STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 18, 1998

• 1532

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.)): Good afternoon, everyone.

I'm extremely pleased, on behalf of the official languages committee, to have with us the Minister of Heritage Canada, the Hon. Sheila Copps.

Before I officially turn the meeting over for your presentation, Madam Copps, I'd like to welcome the Forum for Young Canadians.

I think you're at a very interesting meeting, because one of the defining features of Canada, of course, is its two official languages.

Second, you are here at an interesting moment in the work of this committee, as heritage is what you're all studying and what you all reflect...and the values you will carry forward as you are participants in the life and times of our country. I'm really delighted you're here.

I hope you will enjoy listening to the Minister of Heritage. Within the Government of Canada the minister is responsible for ensuring that the values of our society are carried forward in all its varied dimensions—cultural, community, languages, literacy and many other fields. She has a wide variety of responsibilities, including your parks, which I hope you also enjoy, and sports, which I'm sure you enjoyed through the Olympic experience, and the other sports in our country you enjoy as participants.

Madame Losier-Cool.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): Ms. Copps, I would like to welcome you to this committee, but I would also like to extend a special welcome to all you young people. I find it comforting to see that young people are interested in these issues. You've certainly chosen a good afternoon to attend a meeting of the Official Languages Committee.

• 1535

We are delighted that you, Ms. Copps, have taken the time to come and meet the committee. We would like to welcome you and we also hope that you'll be able to give even more time to considering and analyzing the comments and questions put to you.

We have received the annual report: the action plan, the major options, official languages in education, special measures in school management and post-secondary education—we will certainly have questions on those points—the Canada-community agreement and coordination of measures taken by the government to implement sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act.

You have the floor, Ms. Finestone.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much. I will repeat the ground rules followed by this committee to ensure that they are complied with.

[English]

I would bring to your attention, first of all, that the first round will be seven minutes—and I will be very strict in the timing—first to the Reform Party, second to the Bloc Québécois, third to the Liberal Party, fourth to the Progressive Conservative Party, fifth to the New Democratic Party, and then the Liberal Party.

In the second round there will be five minutes each, allocated alternately between the opposition party and the government, starting with the official opposition.

With those rules, which I will gavel to ensure they are respected,

[Translation]

Madam Minister, please accept our welcome.

The Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Thank you, Madam Chairs. I am honoured to be here with you today. I did indeed decide to take a little time to analyze our obligations and responsibilities in relation to the Official Languages Act.

First, I have a small table I would like to distribute to the people here. You may perhaps be interested to see what a value- added official language constitutes for Canada.

Our responsibility and mandate at the Department of Canadian Heritage is to promote linguistic duality within Canadian society, to support the vitality and development of official language minority communities, to bring about rapprochement between francophones and anglophones. Our department is also responsible for promoting, through co-operation with Canadians, understanding and unity, enhancing respect and tolerance and fostering economic development and prosperity.

What is the situation with respect to the francophone fact in Canada? First, 6.7 million Canadians are francophones. That number represents 23.5% of the population and, if we add to it those people who are francophiles, this means that one third of the population, or 8.9 million Canadians, are able to speak French. This is more than ten times the next most spoken language. In answer to CFRB in Toronto, I would say that this is clearly a historic and linguistic situation requiring us to recognize and respect both official languages.

Who are the francophones outside Quebec? Under our mandate, we have the responsibility to invest in francophone young people through Heritage Canada. At the present time there are 165,000 francophones in 700 French-language schools, not immersion schools, but French-language schools, outside Quebec. Since the adoption of the Official Languages Act in 1971, we see that the drop-out rate has been reduced by 50%. The number of high school graduates, as well as the number of university graduates, has doubled.

What is the situation with respect to schooling, which is one of the important points in our official languages policy? First, it must be understood that this policy has been in existence for only 25 years. Our attitude cannot be considered one of the high points in Canadian history. There have even been difficult times in our history, when the right to speak a second language was refused. That was the situation, for example, in Ontario and Alberta.

• 1540

But since 1971, we have had legislation with an impact on education. In some provinces, the rights provided under that legislation were not endorsed until last year or even up to this year. For example, only today is there full school management in Ontario. Improvements are still being made.

However, as we can see from the table on the situation of francophones outside Quebec in 1991, the situation improved since 1971 for people between the ages of 25 and 34. In 1971, 69% of this group completed the 9th grade, whereas in 1991, the figure was 96%.

[English]

It's not a bad figure, 96%.

[Translation]

Let's talk about drop-out rates, about people who leave school because they don't feel comfortable there. Through the official languages policy, we have been able to reduce by half the number of 15 to 19-year old francophones leaving school. In 1981 the figure was 24%, and in 1991, 11%. This is the lowest drop-out rate for all linguistic groups in Canada.

With respect to graduates, the proportion of francophones outside Quebec between the ages of 25 and 34 more than doubled between 1971 and 1991, moving from 6 to 14%. What is the result of that? An improvement in economic and social life.

In some cases, after 25 years of development, new post- secondary institutions have been established, and these act as economic catalysts for entire communities.

Outside Quebec, there are today 34 community or private radio stations, 24 French-languages weeklies, two dailies and 71 community and cultural centres. Through these communities, we are harnessing the talents of all Canadians and developing a recipe for success. Why is this?

[English]

There's a market of a million francophones outside of Quebec, 348 francophone cooperatives outside of Quebec,

[Translation]

whose 660,000 members have overall assets of $3.9 billion and real investments of $327 million. There are 20,000 francophone entrepreneurs outside Quebec.

At the second Canadian Forum of Francophone Businesses held in Manitoba, I and a number of members of Parliament were able to see how much economic growth there had been since the implementation of the Official Languages Act, followed by the court challenges lodged by parents and families.

This second forum—the first had been held in la Beauce— brought together over 450 delegates, that is the maximum number, and 100 businesses signed economic agreements. Some of these agreements dealt with tourism. A tourism network was formed with festivals: the Festival du Voyageur in Manitoba, the Franco- Ontarian Festival in Ottawa, the Festival acadien in Caraquet, as well as interpretation centres, which inject money into the economy and attract tourists.

Turning to tourists, I would point out that in 1997 Canada received 440,000 tourists from France, that is over 10% of overseas tourists. They spent $495 million, which is three times more than in 1988. So it is within our interest to further develop our links here.

[English]

The English minority in Quebec helps us open the door to the rest of North America. We have a solid infrastructure of schools and universities that have made this community a dynamic contributor to Canadian society.

Bilingualism among young anglophones is 82% in the 15-to-19 age group, a far cry from a time when most anglophones in Montreal could not speak French. Yes, we have changed. Yes, we have grown together, to the point where only yesterday the Premier of Quebec himself

[Translation]

said in his speech in the United States:

• 1545

As this francophone society has decided to play an active role in the process of globalization, it must have a good understanding of the language of its customers and partners; it must carry out this linguistic interface. That's the way things are. The number of bilingual Quebeckers is increasing, and is now comparable to the situation in Europe. Fifty percent of the working population of Quebec—60% in the case of Montreal—and 80% of executives in the metropolitan area are bilingual, which makes us the most bilingual part of North America, an asset from which we intend to fully benefit. Our Department of Education intends to go even further and teach more Quebeckers a third language, particularly Spanish.

In a speech he gave in the United States yesterday, the Premier of Quebec recognized the significance of bilingualism as an economic asset.

