that by complying with the requirements of Part IV, that is by providing service to official language minority communities, they are also complying with the requirements of Part VII. We must remove this confusion if we want to use satisfactory action plans.
I come now to the documents that we were able to distribute to you today. You will start by asking me how the various institutions performed, which did well, and which did less well.
I would like to say that my basic objective is not to award prizes and draw up a ranking. I would like to emphasize that point, because some action plans may be very well drafted, whereas the action itself is less than satisfactory, and the opposite may be true as well. Some action plans may be less well written, but the institution may be more efficient in its dealings with the communities in question.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, it is somewhat like the situation one encounters in restaurants. Some have excellent writers who describe the dishes eloquently and cause saliva to flow, but the taste when the dish is on the table is far less satisfactory. Other restaurants put out a typewritten menu without description and provide an excellent table.
.1545
It would not be right to judge the performance of federal institutions only on the basis of a mathematical appreciation of the action plan. Nevertheless, it is obviously necessary that we analyse in a practical and comparable way the different action plans, and that we have the ability to say that here are the shortcomings, here are the gaps in the action plan, and these are things that need to be done.
Let me deal briefly with some of the problems we have encountered. There is clearly a rather general lack of understanding of the philosophy and objectives of part VII of the act. There is, in many instances, a lack of an inventory of what is and what is not available, what is and what is not done. There tends not to be a process of the establishment of performance standards and the monitoring of results. That seems an important shortcoming.
There is not in many institutions a clear line of accountability, a clear identification of who is responsible for seeing that this is appropriately carried out. Some institutions provide good information to the communities, others provide less effective information. Some consult more actively than others with the communities concerned.
I would also like to point out that some institutions have the impression that adequate information to the community about the programs is sufficient and it is not necessary to go beyond that to ensure that results are obtained.
In addition, we see that many institutions do not provide adequate information and training to their own employees so that the purpose of part VII is understood and implemented. We also note that many of the action plans do not have a regional component, yet there are important differences in needs from one region of the country to another.
Finally, there needs to be an absorption of understanding of part VII into the institutional culture of the organizations in question.
[Translation]
Finally, I would like to come back to the overall report presented in February of this year and mention that it is broken down into sections on various areas of activity. There is one on cultural development, another on economic and human resources development, and a third on demographic vitality and other activities of the communities in question.
[English]
I have one final point, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to underline. In putting together the 59 recommendations contained in the main report of February and the different recommendations made to the 27 federal institutions covered in the second part of the report made available today, we have wanted to recognize that these are times in which one cannot simply and casually recommend increases in expenditures of public funds.
.1550
The recommendations are essentially cost-neutral. They do not represent a pressure upon the Government of Canada to increase its expenditures for these purposes. They represent, rather, an insistence on fairness, on the equitable distribution of the available resources, and on the adequate information to minority communities that will allow them to ensure their fair share of the resources that are available in the different programs of the institutions concerned.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Thank you, Commissioner. I have just looked through your report. Could you explain what you mean exactly by the expression "levels of responsibility" on page 6? I didn't really understand what was meant. I'm wondering why the level of responsibility of Canada Post Corporation would be lower than that of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, when both institutions cover the whole country, are supposed to deal with people in both languages and comply with the Act.
Dr. Goldbloom: That was a judgement made by the consultant we hired to develop the analysis framework. This estimate was made by studying the role played by each institution in Canadian society.
The question is somewhat technical, and I don't feel able to give you a specific enough answer. I would ask one of the senior members of my team to provide you with more information.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Fine.
Dr. Goldbloom: Marc Thérien is the Director General of the Policy Branch.
Mr. Marc Thérien (Director General, Policy Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): The level of responsibility reflects the impact of a particular institution on the development of official language minority communities. While some agencies, such as Canada Post, may cover the whole country, their impact on enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities is relatively limited. For example, Canada Post delivers the mail. Consequently, it's very difficult for this agency to have much of an impact on the development of these communities, whereas the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation delivers culture, so to speak.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): I understand the word "impact" better than the expression "level of responsibility". Thank you.
Mr. Marchand.
Mr. Marchand: Welcome, Dr. Goldbloom. I'm wondering where we're headed with Part VII. From what you've said yourself, and according to some of your reports, implementation of Part VII is essential to the survival of Canada. It is one of the keys to the future of French-speaking communities living outside Quebec.
In your report of February 1996, in your analysis of the action plans and in the comments you just made, it is clear that not much has been done.
In the first place, there's a lack of understanding on the part of the departments. There is no training for officials who are supposed to be responsible for implementing this part of the Act. There is no audit no evaluation no communication with the communities in question, and apparently there is no will on the government's part. You conclude by saying that the government is apparently not even required to contribute financially to the implementation of Part VII.
So my question is this: Can you say that Part VII is a success or a failure?
.1555
Dr. Goldbloom: I would respectfully submit that the question is too simplistic.
What we are seeing is clearly somewhere between the two. Part VII has not been an unqualified success. I've mentioned, as it is my duty to do so, some problems, but I would not want to give the impression that the situation is disastrous.
Some institutions are doing a good job and are already contributing significantly to enhancing the vitality of the communities in question. I'm thinking particularly of departments such as Citizenship and Immigration and Industry, and agencies such as the National Film Board and the Business Development Bank of Canada.
