LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 9, 1997

• 1534

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, we have a quorum. It is my pleasure today to welcome the Honourable Marcel Massé, President of the Treasury Board, and Mr. Gaston Guénette, Official Languages Assistant Secretary.

Mr. Massé is here until 4:30 p.m. Mr. Massé, there are usually more of us at our meetings. So I imagine others will eventually join us. However, so that we can have the opportunity to ask you questions, I believe we'll begin right away and hope the other committee members arrive shortly.

So welcome here among us.

Mr. Marcel Massé (President of Treasury Board): Thank you, Madam Chairman. With your permission, I will first give the committee members a brief introduction.

• 1535

Ladies and gentlemen, committee members. I intend to be brief and to allow as much time as possible for your questions. With me here today are representatives of my department who will answer any specific questions you may have. They include Mr. Guénette, whom you mentioned a moment ago.

I am very pleased to be President of the Treasury Board, which is responsible for implementation of the official languages policy within the federal public administration. I should also say that, as regards official languages, we are on the right track. You are aware of the extent to which Canadians have supported the government's efforts to reduce the deficit and to put its fiscal house in order. In 1996-1997, the Public Service's Official Languages Program cost $260 million, $4 million less than in 1995- 1996.

[English]

Government services in both official languages are still provided in regions where numbers warrant, despite the reduction in the size of the government. A year ago, your committee recommended that the government expand the federal institutions' responsibility for official languages. We listened to you. This past March, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and I signed a letter of understanding giving the Treasury Board Secretariat the mission of making the key institutions shoulder their responsibility for implementation of section 41 of the act.

The president of the Treasury Board is also required to report to Parliament each year on the performance of the official languages programs in the federal institutions. On October 22 of this year, I tabled in Parliament the annual report on official languages for 1996-97. This report reviews the progress and challenges of institutional bilingualism in the federal organizations. The situation is generally positive for the three components of the program: service to the public, language of work, and the equitable participation of anglophones and francophones in the federal public service.

The Treasury Board Secretariat is translating the major official languages principles into action by establishing concrete and realistic annual objectives. Next year, to determine the extent to which our objectives are being achieved, we will conduct the third phase of an audit of the quality of services to the public in a number of cities across Canada. This exercise will determine whether offices required to provide service in both official languages are adequately discharging this obligation. The Treasury Board Secretariat will also continue to make the managers of those offices aware of the importance of their official languages obligations.

[Translation]

Despite budget cuts, we have maintained the proportion of bilingual supervisors who meet the linguistic requirements of their positions at 90 percent. In the past year, the number of bilingual positions requiring superior second-language proficiency rose seven percent and, as of March 31, 1997, represented 27 percent of all bilingual supervisory positions.

Despite all this progress, much remains to be done to ensure that all Canadians can communicate comfortably in their first official language in all their dealings with federal employees. But I believe that, by setting realistic and concrete annual objectives, we will be able to make Canada an even better place to live.

In conclusion, the government is introducing a new culture into the federal public administration. This means better service, provided by employees who are increasingly capable of serving our fellow citizens in Canada's two official languages. We have got government right, we have carried out the Program Review and we are providing all Canadians with federal services in Canada's two official languages.

Thank you. I am ready to answer your questions.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Hilstrom, would you like to take the floor, please?

[English]

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Thank you very much.

I have a couple of questions in reference to section 41. What measures has the Treasury Board Secretariat taken to fulfil the responsibilities entrusted to it under the memorandum of agreement of March 20, 1997?

• 1540

Specifically, will the TBS be undertaking a proper evaluation of the activities of the federal institution with a view to ensuring that section 41 of the Official Languages Act is implemented?

As well, will there be an accountability mechanism for federal institutions that do not do enough to live up to their particular section 41 responsibilities?

Mr. Marcel Massé: According to the memorandum of understanding, there are 27 key institutions that implement section 41, and we have indicated to each one of these institutions, directly, that their strategic orientations must identify exactly what they can do and intend to do to help the development of official languages minorities.

We do this through the business plan. As you may know, after the program review we have asked every department and institution under Treasury Board to come up with a yearly business plan. This is a three-year plan, rolling, adding one year every year. They're reviewed every year by Treasury Board.

When we look at the strategic orientations of these institutions, we of course look at the financial requirements but also we have added their role under section 41 of the Official Languages Act, and therefore we check this every year under this.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Do you feel that takes care of the accountability part of it?

Mr. Marcel Massé: Yes, because they have to indicate to us what their objectives are. They have to make a plan of implementation—for instance, in terms of service to the public, how many of their offices have to be able to offer services in the two languages and so on. Then they have to give us in their business plan what the rate of implementation has been and is to be in future years.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes, and I assume there's enough employee support programs in place in that to implement that business plan.

Mr. Marcel Massé: Yes. In terms of our own ability to check these things, there has been a reduction in Mr. Guénette's section from, I think, 34 employees to 30, if I remember well, but their responsibilities have remained the same. We've asked them to increase their productivity, and in the departments themselves we've asked them to produce the results and they have to reassign their staff according to their own choices.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I have another question here regarding the Commissioner of Official Languages. Apparently when he appeared before the standing joint committee on November 4 he deplored the fact that, as a general rule, federal-provincial devolution agreements confine themselves to stating that services will be provided in the language of the minority where numbers warrant, rather than stipulating that the Official Languages Act would continue to apply.

The question then basically is, why has Treasury Board taken this approach, which is a considerable step backward from the proactive approach set out in part VII of the act and from the guarantee of a mechanism for recourse and redress? Have you any comments in regard to that?

Mr. Marcel Massé: This is a question we have to deal with whenever there is devolution, like for Air Canada, NAV CAN, and so on, so it's an actual problem. The principle that we've chosen is a case-by-case principle.