[English]

Bilingualism is an asset. Look at where we've come as a country. When I started in active politics—I was elected to the Ontario legislature in 1981—we were still arguing about what we had on our boxes of cornflakes. In the last 25 years we have made the step from complaining, and exploiting our cultural differences, to recognizing that it positions us to be a world player.

Canada is one of the few countries in the world that can bridge the linguistic divide. Canadians, with not only two official languages but also with dozens of languages from around the world, are a source of cultural enrichment that inspires the world.

Almost three million young people—54% of all students—study English or French as a second language. The proportion of elementary students learning a second language has risen from 33% in 1971 to 55% in 1995. That's a 75% increase.

[Translation]

Is there still work to be done? Yes, work remains to be done, but we must acknowledge that we are heading in the right direction. Consider, for example, the interest shown by students in speaking...

It is shameful? I'm quoting Mr. Bouchard. Is that shameful?

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): I did not say anything.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I heard someone say it was shameful.

Senator Jean-Maurice Simard (Edmunston, PC): It is shameful. It is a lot of bragging.

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): On a point of order, Madam Chair.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'm quoting Mr. Bouchard.

Senator Jean-Maurice Simard: I noticed that you were quoting the Premier of Quebec. He's not at fault.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Excusez-moi, monsieur. Please stop.

Do you have a point of order, sir?

Mr. Denis Coderre: Yes, I would like us to behave a little more decently and to listen to the Minister. You can make your comments, Senator Simard. Here, people show some respect for those who have the floor.

[English]

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'm trying to make the point that I think we still have a long way to go in this country, but if you look at the figures and at the progress we've made in the last 25 years, it's worth talking about. It's worth exposing, I think, some of the myths out there about the health and survival of minority languages in this country.

Nearly 5 million Canadians today are bilingual. That is a 10% increase since 1991. In 1951 there were only 1.7 million Canadians speaking in both languages, and most of them were French speaking in English. We have today the most bilingual young generation we've had in the history of Canada.

Language is also a part of our human capital.

[Translation]

Last year, I was in Paris for the Salon Expolangues (language exhibition). Canada was honoured there for its language policy, which has given us the tools to be part of the globalization phenomenon.

[English]

Dozens of institutions are recognized on the world scene, where language is a market of $2.5 billion. There are 158,000 jobs in Canada directly and indirectly related to the language industries.

• 1550

Why are students coming to our great country to learn a second language? It's because they see that we've put in place a system that can work. In 1991 foreign students brought in $1.5 billion in investment to the country by visiting and studying.

Bilingualism attracts private enterprise.

[Translation]

For example, we have seen Federal Express, CP Express and Camco go to Moncton. Promotion of a bilingual workforce creates favourable circumstances. The international character of Montreal is related to its bilingual population, as the Quebec Premier acknowledged yesterday.

Let us speak now about the international francophone community.

[English]

Think about it: 160 million people around the world, 18% of the world economy, doing business in French,

[Translation]

and more than 100 billion dollars and trade annually. Canadian companies view bilingualism as an asset in a competitive world for themselves, their children and their companies.

All Canadians benefit from the contribution that francophones have made to Canada's prosperity. There's no doubt that francophones outside Quebec face undeniable challenges. However, they can count on the support and solidarity of the federal government. Progress in the area of official languages is clear. We still have some work to do. We cannot be too boastful, but, nevertheless, since the introduction of the official languages policy, there has been a change in attitude.

Bilingual Canadians earn more and have better employment opportunities. This was acknowledged by the Quebec Premier, who himself ensured that his children can speak both French and English. That is a fact. He wants to give his children skills that will maximize their long-term potential.

Language diversity is an asset, not a problem. All Canadians have reason to be proud of our linguistic duality. The challenge to the Standing Committee, your committee, is to explore linguistic duality as an asset, by doing concrete things, guaranteeing the renewal of contributions to official languages in education, the renewal of language exchange programs (which already have 7,000 participants per year), and support for school governance in Ontario. These amount to a total injection of $835 million in new capital for the next five years.

Now that I have concluded my comments, I would be pleased to answer your questions.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I want to thank you for that presentation, Madam Minister. It becomes very obvious that language is certainly an important job skill.

The first question is from the Reform Party.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Thank you. I want to offer my thanks to the minister for being here in front of our committee today.

I know you spoke about bilingualism having increased in Quebec, and some of those numbers were very interesting. I think there's no argument with the fact that the Official Languages Act has worked in Quebec to increase bilingualism. But I think there has been a question—and it has even been brought up at discussions in this committee—as to how successful the Official Languages Act has been outside Quebec.

I would like to know specifically whether in the area of federal institutions located outside Quebec there has been a relationship between you and these institutions in finding out the degree of usefulness in the implementation of the Official Languages Act at those levels in other provinces. If so, has there been consultation? If not, are you planning to consult with some of the people? I'd like to find out more about some of the realities that exist with bilingualism in federal institutions outside the province of Quebec. Maybe you could fill me in on that.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Well, Rahim, the figures I have given you in relation to bilingualism are all figures from outside Quebec, not from inside Quebec. Those figures are all for the current population outside Quebec.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Is that based on consultations of some sort? I want to also see the practicality of that on the basis of federal institutions. For instance, in Edmonton, where I'm from, Canada Place obviously offers all bilingual services. I want to know specifically if there has been a sense of consultation between your department and people there to see how useful that service is, and if there is a real demand for it. What's the feedback from the grassroots, so to speak?

• 1555

Ms. Sheila Copps: The feedback from the grassroots is that if you look at where we are at the moment with official languages, they create jobs and economic opportunities for the country. In respect of specific services, the fact that we're able to offer services in two languages is a value added. If we can offer them in more languages, it enhances our capacity to serve the public.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: It was an interesting statistic as well that obviously people who are bilingual earn more. And you mention there's value added. I'm curious as to some of those statistics. Did they come strictly from the public sector or were they a combination of private sector and public sector job creation?

Ms. Sheila Copps: The statistics are based on francophone and bilingual graduates from outside the province of Quebec working in any area. They took a catchment group of unilingual and bilingual graduates and tracked their salary scales.

It's ironic because the single best indicator of earning power is not what faculty you're studying but whether you can speak both languages. So the students here may want to listen to that, because you can be in the humanities, the social sciences or engineering, but if you're able to speak two languages you have a statistically better capacity on the salary scale. That shouldn't be your only motivator in life, but it is certainly worth looking at.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): One and two, it has a big space.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chairs, and welcome, Minister. I want to welcome the students here from the Forum for Young Canadians on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal official opposition. I imagine you're here from all the provinces and territories across the country.

You get first-hand in this particular committee how billions of your parents' tax dollars are being spent to linguistically engineer languages in this country. Of course, in spite of the statistics you saw up here, it has failed quite miserably, in fact.

I think I can ask questions that really aren't related because we don't get the minister here at the committee very often. But they are, of course, connected to this committee.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Are they relevant to the subject matter?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: They are in regard to official languages.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Please proceed.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Yesterday the president of the Canadian Olympic Association was hauled before this—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): He wasn't hauled, he was invited.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: He was “invited” to come before this committee, not to receive a hero's welcome or see a ticker tape parade but to be dressed down. This is the first time in Canadian history our athletes have brought home so many medals—six gold medals from Japan. Instead of commending him and the volunteers for all the effort involved, this committee chose to dress Mr. Warren down.

