Mauril Bélanger

[Public Service Modernization Act, June 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak briefly to this important bill. This bill basically reflects the government's obvious commitment to modernizing the legislation governing its public service, how one becomes a public servant and how our managers can staff positions in the public service. The current staffing process is so complex and outdated that it was imperative that we modernize our way of doing things. That is what this bill all about.

It is the culmination of a very comprehensive consultation process, of many efforts and of the resolve of the Secretary to the Treasury Board in particular. I would be remiss not to take this opportunity to speak to the bill.

During the negotiations and discussions that led to this bill and to some 40 amendments being approved in committee, there were many opportunities for everyone to express their views. Union representatives appeared before the committee after participating in many consultations conducted by the Treasury Board before the bill was even drafted. There have also been several commission of inquiry.

All this to say that the bill before us at third reading is the result of a collective effort, a serious effort to modernize the machinery of government and the public service.

A number of things have been said, and I wanted to take this opportunity to read into the record a letter dated May 14, 2003, from the President of the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada. I wanted to read it because it sums up pretty well the association's position, and also in light of criticism voiced recently through the media by the Public Service Alliance.

I am going to read this letter, which is addressed to me:

On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada (APEX), I am writing to follow up on our recent appearance before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates with regard to Bill C-25, the Public Service Modernization Act. APEX is the national association of federal government executives and is dedicated to advancing management excellence and professionalism within the public service.

APEX supports Bill C-25 and is concerned with recent public statements by the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), in which the integrity and professionalism of public service managers and executives were impugned. I refer to media interviews following the Alliance's recent meetings in Montreal and to the front-page article “PSAC goes on attack against reform bill” in the May 4 edition of the Ottawa Citizen. The Alliance says it believes that Bill C-25, the Public Service Modernization Act, will allow managers to “rig” competitions and to hire whom they want and whom they know.

APEX has advocated human resource management reform for several years, and we were pleased in mid-2001 to be asked by the Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management to conduct a series of consultations with public servants across the country. The Association met with close to 850 public servants—executives, managers and young public servants—from coast to coast to coast. Its observations from those sessions were submitted to the task force in early October 2001 and participants, unionized or not, expressed a strong desire to have access to a significantly simpler, faster and more responsive staffing system, one which is backed up by clear accountability measures. In the absence of a greatly reformed system, the public service will have difficulty replacing the significant numbers of retirement age public servants who will leave in the next few years, developing employees with a broad range of experience and competing with other organizations on the open market for bright people with the right mix of skills. APEX's own position paper, which is based on wide-ranging consultations with executives over several years, was published shortly thereafter. (This is available on the Association's Web site at www.apex.gc.ca.)

Executives' interest in the reform proposed by C-25 is not based on a desire to run roughshod over the public interest and the legitimate aspirations of public servants who want to work in interesting jobs, in healthy, productive work environments. The charge that managers are keen to subvert prescribed processes in order to indulge in a spot of patronage is insulting. What managers want is to be able to hire, with as little delay as possible, someone who is qualified to do the work. Given their extensive experience, it is natural that managers will sometimes hire people whose work they already know and value. Managers at all levels are assessed on how well they serve the public interest, including how they hire, so it makes sense for them to ensure the process they use is fair and transparent. But “fair and transparent” shouldn't mean “slow and cumbersome”.

It is useful to consider how well hiring managers are respecting the rules now. According to the Public Service Commission's annual report for fiscal year 2001-02, 102,557 hiring and staffing activities were carried out. Of those, roughly 70,000 were appealable. Just 1,432 of these cases were in fact appealed—and of those, only about 8% were allowed. We agree there are occasional problems, but the bottom line is that they are caught and corrected.

The strengthened oversight mechanisms proposed in Bill C-25, which includes a new, independent tribunal, will continue to catch mistakes, just more quickly. APEX believes the draft legislation provides for more than adequate recourse, including third party reviews and a number of other checks and balances to ensure fairness in the staffing process. In fact, we believe that employee rights under the new legislation will be protected and enhanced. We have endorsed the strengthening of the Public Service Commission's audit and oversight role.

