LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 16, 2000

• 1530

The Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages met this day at 3:30 p.m. to resume its study on the application of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

[English]

The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Ms Miriam Burke): Honourable members, I see a quorum.

I shall now take motions to elect an acting chairman for today's meeting.

Mr. Hill: I move that Senator Finestone be the acting chairman for today's meeting.

The Joint Clerk (Ms Burke): Is it agreed, honourable members?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Senator Sheila Finestone (Acting Joint Chair) in the Chair.

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Finestone): Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. I am pleased to be back here and joining you as you examine section 41 of the Official Languages Act.

[Translation]

We have been reviewing the implementation of this part of the Official Languages Act for a long time. I hope that we will have some very good news regarding the promotion of Canada's two official languages.

Mr. Bill A. Ferguson (Executive Head responsible for Part VII of the Official Languages Act, Director General, New Brunswick Region, Human Resources Development Canada): Madam Chair, following the 1994 Cabinet decision setting out our responsibility with regard to enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities, Human Resources Development Canada has demonstrated its commitment.

I am particularly proud to speak to you briefly today about the progress in implementing Part VII of the Official Languages Act, in my capacity as Executive Head responsible for Part VII of the act and as the federal co-chair of the National Committee for Canadian Francophonie Human Resources Development, which is also chaired by Mr. Poirier.

I will begin by presenting the implementation framework that HDRC adopted in order to fully carry out its commitments and responsibilities with respect to enhancing the vitality and assisting the development of the official language minority communities, as set out in section 41 of the Act. I will then go quickly through some of the elements of our action plan and our accomplishments, which have already been distributed to you. I will also highlight our greatest successes that were achieved through the commitment and efforts that we have made to the government's priority of promoting linguistic duality and, in particular, the development of official language minority communities. In closing, I will describe our operational context.

The mission of HRDC is to make it possible for Canadians to participate fully in the labour market and in society. HRDC is committed to providing high-quality services for all of the activities of its human development program. Since we are one of the largest federal government departments because of our field of activities and our mandate, we provide programs and services that meet the needs of children, families, young people, seniors, the unemployed, people with disabilities, aboriginal people and Canadian workers.

Since 1994, we have shown leadership by developing action plans and submitting progress reports to Canadian Heritage. The commitment of HRDC senior management is brilliantly clear in the way that national and regional branch managers assume their responsibilities and account for their actions with regard to the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

As the “champion” designated for Part VII of the Official Languages Act — I personally prefer the title of ambassador — my role is to raise the profile of official languages with Human Resources Development Department managers, so that being concerned about official language minority communities becomes a natural reflex and an integral part of the corporate culture. The creation of our Official Language Minority Communities Secretariat, which is under my responsibility, is of precious assistance to the communities, rounding out the network of national and regional coordinators who support us in the implementation of section 41.

The 1998-2000 HRDC action plan for the operational sectors, headquarters and regional offices focussed on four aspects of the implementation of section 41. First, making the whole department aware of the importance of Part VII, so as to ensure that the provisions of section 41 would be part and parcel of our corporate culture; second, obtaining information on the needs of the various official language minority communities; third, informing the communities of the products and services offered by the department; and four, ensuring close coordination between the regions and the various sectors at national headquarters.

Let me give you a few examples of our accomplishments. On Cape Breton Island, young workers have been studying technology and aquaculture at the Petit-de-Grat campus of the Collège de l'Acadie. The Association Jeunesse acadienne of Prince Edward Island hired approximately 30 students who helped organize and participated in a provincial delegation to the Moncton Summit events.

The “Health care in French” service in Saint-Boniface has encouraged young French-speaking Manitobans to consider a career in health care, social services or finance.

French-speaking citizens in Prince George were able to better prepare for their retirement and their future, thanks to an income security program. The Educa-Centre service in British Columbia focusses on French-language adult education and development. HRDC contributed to a project which involved hiring a young person with a disability, allowing him to acquire greater independence while earning a salary.

HRDC uses a creative and innovative approach, allowing official language minority communities to identify their real needs. This approach allows these communities to involve themselves in the search for the measures that will best meet the specific expectations of their communities. This innovative approach has been recognized on many occasions by various stakeholders, and in the Savoie, Fontaine and Simard reports in particular. It has also been praised by the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Official Languages Commissioner and Canadian Heritage.

I am particularly proud of one of our accomplishments: the creation in 1997 of the National Committee for Canadian Francophonie Human Resources Development. I have the honour of co-chairing the federal component of this committee, along with my counterpart for the community component, Mr. Raymond Poirier, who will speak to you in a few moments about the operations and positive spinoffs of this committee.