I certainly thought that was reprehensible, because the Canadian Olympic Association is not connected to this committee or to the Official Languages Act. That's why I refer to it as a kangaroo court, because it has no business doing that.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Please place your question.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Well, I can't say it often enough. As the minister responsible for this committee, this provides you with a very good opportunity to apologize to those millions of Canadians, to the Canadian Olympic Association and to our athletes for the behaviour of this committee yesterday toward our Canadian Olympic Association and its president.

• 1600

Ms. Sheila Copps: Mr. Breitkreuz, far be it from me to correct your parliamentary knowledge, but if you go back and read the rules of Parliament, you will understand that the committee is the master of its own destiny. I am not the spokesperson for the committee. Indeed, I think the committee members would find that quite insulting.

I'm here at the invitation of the committee, as Mr. Warren was. I think Mr. Warren made it very clear in his statement yesterday that what happened in Nagano was unacceptable; that when you have athletes from across the country who are there to celebrate and to do their best, they don't need to have their participation minimized in any way by having their language ignored. That's what happened in that case. The COA obviously felt the sting of public criticism, so it responded with a written apology at the time, and it also has put in place measures to ensure that this type of slap in the face does not happen again. And I dare say, Mr. Breitkreuz, that if you went to Nagano as an athlete and all of the proceedings went on in French, you would feel equally insulted.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Can we go to the Bloc, please? Whoever is speaking for the Bloc can go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Welcome, Madam Minister. I have a number of questions, which I will ask all at once, and then let you answer them individually.

I would like to start by making a brief comment. When you began, you said that the francophone community was a value added. To what is it added? Is it not rather an essential value for francophones? Probably that is what you meant.

Secondly, I put a question to you today in the House about the 9% decrease for the Court Challenges Program to help francophones outside Quebec assert their rights to education. I asked you if you did not agree that we could put back that 9% and substantially increase credits to allow francophones to assert their rights through the courts as there are many challenges on the horizon at this point. You told me that was already done. If you gave back those 9%, what increase did you grant to arrive at that? That's my first question.

My second has to do with Nagano following my Reform colleague's intervention. Yesterday, the president of the Canadian Olympic Association said that his role did not give him jurisdiction over the federations in the area of bilingualism and the respect for the cultural context that francophones should enjoy when they are part of a Canadian federation.

Madam Minister, you doubtless have far greater power than the president of the Association. You have the power of money as you grant subsidies. Wouldn't it be desirable for you to set as a condition to those subsidies that better respect for bilingualism be shown by each of those federations sending our athletes to the Olympic Games?

My third comment has to do with the Semaine nationale de la francophonie. This national Francophonie week always has two aspects: one for the world of education and the other for the general public. Now, last year, the ACELF which has always been the organizer of this Semaine nationale de la francophonie, wanted to organize it but Heritage Canada gave the job to Rhéal Leroux and associates and used the copyrighted trademarks belonging to the ACELF without authorization. After discussion, in a letter dated March 5 last, the Association states that it was forced to authorize Rhéal Leroux and associates to use its trademarks in exchange for its grant from Heritage Canada.

Will this new blackmail policy used against the Association henceforth be part of the department's guidelines, in other words, will you now misappropriate the trademarks belonging to the francophone associations outside of Quebec as well as the Semaine de la francophonie with a view to gaining better visibility? I'm especially concerned with the part in the general public's eye.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

• 1605

Ms. Sheila Copps: Madam Chair, yesterday, in the House, I tabled a letter from the ACELF dated March 16 that I'd like to read in response to the member's question. He knows full well, and I spoke about this to his colleague in the House yesterday, that the article in the newspaper La Presse dated March 12 stated as follows:

The ACELF is accusing your department of interfering in this matter. We want to disassociate ourselves from this misstatement and we apologize for having tried to impute motives to the Department of Heritage.

This letter was signed by Mr. Bordeleau and was tabled in the House yesterday. Perhaps the member left the Chamber before the letter was tabled and became a public parliamentary document.

Your second question has to do with the recognition of the Olympic committee. A policy for recognition of the official languages is now part of our sports policy. Those sports groups receiving grants from the federal government, whether a skiing, hockey or other kind of association can only access funds if they respect our official languages policy.

That said, I'm glad that the member supports our bilingualism policy. Just now, we are experiencing a few little problems with his own colleague in Quebec in this respect. We are about to finalize the agreement to set up the marine park of the Saguenay— St. Lawrence that his colleagues in Quebec are refusing to sign because the document is written in French and in English. This is delaying our follow-up on the matter of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. I would hope that the bilingualism policy that we support in the context of our official languages policy would be respected everywhere in Canada by all governments.

Your second question concerned the Court Challenges Program. Unfortunately, the Court Challenges Program was done away with when your colleague was a member of the Conservative government. In 1993, the Liberal government resuscitated the program because they judged it to be very important. When I inherited the official languages files, I saw that it had been decreased by those 9 per cent and I instructed my officials not to decrease funding for the program but to provide for increases. It's important for the French-speaking population in general and that's what allowed us to obtain full school management in Ontario. It's also through it that we might get recognition of the higher cost of French language schooling.

I was actually meeting parents on that last week. It's thanks to the Court Challenges Program that we managed to get recognition for education in French in B.C. It's a very important program and I want us to invest even more in it.

My first act was to restore those 9 percentage points that were cut because I found that such an important budget should not be decreased. It is unfortunate that, at the time he was part of the governing party, your colleague did not vote in favour of the policy he's supporting today.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I still have a minute?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I'm sorry, but your time is finished.

[Translation]

You can come back on the second ground.

Mr. Coderre, if you please.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Welcome to the committee, Madam Minister. I would also like to welcome the students and advise them right away that the Reform Party members do not represent all members on the Official Languages Committee. I would like to say welcome to Jurassic Park.

One thing you can be sure of: you should never wonder whether a language is useful or whether a service in another language is useful. It is essential. When you want to fight to promote a flag, you must also promote those values that are represented by that flag and that is linguistic duality.

Madam Minister, when the Canadian Olympic Association president appeared before us, he served up his humblest apologies. We'll give him the benefit of the doubt. However, I believe you have a role to play in granting subsidies. You said earlier you ensured language was respected. Are you satisfied with the way the organizations you grant subsidies to respect both official languages in general?

• 1610

Ms. Sheila Copps: There are two aspects because the sport policy applies to Canadian federations. If you're interested, we could ask the Director General of Sports to come and speak to you. In passing, I forgot to introduce our Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Canadian Identity, Mr. Norman Moyer, and our Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, Hilaire Lemoine.

The sports file is part of a whole other thing. The Canadian Olympic Association does not get its subsidies in the same way the other national organizations do. The funding we offer to the Canadian Olympic Association is less than 2 per cent and represents $360,000 out of $15 million. So it's not a very big amount. On the other hand, I emphasized, both by telex and in person, that we were ready to help them and work with them to ensure that this would not happen again.

Moreover, we should not forget, as we saw when we were there ourselves at the Olympic Games, as Radio-Canada can say and as Bill Warren also mentioned yesterday, the excellent work done by the volunteers working there 12, 14 or 20 hours out of 24 in both official languages. They did excellent work over there and they weren't being paid. To this amount we contributed, you should also add all those hours of volunteer work. In that context, I suggested to the Canadian Olympic Association that we work on setting up a protocol to be more mindful of the official languages policy which is something essential. It is painful when you can't see yourself in your own Olympic ceremony.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Ms. Copps, I would like to go back to the investment that Heritage Canada has made in French Canadian communities—I don't like the expression "outside of Quebec"—in order to help school boards promote and protect the French language. Do you believe that we should only be investing at the high school level, rather than starting right at kindergarten? Shouldn't we increase grants to French-speaking communities starting right at kindergarten, because that's probably the level where we will strengthen the French fact?