So there are some good points, and others that are not so good. Because of the will of Parliament, there is a Part VII of the Act which sets certain objectives, and all federal institutions should be implementing it in full.
Since that is not the case, important recommendations have to be made for improvement, so that the communities in question can benefit from the provisions of Part VII of the Act.
It would not be fair to the individuals and institutions that are trying to do a good job to simply say that the whole thing is a failure or a disaster. That is not true. The result are somewhere between a failure and a success. The level of performance and the results will have to be improved.
Mr. Marchand: I'm not going to question the goodwill of some departments. However, it does seem clear, given the time that is elapsed, and the fact that the reports and action plans show nothing concrete... Some action plans produce no results at all. There are very few results, and you are saying that the performance is somewhere between a failure and a success.
My impression is that there is no political will at all within the federal government. In my view, it's as though you were showing that the institutions didn't do so badly after all.
You came here not to criticize, but to make some constructive comments. If we want Part VII to be implemented, we have to take steps to ensure that this is done. If we want this to work, we will have to earmark money for this program. We will have to ensure that the action plans are produced.
Why are there such flagrant delays? Who is responsible for them?
Dr. Goldbloom: The various governments that have run this country over the last eight years, each have their share of responsibility.
I'm not here to praise any of these governments, however, I will not accept your contention that my comments mean that everything is going badly and that there is no hope.
We can criticize and deplore certain situations, or we can act. I chose to act.
Mr. Marchand: But nothing is being done, Dr. Goldbloom. You act by writing reports, and I appreciate them, as does everyone. That is in fact your role, unless I'm mistaken.
But action of a different type is required, particularly with respect to the implementation of Part VII which, according to the presentation made by the FCFA in December and according to the report you published in 1996, is a real disaster. It's a disaster because the departments have not reacted. The departments did not even understand how to implement the Act and have no responsibility in this regard.
.1600
They are making a minimal effort to meet the requirements of Part VII and you tell us that it's not so bad and that we shouldn't be too critical.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Order, please. I would ask committee members to allow the Commissioner to complete his answers before intervening or asking a second question. You have the floor, Commissioner.
Dr. Goldbloom: My comment that the situation was not disastrous was in response to the simplistic question as to whether we were dealing with a success or a failure. I said it was somewhere between the two. I highlighted the shortcomings of the 27 key institutions. I would point out that there are more than the 27 institutions that were identified, but that the first step is to evaluate the action plans produced by these 27 institutions. I entitled my February report "A Blueprint for Action", because I wanted to get some action.
Mr. Marchand: Do I have any time left?
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Unfortunately, your ten minutes are up, Mr. Marchand. You will have to come back on the second round.
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz, you have the floor.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Dr. Goldbloom.
Dr. Goldbloom: Good afternoon.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I guess I'm just as frustrated as Mr. Marchand, but of course the other way. It's just incredible, it's just inconceivable that here we are in a room full of people, all at taxpayers' expense, the poor long-suffering taxpayer, most of us anyway are here at taxpayers' expense, quibbling about what the departments are doing, if there's a word that is not used here or if a phone call is not responded to in the proper way, when realistically, the average Canadian in English Canada and the average resident living in Quebec couldn't give a damn. But we've made an industry out of this whole official languages business. Here we are. Obviously, it isn't working. You say there is a general lack of understanding of the philosophy of the act by bureaucrats, by people who are supposed to implement it. Well, they can't see a need for it. Of course they don't understand it. It just doesn't make sense.
I'm not just the one who is saying that. People are saying it, people who contributed to this report:
- ...some senior executives interviewed in our study presented positions that the adoption of Part
VII was ``purely declaratory''
- And again:
- The most frequent response was either ``no idea'' or that no new initiatives were needed.
This whole thing since 1969 has been a failure. But we don't want to admit it because it has been such a bloody hellish expensive failure - almost $50 billion to the national debt. Now we're trying to cover that up by spending more money. It's inconceivable and it's tearing the country apart.
Again, a columnist today in one of the Sun papers says the most destructive, divisive thing that ever happened to this country was the implementation of the Official Languages Act. How has it helped?
[Translation]
An honourable member: It's working very well.
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Do you have a question, Mr. Breitkreuz?
Mr. Breitkreuz: I really don't know. It's so incredibly.... Has it worked or not worked? You say it's somewhere in between. You know, these people aren't saying it's somewhere in between. They are saying there is just no need for it.
Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, good heavens!
Mr. Breitkreuz: Good heavens, I agree.
Dr. Goldbloom: We're not talking here about whether the right or the wrong word was used. We're not talking here about whether a phone call received an appropriate or an inappropriate answer. We're talking here about the life of communities.
.1605
There may be members of the federal public service who are not terribly well informed and not terribly sensitive to the needs of official language communities living in a minority situation. I would suggest that there are other people as well who are not terribly aware and not terribly sensitive.
It was the decision of this Parliament eight years ago that there be a commitment on the part of the Government of Canada to supporting the vitality and the development of official language minority communities. I am charged with evaluating the effectiveness of the implementation of that decision of this legislature.
I put before the committee the results of an evaluation of the overall situation and of 27 action plans. As I said earlier in response to a previous question, it's obvious that what has been accomplished falls short of what should have been accomplished. At the same time, the simplistic question that is often asked in public opinion polls is whether official bilingualism - that term already puts a negative mindset into respondents' minds - has been a success or a failure. A certain percentage of people say it has been a failure, in some polls a majority.