In 1998, the National Committee for Human Resources Development for the English Linguistic Minority was instituted. I believe that this committee's representative will be invited to appear before you later this year. You will agree that all of these committees, as well as the sectoral tables supporting them, need adequate financial resources if they are to produce concrete results.

Therefore, on June 12, 1999, the Human Resources Development Department announced an undertaking to provide continuing support to official language minority communities by creating a support fund of $21 million spread over three years. Minister Pierre Pettigrew made this announcement in Bathurst on June 12.

With the help of its labour market partners and support measures under the Employment Insurance Act, the Department of Human Resources Development works in close collaboration with the two human resources development national committees, providing them with the financial support needed to realize their strategic plan. This new funding is in addition to the program funding that already exists within HRDC and other federal departments.

Furthermore, on August 25, 1999, Treasury Board earmarked an amount of $1 million per year for management of the support fund.

The department decided to phase in, from 1999 to 2002, the support given to the two national committees for the implementation of their strategic plans aimed at promoting economic development, job access and community capacity building. The eligible promoters are the community component of the two committees and the Regroupement de développement économique et d'employabilité.

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to point out the very decentralized nature of our department's daily operations. The variety and scope of our programs and services reflect the needs of the very large majority of Canadians at different stages of their life. The HRDC meets many economic and social needs of the entire Canadian population, including official language minority communities. We carry out our responsibilities in partnerships with a range of public, private and community stakeholders. This approach allows us to better identify the needs of communities, to encourage their involvement and to better direct our efforts toward the achievement of a common mission.

In closing, I would like to reaffirm my personal commitment to promoting linguistic duality. I can also assure you that the unflagging commitment on the part of Mr. Mel Cappe and Ms Claire Morris was a key factor in our accomplishments with regard to official language minority communities. The partnerships that we have established will allow us to make real and lasting progress in promoting economic development and employability, according to the priorities of the official language minority communities spread across Canada.

Now that I have dealt with the implementation of Part VII, I will continue with my presentation, alternating with Mr. Poirier, who is co-chair of the community component of the National Committee for Canadian Francophonie Human Resources Development.

Let me tell you that I am very proud of the national committee. You will see that we are setting a precedent for close co-operation between the Canadian government and its linguistic minority communities. The resulting rapprochement and increased mutual understanding testify to the effectiveness of this model, which may be applied in other areas.

This is the first time that the representatives of the francophone and Acadian minority communities and the representatives of departments and agencies with economic responsibilities sit down together to draw up a strategic plan for the development of Canada's francophone communities. This strategic approach has already led to positive and lasting results. We will tell you about the context in which these committees were created, our mandate and our strategy. We will also describe the affiliated organizations in the provinces and territories, the Regroupement de développement économique et d'employabilité, which is the group responsible for economic development and employability, and the sectors that we have chosen to target as a priority. We will conclude by describing the impact of our work.

At the economic summit of 1991 organized by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada, the need for better planning of the development of Canada's French-speaking human resources was clearly established. At the end of this summit, it was recommended that HRDC set up the CARHFC, the Comité d'adaptation des ressources humaines de la francophonie canadienne. The federal government, in response, set up the CARHFC in 1993, and the committee released its master plan in 1995. The committee concluded, among other things, that a significant number of federal government programs were not accessible to the francophone and Acadian minority communities because they frequently did not meet the basic criteria, owing to their special characteristics.

The committee also recommended the setting up of a joint committee, composed of key community representatives and senior officials, as well as the creation of groups within the communities that would co-ordinate the many economic development initiatives at the provincial level.

In 1997, HRDC took the initiative of setting up the joint committee, as had been recommended. The success of this national committee led to a similar initiative for Quebec's English minority community in 1998. Also in 1998, the nine federal organizations sitting on the committee officially signed the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Canada and the francophone and Acadian communities, thereby becoming full-fledged members of the national committee and formally committing themselves to the development of Canada's francophone communities.

I must point out that it was thanks to the individual efforts made by all the members of the committee that this important milestone was reached. The National Committee for Human Resources Development is made up of an equal number of representatives from the francophone minority communities and nine federal organizations. The HRDC exercises leadership on behalf of the federal organizations.

[English]

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Finestone): It is like a round table.

Mr. Ferguson: We have a committee, and it is made up of nine federal departments and the minority francophone community.

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Finestone): Honourable members, there is a vote being called in the House. The House members must go upstairs in a moment, and I want to make sure that the senators who are here know that they will be able to stay until quarter to five or five o'clock.

You have such an important presentation to make, Mr. Ferguson, that I was busy thinking of the numbers and wondering if a round table was put together, which was the recommendation when I was here about two years ago. I am very pleased to see that all this is happening.