The association also strongly supports changes to promote greater union-management collaboration, in line with the report of the Fryer committee. Executives and managers are keen to work with their union colleagues to build a more collegial environment. In that context, the association applauds the provisions in the legislation, which require each DM to create a labour-management committee within his or her agency. This will result in better communication among executives, managers and unions at all levels and ensure that our labour relations become more collaborative and less confrontational.

APEX believes that the time has come to modernize the public service's human resources management regime since a generation of public servants has come and gone under the present legislative framework. What we need are laws and regulations that reflect today's values, management style and employee expectations.

Our conversations with executives, managers and unionized employees across the country revealed their strong desire to improve the dialogue between management and unions—at the shop level, in the regions and in work units. Based on the mandate given by the hon. Lucienne Robillard to the task force, the new legislation takes an important step in that direction.

Yours truly,

Robert Edmond, President

As I was saying, this is from the president of APEX, the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada.

I thought that it was important to read this letter and that it be on the public record because it establishes certain facts that we need to take into account when examining this bill.

I myself have had the opportunity to speak with several members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and APEX and most support this bill. I cannot say that there is nothing they would like to change, some amendments they would like to see, but by and large, in terms of the big picture, most people feel that this bill is an important step towards modernizing the legislation governing the public service.

Most of this legislation goes back 30, 35, or 40 years.

In closing, I move:

That the question be now put.

[Michael Nurse, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Mr. Michael Nurse retires from the federal public service with a career that has spanned five decades. He joined the public service in 1968 as an administrative trainee at Transport Canada and retires as associate deputy minister of Public Works and Government Services. So much for the formal part of the c.v.

I chose to speak about this exemplary gentleman because he embodies what is best about a public service. Canadians want a public service that is efficient, creative, innovative, cost effective, accountable, transparent, flexible, decisive and autonomous. In Mike Nurse, we had all of that. What is more, we had a public servant who remained true to himself, to his employer, and to his oath of office. Mike Nurse always provided the best advice he could, even when those receiving this advice did not want to hear it.

I wish to salute Mr. Nurse, and wish him and his family many wonderful years, but he should not go too far because we may be calling on him again.

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, could you please tell us how much time we have left from the five-hour period alloted to this debate?

[Supply, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Chair, at this time in the appearance of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I would like to discuss a topic of considerable importance to the Department of Justice of Canada and to Canadians, in other words, access to justice in Canada's two official languages.

Ensuring an effective justice system that is fair and equitable as well as accessible to Canadians is one of the elements of the Department of Justice's mission. This means that among other things, legal services have to be accessible to Canadians in the official language of their choice.

This may seem obvious, but reality is quite the opposite for triable Canadians in official language minority communities. This is a true challenge for our justice system and its various players. In her Infoaction, spring 2003 bulletin, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Dyane Adam, described access to justice in both official languages as a sizeable challenge.

The Department of Justice has been working on overcoming this challenge for many years. I think it still has a great deal of work to do. It is a complex situation that requires cooperation among many stakeholders, including provincial and territorial governments. It also requires political will by the government.

Everyone agrees that administering justice is a shared responsibility. A series of constitutional, quasi-constitutional and legislative provisions govern the use of French and English in Canada's courts.

Federally, this legal framework is subject to section 133 of the British North America Act, 1867, paragraph 19(1) of the charter, part III of the Official Languages Act, 1988, and sections 530 and 530.1 of the Criminal Code. The latter have been in effect across the country since January 1, 1990. In addition to these provisions there are various provincial and territorial laws that also govern the use of French and English in provincial or territorial courts. Therefore, it is essential to work in close cooperation with the provinces and territories.

A number of studies and decisions by Canadian courts have shown that the implementation of these rights remains far from perfect and varies hugely from province to province. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages released two studies in 1995 and 1999 showing that there are many obstacles to achieving the goal of equal access to federal courts.

It should be noted that over the past few years the case law has definitely confirmed the existence of these difficulties. The Beaulac case, the Devinat case and the matter of the Contravention Act are three recent examples where the implementation of existing linguistic rights regarding the administration of justice in both official languages was found to be wanting.