I would like to submit respectfully, Mr. Chairman, that when we examine the Canadian public's understanding of the Official Languages Act, we see an extraordinary lack of awareness of the true purposes of the act. In a poll some years ago only 17% of respondents, offered four possibilities for what the precise purpose of the Official Languages Act is, chose the right answer. If 83% of the Canadian public has an incorrect impression of the purpose of the act, then a lot of people are going to say it's been a failure, but their impression of what it should have accomplished is erroneous.
We are dealing here with Canadians who, living in a minority situation, have greater difficulty ensuring the vitality of their community. At many times in our history, all the way back to 1759, we could have decided that this would be a one-language country. We have never decided that. We have consistently decided that we are a two-language country. We have been a two-language country since 1759. Under those circumstances, the members of Parliament and senators who voted this legislation in 1988 decided that we would support our official language minority communities. That is what we are supposed to have done.
We have not done so perfectly. I have said so in my report, and I have called upon the institutions concerned to do a better job of respecting the needs of those Canadian citizens who live in those minority situations.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (senator Roux): Thank you, Commissioner. Senator Rivest.
Senator Rivest: I would just like to stress that and I think some committee members know this - the importance of Part VII was in the general context of the Official Languages Act.
Unlike my colleague from the Reform Party who, in quoting the Sun, says that the Official Languages Act is dividing Canadians, I think the biggest thing dividing Canadians may be very simple: there are French-Canadians and there are English-Canadians. The Official Languages Act does not divide Canadians. On the contrary, its objective is to ensure equality for our two language groups, because without that, we would not have a Canada. That's the price we have to pay - you are aware of this in a well-intentioned but excessive way, in my opinion - to keep Canada united. If there is no Official Languages Act, if there is no Part VII, if there are no programs, if we don't spend any money for these purposes, what will happen? One of Canada's two major linguistic communities will disappear or will not be able to grow.
.1610
Mr. Marchand: It is in the process of disappearing. But you are not here to give lectures to the others.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): You gave your lecture, Mr. Marchand. Let the others do the same. Order, please, Mr. Marchand. Senator Rivest.
Senator Rivest: Speaking of lectures, I want to give you one. You're entitled to your ideas, but it is irresponsible to attack the Commissioner as you do. You say on the one hand that nothing is working, and on the other you criticize him for not being dynamic enough.
The Commissioner has criticized the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. You used that to say that nothing is working, and in the same breath, you tell him off for not doing his job. It's all double talk.
You talked about lectures. I don't think your ideas about sovereignty and Quebec independence are the best contributions to protecting the French-speaking minority outside Quebec.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Do you have any questions?
Senator Rivest: Mr. Chairman, I see you intervened quite vigorously, and I wouldn't want you to apply the same rule in the name of equity...
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): It's just playacting, Mr. Rivest.
Senator Rivest: But you used the gavel more than three times. I want our colleague from the Bloc Québécois to realize that sections 42 and 43 exist, is that not right, Commissioner?
I am prepared to be just as energetic as you in your assessment of Part VII. The Minister for Canadian Heritage - formerly the Secretary of State - is responsible for implementing Part VII. The Minister of Canadian Heritage has seen your report and it is up to him to play a role of political leadership and to deal with the problems that you and Mr. Marchand quite rightly pointed out. Is that not what is missing here?
I mentioned that the Secretary of State Department was formerly in charge, but this was no comment on the government, no indication of bad will. The best proof of that is the fact that at one time Lucien Bouchard was Secretary of State and in charge of implementing Part VII.
Dr. Goldbloom: About two years ago, Mr. Chairman, I began the work that resulted in the publication of the report on Part VII in February, and now the evaluation of the action plans.
After initiating this study, the current government took a position whereby Part VII would be implemented in practical terms. A statement was made by the minister of the day in August 1994, if I remember correctly. The result of that statement was the drafting of 27 action plans.
This was the process that required evaluation, and clearly one department cannot assume authority over the others. So that is part of the problem here. In fact, that is why I suggested a responsibility with more specific authority be identified.
.1615
The government's authority came into play through the Minister's statement in August 1994. I hope my contribution here will help the Minister of Canadian Heritage to better coordinate the efforts made by the institutions involved, because the coordination must be improved. Each of the institutions involved in implementing Part VII of the Act must show a more dynamic approach.
Senator Rivest: When is the Minister of Canadian Heritage supposed to appear before the committee?
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): I don't know whether we have scheduled the Minister of Canadian Heritage, but we could discuss that, Mr. Rivest.
Senator Rivest: The information is available. The Commissioner has done his job and has made a suggestion. We agree with his analysis, but some political leadership is required.
The Joint Chair (Senator Roux): According to our work plan, we are supposed to be seeing the President of Treasury Board, but we do not talk about the Minister of Canadian Heritage. A committee could discuss that. Mr. Serré.
Mr. Serré (Timiskaming-French River): I will try to stay calm and not getting into too much of a political debate. It's quite difficult for a Franco-Ontarian to stay calm when we see on the one hand a political party that would like to have us disappear for obvious reasons, and, on the other hand, another party which, if they formed the government - heaven forbid - would ensure that all French-speaking communities outside Quebec disappear. I have a message for these two members of Parliament: I am a Franco-Ontarian and I am not about to disappear.