I would ask the House members to please have their questions ready.

Mr. Ferguson, how long will you be?

Mr. Ferguson: About seven or eight minutes, and then we will be open for questions.

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Finestone): Please continue.

[Translation]

Mr. Ferguson: The government representatives are appointed by the deputy ministers of the nine departments involved, while the community representatives are selected by the communities themselves, through the RDEEs, with attention given to an equal representation of men and women.

As far as the community component is concerned, there are three western, three central and three eastern representatives. They represent their region, not their province.

They must also have a national outlook on the committee. The intention is to maintain ongoing relations between the francophone and Acadian communities and the government of Canada, with the aim of promoting the development of Canada's francophone communities. The committee serves as a vehicle for the transmission of government information to the communities and, in the opposite direction, allows the communities to communicate their expectations to us.

The committee is a means of bringing the parties closer together. It influences decision-makers and establishes contacts between the business community, the providers of employability services and public servants, supporting the networking that is essential to permanent economic development for Canada's francophone communities. The committee also encourages young people to participate in the process. This collaborative approach is a new one and offers many possibilities. The Savoie and Fontaine reports, as well as the Official Languages Commissioner's report, mention this approach and believe it is a promising one.

Our committee brings together two groups of partners with different outlooks. Since we thought it important to recognize this fact, the committee adopted two missions: a government mission and a community mission. This has helped us understand each other better. We were able to get around what could have been considered a serious obstacle to progress, and even with these two missions, we were able confidently to develop a joint mission. That is the key to any real partnership.

On this note I would like to give the floor to Mr. Raymond Poirier.

Mr. Raymond Poirier (Co-Chair, Community Component and Western Representative, National Committee for Canadian Francophonie Human Resources Development): As was said earlier, we have two missions. As for the community mission, it is important for us to promote economic development in our communities, while the government is concerned about two things. The first if very important, to recognize the francophone community as a target clientele. Programs are usually developed for the majority and then, when the francophones show up, the program doesn't work properly. By recognizing francophone communities as target clients, the programs can be adjusted to include activities that meet specific needs.

The francophone communities must be given access to departmental programs. Our vision is to strategically position francophone and Acadian communities in the economic and employability development sectors.

We have drawn up five strategic priorities. The first is to manage the national Memorandum of Understanding; we have the MOU to manage, we have certain responsibilities under it. In order to manage the MOU, in order to be in a position to advise the ministers in an intelligent manner, we must consult the communities, determine policy directions and evaluate the committee's activities.

We will evaluate the committee's results according to the established objectives, such as the creation of jobs in our villages, the creation of new businesses and the diversification of the economy, to avoid having our villages depend on a single industry. These objectives are quantifiable.

The second strategic priority is to establish a national framework for economic and employability development. Francophone communities are well structured in the political, cultural and educational sectors, since they have taken over the management of their schools. However, the economic sector has never been well structured. We have chambers of commerce and modest economic development tools, but no economic development framework.

Our national committee is in the process of setting up groups concerned with economic development in each province and territory, so as to put in place a structured economic sector.

The third strategic priority is to draw up memoranda of understanding in all the provinces, similar to the one creating the national committee, which is composed of nine departments and nine community representatives and, if possible to include the provincial governments in these agreements.

The process has been set in motion and, in Prince Edward Island, a tripartite MOU has been signed by the provincial government, the federal government and the community. An MOU has been signed in Alberta. In Manitoba, the Cabinet of the new government has agreed to sign an MOU, and has identified six departments that will participate in the process, in addition to the five federal departments, for a total of eleven departments having economic responsibilities who will be concerned with the francophone communities of Manitoba. Matters are going forward in Saskatchewan also. In Ontario, an MOU is being negotiated, but mainly at the federal level because the provincial government has preferred to come to the table as an observer only.

Our fourth objective is to develop strategies that will tie the communities into major national and international trends.

The fifth priority is to promote the strategic priorities of the committee, in other words, to let people know what we are doing.

What we mean by these groups concerned with economic and employability development is that we ask each of the provincial representatives of the francophone communities to bring together, around the same table, all the major economic players. This is what we refer to as the Regroupement de développement économique et d'employabilité, that is, the RDEEs.

We then ask each RDEE to designate a group in the economic sector that will act as its spokesperson. It is therefore a delegated organization, which will ensure that our national committee deals with only one group in each province, in order to avoid being spread out across Canada to hear the requests of all the groups. This way of operating will prevent the competition from becoming so fierce that there is no room for cooperation.

The economic sectors of each province are required to work together, to find projects that will benefit the entire community, and to communicate them to our committee through a delegated organization. This is a different way of operating but, to date, it works well.