Ms. Sheila Copps: The report Où sont passés les milliards (Where Have the Billions Gone) identifies two problems. First of all, if parents work outside the home and their children can't go to a daycare centre where French is spoken, it's already too late when these children enter school.

Secondly, we have to bear in mind the fact that in general, French schools have not been around for as long. Last week, actually, I met with parents and school board trustees from Manitoba. The trustees had just been elected for the first time. Since their school boards are very new, students who are heading for high school tend to be drawn more towards the English schools, where services are already well organized. For example, the sports teams have been around for 50 years. Many factors come into play, and that's why the school boards and the parents of children going to French schools are asking for an investment that goes beyond just the cost of schooling. In many provinces, people are currently looking at a per capita commitment. Yet the French version of a school book is usually more expensive than the English version.

There are costs that go along with setting up the new system. It really didn't begin until 1971. In some provinces, the system just started this year. In addition to setting up French schools, people have to be able to work in French.

• 1615

If someone went to school in Saint-Boniface but can't work in French, he is forced to assimilate. That is why our five-year plan includes support for community infrastructure projects, and that's why we have made an investment in community centres, as you can see in the chart I showed you.

Mr. Denis Coderre: In closing, Ms. Copps, do you believe that the budget cuts in the past have had an effect on compliance with section 41? Furthermore, what are you ready to do to ensure that when a grant is provided, we will no longer have to call anyone in and ask for apologies?

Ms. Sheila Copps: We have to make a distinction between sections 41 and 42, on the one hand, and the section that ensures the right to schooling. Indeed, sections 41 and 42 have to do with the right to federal services in both official languages. Mr. Jaffer touched on that point. Mr. Marcel Massé regularly reviews compliance with sections 41 and 42. Constant vigilance certainly is required.

As for schooling, once we have managed to establish services and the infrastructure... It's just been done. The system in Newfoundland is only seven years old. In British Columbia, despite a number of claims before the courts, there still are no post- secondary institutions. A larger investment will be necessary. Yes, the minority communities were harmed by the cuts they took.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you, Madam Minister.

The NDP is not here, so we will move to the Conservative Party. Senator Beaudoin and Senator Comeau will share the time. Senators, you can decide which of you will be going first.

[Translation]

Senator Gérald J. Comeau (Nova Scotia, PC): I won't be long, Senator Beaudoin, if you don't mind. Thank you.

Ms. Copps, welcome to the committee. I would like to make a comment about an expression that is becoming more and more common. It's “francophone outside of Quebec.” Our friend Louis Plamondon used it, and we often hear Ms. Tremblay using it. In particular, we hear things like, “It's all over for the francophones outside Quebec.”

I think that this expression is creating problems for French Canadians who do not live in Quebec. They hate being referred to in relation to Quebec.

We are the French Canadians of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and many other parts of Canada, even Alberta where the Reformers are from. There are francophones up there, even if they don't recognize it.

I would like you to stop using this expression in your reports. Perhaps you could discuss it with your officials. It certainly would be better to use other terms.

There's another expression that Canadians are using more and more, which divides the people of Canada. It's the expression “English Canada.” We often hear journalists using it. Even we parliamentarians, who are far more aware of the situation, use the term "English Canada" which gives the impression that there is a French Quebec and that the rest of Canada is English, which is not correct.

There are francophones who live as a minority, for example in Nova Scotia. I believe that we represent about 4 per cent of the population. And yet, we are maintaining our language, and it is very important for us not to be swallowed up within English Canada.

I do hope you will bear in mind these two comments. It's primarily a matter of awareness. Thank you, Ms. Copps.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): If you'd like to answer both at the end, Madam Minister, I'll go to Senator Beaudoin now.

[Translation]

Senator Gerald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): Thank you, Ms. Copps, for accepting this committee's invitation. I would like to make the same comment that I made yesterday. I'll repeat it, because I really believe it.

• 1620

Here people often say that there are so many French Canadians, or so many English Canadians. I don't see it as being a question of arithmetic at all. And there is a very simple reason for that. The Official Languages Act puts French and English on an equal footing, not in a one-third/two-thirds ratio, but on a single footing. Since 1982, the Constitution has very clearly said, in section 16, that the two official languages of Canada are French and English.

So I see this as a red herring that comes up often. People always present the figures. We are not here to do arithmetic, we are here to take care of bilingualism and that kind of thing.

I listened to your presentation carefully, and I looked at your charts. There's one point that has always interested me. It's Part VII of the Official Languages Act. It's not easy, but perhaps we like difficult problems. The Parliament of Canada has made a commitment to do everything it can to promote French and English in Canada. Obviously, many things have been achieved. We have to look squarely at them. Criticism is good, particularly when it is positive.

Of course, we have to cope with a number of cuts. What is being done to promote French more, as stipulated in section 43 of the Act? Are francophones—I won't say “outside Quebec” since my colleague has banned the expression—in other provinces...

Senator Gérald Comeau: In the English provinces.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I'm perfectly able to say what I have to say.

Ms. Sheila Copps: They are not going to agree on that.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I would like to know what is being done and if the French minorities are satisfied with these measures.

Ms. Sheila Copps: You're quite right. Furthermore, you were among the Constitutional experts who worked very hard to enshrine the recognition of both official languages in the Constitution. If people want to talk about rights in terms of numbers, I think we can say that when one person doesn't get his fair share through the Constitution, that's one person too many. Are they satisfied? I think so. That's the message I'm getting from people. You really should have them appear before the committee anyway. But I think that their frustration stems from the fact that once their children have been raised...

I think that Rahim speaks very good French. I don't know where he learned it. These days, many Canadians leave school well educated, in French for example. But once they leave school, they have to go and work in another language. To stop this frustration, we have to first promote the existence of a French-language space for those who are living in a minority situation. That's one of the reasons why we invested in community radio.

Let's take the example of Kapuskasing. It's a small community that always could get the Timmins radio station. My father was born in Haileybury, and I know the region a little bit. He spoke French by the way, but it wasn't French that he had learned at school. People in Kapuskasing have always been able to tune in to the English radio station in Timmins. I think that there just weren't enough people to have a commercial station. So they started a community radio station, and now this community radio station has a 97 per cent rating.

So, people in Kapuskasing can both work in French and listen to the radio in French, even though it is a rather small francophone town. It was just recently that the community radio stations were set up.

Now, other countries, including France, are studying what we have done with the community radio because it seems to be very suitable for communities that are not big enough to sustain a commercial station, but may be interested in particular programming. This also holds true for newspapers and cultural centres.

Would you believe that we have opened up a cultural centre in Sault-Sainte-Marie, where a restaurant is doing well financially even though it operates in French? This is the kind of progress that we have made in the past few years. Ten or 15 years ago, a small minority was fighting the same old battle. Today, people seem to realize that bilingualism adds value. And added value means that it's better than unilingualism.

• 1625

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: If I could just sum up in a few words, it's that sections 41, 42 and 43...

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): That's your few words.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Fine, I'll get back to it later. I obey the law to the letter.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): On the second round.