The government's policy is to enhance the vitality of this country's two official languages. The Prime Minister made a formal commitment through his Minister of Canadian Heritage at the time, at the Acadian Convention in Moncton. I can assure the two official language minority communities in Canada that anything else is not party policy, is not government policy. We made a formal commitment, and we are going to live up to it.
However, I must agree in part with my colleague of the Bloc Québécois, because this report clearly confirms my suspicions: namely, that some departments are dragging their feet. Certainly there has been some improvement, but in my view, it's not enough, it's not even acceptable. The Department of Human Resources Development, which may have the most impact, seems to be dragging its feet as well.
What legal or other remedies do the Commissioner and the committee have, aside from setting out the shortcomings in a report and making recommendations? To whom can we turn if we wanted to apply some pressure to the various institutions to get them to implement Part VII much more quickly?
Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, first of all, there is the pressure inherent in the publication of the report. We wanted to summarize in it the more detailed recommendations we gave each institution. As Senator Rivest mentioned, there is a need for some political will, and that must come from the people in charge themselves. There is a limit to what can be done through the Official Languages Act, because Parliament, in its wisdom, provided in it for a court remedy. However, this applies only to certain parts of the Act, and Part VII is not one of them.
.1620
So legal action cannot be taken under Part VII. The complaints we get under Part VII are in order, and we investigate them. I would mention in passing that these complaints tend to be the most complicated ones we receive. Even if the complainant is not completely satisfied with the Commissioner's findings, he or she has no court remedy with respect to Part VII. So we come back again to the political will and the leadership required here.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Allmand.
[English]
Mr. Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): I was simply intervening on a point of order at a time when there seemed to be a free-for-all exchange between two members of the committee, and my point of order was that we may have more order in the committee if the members addressed you rather than each other.
I notice that my good friend the senator was addressing Mr. Marchand rather than you, and Mr. Marchand was responding to the senator, but I would like to urge my colleagues on the committee to address you as the chair. Then we may have more order.
I have no questions at the moment.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Your point is well taken, I hope.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: The problem is that when I want to tell off Marchand, I cannot tell off my colleague.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): You have the floor, Mr. Marchand.
Mr. Marchand: I would like to come back to the comments made by the member for the Reform Party in speaking about the implementation of the Official Languages Act. Of course, I myself and my party, the Bloc Québécois, want the Act to be implemented. If it were, the future of French-speaking communities outside Quebec would not be what we have at the moment, namely, ever growing assimilation. This is what causes me to be somewhat scandalized and furious. You say with respect to Part VII:
- Its implementation is essential to Canada's minority official language communities, important
to both linguistic majorities and vital to Canada's future as a country.
The problem is not that Canadians do not understand the implementation of the Official Languages Act; the problem is that within the public service itself, there is a lack of understanding about Part VII. The departments are what is not working here. The departments, beginning with Canadian Heritage, are ducking their responsibilities. We certainly want some leadership with respect to the implementation of Part VII. No leadership is being shown, because none exists, and those that would normally be expected to show some leadership are dodging their duty.
You say that Heritage Canada is not biased in its information kit, but there is an omission at the very least. Heritage Canada did not exercise its jurisdiction fully. Treasury Board, which would normally be the department to ensure that money is available for the implementation of Part VII, is not mentioned at all in the list of action plans. So of course we have to wonder about this.
I want to make it clear that I am not blaming you, Commissioner, nor you Mr. Rivest. There's an absence of will within the federal government to apply Part VII. It is urgent, it is crucial, and it is important, but there is a flagrant absence of will to do this. You should at least acknowledge that; if you don't, you're playing the same game as the government by hiding the facts.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Were you putting a question Mr. Marchand?
Mr. Marchand: That is the question I am asking.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): You made a statement.
.1625
Mr. Marchand: Then I will rephrase the question. Mr. Chairman, I would like Dr. Goldbloom to acknowledge that there is truly an absence of will. Furthermore, how will the issue of leadership be solved? No one is showing leadership. The Commissioner can't do it, but Canadian Heritage is not doing it, nor is Treasury Board. Who is going to show leadership? Will it be the Treasury Board? Someone has to be accountable; otherwise this will never work.
Last, I will just add that there is no money at all for Part VII. When the government does not put any money into a program, that program is worthless, regardless of how important it might be.
Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, first of all the word "absence" is not well chosen. There is insufficient will, insufficient coordination, and insufficient understanding of what has to be done. The meaning of the word "absence" is too absolute.
Second, it is not true that there is no money. There is. It just has to be distributed as fairly as possible. If the needs of the communities are not thought out properly, then the existing resources cannot be provided to meet those needs. It is unreasonable, given the current situation, to simply say that we need to spend more. If you tell the government, any government, that it needs to spend more, then you run the risk of having your recommendation rejected and that recommendation may be very important for the life of the communities in question. We need therefore to ensure fair and equitable distribution of the available resources and presently this distribution is not perfect. There is room for improvement.
Mr. Marchand: For example, with respect to your analysis of the action plans, I expected to see a synthesis of these action plans. We have an analysis of 27 department action plans. Why were the others excluded? I don't know why because normally all government departments are included.