On page 12, you will see a list of the various delegated organizations, and you may recognize the ones from your province. Also, on page 13, there is a list of the provincial joint committees.

When I said that we intended to focus on advanced sectors, it is because we believe that there are sectors in which Canada's francophone communities are well positioned, and that is where we should focus our efforts. We have identified four sectors: tourism, the knowledge-based economy, rural development and making young people part of economic development.

In the tourism sectors, there are three economic forums which are interested in tourism. What we would like to set up is a Pan-Canadian French-language tourism corridor, that would allow someone to travel from one end of Canada to the other in French, if he or she so desired.

The knowledge-based economy is an important area because it is probably the only sector of economic activity in which the fact of being in a minority position is of little importance. In the electronic market place, customers are scattered throughout the world. Success no longer depends on being a member of a large group. This is the way of the future for us.

As for rural development, since more than half of our population lives in rural communities, we must pay attention to them.

The impact of our actions is very important to the committee, and I even prepared a final page that you do not have because, unfortunately, it is available only in French. In my humble opinion, this is what ensures that our committee will be successful. Our committee is unique, but there are preconditions. If governments are not prepared to take certain steps, it will not work; similarly, the communities must be prepared to take certain steps.

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Finestone): Could you please table this document? The secretariat will have it translated and distributed to committee members. As you pointed out, it is important that the committee take a stand and express its support, I hope. You have given us a very good presentation. If you would like to leave your text with us, we will have it translated, the committee members will receive it, and they will act accordingly.

Senator Gauthier: Mr. Ferguson, sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act provide that official language minorities will be promoted or at least entitled to promotion in the federal government. Section 42 gives the Department of Canadian Heritage responsibility for coordinating all that.

Your national committee, and you explained how it works a few minutes ago, is under the authority of two deputy ministers: the Deputy Minister of Treasury Board designates one member and the Deputy Minister of Heritage Canada the other. The Treasury Board Deputy Minister is responsible for the public service and everything that comes under it.

You mentioned earlier that the committee has nine members. What department do they come from? Who appointed these nine people?

Mr. Ferguson: The deputy ministers of each department.

Senator Gauthier: I would like to know which departments these are.

Mr. Ferguson: Not all departments are involved; there is the Canada Development Bank, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), Western Economic Diversification Canada, Agriculture and Agrifood Canada, Industry Canada, Heritage Canada, Human Resources Development, Treasury Board, the Comptroller General of Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Senator Gauthier: Let us take the example of Industry Canada in Nova Scotia, where a project involving computerization, the Internet and communication was submitted. The project was funded by Industry Canada and exclusively targeted English-language schools in Nova Scotia. Francophones have been left out of this initiative. What has your group done to rectify that situation and give students interested in the computer field the tools they need to move ahead?

Mr. Ferguson: The committee's role is to take into account community comments and ensure that the Department of Industry receives this feedback. We cannot administer Industry Canada's programs. Our role is to ensure that the practices are recognized. Mr. Poirier might be able to add something about the community's role.

Mr. Poirier: Senator Gauthier, you are right in saying that there are serious shortcomings at Industry Canada. Our committee has been up and running for only a year. We have done our strategic planning. We have set up four sectoral panels, including one on the knowledge-based economy, which is looking into this problem. Our committee works a bit differently. Before meeting departmental officials, we need to develop a strategic plan. We are not ready to meet Industry Canada right now.

Senator Gauthier: I raise this point because I want you to know that things are not perfect.

Mr. Poirier: It is true that things are not perfect.

Senator Gauthier: Relations between your committee and the province of Ontario are not, how can I put it, impressive. Ontario has an observer on your committee. Explain the situation to me, if I am mistaken.

Mr. Poirier: We have two committees: one committee in Ontario involving 12 community organizations that need to sign an agreement with the federal government, four or five federal departments, and the province of Ontario will sit on this committee as an observer. That is not our committee.

Senator Gauthier: That is not at all what I was told. The agreement between Ontario and the federal government has not been signed?

Mr. Poirier: No.

Senator Gauthier: It has been signed by all the other provinces in Canada except Ontario. Is that what you are saying?

Mr. Poirier: You are talking about something else, about the provinces taking over responsibility for labour force training.

Senator Gauthier: I know. I want to get you talking about my battleground. Not yours.

Mr. Poirier: That comes under human resources; I thought you were talking about our national committee.

Senator Gauthier: Our clientele is made up of minority official-language groups across the country, in Quebec and elsewhere. For example, does your committee have relatively good relations with the Department of Human Resources Development and the Ontario Ministry of Colleges and Universities? Are there direct ties?