It's the Liberal Party's turn. I think that the time...

Ms. Sheila Copps: Ms. Finestone, Senator Comeau raised an issue and I agree with him completely.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Go ahead.

Ms. Sheila Copps: If people always talk about French Quebec and English Canada, Quebeckers are surprised that there are a million francophones outside Quebec. They don't realize this, because people always talk about Quebec and Canada, and vice versa.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): It's very interesting that there are anglophones who are in minority positions in parts of Canada as well.

[Translation]

I think there is some overlap between Senator Comeau's question and the question that Senator Losier-Cool wanted to ask. Would you like the floor for a moment, Senator?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Yes, thank you. I was on the list before Senator Comeau, Senator Beaudoin and Mr. Coderre, who have all mentioned this issue.

The expression “francophone outside Quebec” has sparked discussion between the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne for more than 10 years. I believe that the Official Languages Act speaks of “minority francophones.” By the way, Ms. Copps, you use the same expression in your own correspondence.

I believe that language is power, and so I urge all the officials from your department who are here to try to use it as much as possible. Perhaps it's clear to say “francophones outside of Quebec,” but the francophones of British Columbia and Newfoundland do not want to be identified as francophones who are not Quebeckers or who are outside of Quebec, or just identified in relation with Quebec. They would like to be referred to as minority francophones.

To be consistent with the results of our discussions, we should use this term in the report on post-secondary education we submitted to the Senate. We made an effort to talk about universities in minority francophone sectors.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Merci.

We are now in the five-minute section. The speaking order will be the Reform Party, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party.

First, Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I find it interesting that my colleague across the way would bring up Jurassic Park and of course refer to me as a dinosaur. Well, he kind of reminds of the guy in the outhouse.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I think that's an unnecessary.... May I suggest—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Would you carry on, please?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Madam Chair, let's get away from talking about francophones inside or outside Quebec and talk about francophonies from around the world. I understand the government has committed millions of dollars to flying francophonie athletes—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Francophone.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Francophone? Now it's francophone?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): It's not “francophonie” in French. You mean to say francophone.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Francophone...okay. I understand the government has committed to flying francophone athletes from around the world to this country at, of course, Canadian taxpayers' expense, and I want you to respond to that, especially in view of the fact that there are Canadian disabled people who can't get one thin dime out of the government to attend games here in Canada.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Mr. Breitkreuz, I hesitate to respond to your vitriol, because when you hear comments like that it's no wonder that some people feel they don't have a place in this country.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Answer the question, please.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I will take the time to answer the question, just as you've taken the time to deliver it.

The fact is, Madam Chair, that if you want to do a count on money for sports, the amount of money that will be set aside for the Francophone Games is currently about.... The budgets haven't been finalized yet, since the games are not going to be held until 2001, but if you go on the projections, the budget for those games is currently approximately one-thirtieth of the budget for the Commonwealth Games. I find it strange that I haven't heard a peep from you about those games.

• 1630

Secondly, your point about disabled athletes not getting a penny is absolutely false. In fact, only a month ago I launched a program that your party trashed. The program called for the establishment of a carding system for Paralympian athletes. It means that, for the first time, Paralympic athletes will have the same right to a monthly stipend to help them do their training, just like Olympic athletes.

The thing I find frustrating—and the reason you are accused of playing the politics of division—is that when you're trying to build bridges in a country, you don't build bridges by basically trashing the other language group. You build bridges by understanding each other, by recognizing the fact that building Canada means building in both official languages. The games that we intend to have in Hull-Ottawa in the year 2001 will hopefully help kids across our country to get to know each other a little bit better, and that might prevent them from taking the positions that you take.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Jaffer, you have one minute, thirty seconds.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Yes, if I could just respond, I think I would just like to correct the minister. I don't think it's a process of trashing, but one of trying to reveal to some extent the realities that exist in this country. Maybe there's a question of eloquence in suggesting that, but I think it was wrong for her to say we trashed it. I disagree with that.

Since I don't know the procedure, Madam Chair, one thing I would like to do is ask something through you, if I could. In light of having had Mr. Warren here yesterday, I was thinking about something that my colleague raised. We appreciated having Mr. Warren here, and appreciated being able to ask him questions. I think he had apologized for the problems that existed with the Olympic committee a month in advance of coming here, so I think one of the things that surprised me was the viciousness, to some extent, the tone of some of the members toward Mr. Warren.

If I could have unanimous consent from the members, maybe we could ask the Minister of Heritage to write him a letter apologizing for that behaviour, first of all, but also just saying that we congratulate his work in responding to the problem so quickly, and also for his work at the Olympics. I'm wondering if we could have unanimous consent in regard to yesterday's shenanigans.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Jaffer, with all due respect, as normal procedure, this committee will send a letter of thanks to each of the witnesses who come here. We will certainly thank Mr. Warren in the name of the committee. That is our responsibility, and that's what we shall do.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I have a point of order.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes, Mr. Coderre. If it wasn't for you, what would I do?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: As a francophone representative from Quebec, member and vice-chair of this joint committee, do I also have the right to move a censure motion against the Reform Party for having spoken so viciously against the French fact and for not working realistically?

I would also be ready to move a censure motion against the Reform Party. And if it doesn't apologize, I would even be ready to move that they not even sit here because they do not represent the interests of any official language.

[English]

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Madam Chair, this is out of order. This is ridiculous.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much, Mr. Coderre.

Madam Minister, I think we will continue with the next speaker, and that will be Mr. McWhinney.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Excuse me, Madam Chair, but I did ask for unanimous consent. Will you at least—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I did not give consent. I'm sorry.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: But aren't you—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): No, there's no unanimous consent. Thank you very much.

Mr. McWhinney.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam Chair, I might just say that it would be beyond the mandate of this commission to ask the minister to undertake a function that is that of the committee. It is a good judgment.

Madam Minister, may I ask you to comment on the position of anglophones in Quebec? Also, so far as it touches federal jurisdiction—and I add that qualification—what is the position of the ministry in regard to the Official Languages Act in relation to allophones in Quebec—that is to say, persons whose maternal language is neither English nor French in terms of comprehension of either official language?

• 1635

Ms. Sheila Copps: In terms of allophones, again, it's a language issue. If you're talking about the representation of minority language groups across the country, I think it might be useful at some future point to invite the Secretary of State, Dr. Hedy Fry, to come to the committee to address that issue specifically.

In terms of anglophone minorities, I have always said, and I think it's a fact of history, that historically the anglophone minority in Quebec has had a well-established system of services in health care, in education and in school boards, and so on.

The challenge—and the challenge that I hope our friends in the Bloc will take up—is that just as we are working very hard to encourage respect for the duality of Canada's languages, I think the fear of the anglophone community in Quebec is that some of the rights and responsibilities they had enjoyed over the years are actually being diminished. If we really want to work to build a strong country, I think we want to work in both languages across the country.

I am not going to go to Edmonton and have the kind of anti-French discourse that I heard today from the Reform Party, and I'm not going to go to Montreal and have the kind of anti-English discourse that I've heard from some of the members of the Bloc Québécois. I think what we need is a recognition that two languages and the blending of cultures makes us a stronger and a better country, and that the whole is better than the sum of the parts. That's the whole message that I think is now starting to come through in official languages.

I can't believe Mr. Breitkreuz's trashing the official languages program when his own colleague is an example of how it is working today.