There are a number of factors that are taken in coming to that decision. One of these is the nature of the functions or the mandate of the organization. Then the second one is where they are exercising their functions. Is it an agency that is restricted to either a small group of the population or one area of the country, or is it, like Air Canada or Canadian National, an institution that covers the whole country and the whole territory? We have to take into account the kinds of people that are served, the kinds of freedom and flexibility that are given to that new organization that implements the devolution, and the government that will have jurisdiction on it.

• 1545

For instance, the Official Languages Act applies totally to Air Canada, Canadian National, and NAV CAN because of their responsibility across the nation. In the case of large airports like Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, or Montreal, the parts of the Official Languages Act that apply are sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10. So the answer to your question is that we're trying to adapt the regime for official languages to the nature, functions, and characteristics of the institution.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: But with the view of eventually getting back to applying it the way it's intended, I guess.

Mr. Marcel Massé: Yes. Our purpose is always to give services in both official languages wherever required, and “wherever required” is defined as “a minimum where numbers warrant”.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I have another short one here in regard to that same meeting and the Commissioner of Official Languages. He was commenting on the deficit reduction measures that had resulted in what appeared to be a disproportionate reduction in the number of offices designated bilingual as the downsizing happened. You mentioned that.

How many service points for the general public had been closed? How many of such service points that were designated bilingual were closed? What measures were taken to get these back in place? Will that come with the increase in budgets again?

Mr. Marcel Massé: What I'm told here is that 12,800 points of service have been identified; 3,600 of these are bilingual. In the commissioner's report, he was mentioning a figure of a 20% decrease in the number of bilingual offices. We checked with his office and we've come to the conclusion that the actual figure is much lower than this.

We've compared the 1994-95 figures that were included in the report of the president of Treasury Board, where 32.4%, which is the equivalent of the 3,600 offices, had the obligation to give bilingual services. This proportion is now 28%. In other words, there is a smaller percentage, but it's smaller by about 4%.

There is a smaller percentage of offices that give bilingual services; however, the offices that have been closed usually are those that had the least number of clients. We've checked to see what was the service available in these offices in terms of the number of bilingual personnel who were available in the offices that remain, and in fact the percentage of bilingual personnel in these offices increased during that same period.

We're reasonably satisfied that the service given to the public has remained at about the same level and quality. We have at present a series of inquiries that will result in our third audit and we will also look at that question in our audit.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Minister, I would like to welcome you here today.

Some of the federal institutions subject to the Official Languages Act have not filed reports for 1996-1997. In fact, only a few have done so. Can you take coercive measures to require certain institutions to file their reports? That's my first question.

The second concerns the way in which official languages evaluations, self-evaluations, are conducted. Don't you get the impression that asking a federal organization to conduct a self- evaluation of its compliance with the Official Languages Act is somewhat like asking a criminal to decide on his own sentence?

• 1550

Mr. Marcel Massé: First, I'll ask Mr. Guénette to provide the facts on the institutions that have or have not filed reports.

Mr. Gaston Guénette (Official Languages Assistant Secretary, Human Resources Branch, Treasury Board): All departments and Crown corporations, in short, all federal institutions, must submit annual official languages reports to the Treasury Board Secretariat. This is done at the end of the year, on June 30 of each year. These are in fact self-evaluations conducted by the departments.

However, to supplement these self-evaluations, we have mechanisms for controlling or monitoring the departments. Treasury Board teams regularly go into the departments to determine whether the institutions are complying with the commitments they have made and whether the situation within the departments is indeed consistent with what is described in the annual management reports.

The self-evaluations are also supplemented by a series of audits. The Treasury Board Secretariat itself conducts certain audits, as the Minister just said. In addition, the Commissioner of Official Languages, of course, conducts his own audits. So we use the audit reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages and those done by the institutions themselves.

Over the past year, more specifically, approximately 10 institutions conducted their audits and sent us copies of their audit reports.

In addition to the audits conducted by these three authorities, we indicate to the departments and institutions the key areas we would like them to examine, to which they should pay particular attention, and audit the results.

I could also round out my answer by adding that the Treasury Board Secretariat, in the context of a helping relationship, conducts what we call checks. We go into offices, service points, among the 3,800 that were mentioned earlier, to see whether signage, for example, is adequate so that clients know that service is offered in both official languages, that service is provided by telephone or in person.

When these checks are made directly at service points, we act as part of a helping relationship and by providing advice to departments. We've realized that, in some cases, office managers were not aware of their obligations to provide service in both official languages.

Mr. Marcel Massé: To answer your question, I realize that self-evaluations are very often conducted on the basis of a sample. Even the Auditor General does not audit all the accounts of institutions; he takes a sample of institutions.

We came to the conclusion that we also had to conduct audits by sample to ensure that the various reports submitted by the institutions were consistent with the actual situation. For that reason, based on the figures since 1995, we conducted some 700 audits in the various offices to ensure that the figures provided by the institutions were consistent with the actual situation.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: So you conducted 700 audits, two a day.

Mr. Massé, let's talk about budget cuts. The Commissioner of Official Languages was quite severe on one issue which was raised by my reform colleague on bilingual regions. But he was also severe... Rather I should say disappointed. He seemed disappointed by the major cuts that were made to the monitoring of services provided in both languages across Canada.

Have you observed any relationship between the cuts made to services and the last Statistics Canada report confirming a deterioration in the situation of Francophones outside Quebec, that is a three percent reduction in the number of Francophones speaking French in the home, except in the Yukon, where there was a slight increase?

So even though there was a very noble intention to achieve a great bilingual Canada, with the aid of the Official Languages Act and monitoring which you have definitely established, like your predecessors, no doubt with the best intentions in the world, we have witnessed a certain failure to implement the policy, based on Statistics Canada's 1996 census.