Mr. Ferguson: There is certainly a relationship. I cannot tell you if it is good or not. I can tell you that there is a relationship. The federal Human Resources Development Department works closely with Ontario on the whole area of training. Right now, that is all the information I have.

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Finestone): I believe it would be important to listen to the nature of the question. You presented a well-structured description.

Mr. Ferguson: Yes.

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Finestone): However, the day-to-day needs of young people and students need to be taken into account. Is that something you are looking at for the future or something that they have access to right now? That is the gist of Senator Gauthier's question. We need to know where these various programs are at. If you say that you have a round table and that you are working with the various departments to achieve objectives that have been set, how can you respond to their education and training needs? Are there two different groups looking after these needs?

Mr. Ferguson: There are two different groups. The department is concerned with section 41, which I am responsible for. I am the senior manager. We have provincial coordinators in each province who ensure that human resources development services are available to minority groups. We also have the National Committee for Canadian Francophonie Human Resource Development. There are nine different departments at the table with the community, and the purpose is to discuss and promote, in these various departments, services to minorities.

Senator Gauthier: Section 41 is a very short stick. I asked the Minister of Justice whether section 41 was binding or declaratory as she claimed in a follow-up she sent me in response to previous comments. She confirmed to me that, in her opinion, section 41 is declaratory and not binding. A case is going to court in Toronto to challenge that. What sort of stick do you have to convince the departments of the need to help, support and promote official-language minorities in our province, in Quebec and in other provinces?

Mr. Ferguson: This is a long-term exercise. We have worked with the community to develop our strategic plan. They identify the priorities and we are working on them. We do not have any stick to enforce our demands. We give our opinions and advice and we work closely with the community.

Ms Hamelin: In the committee, we identified priorities because there are so many things to be done that we cannot do everything.

We concentrated on four priorities for economic development: tourism, the knowledge-based economy, rural development and the integration of young people in economic development. We are seeking to foster job creation, stronger communities and economic diversification in villages using a concerted approach.

When we go to the various departments with good plans, good proposals, partnerships are easier to establish and resources are easier to identify to help carry out various projects.

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Finestone): One of the four priorities you mentioned was knowledge. How can you promote knowledge and the whole field of activities that that implies if students in Nova Scotia are not given any skills to use computers? Can you not and should you not start with young people in school and give them the skills they need for tomorrow's society?

Mr. Poirier: We talk in English about the knowledge-based economy.

[English]

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Finestone): In order to have a knowledge-based economy, you must know how to open the computer, never mind use it.

[Translation]

Mr. Ferguson: We must develop a plan to integrate youth into the knowledge-based economy, and Industry Canada has a responsibility. We will be meeting with departmental officials in two or three months with a plan to suggest to them what they should be doing. If they do not follow suit, we will have to follow Senator Gauthier's suggestion and bring out the big stick. We have not yet told them what we want. In other departments where our committee has intervened, the results, up until now, have been good. We have to give Industry Canada a bit of time so that we can meet with them and tell them what we need. If they do not comply, this is when the page that we prepared becomes important. There are steps to be followed; if they do not follow them, we have to do something.

Senator Gauthier: I understand all of that. I wrote to Industry Canada three years ago to point out the problem that we had in Nova Scotia. I obtained an absolutely sugar-sweet answer telling me that everything was going to unfold as it should; nothing was done. I have before me a committee that may be able to help me. Take a close look at what is going on in the Maritimes when it comes to the training of our young people. Is this the future of our country? There are no problems in Eastern Ontario, but there are in the North. All that I am asking you to do, is to keep this in mind, it is important.

Mr. Poirier: In order for things to work in the departments, departments have to undergo a change in culture, and this has not yet happened at Industry Canada. I will give you an example. They implemented the smart communities, one per province and one for the Aboriginal people. If there had been a change in culture, they would have also set up a smart community for francophones. This would have been easy when they created the program. They forgot about it. When we asked what they were going to do for us, it was too late. The program was already completed. We could develop a plan to help them. We will present the plans and the projects to them. We will tell them what they should do for us, and if they do not comply, I agree with you, we will have to get out the big stick.

Senator Gauthier: You are giving me a bit of confidence.

Mr. Ferguson: I have taken note of this situation and this is something that I will bring to the committee's attention.

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Finestone): It is important that you send a memo directly to Mr. Manley with respect to this exchange, Senator Gauthier. You must point out that this is a major oversight in the evolution of Canada, particularly with respect to our young francophones, and this oversight should be corrected immediately.

We are always so proud of the fact that every school here in Canada is connected to the Internet, but it is not worth connecting the French-language schools if they cannot have access to the Internet.