I have another question. Does the fact that only 27 departments out of 58 were targeted not call into question the application of Part VII? Furthermore, can we expect to see a synthesis of this assessment of action plans by sector or by government? Do you intend on writing up a synthesis?
Dr. Goldbloom: I thought it was important to provide each institution with the means to perform better. That is why we assessed each action plan, including its strengths and weaknesses. I'm not the one who chose the 27 groups. In fact, in my main report, in the study that I did on Part VII's implementation, I covered 58 groups. That is why, and I already stated this, I am convinced that the list of 27 is incomplete and that we will have to add to it.
I don't quite understand what the member means by synthesis. Does he mean that he wants us to provide the main points of the 27 analyses? I do not think that these main points, that in fact are in the document, would help us obtain better results.
.1630
We think that we should tell each organization what has to be done or what isn't currently being done. That is what I wanted to do with this document.
Mr. Marchand: Dr. Goldbloom, what you have just said illustrates once again, I think, a lack of will on the part of the government.
When the implementation of such an important, crucial and major Act as this one is involved, one would expect that some authority would determine the course to take. This authority should have an overall vision of how each department operates. Without an overall perspective, there can be no coordination between the Department of Heritage, the Department of Industry and the other departments.
You are telling me that you are restricting your study to each department's action plan without a synthesis or overall view of the government's performance by sector or by activity. It seems to me that it is quite obvious this has to be done, that it should be done and that it is even crucial that it be done.
Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman! Really! I referred to the global report on the implementation of Part VII of the Act. I pointed out that it was divided by sector, that one of these sectors is cultural development and includes 14 recommendations, that another sector is economic development and human resources development and includes 18 recommendations, and that another sector is demographic vitality of communities and includes seven recommendations. Mr. Chairman, there you have a summary of the situation.
We have now moved further along. We are now evaluating the action plans. We are at the point where we are telling the departments, the 27 and other departments, I hope, that they need to improve their performance, be better informed about these communities and their needs, and produce a second generation of action plans that will be much better than what they did before having had the opportunity to read our analysis and our assessment of the first generation of their action plans.
This is an ongoing process and I hope that over the next few months we will note an improvement in the performance of the institutions in question.
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Breitkreuz, do you have any other questions?
Mr. Breitkreuz: Commissioner Goldbloom, I realize that you weren't involved in passing the act in 1969, nor were you involved in amending the act in 1988. I didn't mean to cast any aspersions on you in that regard.
Dr. Goldbloom: I didn't take any offence, Mr. Breitkreuz.
Mr. Allmand: I was involved.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Mr. Serré isn't here, but the fact is that various linguistic groups across the country are being assimilated all the time. We all know, and Mr. Marchand realizes this, that francophone communities are being assimilated in the rest of the country outside Quebec, and English communities are being assimilated inside Quebec, and this is despite the government dollars going to preserve them.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Name them.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I'm not talking about the Montreal community, I'm talking about the other English communities in Quebec that have been assimilated.
I'd like to talk about part VII. What is the purpose of part VII? What would have to occur to make part VII successful? What would we have to see in respect of departments to see if part VII has been successful?
Dr. Goldbloom: We need to see a modification of awareness, a modification of a thinking process. In setting out programs and developing support for the organizations out in the community, there needs to be a taking into account of the existence and needs of the minority communities. Minorities tend to be less recognized by all kinds of institutions in society than are majorities. Where there is a barrier, and that barrier in this case is a linguistic one, then communication is more difficult.
.1635
There are more people in Canada now than ever before who are able to bridge that gap, but it's still a minority of Canadians. Most Canadians, and that includes a lot of federal public servants, do not have a detailed awareness of the existence, nature, needs and strengths of the various minority communities.
I would like to say that whereas one can to a certain degree use the word ``assimilation'' with regard to demographic trends in French-speaking communities across the country, the situation of English-speaking communities in Quebec is a different one. There is shrinkage, which is not the same thing. Assimilation really means loss of identity, loss of one's language as principal instrument of family and community life. Although most of the English-speaking communities in Quebec are smaller and older than they once were, that loss of linguistic identity has not occurred in the way it has for some members of French-speaking communities in other parts of the country.
We need to sensitize people to the intention of the legislators, and that intention was written into the act and voted on. So it is incumbent upon all of us to follow through and see to the practical implementation of the act.
It's a matter of awareness and of fairness. I hope this report will have served to stimulate awareness and a sense of fairness.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Are there any other questions?
Mr. Marchand: Yes. First I would like to say that
[English]
in Quebec it is English that is the language of assimilation. It's not the other way around. That's part of the problem. That's the essential problem of the future of the French language in Canada.
[Translation]
Dr. Goldbloom, you used the expression "modification of thinking process" with respect to officials. In other words, our officials are not thinking properly, are not taking this bill seriously or have not yet understood the scope or even the importance of implementing this bill. That is the main problem, is it not?
Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Marchand, respectfully, I think that you are using words that are too strong to describe reality. I would say that many people are not thinking in a way that takes into account the needs of official language minority communities. We need to instill a reflex in the minds of leaders especially and those who are responsible for programs and contacts with these communities so that they will think in terms of the needs of these communities when they plan programs and the use of federal financial resources.
.1640
Mr. Marchand: Once again, in my mind, there is a very big difference between what is being said and what is being done in this case, because we are talking about departments, senior officials, who still have not understood after eight years, after two years of efforts... Well that is what you are saying.