Since then, in the 2001 Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada has reaffirmed its commitment to the linguistic duality of our country. This commitment was again made in the 2002 Speech from the Throne. In support of his commitment, the Prime Minister of Canada gave the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs the responsibility of coordinating the official languages issue across the federal government and of developing an action plan to implement the commitments made in the 2001 and 2002 Speeches from the Throne.

It is in that context that the issue of the access to justice in both official languages has resulted in new steps being taken by the Department of Justice. Those steps are in addition to the initiatives already in place in the department and in the Government of Canada.

Until very recently, there was only one program throughout the federal government dealing with administering justice in both official languages, namely the National Program for the Integration of Both Official Languages in the Administration of justice, the so-called POLAJ. Jointly managed by the Departments of Canadian Heritage and Justice, for over 20 years POLAJ has helped improve—but not enough—access to justice in both official languages through the development of legal and linguistic tools for Canadian lawyers working in these communities.

POLAJ has resulted in the creation of a network of agencies concerned with access to justice in both official languages, with whom the Department of Justice has been working on a regular basis.

Moreover, the department has been working for some years in close conjunction with the associations of French language common law jurists and their national federation. These seven associations encompass more than 1,000 French-speaking jurists serving francophones in Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. For more than eight years, the department has been providing them with financial support.

Access to justice in both official languages is a priority for official language minority communities. The FCFA, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, ranks it third in its priorities after health and education.

in 2002, the Department of Justice released a study providing an overview of the situation. This document, entitled “Environmental Scan: Access to Justice in Both Official Languages” gives a picture for each province or territory of the situation as far as access to justice in both official languages is concerned.

The objectives of the study were as follows: to collect qualitative and quantitative data relating to services, to identify and describe the principal barriers restricting access to judicial and legal services, to identify possible solutions to the situations identified, and to identify existing and planned innovative practices.

The research team collected comments from 359 respondents to fulfill its mandate.

The study reached the following conclusions on access to justice in both official languages: first, delays and costs associated with requests for service are higher when the request is made in the official language of the minority; second, there is a lack of public servants capable of supporting a bilingual judiciary system; third, there are few judges capable of hearing a case in the official language of the accused; fourth, there is a lack of active offer of legal services; fifth, there are problems of access to legal documentation in French; sixth, there are problems relating to interpretation, that is to say costs, skills and so on.

The report does not just illustrate the obstacles to access to justice. It also offers some prospects for solutions, and we all hope the department will follow up on them, examples being the appointment of judges capable of hearing a case in the official language of the accused—some progress has been made in this but there is still a long way to go—; appointment of bilingual prosecutors and legal staff; language training for judges and legal staff; information and awareness sessions for public servants and triable Canadians; single service points; travelling courts; and legislative amendments.

The department's experience shows that measures designed to improve access to the Canadian justice system in the provinces and territories must not be implemented in the same way across the country. The findings of “Environmental Scan” confirm this.

The government's Official Languages Action Plan, which was announced on March 12 at the Cité collégiale, in the riding of Ottawa—Vanier, provides for measures to help improve access to justice in both official languages. These measures are based on “Environmental Scan”, but also on previous studies on access to justice, including studies by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

The department has provided for three categories of measures.

The first category includes measures that would allow the department to fulfill its legal obligations under the Contraventions Act and the Act to re-enact legislative instruments enacted in only one official language.

Regarding the Contraventions Act, the department must implement the federal court judgment in the Contraventions Act case. As part of the review of existing federal, provincial and territorial agreements, additional financial support to the provinces is required to allow for the use of the minority language in proceedings by the provinces under this act.

Concerning the re-enactment of legislative instruments, the department must also ensure that it implements the Legislative Instruments Re-enactment Act.

The act corrects the procedural flaw in legislative instruments originally enacted in only one official language.

The act requires that measures be taken and that their status over the first six years of operation be reported to Parliament. Any legislative instrument that has not been re-enacted within this timeframe will be automatically repealed.

The second set of measures is designed to establish a support fund for access to justice in both official languages. This fund has four components: partnerships, a consultation mechanism, the transfer of the Administration of Justice Program in both official languages and stable funding for French-speaking lawyers' associations and their national federation.