Senator Gauthier: Does the “where numbers warrant” criterion pose a problem? Mr. Poirier, you know what I mean.

Mr. Poirier: Yes.

Senator Gauthier: It is enough to have one child who needs assistance. You will perhaps find that I exaggerate, but in Ontario the situation is difficult. There was a court decision whereby the infamous phrase “Where numbers warrant...” was interpreted as “One (1) justifies the delivery of educational services”.

In Nova Scotia or elsewhere, if you are told that there are not sufficient numbers requiring services, tell them that it is not a valid excuse and that, with a bit of imagination, they will be able to serve the population.

Senator Gauthier: I realize what the committee has as its objective: clearly, it is to promote section 41. For Ms Hamelin, it is to promote understanding and, for Mr. Poirier, the committee's objective is to effectively represent the communities, and since I have known him for a very long time, I am certain that he will do this.

Mr. Ferguson, you wrote a report recently, did you not?

Mr. Ferguson: Yes.

Senator Gauthier: I recommend that all members and senators read this report, which deals with the issue of minority languages.

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Finestone): Senator Robichaud, are you satisfied with the progress that has been made to date?

Senator Robichaud: It is very difficult to be fully satisfied, but even if I were to ask a few questions, it would not advance the cause.

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Finestone): I am more hopeful than you are.

Senator Robichaud: I am hopeful, but it is not by asking questions that I will be able to speed up matters.

Mr. Poirier: I have been involved in francophone affairs for 30 years. I became involved even before my children attended school. I have sat on every imaginable committee in the community. This committee is the first one that gives me such cause for hope. There was a political will to create the committee, and some deputy ministers have already signed an agreement. As Senator Gauthier mentioned, if they do not respect their commitments, we can remind them that they signed an agreement.

There is political will, and changes have been made. Three years ago, when we asked Western Economic Diversification Canada to help the Franco-Ontarian community, it told us that we talked too much about culture in our document.

Western Economic Diversification Canada had never invested in francophone villages, but you must understand why. We had been given 100 per cent of what we had asked for; however, since we had never asked for anything, we were not even in the game.

After our committee was created, Minister Ronald Duhamel took charge of the file, calling for a cultural change within the department. Currently, Western Economic Diversification Canada grants core funding to our economic development organizations. We have French-speaking staff who work with us in the four western provinces.

Western Economic Diversification Canada is now providing financing for setting up a French-language tourism corridor in the West, and a $500,000 venture capital fund was provided to each of the components of the western provinces.

In Manitoba, this money was used to leverage over $4 million, which was invested in the villages to create 51 jobs and start up 13 new businesses.

There is hope; there is a cultural change. Without a cultural change, nothing will work. I believe that Industry Canada has not yet begun this change in its corporate culture, but it will have to do so.

As far as HRDC is concerned, the human resources adjustment committee was set up precisely because Human Resources Development Canada was not doing its job. Our committee has been set up since then. HRDC has invested $21 million in our projects. Furthermore, eight other departments have joined us around the table and are working with us.

Applications for HRDC funding are forwarded to the community component and, if an application is not in keeping with our plans, we reject it. However, after we have approved an application, HRDC will fund it and will no longer reject it. This is a new way of doing things and it represents a change in culture.

Canadian Heritage provided the funding for the first three economic forums and encouraged other departments to become involved. In the opinion of Canadian Heritage, francophone communities should be seen as an added value for the country.

Even the Department of Public Works got involved in economic development and got us the government rate for the people staying in the hotels. Public Works, who had never done anything before, helped us fund some of the economic forums.

For its part, ACOA works directly in the communities. ACOA met our Atlantic economic development groups. They agreed to work on an Acadian regional strategy at the ACOA level.

Before, when we expressed an opinion, we got the impression that nobody was listening. We met Ms Lucienne Robillard, President of Treasury Board, and she agreed to have a word with the Minister of Industry Canada to hear our plans. She even offered to accompany us. This is really a culture change within the different departments.

With our committee, I hope that changes will happen. The reason I am saying that is that we, as a community, have also had a culture change on our side.

We francophones, instead of fighting for $21 million, used to do it for fifty cents. We think that with $21 million, blood should flow in the streets. That is not what is happening right now. In our communities, we are getting organized to come up with a viable plan.

When the time comes to solicit the different departments, they will not be able to say no and everything will be consistent from one end of the country to the other. There will be room for everyone. If they refuse, we will have to get out the “big stick.”

For the time being, we have to finish our planning. That is the change of culture on our side. The change of culture in the community is as hard as on the government side. But I am hopeful.

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Finestone): Senator Robichaud, are you a bit more hopeful than before?