When I was a kid in high school, I learned to speak French. I grew up in a system where we didn't have French language training. I happened to go to a Catholic school. I had a Grey Nun. We had an hour of conversational French a week, and the rest of it was all literature. I didn't have the opportunity that young people have today to learn language at an early age. I didn't start learning French until I was 12 or 13 years of age.

I think the fact that kids today have that opportunity is a plus. I was lucky enough to love the language and to make it my business to learn it and to learn it well. But it wasn't because of the school system; it was because I sat before a mirror and repeated “un, deux, trois”. I forced myself to learn what I think is a beautiful language and a great addition to my country.

For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone who is exposed to cultures in the way we are as members of Parliament would take the position that is narrow-minded and very provincial, frankly, that is being expressed by parties who want to pursue a unilingual policy, not a bilingual policy.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Thank you, Madam Minister.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Quoting Mr. Bouchard and what he has to say about bilingualism will doubtless serve as a reminder to the people around the table that Quebeckers are bilingual. Most of those who want to be so are so and there are many of them, as the statistics you quoted showed. Mr. Bouchard is proud to have bilingual children. I myself am proud that my children are bilingual. I for one don't consider this to be a contentious issue as it is very useful to be bilingual and even more so to be trilingual.

I don't think this is necessarily a contentious issue between the federalists you represent and the sovereignists we represent. Beyond that question, there's the whole national question that is not first and foremost about language, or only about language.

I would like to remind you that Quebec's successive governments, whether inclined toward federalism or sovereignty, have not needed and do not need to be preached to about how to treat minorities, nor about the fact that language rights were granted that were entrenched in legislation and recognized by the Charters, nor on their interpretation by Quebec courts. We don't have to preached to by anyone, especially not by the governments of the other provinces of Canada that the federal government tries to help, often against their own will.

• 1640

Our colleague mentioned Jurassic Park and the movies. I for one would like to point out that when you present data on that matter I get the impression that you're viewing La vie en rose, which is a very good movie that I encourage you to see, or, in other words, that you're viewing life through rose-coloured glasses. You don't address the problem that the francophone and Acadian communities run up against and the word "Acadian" is the term the francophones prefer themselves. I was very surprised, Madam Minister, to hear you talk about the francophones outside of Quebec as even we, the sovereignists, now talk about the francophone and Acadian communities.

You know very well that in the francophone and Acadian communities there's a significant decrease in the number of people speaking French at home. That should be a concern to you because it means your policies are a failure in many respects. I'd like to hear your comments on that question.

I'd also like to talk about bilingualism to you because bilingualism does not always seem to be appreciated by the francophone and Acadian communities. The events surrounding the Semaine nationale de la francophonie have taught us, through ACELF, that the francophone and Acadian communities do not at all appreciate seeing the francophone week becoming a bilingual one and that the bilingualism of the event is being promoted.

I would like to quote to you, once more, what ACELF said in a press release put out yesterday, stating:

We firmly believe that respect for the mission of the Semaine created by the ACELF in 1993 will be shown by respecting its unilingual francophone character.

So could you tell us why your government wanted to make the Semaine nationale de la francophonie bilingual despite the francophone and Acadian communities wanting it to be unilingual?

Ms. Sheila Copps: First of all, Mr. Turp, I think you're wrong when you say that this group you're mentioning, the ACELF, has the last word in that matter because I also have a press release that I'd like to quote:

In hot water: Gilles Duceppe and the year 2001 Jeux de la francophonie in Ottawa-Hull.

Why does the head of the Bloc Québécois, [...] suffer from foot-in- mouth disease each time he speaks about the Canadian francophonie?

This is a press release put out by the federation of francophone and Acadian communities. You spoke about the francophone and Acadian communities and I'm quoting their federation:

Mr. Duceppe has just completed a tour of the west during which he met representatives of the francophone communities in that area of the country, said the chair of the FCFA. Despite that, he didn't seem to have understood—

Mr. Daniel Turp: Madam Copps, we're not in the House of Commons here. Just answer our questions.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Answer the two questions and we'll debate the matter later.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'm sorry, but you did throw accusations at us concerning the francophone and Acadian communities.

Mr. Daniel Turp: We only put one question, Ms. Copps. I put a question that francophones have been asking. You quote Gilles Duceppe and what he said about the Jeux de la francophonie. Just talk to us about the Semaine nationale de la francophonie!

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Turp, point of order, please.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: This is not a court of law. Cross-examination is not acceptable. A question is posed and it is left to the respondent to make his or her answer.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much. Madam Minister.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: That's just it, she's not answering the question.

Senator Louis J. Robichaud (L'Acadie—Acadia, Lib.): She's answering, but you're not leaving her a chance to do it.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: We're talking about China and she's throwing the USA back at us.

Ms. Sheila Copps: If I got this right when I reread the Hansard, you attributed comments to the federation of francophone and Acadian communities.

Mr. Daniel Turp: No. I read the press release they put out yesterday.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'm quoting a press release put out today by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne which states, and I quote:

Mr. Duceppe has just completed a tour of the west during which he met representatives of the francophone communities in that area [...]. Despite that, he does not seem to have understood that Quebec does not represent the francophone and Acadian communities of Canada. In any case, I doubt it is the Quebec government's contention to represent all of the Canadian French-speaking community.

• 1645

Mr. Daniel Turp: Answer my question, Ms. Copps. I'm talking about the Semaine nationale de la francophonie.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Mr. Turp, you made comments to the effect that—

An hon. member: Let her answer.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, but that's the point, she's not answering. She is not answering. Okay, I won't say another word. I want an answer to my question.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Excuse me. I have given great latitude to you, Monsieur Turp, and to you as well, Madam Minister. I would appreciate it if you would respond to Mr. Turp's questions within the next minute or so, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Sheila Copps: Mr. Turp says the Quebec government has done everything in its power to respect the laws of the minorities. I'd like to point out to him that right now we're stuck on a bill concerning the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park because the Quebec government is refusing to approve the text in English.

It seems to me that if you want to respect both official languages, it has to be in the two languages. I'd just like to quote a text:

I recognize that Bill 178 is an awful thing. The anglophones were misled by the Premier. I recognize it was traumatic for them. I don't feel comfortable with Bill 178. As far as I'm concerned, prohibiting a language, prohibiting the use of English, I'm not very hot on that.

Those are the comments made by Lucien Bouchard in 1991. Those are not my comments.

Mr. Daniel Turp: You didn't answer me, Ms. Copps. You don't want to answer to francophones. I'm not the one criticizing the fact that you want to bilingualize the Semaine nationale de la francophonie. It is the francophones. Why do want to make that week bilingual even though they want it to be unilingual?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Hon. Sheila Finestone): Thank you, Mr. Turp. You will respect the rules of this table.

[Translation]

Ms. Sheila Copps: If you come to the Fête des Acadiens et des francophones tonight, you'll see that it's happening in French. And the fact there are more people becoming involved and more people who know that this event is taking place in Canada is a good point for Canada's French-speaking population.

And if you want to get several opinions, go have a word with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes. No one said anything about attempting to introduce English into the Semaine de la francophonie, except you who are always trying to pose as the victim. You're experts at the victim image game.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Paradis, please.

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Madam Minister, welcome to this committee. I'd like to start off with two things.

First, I think that TVOntario and TVA have submitted the idea of extending their French language television activities to the whole country. What is your department's position on that? Are you looking at helping TVOntario and TVA?