• 1555

So should an effort be made to change direction, monitoring methods or the implementation of the Official Languages Act to prevent Francophones outside Quebec from disappearing in the near future?

Mr. Marcel Massé: What you say raises many sub-questions.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: It's virtually a judgment.

Mr. Marcel Massé: As regards the cuts, you probably know my opinion. The government had no other choice but to make the cuts in all sectors, in a government where all things are considered essential by those who are concerned with them. I know that because I was part of it for many years. Cuts had to be made everywhere, and that's what we did.

In official languages, as I said at the outset, we cut $4 million from the $260 million that was allocated to that point, which amounts to 1.5 or 1.6 percent. At the same time, we reduced the size of government, the number of employees in particular, by 15 to 20 percent. So we clearly favoured—as I feel we had to do— our official languages obligations. Once again, we favoured them and I believe that was the correct policy.

As regards our monitoring obligations, I mentioned that we reduced our own staff. Of course, the departments reduced their staffs as well, once again by at least 15 percent. So they had to reassess their responsibilities. But we told them, and this was clear, that they had to continue to perform their responsibilities. In their business plans, their strategic objectives and the auditing of results, we told them that we would ask them to achieve the same results, even though their staff had been reduced.

You asked another question, which, I believe, is much more essential, because it concerns the survival of Francophone communities. First of all, I believe the survival of Francophone communities has been greatly aided by our action in the official languages field, which, however, is not the only factor involved. When you consider the changes in the percentage of Francophones in Canada, you must consider not only the assimilation rate, but also the birth, education and other rates. We have to consider many variables.

It's true that there has been a decline in the number of Francophones as a percentage of the general population. I believe that tells us, as far as government policies are concerned, that we have to make greater efforts to improve the community life of Francophone communities, to improve the situation in the communities, to improve, in particular, the opportunities for Francophones, young Francophones, to study and complete their education in a Francophone environment. Having lived in New Brunswick myself for a certain length of time and having helped to found the Centre francophone de Fredericton, I realized how important it was to have community centres and institutions of this kind.

Now, this isn't exactly one of my responsibilities as President of the Treasury Board, with respect to federal institutions, but I believe it is an important part of the debate on our entire policy for maintaining the vitality of French culture in Canada.

What we at the Treasury Board can do is to ensure that the institutions of the federal government fully and properly provide services such as service to the public, ensure that there is an adequate percentage of Francophones in the Public Service, a percentage that is consistent with the percentage of Francophones in the general population, and that there are enough opportunities to work in French in the Public Service.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you very much. Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Good afternoon, Mr. Massé. I would like to come back to the question of accountability, particularly as regards the memorandum of agreement that you signed on March 20, 1997 with the Minister of Heritage. In fact, this concerns the entire debate on the manner in which section 41 of Part VII of the Official Languages Act is properly implemented.

• 1600

You have an important role because you have more than a power of recommendation. In fact, you have coercive means at your disposal. So if the federal departments do not really do their duty, do not enforce official language standards, isn't there a way to establish a direct link, through you, between the budget envelopes of the federal institutions and compliance with the Official Languages Act? That's my first question.

Mr. Marcel Massé: I think it is entirely correct to say that you have to have coercive measures to ensure the official languages policy is implemented.

One of the reasons why responsibility for section 41 was shifted from Canadian Heritage to Treasury Board was so we could combine the responsibilities of the various departments for official languages, for the implementation of their programs in the official language of their clientele. We are convinced that this is one of the key components of the programs: their delivery, as far as possible, in the language of those they serve.

Consequently, as I explained earlier, we combined in the business plans the departments... We told them that their strategic objectives had to include objectives for the implementation of the Official Languages Act and that they would be evaluated not only on the quality of the objectives for implementing their programs, but also on the quality of the implementation of the measures they are responsible for taking under the Official Languages Act.

Mr. Denis Coderre: You know perfectly well that can't be done solely through self-evaluations. If you really want to apply that, you have to establish a better accountability mechanism.

Mr. Marcel Massé: That's a problem that goes beyond the area of official languages. Undoubtedly, you have to have the opportunity to have proper measures put in place when there are problems or delays or bad will on the part of those who are implementing them.

But I must say that, based on my experience, when the government introduces statutes and policies, there is rarely any bad will in their implementation. What we mainly see are delays or inadequate training for those who have to implement the policies, or ignorance of the procedures that have to be followed.

That's why we ourselves developed a certain number of questionnaires that require managers to say exactly how their obligations under the Official Languages Act will be fulfilled. Obviously, we took into account the fact that we also have to conduct our own audits rather than rely solely on self-evaluation. As I mentioned, we have conducted 700 audits since 1995. And we have a system for continuously auditing the various departments and various service points in Canada, where we audit or have the weaknesses we detect corrected.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Having said that, sir, are you aware that, if you constantly reach federal-provincial agreements that include the words "where numbers warrant", you won't necessarily be able to ensure adequate and fair access to services in both official languages for the entire general public?

Mr. Marcel Massé: As I said a moment ago, this is an issue we consider important and we have identified factors that are taken into account.

I mentioned, for example, the nature of the functions or services in question, the nature of the mandate, the place where the organization's operations are carried on, the kind of clientele in question, the new delivery method proposed and the level of government that will have jurisdiction. These are factors that encourage us, in various instances, to decide whether the Official Languages Act will be applied in full or whether we will maintain the "where numbers warrant" principle.

In some other cases, such as airports, which I mentioned a moment ago, we've indicated which parts of the Official Languages Act would apply and which would not.

• 1605

We try to enforce the Act in the most proper way possible, adapting the measures to the situation of each of the devolution agreements.