Senator Robichaud: Yes, it does raise everyone's hopes, but we have to continue to fight. I understand that the people here are fighting. They are having problems because they are going up a steep hill. What they are doing is enormous and I congratulate them heartly. I am encouraging them to continue.

But the fight for integral bilingualism across the country is far from won. Whether in New Brunswick or in Quebec, it is hard to get there fully and I congratulate those who do like Mr. Ferguson. I encourage you to continue.

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Finestone): Do you have the same hope for the Eastern provinces, following on the report that has just been tabled for the West? Does it work the same vary?

Mr. Poirier: It does not work quite the same way.

[English]

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Finestone): One glove does not fit all.

[Translation]

ACOA works directly with the communities while, back home, its equivalent, the Department of Western Economic Diversification, works only with English-speaking communities. Now, we deliver the Western Diversification Services ourselves because we've decided to help the francophones take their affairs into their own hands.

ACOA intervenes more directly. It already organizes many activities in Acadian villages. So it is different. However, we found out recently that ACOA was meeting the economic development groups it was ready to work with or with which it was ready to entertain joint proposals.

Senator Gauthier: There are four major regions in the country and three of them have economic development agencies: the Maritimes, Quebec and the West. Ontario has none or, actually there is something called FedNor, a sort of economic initiative for the northern part of the province.

One third of French-speaking Canadians live in Ontario and that represents half the French-speaking population outside Quebec. So that's 500,000 Franco-Ontarians — in my day they were called French-Canadians. Are you sensitive to the fact that in eastern and Northern Ontario educational needs are very serious? Besides, the distances there are tremendous.

I thought I understood you were aware of the problem, and that you would be supporting us when we requested federal government assistance. At present, our provincial government is not very sympathetic to us, and we might even believe that our government leaders are making things difficult for us on purpose.

Three reports have been published: the Fontaine Report, the Savoie report, and more recently, the Beaudoin report in 1996. The Beaudoin report dealt with Francophonie across Canada. I would like to receive a copy of it, because I have never seen it.

Mr. Ferguson: I will send you a copy.

[English]

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Finestone): Mr. Hill, you really missed an interesting presentation on the new approach out West, which I am sure you will want to read in the Hansard at another time. It has been a very interesting exchange. We did miss you and we are glad you are back. Please proceed.

Mr. Hill: There is some degree of diversity of opinion as to the phrase “where numbers warrant” in terms of services. I heard you speaking of a community where services were to be provided. Would you give me some idea of the department's view of “where numbers warrant”?

Mr. Poirier: We had that discussion while you were gone with Senator Gauthier. The meaning of “where numbers warrant” to Senator Gauthier is one.

Mr. Hill: I understand that. I would like to know what the department says.

Mr. Poirier: Human Resources?

At our committee level, we have nine different departments. If you want to direct a question to Human Resources, Mr. Ferguson could answer that.

Mr. Hill: I would be interested to hear from you about the “where numbers warrant” issue in terms of the economic component you spoke of, and then perhaps Mr. Ferguson could respond in terms of the department in the larger sense.

Mr. Poirier: My personal view, and that is the way we approach the issue, is if you are the least bit creative, “numbers warrant” can mean one and it can still work. It will have to be different and you have to be creative, but it can be done.

For instance, with respect to western diversification, we have a deal with Manitoba such that we will deliver services in French to everyone in the province. There are different community futures. Fourteen communities function in English in Manitoba. If they receive requests in French, they do not all have to be bilingual. In fact, I do not think they have any bilingual people. The francophones can come to us, and we help them no matter where they are in the province. It is a different way of doing things, but it works. It is not any more expensive. We receive the same funding as the other community futures. However, instead of trying to get them all to be bilingual, or at least have one token bilingual receptionist, they can come directly to us and we do it. Again, it is a different way of doing things, but it can be done.

Mr. Ferguson: From HRDC's perspective, this committee should know that there are two official language champions in HRDC — one on institutional bilingualism and one on section 41, for which I am responsible. When Monique Plante was assistant deputy minister of Human Resources, she was our champion or person responsible for institutional bilingualism.

In New Brunswick, because it is officially bilingual, services are available to both official language groups, the French and the English, in all of our offices. In other parts of the country, we have to make arrangements to ensure that if someone comes in and wants to be provided services that they are provided services. The services might not be right there at that time, but these people will be provided services in the official language of their choice.

Mr. Hill: Are you are telling me, then, that the department does not have a “where numbers warrant” guideline?

Ms Hamelin: We follow the regulations for official languages.