Second, during a tour with a group of French parliamentarians last year, in BC. we were told that French CBC radio did not have any receiving antenna on Vancouver Island to cover Victoria and Vancouver Island. We were asked if it would be possible to get a receiving antenna on Vancouver Island, in Victoria, to be able to tune in the French CBC.

Those are the two points I wanted to emphasize. But there's also something else I'd like to mention more generally. I think— and many participants have pointed this out—that it's important to promote the image of a bilingual Canada.

In Brome-Missisquoi, my own riding, that has 42 municipalities, 80% of the people speak French and 20% English. There is something that unites all those people in the Brome-Missisquoi riding and that's the understanding, the open- mindedness and the sensitivity they show towards one another.

I am repeating this today because our Reform colleague sounded off again and that, in my humble opinion, is totally deplorable. Following up on that, wouldn't your department have some interest in making more of an effort to increase this understanding between the two language groups in our country?

I'll just give you the example of the project your department supported last year and that is being worked on this year concerning a student exchange: Quebec students would go get some summer work experience in another Canadian province. They would spend an eight-week immersion with a family where they could practise their second language.

• 1650

Has your department made provisions for other measures or programs? I would actually invite the Minister for Heritage Canada to find additional ways to increase understanding between the two language groups of this country so that comments like the ones coming from the Reform Party today can be put to rest. Efficient ways have to be found, it seems to me.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): If you wait too long you won't get an answer from the minister. And we know you're wonderful with your committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: Madam Minister, we have to find things that will unite rather than divide. I'll conclude this here and ask you for your comments.

Ms. Sheila Copps: First of all, I don't know the details concerning the radio antenna, but I think the decision to extend the network to Victoria has already been made.

Second, concerning Ontario French language television, it's only the Quebec Minister of Culture who is blocking the signal in Quebec. She doesn't want to have Ontario French language television in Quebec even though she is claiming that there are not enough French language networks, which is true. I actually wrote to her a few months ago to ask her to please consider welcoming Ontario French language television in Quebec. It's being broadcast presently in New Brunswick and there are attempts out West, but I'm still waiting for her answer.

I know that TVA is presently thinking about a national, pancanadian French language television network and I think a request will be made to the CRTC very soon. But it must be said that it's hard to change attitudes and it's not a departmental program or project that can change things.

Mr. Turp mentioned La vie en rose or rose-coloured glasses. Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, that's true. Twenty-five years ago, young francophones in my riding did not have the right to French schools. They have that right now and that's a lot of young people ensuring the survival of those schools.

But history can also hurt, like the Louis Riel case, for example. Scars are left that require more than an exchange program to be erased. It's ongoing work.

Personally, I completely agree with you. If we really want Canada to thrive, we have to start setting aside the problems we've known. When the senator spoke about English Canada, I remembered my father who was the first Catholic mayor elected in Hamilton in the sixties. The Protestants campaigned against him. If you want to talk about rights that didn't exist, I could also mention that my grandmother didn't have the right to vote. But the past should not prevent us working in the present context. We have to start today. Together, we can thrive in a bilingual rather than a unilingual country.

Mr. Bouchard recognizes this fact when he goes to the US. He does say that it's important to know both languages, but he doesn't mention that in the Saguenay.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: But we say exactly the same thing, of course.

An hon. member: That's not serious.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Exactly the same thing everywhere.

An hon. member: His name isn't Chrétien.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Senator Simard, please.

Senator Jean-Maurice Simard: I am Jean-Maurice Simard. I am Senator for New Brunswick.

I have five minutes for my comments and a question.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): You can put your questions and then the Minister can answer after that, if you want. You can use up your five minutes as you wish.

Senator Jean-Maurice Simard: First, I'll deflate another Liberal balloon.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Go ahead.

Senator Jean-Maurice Simard: I'm referring to Minister Copps' presentation. It's all very well and good to compare the 1971 situation to the one in 1991.

• 1655

You must admit there have been improvements over those 20 years. But we're now in 1998. Even though the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada, the Official Languages Commissioner, Dr. Goldbloom, the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, the SNA and objective observers talk about progress, I think we should actually be addressing deterioration of services for francophones in Canada since 1993 and maybe even since 1990.

So the Liberal Party, the Bloc, I am sure of that, and the Progressive Conservative Party have a common interest in rallying shoulder to shoulder to face the Reform Party. We are allies.

Ms. Sheila Copps: You're actually more on the sovereignist side.

Senator Jean-Maurice Simard: Since 1967, I have often given credit to Gérard Pelletier. I've given credit to Louis Robichaud. We must also give credit to Mulroney. You blamed the Mulroney government twice for having cut off the Court Challenges Program, but you forgot to say that you slashed 200 million dollars, between 1993 and 1998, from the protocol concerning the teaching of French as a second language for the minority.

Not to criticize you, but you did mention twice, in your presentation or in answering a colleague, the good results obtained by the community radio program. You doubtless remember that you were in Parliament, in the Opposition, when the Mulroney government set up that program. So we should rally shoulder to shoulder, Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc members and even more so in view of the fact that the members of the Bloc, five or six years ago, announced a policy in favour of the francophone communities in Canada.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Do you have a question, Senator?

Senator Jean-Maurice Simard: Yes. Earlier, you mentioned vigilance. I would rather talk about attacking assimilation. I've spoken to neutral and objective observers and associations that have been reporting their observations for the past two years. Yesterday, I even read a press release from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. We will be welcoming them here soon, as a matter of fact. They have made observations and will have questions for you.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Could you conclude, please?

Senator Jean-Maurice Simard: I think that instead of running around bragging, we should make a commitment to improve things. I will conclude with that.

• 1700

Even in New Brunswick, deficit-related problems have been invoked for the past ten years. French-language services were offered in northern New Brunswick for 15 years as part of an agreement. We're talking about 15% to 25% compared to the south. The McKenna government invoked rigour and deficit control, not to reduce but in fact to increase the gap.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I think you will recognize that the senator doesn't come very often, so we'll let him have a couple of extra minutes.

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Maurice Simard: Your government signed service agreements and transferred its own obligations to the English provinces. That's not saying much. I get the impression that it was neither a good manoeuvre nor a good project.

Madam Minister, do you get the impression that since your government took power in 1993 there has been progress or deterioration?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I agree with you that the issue of recognition and enhancement of both official languages must not be a question of partisan politics. Among the things done by Brian Mulroney, we can certainly point out his support for both official languages, which is not the case with the Bloc Québécois.

You talked about a common front, but it wouldn't be with a party that wants to have the other side of the coin of the Reform Party. The Reform Party talks about an English Canada that doesn't speak French, and the Bloc Québécois talks about a French Quebec that doesn't speak English.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Please address your position, if you will; we'll discuss our own.

Ms. Sheila Copps: The census on which we based our presentation is the last one available. A census is conducted every ten years and the next one, which is planned for 2001, will give us another perspective. When Mr. Goldbloom appeared before the committee and described the current situation compared to what prevailed in 1991, he said he had noted improvements. It's not a matter of going around bragging; there are still deficiencies, and serious ones.

With regard to education, even when we manage to get funding per inhabitant—which just occurred in British Columbia and Newfoundland among others—it wasn't sufficient to provide educational value that didn't previously exist. This is why in the negotiations for the new five-year plan, we intend to demand to see their action plan rather than simply give them funding per resident. We want to familiarize ourselves with their action plan and know how they will fill the gap that exists in education, wherever there was no francophone education previously.