Dr. Goldbloom: My God, Mr. Chairman, there are some who have understood and others who have not understood.
Mr. Marchand: Listen, when you say...
Senator Rivest: You are one of those who has not understood.
Mr. Marchand: Well there are a good number who haven't understood, because according to the report, the departments' action plans are far from satisfactory.
Commissioner, you say so yourself in your February 1996 Report that I am going to quote. By the by, Mr. Serré, that was after Prime Minister Chrétien's solemn commitment in Acadia. "After our study, nothing indicates the existence..." That's what you wrote, after August 1994, afterMr. Chrétien's solemn commitment in Acadia. These are your words.
According to our study, nothing indicates the existence, even after August 1994, of any systematic effort with a view to ensuring the respect of section 41 in the restructuring process of the government's institutions and programs...
And further on you say:
- Instead, restructuring was sometimes done in a manner which decreased instead of increased
the support to the development of official language minority communities...
- That's serious, isn't it? It's fundamental. If the department responsible for implementing
legislation doesn't even understand it and shows resistance to doing it, there is a big problem.
Quite humbly, Dr. Goldbloom, it seems to me we can't accept having a department do a bit
more than another.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): I think the Commissioner has already answered that question, but I'll give him an opportunity to answer it again anyway.
Dr. Goldbloom: It's up to the government to take its responsibilities and determine how those responsibilities will be discharged and coordinated.
In one of my annual reports, I've already suggested that a responsibility centre for the enforcement of the Act be set up at a sufficiently high level to have authority over the different departments and that this coordination be active rather that horizontal. It's up to the government authorities to decide how to do it. I have expressed my opinion and results are what count for me.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Marchand, you have gone way beyond your five minutes. I have been very generous.
Mr. Gagnon.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I have listened very attentively to all members but especially to the Commissioner, of course, concerning his concept of central coordination of those services by the federal government. What I've noticed for a while is that, besides the problems we have enforcing the Official Languages Act in the area of communications, the federal government has a lot of problems getting the message across..
I find that often, in the departments, it's very diffuse, very complicated in terms of coordination when you're dealing with 27 ministries and I don't know how many departments. I also find that your problems as a commissioner also exist elsewhere.
.1645
I get the impression that it's left to each ministry to decide its own policy. There is no central policy and unfortunately coordination is not being looked after. Could you elaborate on your view of central coordination for the Official Languages Act?
For example, do you think new technologies could be used to help those departments? Private enterprise often uses phone-in centres. There is also more and more talk about television broadcasting centres.
Is there any way of centralizing those efforts to increase the efficiency of some ministries' actions and the enforcement of the Official Languages Act?
Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that our new technologies facilitate communications and the exchange of information. But coordination must be the expression of the government's total will to ensure the enforcement of the legislation and especially Part VII.
It seems to me there aren't very many organizations within the government's structure that could exercise an authority over different departments and organizations. I did suggest that there might be the possibility of setting up such a responsibility centre for that coordination within Privy Council.
The government preferred to declare that this policy now exists. All of us now see that the enforcement of what was announced as a government policy is imperfect. So there is room for improvement. I don't pretend to have the needed expertise in public administration to tell the government it should act specifically in such a way or another, but I will have to come back before this committee if the result of my efforts is not satisfactory.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I'm sorry, Commissioner. What I want to get from you, is whether the costs of such a proposal have been evaluated. Has any organizational chart been drawn up? Did the Privy Council even come back to you as to whether it was a good idea or a bad idea and say why?
I find that some time has passed between that proposal and your presence here today.
Dr. Goldbloom: As I said, I made that suggestion in an annual report. It was not considered.
I didn't do any costing, but it seems to me that there is already enough staff to take on such a responsibility without the government having to incur additional costs.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you, Dr. Goldbloom.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Before giving the floor to Mr. Allmand, I have a comment to make.
I know this committee does not have the obligation to report, contrary to other committees examining specific questions. But I think that the Commissioner is not the only one with responsibilities; the committee also may have some.
That should be discussed amongst ourselves if we believe we should report on this question especially in view of our dissatisfaction concerning Part VII of the Official Languages Act. We should perhaps do so and - if we're in agreement also - perhaps recommend the setting of this senior organization responsible for enforcing Part VII.
.1650
That's a simple comment. We can discuss this amongst ourselves.
Mr. Allmand,
[English]
you have the floor.
Mr. Allmand: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to say immediately that I would agree with you. I think that after a certain number of hearings we should draft a report to the government in which we ask for its response under the rules within the stipulated delay. In other words, we should not simply file a report that will sit on somebody's shelf, but one that will require some action.
I also wanted to say to Mr. Breitkreuz that, unlike the commissioner, I was on the committee that helped draft and voted for the act in 1969 and in 1988. On both occasions they received unanimous support of all parties in the House, and both cases were preceded by intensive and long consultation in the country. In the first case, in 1969, it was by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, and in the second case, in 1988, it was by this committee carrying on hearings for almost two years on a very broad basis. The act then received unanimous support of all parties in the House.
Commissioner, my question is on the same issue you've been discussing for the last few minutes. It seems to me that the problem is that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who replaced the Secretary of State as stipulated in section 42 of the act, is a minister who is equal with all other ministers around the cabinet table and has no direct authority. While he has authority under this act, he has no direct authority to discipline, to instruct, or.... For example, the Deputy Minister of Transport reports to the Minister of Transport and does not report to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, even in these matters.