In real terms, better access to justice in both official languages is not possible solely through the cooperation of governments. It requires partnerships with various non-governmental provincial and territorial stakeholders working in the area, including universities, bar associations, provincial associations of French-speaking lawyers and their national federation.

This measure is directly related to the “Environmental Scan” which identifies the lack of bilingual judicial personnel and the costs and delays associated with trials and procedures in the minority official language as barriers to equal access to the justice system for Canadians who are part of official language minority communities.

By entering into partnerships with universities, the justice department has two objectives: training in language rights for law students and future lawyers, and the establishment of a close and lasting cooperation between the universities and associations of French-speaking lawyers.

The findings of a study commissioned by the Association des juristes d'expression française du Manitoba show that graduates from law faculties where the common law is taught in French do not take part in lawyers' associations during the first five years of their working life. It is therefore important to create an interest among young lawyers for practising law in French so that individuals subject to trial can count on them to provide legal and judicial services in their official language. Moreover, these graduates are part of the pool of potential candidates for judicial appointments who are able to hear cases in either official language.

The justice department also intends to maintain and increase its financial support to associations of French-speaking lawyers and their national federation by providing them with stable funding to ensure that these associations can fulfil their lobbying function with governments and play their part in legal education and literacy with official language communities.

Over the past eight years, the department has invested more than $1.4 million in funding projects created by these lawyers' associations and their federation. The department would now like to be able to provide stable financing to these groups. There is no formal association of English speaking lawyers in Quebec, but the department is working with English speaking lawyers within the Barreau du Québec and the Quebec Communities Group Network, the QCGN.

I have already referred to POLAJ, the Program for the Integration of Both Official Languages in the Administration of Justice, which is a unique program within the federal government. The measures we plan include continued development of the legal tools needed for improving access to justice, which was already begun within POLAJ. This program will move from the Department of Canadian Heritage to the Department of Justice.

The third and final type of measures envisaged by the department concern language rights. The department is putting the emphasis on two activities; one involves training and the development of working tools, and the other, increased legal support for the Official Languages Program at Justice Canada.

The target audience for training and the development of working tools will be the department's legal counsel. I think it is high time that we did this. It will focus particularly on the crown prosecutors and civil litigation lawyers in order to ensure that they understand the nature and scope of the department's constitutional and legislative obligations.

These measures will serve as the foundation for the formation of a network of lawyers in order to better serve client departments and ensure that within each department there is a better understanding of the language rights and needs of official language minority communities.

By introducing the measures I have just outlined, the department will ensure that the system better meets the needs of Canadians and particularly members of official language minority communities.

Others will be needed, of course. For example, the Official Languages Act should be reviewed and strengthened.

Perhaps it will be necessary to ask more of the provinces with regard to the administration of certain courts that come under the Official Languages Act, the Canadian Constitution and the Criminal Code.

All that to say that we can feel a willingness, within the government and certainly within the department, to do more than what was done before to give official language minority communities access to the justice system in the language of their choice.

I think that we should perhaps encourage the minister, the government and also those who work within the department, from the highest official, namely the deputy minister, to all those involved in the administration of justice, to do something with regard to official languages. The studies and findings of the Commissioner of Official Languages and of the department itself in its Environmental Scan have made it clear that the situation should be improved.

If the minister agrees, I would invite him to make a few comments on this willingness that is being felt within the government and within his department to ensure greater respect for the laws and for the rights of both official languages communities to have access to the justice system in the language of their choice. Indeed, the Commissioner of Official Languages has made these observations, and so has the department itself in looking at the situation. Everyone agrees that there are significant inadequacies that need to be corrected.

I would like the minister to take this opportunity to tell us about this willingness that can be felt within his department and within the government.

[Les Invasions Barbares, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of all Canadian film buffs, it is a great pleasure for me to congratulate director Denys Arcand for winning the award for best screenplay at the 56th Cannes film festival for his film, Les Invasions Barbares .

With this film, which continues to move audiences and is destined for great success, Denys Arcand has proven yet again his enormous talent as a cinematographer.

Congratulations also to Marie-Josée Croze, who won the best actress award for her role in the film. I was among those who gave a more than ten-minute standing ovation to Mr. Arcand, to the producer, Ms. Robert, to the cast and to the entire team who worked on this jewel in the crown of Canadian cinema.