We also need investment in infrastructure, both in community centres and community radio stations, which began in the 80s.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): And for neighbourhood newspapers as well, isn't that right?

Ms. Sheila Copps: All in all, I would say that together we must fight any reduction in official language rights. I have some problems with the Bloc policy because it is oriented towards the past. In the past, Quebec was the best served, but in the future, we will have to respect both official languages.

• 1705

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Madam Minister, I'm sorry, but we're going to have to leave here at 5.15 p.m.

Madam Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you.

Before I ask you a question, I just want to take issue with something that Mr. Turp said, which is that Quebec has no lessons to learn from the rest of Canada.

Just on one little point, maybe Quebec could learn something. The civil service in the province of Quebec is 97% French-Canadian in origin. The English-speaking community comprises 10%, yet we don't have adequate representation in the provincial civil service.

At the federal level, however, French Canadians across Quebec are more than represented, maybe not all the way through, but they comprise a minimum of 25% of the federal civil service across Canada. So I think there may be a little lesson that the provincial government could learn—and that's provincial under the provincial Liberals or under the Parti Québécois.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I agree. We could learn.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Here's my question for you, Madam Minister. I read your report and listened to you when you talked about francophone education outside of Quebec and the fact that, for instance, drop-out rates have been substantially reduced. And part of that is as a result of the investments and the programs that have been carried out by the official languages branch.

Anglophones—English-speaking Quebeckers—particularly in the English-speaking ethnocultural communities, have a drop-out rate that is higher than the national average and higher than the provincial average. Among English-speaking black youth, for instance, the drop-out rate is enormous. It's scandalous. It's unacceptable.

I'd like to know what you are doing in order to address that problem inside Quebec. And I do understand that education is a provincial matter, but there are things the official languages branch can do. If we're doing it outside of Quebec, we can also do it inside Quebec.

Ms. Sheila Copps: We are investing in official languages minority education in Quebec and across the country. It's not just for francophones outside of Quebec.

The difference, Marlene, is that outside Quebec, until recently, many provinces had absolutely no schooling, so they're starting from ground zero. In terms of investment, the English-language school system in Quebec has been very well entrenched and the value-added of education has been developed over a number of years because there has been English-language education.

In terms of the larger question of drop-out rates among minorities, I don't think that's a problem exclusive to the province of Quebec. I think if you go to downtown Toronto—and I've done some work on it in my previous capacity, when I was involved in the provincial government—you will see that the drop-out rate among young blacks in Toronto is probably the highest in the country.

I think we have a problem vis-à-vis opening the doors for full opportunity for all Canadians. If I can say this in an indirect way, the policy of recognizing and respecting two cultures and two languages lends itself to respect for many languages. That's why 25 years ago we established a policy of multiculturalism. I think that in the same way as we cannot look at the world with rose-coloured glasses vis-à-vis francophone minorities, the situation is even more difficult for visible minorities across this country.

We talked a little earlier about sport. Ben Johnson, when he was a gold medallist, was a Canadian, and when he had his problems he was an immigrant. I think there are many examples of this. If you look at Donovan Bailey's comments after he won his gold medal, which were very valid, he was absolutely crucified because he actually said that racism exists in this country.

We do have racism and we have to fight it, but I think the programs that can fight racism are programs that must build on a policy of respect for more than one culture. If you want to delve into that in greater detail, I think it might be a subject for this committee vis-à-vis the policies that we've put in place with minority culture development. You might get a better handle on that by asking Dr. Hedy Fry to come before the committee.

• 1710

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

I have another question that sort of builds on that. I think learning a second language, a third language, or as many languages as possible is enriching. Studies have shown that the earlier children are exposed to more than one language the better they do in school, the more successful they are later in life, etc.

However, we have a whole generation of English-speaking Quebeckers who did not benefit from adequate second-language training in French. With the situation of the economy where you're getting downsizing etc., and because of Bill C-101, where French is the working language in any company of more than 50 employees, a significant number of English-speaking Quebeckers are out of jobs. Some are professionals and some are skilled workers who are unable to recycle themselves and are not eligible for second-language courses because they're not of immigrant origin. They didn't come here as immigrants; they were born and raised in Quebec.

It's an issue I've raised before and I'm raising it again. I think having a second language should be considered a basic job skill, particularly in Quebec, and therefore it should receive support from the official languages. I'd like to know your views on that.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You mean learning French as a second language.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: That's right.

Ms. Sheila Copps: In the next round of negotiations, the funding will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 million per year to provinces to develop minority language education. There's nothing preventing the Government of Quebec from investing in second-language learning for native-speaking Quebeckers.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I can tell you it's not.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Marlene, I'm sorry. I know the minister must go. Please pardon me for cutting you off.

Ms. Sheila Copps: It's something you may want to take up with the good offices of our colleagues from the Bloc. Maybe we could get the provincial government in Quebec to expand its policies. I don't know.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I think this is an important question that perhaps can be pursued at another time. I know Senator Beaudoin had a small question.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I have just one question.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You'll have to ask the minister if she's willing to stay to hear your question, because she really must be leaving.

[Translation]

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I believe it was Mr. Plamondon who raised the issue of court challenges. I've always been in favour of them and I want to state that very clearly. I congratulate you for having introduced them.

But what is happening now? Is it continuing? Will it go on like this? I'm always afraid that there could be cutbacks at some point. If you tell me that the government's intention is to—

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): No cuts.

[Translation]

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: No cuts. You know, history can repeat itself.

Ms. Sheila Copps: We want to examine the possibility of an increase, because quite obviously, we will have to review our investment in the Court Challenges Program. If we look at the timetable of constitutional rights, we see that in the past 10 years, the arrival of the Charter has borne much fruit in the area of minority language education.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: You're thinking of increasing it?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I want to increase it.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I see. That answers my question.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Currently, there's a maximum for certain cases, which we would also like to review.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: So much the better!

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp: It's my question again.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Which one?

Mr. Daniel Turp: I know that you like to play politics, but what would you answer francophones who say that their events—

Ms. Sheila Copps: Who? Who?

Mr. Daniel Turp: The francophone and Acadian communities.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Who? Who?

Mr. Daniel Turp: The ACELF.

Ms. Sheila Copps: The one that had the contract last year?

Mr. Daniel Turp: No, no.

Ms. Sheila Copps: The one that wants the contract this year and that has seen its contract increase by 25%?

Mr. Daniel Turp: It's the ACELF.

Ms. Sheila Copps: That's the one that had the contract.

Mr. Daniel Turp: No, no, the ACELF would like to see the Week take place in French.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Madam Minister, I thank you on behalf of the committee.

[Translation]

Ms. Sheila Copps: But it is in French. Did you go? Participate in it and you will see that it is in French. Come on Friday morning.

Mr. Daniel Turp: But why do you think that—

Ms. Sheila Copps: No one is speaking English there, good heavens.

Mr. Daniel Turp: But why do you think they are condemning bilingualism at that event? Why?

Ms. Sheila Copps: But who did that?

Mr. Daniel Turp: Obviously you don't read—

• 1715

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I'm going to have to turn your mikes off. I'm sorry.

Madam Minister, Madam Cool, please say goodbye and thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you very much, Madam Minister and members of the committee. We're going to celebrate with the Acadians.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): On behalf of French Canadians.

Meeting adjourned.