It seems to me that what you need - and you just referred to that - is a ministry that has central powers or central coordinating powers with respect to all other ministries, and as far as I know there are only two. There's the Privy Council Office and there's the Treasury Board. It would seem to me that if we're going to get some real action in this area, perhaps the recommendation should be - and I'm wondering whether you've ever thought about it - that certain provisions or sections of this act should be directly under the authority of the Prime Minister with the coordinating authority through the Privy Council Office.
It would seem to me that the Privy Council Office, in advising the Prime Minister, already coordinates the programs of many departments in any case, because there's always overlapping and there are always territorial fights between departments. It used to be between Consumer Affairs and Agriculture or Fisheries, between producing and consuming departments, or between Labour and Finance. That was the Privy Council Office that tried to even things out.
So it seems to me that we'd have a greater chance of success with certain sections of this act - not only part VII, but others - if the authority were under the Prime Minister directly, especially since, in my view, this act is so important for national unity, for justice, and for fairness in the country. The Prime Minister would have the responsibility, with somebody in the Privy Council Office reporting directly to him on its implementation.
Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Allmand, your analysis is, in my view, entirely accurate and parallels my own. I would feel presumptuous in saying to the Prime Minister that he should do A, B or C, but I did go as far in my annual report of a couple of years ago to suggest that one of the two entities that can have authority over federal institutions be charged with this responsibility, and I suggested the Privy Council.
Mr. Allmand: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: It's just a supplementary comment on your suggestion. Finally, I think that Mr. Allmand has basically expressed my thoughts. It's very important.
.1655
Commissioner, I think that two years ago you suggested, before this committee, that a political authority be charged with the enforcement not only of Part VII but also of other different aspects of the Act.
It's very important because every year, the Commissioner comes to tell us - and Mr. Marchand has raised the matter and quoted his report extensively - about the important defects there are in the enforcement of the legislation. We should not be bawling out to the Commissioner for those problems because we're actually not dealing with the proper person in this case. The Commissioner is there to report on what's happening.
The problems are actually political and exist at the leadership level. Why? It's because in too many departments, people don't know what this is all about. The Official Languages Act often looks like something that also should be taken care of whereas it's actually a fundamental given of Canadian reality. I think the committee has the same concerns as the Commissioner is expressing here because they are also those of the communities. He is not inventing them. Of course, he knows the administrative machine better because he has the staff to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I think your suggestion is very important. We could even give it more...
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): ...teeth or political weight.
Senator Rivest: ...teeth than the Commissioner occasionally uses. Without actually picking up on the vocabulary used by our friend from the Bloc, we could come up with a position between the two that might be closer to the truth.
Mr. Marchand: One last question.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Breitkreuz asked for the floor. I'll give it to your after, Mr. Marchand.
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz, you have the floor.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You failed to mention, Mr. Allmand, that if the Official Languages Act would have contained most of the provisions or the recommendations of the B and B Commission, maybe the Official Languages Act wouldn't have been such a dismal failure.
You also mentioned that there was unanimous consent by the committee you sat on. I won't quibble with that, but certainly there was opposition by members of Parliament when the vote was taken in the House to not only the 1969 Official Languages Act, but also to the amendment in 1988.
Mr. Allmand: There was opposition, but all the parties supported it. You're right.
Mr. Breitkreuz: You have to look at the present status of some of the parties that supported it.
Dr. Goldbloom, when the Official Languages Act was passed, there was provision to establish thresholds on when minority linguistic rights might be extended to these respective groups. Where do the terms ``sufficient demand'' and ``where numbers warrant'' come into play insofar as this debate or discussion on part VII is concerned?
Dr. Goldbloom: Because part VII concerns the official language minority communities, it is presumed there is sufficient demand. It's not a criterion that is applied mathematically to the application of part VII.
As I think I explained at a previous session of this committee, ``significant demand'' and the common phrase ``where numbers warrant'' are based on the census, and on each territorial census unit there is a counting of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. Depending on the numbers and percentages, services are then provided accordingly.
But this is one of the distinctions between part IV of the act, which concerns the service to the public, and part VII, which concerns the support to the communities. Each of the communities, even the smallest ones such as the French-speaking communities of Newfoundland or the Yukon, are considered to constitute sufficient demand for the purposes of the application of part VII of the act.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Marchand, a very brief question.
Mr. Marchand: Actually, I have two brief ones.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Very, very brief.
.1700
Mr. Marchand: You didn't answer my previous question. Knowing that the government has chosen 27 key departments and, in a manner of speaking, left aside the others and also knowing that the departments are not very actively engaged in enforcing Part VII, what kind of message is the government sending out by targeting 27 departments and leaving the others aside? Do you think that's a good way of enforcing Part VII?
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Marchand, I don't believe it's up to the Commissioner to interpret the messages being sent out by the government. He has already stated that, in his opinion, there were other departments that should be actively committed to the implementation of the Official Languages Act. I think you're embarrassing the Commissioner by asking him whether the government was sending a message when it indicated that 27 departments...
Mr. Marchand: I'll put a more specific question to him.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Fine.
Mr. Marchand: He made 59 important recommendations in his report on the implementation of Part VII in February 1996. To date, has there been any reaction from the government indicating that it would actually implement those recommendations?