Mr. Denis Coderre: At this point, do you believe that, instead of talking about decentralization in the agreements, since it's the federal government that must protect official languages in Canada, there should be a certain accountability mechanism in the federal- provincial agreements to ensure that a provincial government in fact complies with the Official Languages Act, particularly as regards Francophones outside Quebec?

Mr. Marcel Massé: The answer is yes. We have entered into a certain number of agreements, particularly manpower training agreements, which contain a clause stating the province's obligations with respect to the implementation of the Official Languages Act in manpower training, as well as an audit mechanism. In the case of certain provinces, it is their Auditor General that must report to us.

In other words, we have tried to find a mechanism that enables us to determine whether the clauses of the agreement have been put in place, because we retain accountability in these cases. We have them audited, not by the governments themselves, but in most cases by a third party.

Mr. Denis Coderre: In conclusion, do you think that, because of the necessary fight against the deficit, corners may have been cut and that official languages may have suffered somewhat as a result?

Mr. Marcel Massé: Obviously, that's always a judgment call. I said that, in this case, we tried to protect the official languages as much as possible. The percentage I gave, slightly less than two percent, means a $4 million reduction out of $260 million. That's clearly less than the average cut made in government as a whole, which was between 15 and 20 percent.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you. Senator Rivest.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest (Stadacona, PC): Good afternoon, sir.

It seems to me you're using euphemisms because, every year, you come and tell us that progress has been made, but there are still a lot of problems to be solved. That's a bit much when you see the assimilation rates.

Things are not going well in official languages and the reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages are increasingly alarmist end year. The Francophone communities outside Quebec increasingly express their concerns, and Statistics Canada once again has just published figures that support them.

You come here and tell us that progress has been made, but that's not true. Progress has not been made. The problem is increasingly acute. Francophone communities outside Quebec are threatened. To give you a very specific example, I'll ask you to answer a particular question.

In your answer to my colleague, the member for Richelieu, you rightly emphasized the fact that community action should be developed to a greater extent in addition to the undoubtedly significant effect of the official languages. However, last week, or the week before that, the Commissioner of Official Languages came here and told us—because community action falls under Part VII of the Official Languages Act—that he did not have the money or the necessary resources to meet the current obligations of Part VII of the Act.

Are you aware of this statement by the Commissioner of Official Languages? If so, what can be the meaning of the intention you just expressed, the intention to emphasize community action, when the Commissioner does not have the means or the financial resources to meet the current obligations under the Act?

Mr. Marcel Massé: I must say I don't agree on a number of the points you've just made.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: I assume so.

Mr. Marcel Massé: The first concerns community action. As is the case for anything else, you can double or triple the money and there will always be someone who says it isn't enough. But what you do in a government, as you know perfectly well, is to allocate available amounts to the various priorities that arise.

• 1610

In this case, I also don't agree with you when you say the Official Languages Act is not working because I think it has worked very well. Think back over a very long period of time, the last 25 years, from the moment I entered the Public Service of Canada. I remember very well how little French was spoken in the early 1970s, how difficult it was to find senior public servants who spoke French. There were a lot of secretaries who spoke French, but very few senior public servants.

I remember the very small percentage of Francophone ministers in office. I also remember that, when you wrote something in French, you were immediately told that, unfortunately, it couldn't go through the various levels. I was in the Public Service until the early 1990s and, in 20 years, I personally witnessed absolutely sensational improvements in the delivery of service to the public, in the participation of Francophones at all levels of the public service right up to the deputy minister level, in all fields.

I saw simultaneous interpretation introduced in Cabinet and Cabinet committees. It's simple, but that had never previously been done. Consider as well the opportunity to use French as a language of work, which, as you know, was considered the hardest thing to do in the 1970s.

I must say that, in my last three departments, including the Treasury Board, a large number of our meetings were held in French and English, with Francophones speaking French and Anglophones speaking English. The memos of the Treasury Board, which was long viewed as one of the Anglophone bastions in the Public Service, are regularly forwarded to me for Cabinet committees in both languages.

In other words, I have witnessed a clear improvement. I look at the three aspects of the Official Languages Act for which we are responsible. First, there is service to the public, either in person or by telephone. It isn't perfect, and that's why I still say it has to be improved because it must be improved. We must not take the pressure off the departments. As in anything, when you release the pressure, less is put into practice. There can be no doubt that service to the public is now available in the vast majority of designated Francophone offices. Once again, even if it is 90 percent, I want it to be 100 percent. We must criticize ourselves because it is not yet 100 percent. But 90 percent is much better than what it was a few years ago.

I mentioned language of work. There is also the participation of Francophones in all areas. Today, following the Program Review, 28 and 29 percent of employees in the Public Service are Francophones, compared to the percentage they represent in the general population, 24.5 percent. In the senior ranks, the EXs, 24 percent of EXs are now Francophones. This is a sensational result compared to the 1970s, for example.

You raised a third point on which I agree with you more, and that is the precarious nature of the Francophone communities outside Quebec. There's nothing precarious about Francophone communities in Quebec. On the contrary, if you look at the number of people who speak French as their first language or in the home in Quebec, you now have the highest percentage since Confederation. So the threat isn't in Quebec. It's in the other communities.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thanks to Bill 101.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Yes.

Mr. Marcel Massé: You have certain communities, such as the Acadian community, where French culture is still very vital and is deteriorating very little because they have the critical mass. But there are other communities where you have a certain erosion, and it's them I'm concerned about. These are issues that we must address. They are complex issues and they do not stem solely from the Official Languages Act. They are based on many other factors, including birth rates, natural absorption, and so on.