I want to congratulate them personally as well. This year, we have had a strong presence at Cannes, and I think congratulations should also go to the team at Telefilm Canada for its excellent work in ensuring that Canadian and Quebec films are well represented.

[Montfort Hospital, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

This morning the minister announced a new partnership between his department and the Montfort Hospital, an important institution in the riding I represent.

Could the minister please describe the nature of that partnership to this House, our hon. colleagues and those listening?

[Points of Order, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the ruling that you just made. I would like to know if it is customary, on matters like this, to accept the apologies of the person who made the accusation of conflict of interest.

[Committees of the House, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)( d ) and its mandate to monitor the administration of the Official Languages Act, your committee has conducted a study on immigration and official language minority communities, and has agreed, on Wednesday, April 30, 2003, to report its observations and recommendations to the House. The committee also asks for a government response within the 150-day period provided for in the Standing Orders.

Essentially, the report invites the government to act on amendments to the Immigration Act to ensure that demographics in Canada are not negatively affected by immigration but, on the contrary, improved and made reflective of the reality of official language minority communities.

[Points of Order, May 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the point of order raised by the House leader of the official opposition, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, relating to the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which was tabled in the House on April 30 by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, vice-chair of the committee.

First, I would like to say how much I regret that the House leader of the official opposition did not trouble to tell me that he would be raising this matter. I believe that it would have been common courtesy to do so.

He quotes Standing Order 21, and I repeat it now:

No Member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he or she has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any Member so interested will be disallowed.

Then, and this is where the problem lies, the hon. member draws the conclusion that I have placed myself in a conflict of interest situation because I signed the sixth report.

I signed the committee report to comply with the well-established practice whereby committee reports are signed by the committee president or chair. Moreover, I was duly authorized by the members of the committee to report the motion that had been passed, as is shown by the minutes of meeting no. 21.

The reporting of the motion does not indicate whether I am in favour of the motion or not, or whether I voted for it or against it. The report reflects the will of the majority of committee members, as expressed when they passed the motion.

Beauchesne, on page 241, indicates clearly, and I quote:

The Chairman signs only by way of authentication on behalf of the committee. Therefore, the Chairman must sign the report even if dissenting from the majority of the committee.

The decision having been made during a meeting that was held in camera to discuss the committee's future business as well as a draft report, I must be careful in the information that I can disclose here.

I will repeat that I am very aware of the rules and that I followed them rigorously in the Quigley case. I offer as evidence the minutes and the record of proceedings of the public meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages held on February 4, 2003. At that meeting, the committee was voting on the issue of making a similar request to the Standing Committee on Liaison. The record of that meeting clearly shows that, at the time, I left the chair and abstained from voting on this issue.

For you, Mr. Speaker, and for the House leader of the official opposition, the question is: why would I have changed my behaviour at the April 29 meeting, even though it was held in camera?

I can say without any hesitation that I have followed the rules to the letter. At no time did I place myself in a conflict of interest. The only conflict that exists has to do with the legal interpretation of the Official Languages Act, a conflict that the courts will settle eventually and that I hope we will have the opportunity to examine in this House someday.

[Fédération des caisses populaires de l'Ontario, May 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on April 26, the general assembly of the Fédération des caisses populaires de l'Ontario voted in favour of closer ties with the Mouvement des caisses Desjardins.

By so doing, the Fédération des caisses populaires de l'Ontario made a decision that will greatly benefit its members and our community.

I want to congratulate, in particular, the president of the federation's board, Thomas Blais, who said,

The Caisses de l'Ontario will be able to build on the economic strength of the Mouvement des caisses Desjardins. This is the most important decision in the history of the Caisses de l'Ontario.

Since the start of the cooperative movement in Canada, which was closely associated with Alphonse Desjardins and his wife Dorimène—by the way, Mr. Desjardins was a Clerk in this House at the turn of the last century—francophone rural communities have benefited from greater economic development, which still serves their interests today.

I want to congratulate the Fédération des caisses populaires de l'Ontario—

Winnipeg