Dr. Goldbloom: The government's response was the production of the action plans we are presently examining. I have already said that I find the list of 27 institutions to be incomplete. So I can only hope that this is a first step and that the list will be lengthened. I had actually identified 58 organizations for the purposes of my study. It would seem to me that the law should be universally enforced all across the government.
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Commissioner, I would also like to thank you before we conclude, on your enlightening témoignage today. Speaking for myself, I find it most interesting to see that recommendations have been made in the past, and we should follow up on them. I think the purpose of this committee is to listen to your recommendations. I stress that I value your work as well as your comments on how to improve bilingualism in Canada.
That being said, I'd also like to bring to the attention of the members a distinguished visitor among us today, a member from the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, Mr. Andrew Makower. I would just like to recognize his presence and welcome him to Canada.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Allmand, very briefly, please.
Mr. Allmand: This is on a point of order. I noticed that there was some consensus or feeling that we should proceed to a report on these matters. I know we have other witnesses to hear, but I would like to suggest that the research side of our committee start work considering certain alternatives for such a report - we should not wait to the last minute, as we only have a month before adjournment - on how we might make recommendations to follow up on the recommendations of the commissioner on how to make this part VII more effective.
There are certain areas the research may look at where there are similar problems. For example, in the application of the Access to Information Act, the same difficulties arise, because that act applies to all departments, but there's no minister responsible for its implementation, with the result that the implementation is very different in different departments. There are problems there too. There is also the Employment Equity Act, which applies to all federal departments and tries to bring about employment equity in all federal institutions and departments now.
I am just putting this forward for the steering committee and for the co-chairs in directing our research that we start preparing something now so that when we come to look at it, maybe in three or four weeks' time, we won't lose any time.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Merci, Mr. Allmand. If the other members agree, maybe we could ask our staff to start working on the project report.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): If I may, there's the possibility of June 11 and 13. I am told by the clerk that June 11 we have Treasury Board, so June 13 appears to be a likely date for this kind of exchange on the issues raised by the members and especially by the -
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): But it doesn't prevent our staff to start working on the project.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I believe Mr. Marchand has begun.
.1705
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): I think the fact that we received the report this morning - and I am in no way blaming the Commissioner - has influenced the questions we put. Next Tuesday, we will be able to continue the examination of this report and if you agree we could perhaps also try to have Mr. Clermont present. We could kill two birds with one stone because the Commissioner would be there at that time also. Is it agreed?
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Clermont?
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): The CEO of Canada Post. It's because you unfortunately did not get the letter.
Mr. Allmand: Are we going to be meeting the Acadians and Francophones outside Quebec Thursday?
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): This Thursday. Do you agree that on Tuesday 4th we should continue the examination of the Commissioner's report and, at the same time, if possible, we would ask the director of Canada Post to appear before us concerning the two letters of which, hopefully, the members of the House of Commons will be getting a copy presently?
Mr. Marchand: I'd simply like to voice my opinion, Mr. Chairman. Personally, I prefer concentrating on the Commissioner's report and seeing Mr. Clermont some other time. The Post Office is also important. We shouldn't go mixing the two, because there's a lot of subject matter.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): But it does have something to do with Dr. Goldbloom's report. I briefly explained that Dr. Goldbloom wrote Mr. Clermont expressing his opinion that there were improvements to be made in Canada Post's addressing process with a view to bilingualism being respected without major costs and technical impossibilities. Is that not the case, Commissioner?
Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add that the committee has already looked into the question without coming to any specific conclusion, if I remember correctly, and without getting Canada Post to change its policy. I've already expressed an opinion on that. It is because of Canada Post's refusal to recognize the requests of many citizens that I suggested that the committee reconsider the matter.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): In fact, it's directly connected to Part VII.
Mr. Marchand: In any case, I think that there's already a lot of material just in the report and the implementation of Part VII and that it would be better to call Canada Post later. That's my humble opinion.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): If the members of the committee agree with you, Mr. Marchand, I will submit to your opinion. I just wanted to save a bit of time and question Mr. Clermont on this specific matter of addressing.
[English]
Mr. Allmand: Well that's what I.... We're not having the President of Canada Post Corporation on this occasion. Is Mr. Clermont the...?
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): He is the director.
Mr. Allmand: He's the director. If it's simply with respect to part VII, I see no difficulty, because there are lots of other questions that would be related to the post office too. But if it's related to part VII, I think it would be good to have both the commissioner and Mr. Clermont here at the same time. Then we can try to straighten things out immediately. I've seen the committee do that, and it works very effectively.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): May I suggest that we start our meeting by completing our study of Dr. Goldbloom's report, and that at the end of our meeting we give Mr. Clermont 20 or 30 minutes to explain his position and to answer our questions in relation to part VII? Is this acceptable?
Mr. Allmand: Only to this point.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Yes, exactly - to this precise point. Is this agreeable?
Mr. Allmand: We can have him back on another occasion to discuss more broadly the whole department and its reference to the entire act.
.1710
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Exactly, and at that time we probably will wish to have the presence of the chairman.
Mr. Allmand: Right.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Agreed? So you'll try to get Mr. Clermont for the 4th.
Commissioner, I'd like to thank you very much and we'll see you again in a week.
Dr. Goldbloom: Thank you.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.