Here our role is to increase the ability of Francophone communities to educate their children in French, to talk about their culture, hence the importance of community centres, and to keep French culture and relations with other groups vital.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: You've given us your point of view. In any case, I hope you talk to the Commissioner of Official Languages from time to time because he doesn't say the same thing. I believe you would do well to talk to each other, particularly regarding Part VII. He sounded the alarm, saying he needed money because, otherwise, he couldn't implement it.

With your permission, Madam Chairman, I would like to ask a final question.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Yes, of course.

• 1615

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: This concern about strengthening Canada's linguistic duality, which you have been involved in, is undeniable, as is the progress you say has occurred from the time you entered the Public Service until today. It is quite true in Ottawa definitely, but much less true in other parts of Canada.

The Government of Canada supported the Calgary agreement. It was pleased with the Calgary agreement, with its recognition of Quebec's unique character, with a view to including in the Canadian Constitution an interpretation clause taking into account the particular characteristics of Quebec society. However, it was completely silent on Canada's linguistic duality, whereas, in the Meech Lake Accord, the notion of Quebec's unique character was associated in one clause with another fundamental characteristic of Canada, which is linguistic duality.

Will the Government of Canada be satisfied with a draft— because we're now at that stage—of a cultural agreement concerning Quebec—very well—but which completely disregards Canada's linguistic duality? Wouldn't that be a good way in the present context, in view of the statistics and the government's willingness to support Francophone communities, for the Government of Canada to take the lead instead of allowing the provincial governments to do so—which is always more difficult—and seize the opportunity to say that, yes, in this country, there is a unique society which is called Quebec, but there is also linguistic duality and to include it as an interpretation clause? In other words, why wouldn't it take the opportunity to correct the error that certain parties made in scuttling the Meech Lake Accord and literally destroying this extremely important characteristic, one of the fundamental characteristics of Canada, linguistic duality?

Why this government silence on linguistic duality in the current context?

Mr. Marcel Massé: I won't give you an answer to the constitutional question because we're now discussing the Official Languages Act.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Yes, but Ontario Francophones are demanding it. Do you have any feelings in this regard?

Mr. Marcel Massé: Yes. In my view, Quebec's unique character clearly includes recognition of linguistic duality and of the fact...

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: In Quebec.

Mr. Marcel Massé: There's also an Anglophone population in Quebec.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Okay, yes. But in Canada, no.

Mr. Marcel Massé: In Canada, there are both. In all the provinces where I went, there are groups... Let me answer. There is no doubt in my mind that the unique character of Quebec includes recognition that French, French culture and the French institutions in Quebec constitute one of the distinctive characteristics of Canada and that, consequently, linguistic duality is part of Canada's identity. This is clearly one of the notions we want to include in the Canadian identity. There can be no doubt that recognition, whether it be of distinct society or the unique character of Quebec, means for me that all Canadians, Anglophones and Francophones, recognize that Canada was based—we no longer say only on two languages and two cultures because we now have much greater respect for the contribution of Aboriginal peoples in our country—on the fact that our official languages are two in number, that they are equal in this country, that they are included in our national identity and, consequently, that the federal government must reflect in its institutions on the fact that French and English are its official languages and that Canada is defined by the fact that it has at least two languages and two cultures.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: But that's currently not part of the Calgary agreement and you are satisfied with the Calgary agreement.

Mr. Marcel Massé: That's why I told you that I would not talk about the constitutional question today, but only about the question that includes...

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Committee members, you will note that I am allowing you a little more time than planned. This is because Christmas is coming and this is any present to you.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Madam Chairman, could we have the Minister's agreement to answer a question from each of us before leaving?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Yes, absolutely. Mr. Assadourian now has the floor.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Welcome to the national unity debate, Mr. Minister. It's never too late to get involved in a national debate.

• 1620

My question is to do with the Quebec government now, the way it's been for the last few years. They've been making comments about prerogatives in terms of English Canada. They tried to boycott Team Canada trips here and there. They opposed the Calgary declaration where Quebec's distinctiveness was mentioned, Canada being a bilingual country.

Do you think the Quebec government's stand recently and the statement made by Parizeau hurts or advances the bilingual policies of the government?

Second, Canada is one of those unique countries in the world that has membership in both Francophonie and the Commonwealth. What are we doing, if there's something we can do, to advance trade with Francophonie countries as we do with Commonwealth countries, Southeast Asia or South America? Is there any plan, or would you endorse any plan to bring us closer to Francophonie countries in the world outside North America?

Mr. Marcel Massé: On the first question, I have no doubt that Mr. Parizeau's stance on ethnics and money does not represent a majority view in Quebec. Being a Quebecker—I've lived there most of my life—it is clear to me that Quebeckers, including especially francophone Quebeckers, are people who have always respected the identity of others. The people of Quebec have, on most occasions, recognized that the diversity of our country in terms of culture, language and origin is part of its richness and there is no animosity or resentment against other ethnic groups or other languages.

In all populations, including English Canada, the U.S. and Quebec, you find small percentages of people who have what I call more “exclusive” views of ethnic groups and languages. You have to deal with this in a democracy. But I think in Quebec, as in the rest of Canada, you will find that this generosity toward accepting differences in culture, language and so on exists.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: But is that hurting the relationship between Canada as a whole and the policies of bilingualism? That's what I want to know.

Mr. Marcel Massé: The policies of bilingualism correspond to the Constitution of Canada. We were talking about duality a few moments ago. Awhile ago we used to talk about the two founding peoples. Nowadays we don't do that, because we are more conscious of the fact that the natives were here before us and occupied most of the territory. They also have very distinctive languages, cultures, history and so on.

But there is no doubt that Canada was founded in good part on the heritage of two peoples, one of the English language, the other one of the French language, who came from Europe. When we're talking about the Canadian identity we have to agree that our identity is formed, in good part, by these two identities. This is why to me the Official Languages Act is a manifestation and a recognition of our identity as Canadians.

Contrary to the United States, we have adopted a policy toward language and culture that welcomes diversity. This is quite different from the United States, where you can come provided you get all mixed up in the melting pot. That was the immigration principle. Here we have had a different principle. As a result, clearly we must manifest this duality of culture and language in the services offered by our government.

On the second question, trade with Francophonie countries, the francophone institutions were created in part for political reasons and in part for cultural reasons. They're now acquiring much more of an economic reason. The Commonwealth, as you will remember, historically was created much more for economic reasons to maintain as much as possible a common market amongst the parts of the old British Empire. It's now evolving more toward a political membership, because a lot of the original economic traits, such as the Common Market, have disappeared with the European Union.

• 1625

So I would say both of these partnerships, if you will, are now getting closer to the centre, with a mixture of objectives, including the trade objective.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Before we go to the second round of questions, we have Ms. Bradshaw and Senator Beaudoin. Then you must limit your questions and be a little more brief.

Ms. Bradshaw.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): Since we've talked a great deal about Francophones outside Quebec, I felt I had to say something, especially as an Acadian. The people who translate my remarks always have trouble and don't really know how to translate them, whether I speak in French or in English. I am taking French courses and am making fairly good progress.

Mr. Massé, for us Francophones, especially Acadians, it is very important that we take a serious look at official languages. During my election campaign, I went to the Official Languages Office in Moncton and I spent a morning there. Perhaps it would be a good idea for them to come to talk to the members of our committee about the things they do, which are extraordinary. Until I went there, I didn't know all the things the Official Languages Office did in my region, particularly for the Atlantic provinces. Perhaps we could invite them.

I think we must absolutely fix official languages as one of our priorities, not only for Francophones outside Quebec, but also for another reason. In my youth, when I was younger and lighter, people began to talk about official languages. At one point, I dreamed that all Canadian children might one day be bilingual. That was my idea of official languages: that all Canadian children would speak French and English.

Today, 20 or 25 years later, this is a dream I hold even dearer because of our global economy. It seems to me we should make official languages our priority once again because we hear a lot of talk about the global economy. My two children work a lot in youth exchange programs with Australia and New Zealand. When children from those countries come to Canada, we see they speak three or four languages. It seems to me it would be good for our country to work hard on official languages and to have a vision. I'm an Aries and I always work with a vision. I'm never really here. We should work even harder on official languages with a view to our economy of the future and for our children who will experience that economy of the future.

Mr. Minister, if I had anything to suggest to you, it would be that, once again, we make the entire official languages issue a priority again for our government with a view to the future of our children and in view of the global economy, and particularly for Francophones outside Quebec.

Mr. Marcel Massé: Madam Chair, I must say I quite agree with what my colleague says.

I remember that, when I arrived in Fredericton in 1972 or 1973, very little French was spoken there and there was palpable resentment between the two communities. You remember Mayor Jones in Moncton. Immersion courses were starting up in Fredericton schools at that time. To my great surprise, the immersion courses were so popular they couldn't offer enough classes. A larger number of Anglophone parents, even those who said they detested French, wanted their children to be in those classes.

I sat in on a few of the classes and subsequently spoke with parents. I realized that the parents whose children were bilingual lost their resentment toward Francophones. They suddenly realized that they were not a threat, that their children were acquiring additional knowledge, additional abilities and additional skills, instead of losing them. That was really the way to establish good relations between the two groups: to go through the children and to enable children to be educated in both languages.

Consequently, my own experience is similar to that of my colleague, and I believe greater priority should be given to official languages.

• 1630

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): That's so true. Perhaps, as Co-Chair, I could suggest that the committee go see what the official languages offices are doing in each region.

Senator Beaudoin.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Madam Chairman, I don't want to raise any procedural matters, but rather bring to your attention—and I'm going to allow the senator to speak without objecting—the fact that the official party has had the floor, that I have had the floor once, that the floor has been given three times and that the Conservative Party has spoken twice.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I just wanted to give everyone the floor before the Minister...

Mr. Louis Plamondon: It's because the Minister has to leave and I'm not sure the Reform Party wants to give up its turn any more than I do. I would like the Minister to agree to stay to answer the senator and the remaining two speakers.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Plamondon, I would like to emphasize that you had 11 minutes, that Mr. Rivest had 12, Mr. Coderre, eight and Mr. Hilstrom nine and a half. It seems to me that's quite balanced.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Madam, I don't want to raise a procedural issue, but there was an agreement at the outset which has not been complied with this evening. I don't want to turn this into a dispute. However, starting with our first meeting after the holidays, I would like us to agree on seven minutes. We should know who has that time and in what order. The original agreement was for seven, seven, seven, then five, five, five and we would alternate every five minutes. That's not what we've done. Everyone has spoken, but there aren't many of us here. Next time, I would like us to agree on this.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I agree, but, the next time, Mr. Plamondon, you won't have 11 minutes in the first round.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I'm sure I didn't have 11 minutes this morning.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I won't take more than three or four minutes.

[English]

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Madam Chairman, I'd like to say something. I did, as you say, have nine and a half minutes, or whatever, and I feel I should have a turn at this point in the proceedings.

I'm not a permanent member of this committee. You can possibly straighten this out at your next committee meeting. I would like to ask my one question.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Yes, you will have time.

[Translation]

Senator.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I've always been very much interested in Part VII of the Official Languages Act. I get the impression that we aren't exploiting the full content of Part VII of the Official Languages Act; it contains a wealth of things. My question is quite simple and brief. As President of the Treasury Board, are you prepared to allocate the necessary funds to implement Part VII of the Official Languages Act, which, as I say, contains so many promising views?

For some time now, we have had witnesses come here and tell us about specific issues, but, in my view, a great deal of research remains to be done or to be completed, and that obviously requires a little money. I wonder whether the financial issue has been resolved and if that is not a problem in acting on Part VII.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Good idea to spend your money in a federal jurisdiction!

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: It's not a constitutional problem. It's too bad for me, but, well...

Mr. Marcel Massé: Money problems are always difficult problems. However, in this case, I have already indicated that this was a priority in my view. Part VII is a major responsibility for the federal government.

I also said that there are priorities that require government funds and that we intend to carefully monitor the way funds are spent. I also said that, in the Program Review, we reduced the amounts allocated to official languages, but in a much smaller proportion that the cuts made elsewhere. However, I can tell you that, for the implementation of Part VII, we will be making a special effort to allocate the amounts necessary to make it work properly.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: As you said so well, it's part of Canada's identity. It's a pillar in that regard. The intentions are good.

Mr. Marcel Massé: You know that you and I never disagree.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Bravo. Mr. Hilstrom.

[English]

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'll just briefly say that, as you well know, I'm from Manitoba. In my riding there is a significant number of French-speaking people. I was asked a question at some point in time by them, and I'll bring it up in a minute.

• 1635

It'll certainly allay the fears of the member from Acadia that since 1967, when I started in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and began raising a family in Manitoba, I can assure you that the Official Languages Act has been working and that the number of people—children and adults—has dramatically increased since that time.

That aside, the constitutional and trade discussions there are so large that I think they're for another forum, as opposed to this one. But in regard to the costs, the question I'm asked by people in the area is: what does official bilingualism cost? I see a figure that I have used to respond to these people of $260 million, which is referred to in table 18. I get a look of disbelief from both French and English that this is, in fact, a correct figure. Then I go on to explain this table.

But it says there are crown corporations and other private organizations subject to this act, so I wonder if there are any tables of costs or expenditures for these other organizations. If so, where would they be available? Maybe then I can give a more complete answer to my constituents and other people.

Mr. Marcel Massé: I have here a table that indicates how much is being spent inside institutional agencies in the federal government by function. For instance, there's translation, linguistic training, “la prime au bilinguisme”, and administration.

Here's what you will find, however. I understand the question of your constituents. You have a number of programs in various parts of various departments. For instance, in Canadian Heritage, you have transfers to minority schools. That's a different program. That's not part of the $260 million. It depends on how you calculate it. Say you ask what the cost is of having a bilingual country. You'll have a very wide definition. You'll have all kinds of costs like that.

Air Canada is under the Official Languages Act. It has the obligation of implementing the act. Clearly there are costs for a company to have two languages rather than one, but if you're serving a market that has people from two languages, then it's a bit like in Europe. When Lufthansa goes to Paris, it announces things in German and French, but when it goes to Rome, it announces them in German and Italian.

In other words, yes, there are costs of that type. If you wanted to have really all the costs of all the institutions for implementing a bilingual policy, then you would get not only translation and training in both official languages for their people, and so on, but you could count all kinds of other costs.

The question I asked was, is this the real question? With Air Canada, when they go to France, by the way, from Montreal, they will talk in French also. You see what I mean? These are costs that are not directly ascribable to the fact that we have an official languages policy.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's certainly my understanding, and that's the message I give out. I was just asking if there was any other compilation other than going directly to a particular crown corporation, or whatever.

But you answered my question. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I somewhat agree with my colleague, Mr. Coderre, who spoke about accountability in the transfer of responsibilities or, in some instances, jurisdictions to the provinces. An attitude appears to be developing across Canada. We saw it yesterday when the provincial ministers of finance said: "We don't want the federal government to get mixed up in anything. Stop entering provincial jurisdictions." I'm not talking about an appeal by Quebec, but about all the ministers of finance yesterday. So the provinces increasingly want to administer their jurisdictions and want powers transferred to them. I cite the transfer regarding employment as an example, more particularly the training agreement.

Mr. Marcel Massé: Manpower training.

• 1640

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes, sir, precisely. This agreement was accepted by Quebec and by other provinces in the same way as other agreements on taxation and the GST, for example. It caused debates about compensation, but there are nevertheless provinces that are administering it to a greater extent.

So we may be moving toward more provincial jurisdictions and thus more responsibilities for the provinces respecting the preservation of the two cultures or two languages. Statistics Canada's last report is critical of the attitude of governments in the English-speaking provinces, of their understanding or the attention they give to the Francophone minorities in those provinces.

I'll tell you about a tactic—although I don't like that word—that is being resorted to. In many cases, after receiving certain powers from the federal government, the provinces transfer certain responsibilities to the municipal level. The Municipalities Act does not provide for the responsibilities that the province has with respect to transfers of the powers it has received, or the application of official languages. Consequently, the Francophone minorities that I met outside Quebec told me that it's a disaster when these transfers are made. You are familiar with the entire reform within, for example, the Government of Ontario, the new responsibilities facing the municipalities. So no more claims can be made against the municipality because, under section 8, I believe, it isn't subject to that provision. Consequently, it is not required to provide those services. That was my first question. What is the accountability mechanism that one of my colleagues referred to a moment ago and that I thought was interesting?

This is my entire last question. Some Francophone organizations outside Quebec told me about the consequences of the budget cuts. When they received $45,000, they had nearly all the money they needed to pay rent, telephone, electricity and part of their operating costs, so that the community action you spoke about, which is so important, could continue. In this sense, aren't there forms of intervention, perhaps a tax subsidy or compensation, that could enable an organization to maintain the necessary minimum services and that would not require a very complicated administration and paperwork? Couldn't direct credits be granted upon submission of invoices to help them? In any case, this is the kind of thing I heard from a few Francophone organizations outside Quebec. Thank you for listening to me, sir.

Mr. Marcel Massé: I will consider your suggestion to determine whether it is feasible from a financial and jurisdictional point of view.

Your first question on accountability is a very important question. Normally, in our agreements with the provinces, we assume that the province is still responsible to us for ensuring that the applicable provisions of the Official Languages Act are implemented, even if it assigns responsibility for introducing manpower training programs, for example, to a third party, be it a municipality, community organization or an association. We don't consider that the transfer to a municipality reduces the province's responsibility because our contract is with the province. The municipality is a creature of the province.

The question thus becomes whether the province will be willing to implement this provision, which will cause it greater difficulties. In these cases, our means of bringing pressure to bear are the usual ones, that is soft methods of persuasion. I believe that's what we always use with the provinces.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you. I have on my list the name of a person who had asked to speak and who has not spoken.

Mrs. Finestone, would you like to ask a question?

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

[English]

I have two questions, Mr. Massé. First of all, this is the official languages committee, so that includes the English language. I was curious to know, of the 700 cases you had reviewed, how many had been tested for both English and French.

• 1645

Second, when we wrote our manpower training project for English and French with the Quebec government as well as the other governments across Canada, we wrote in obligations to enable the minority language communities to get service. It strikes me, in listening to all the discussions around here, that one of the goals we have is to enable the population to live in an area where they can communicate in both official languages, and certainly in Quebec, where they could communicate and be comfortable and work in an environment in French.

I understand that in the signing of that document, which is the transfer of manpower training, there has been absolutely nothing written to support the English language community to become efficiently bilingual. You're not ready to move it to 100%, but certainly they need to be close to 100% to be able to get a job. Second, I understand there are no training courses being given in English to prepare them so that they could then work in French and get into the job market.

So if we're signing, and you have the responsibility to oversee these mandates, who is going to oversee these mandates and see that fair opportunity is given? Whether it's the francophones outside of Quebec or the anglophones in Quebec, minority communities need to be protected, need to be enabled and need to be encouraged. The monitoring must take place. I know for a fact that the monitoring or the enabling is not taking place in Quebec with the due transfer of labour management.

Mr. Marcel Massé: On the first question, I just asked Mr. Guénette because I didn't know what the proportion was. He told me that about one-quarter of the 700 visits or verifications and so on were in offices where service had to be given in a minority language, English.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Excuse me, but on that, would you please send me the results? I'm sick of my office phone ringing with complaints from federal public servants.

Mr. Marcel Massé: With respect to the second question about the manpower agreement, I know you've discussed that with the Minister of Human Resources a number of times. I've been made aware of the problems you had with, in your view, the lack of teeth it had to protect the giving of training courses to anglophones in their language, including the giving of French courses to permit them to learn French in the province. I have discussed that with the Minister of Human Resources. All I can say is that it is his responsibility to make sure that the clauses included in that agreement are implemented in a way that is equitable for the anglophone people in the province of Quebec.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): As official languages falls...I guess there's an obvious question, Mr. Minister. Official Languages seems to have three mothers and fathers. I haven't been able to figure out who does exactly what in this tripartite arrangement. We have Heritage Canada, which has a responsibility, we have the official languages commissioner, and we have your office that has, seemingly, the teeth. Are you of the view that there may be some chevauchement inutile entre les trois partis? Is there something that needs refining in who does what to whom, and when and where? I find this a rather confusing structure.

I take the manpower issue because what the minister negotiated was fine on paper, but the detailed implementation plans don't show any English language programs being planned, and furthermore, no French language training for English-speaking people to bring them to a functional level. So the questions are related with respect to either potential for duplication, for overlap, or for who does which task and which job, and how it in practice it works out. I'm using this as a particular concrete example.

• 1650

Mr. Marcel Massé: The Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for the elaboration of policies and the promotion of the official languages of minorities, so programs such as helping the schools, funding community centres, are the responsibility of Heritage. We, Treasury Board, are responsible because we are the employer of the federal government and a central institution to make sure the duties given to the departments and agencies of the federal government under the Official Languages Act are implemented. That's very exactly, technically, what our responsibility is, and we use the teeth we have with departments and agencies to get that done, because obviously we do not have teeth for the outside world, except money.

The role of the commissioner, because he reports to Parliament directly and not to a department and so on, is to be a guardian, and to make sure the responsibilities in the Official Languages Act, the responsibilities of the various departments and agencies, are actually implemented.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): So you're satisfied that from this committee's perspective, when we're looking at our responsibility, no further recommendations should be forthcoming. This committee recommended that Treasury Board get involved in the first place. Now this committee is asking you whether a further refinement is required among the three tasks involved, as you just described them, with respect to Heritage, Treasury Board, and the commissioner.

Mr. Marcel Massé: The recommendation obviously should be that we do even more of what we do and that we do it better. But I think in terms of structures it's reasonably efficient.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): It remains for me to thank you, sir. We have gone beyond the time you allocated to us. It is very interesting to talk about official languages.

Committee members, before you leave, we must adopt the steering committee's second report which was distributed to you.

[English]

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

[Translation]

It's a proposal.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Is there a proposal? Mr. Denis Coderre, following the meeting of the subcommittee on Tuesday, December 2, 1997, you proposed that we receive Ms. Diane Marleau.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I would like to point out that our recommendations are not necessarily in order.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): No, no. Absolutely not.

Mr. Denis Coderre: We wanted above all to put the emphasis on Statistics Canada.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Exactly.

(Second Report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Madam Chairman, will you be distributing copies of the letter we received from TFO, TVOntario's French-language network?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I suggest the steering committee read it and debate it first.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Is that really necessary?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): If the steering committee could stay on for two more minutes, we could look at this letter from TFO.

We are adjourned.