Mr. Hill: Official languages leaves this concept very vague. “Where numbers warrant” is not well defined. I am asking everyone who appears before us about their department's position on “where numbers warrant.” Basically you are saying that you have a personal opinion and that you follow the act, but you really do not have a guideline. You do not have a definition. You do not have a working number. I am not saying this critically. I am saying this as a fact.

Mr. Ferguson: We do not have a number that we have established.

Mr. Hill: You mentioned the figure of $21 million over three years. Is that divided between the two minority communities?

Mr. Ferguson: Yes.

Mr. Hill: Could you tell me how it is divided?

Mr. Ferguson: At this point we do not have a model. The francophone committee is ahead in terms of strategic plans, et cetera, and we are looking at things as activities or projects come in. However, a portion of it does go to the administration of both of these committees. The francophone committee has received $1.582 million and the anglophone committee $983,000.

Mr. Hill: Where can I find those figures?

Mr. Ferguson: Where can you find that?

Ms Hamelin: That was not published in our report. It is new data for 1999-2000.

Mr. Hill: Could you provide that to the committee in documentary form?

Mr. Ferguson: Would you want it?

Mr. Hill: I would like that, thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon: Could you please repeat those figures?

Mr. Ferguson: For 1999-2000, the breakdown is $1,582,866 for francophone committees and $983,806 for anglophone committees.

Mr. Plamondon: Those committees receive funding so that they can operate?

Ms Hamelin: Yes, they do. For example, when the anglophone committee was established, the Human Resources Development Committee did not carry out a study of the Canadian Francophonie. Thus, since there had been no comprehensive study on the needs of communities in the area, we performed that study ourselves. The funding was used for the study, as well as for committee meetings.

For each meeting, the committees select a given region so that they can meet the community. The anglophone committee might meet in such places as the Magdalen-Islands, the Lower North Shore or the Gaspé, and meet the community. The francophone committee has different projects. For example, an incubation centre was recently established in Manitoba. We also assist all economic development and employability groups in the provinces and territories. The funding is used to support our Pan-Canadian economic development framework.

Mr. Plamondon: In a few moments, I will come back to the distribution of funding among francophone and anglophone committees. I find it somewhat surprising.

With regard to labour market development agreements, we know that the Fontaine Report mentioned some problems with francophone communities outside Quebec. It indicated some difficulty with the transfer of jurisdiction, though that transfer went fairly smoothly in Quebec. In fact, in the Fontaine report, Alliance-Quebec stated that it was very satisfied with the manpower transfer, which fully respected the rights of Quebec's anglophone minority.

But we did not receive the same encouragement from Alliance-Quebec when it reported to the Fontaine committee, and we did not perceive the same facility in the other provinces. This is the first part of my question.

For the second part of my question, I will take Canada Post as an example. Canada Post is transferring services to pharmacies, small shopping centres and convenience stores. This is where we begin to have a language problem, because service in the language of the minority — particularly the French-language minority outside Quebec — becomes unavailable. Since this is related to manpower, I don't know how far you can get involved, or even if you can do anything.

Mr. Ferguson: Well, manpower transfer agreements include language-related clauses, stipulating that services must be provided in both official languages.

[English]

The Acting Joint Chair (Senator Finestone): Honourable members, we have a guest with us who has just arrived. He is a member of Parliament in Ireland. He and his colleagues are faced with some interesting language dilemmas in Ireland. They do not speak English and French, but rather English and Irish.

I wonder if you would care to join us, sir, at the table. I have to go to the Senate chamber, so Mr. Bellemare will take this seat if that is all right with members of the committee. Members can hear from the Irish about their concerns, and they in turn can monitor what we are doing.

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon, your questions were extremely interesting for an Irish community that has many problems similar to ours here in Canada. I therefore feel it is important that your question be heard. Could you repeat it, please?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Acting Joint Chairman) takes the chair.

Mr. Plamondon: I was talking about transfer of powers with respect to manpower. Agreements are signed between the federal government and provincial governments, and those agreements must be in compliance with the Official Languages Act. However, such compliance is not always achieved, and the conduct of some provinces and Crown corporations must often be corrected. Take Air Canada, for example. When it was privatized, there were many instances of non-compliance with the Official Languages Act; many corrections were required. If the company does not receive regular complaints, it tends towards becoming a unilingual English institution. This is a problem for francophone minorities outside Quebec.

With this kind of decentralization, we felt that it was easier for adaptation to take place within Quebec, with English-language minority rights respected. But in view of comments contained in the Fontaine report and made by organizations representing anglophones within Quebec, we did not see similar adaptation outside Quebec. For example, the Franco-Manitoban association has been very critical about French-language services available outside Quebec.

That was the first part of my question; the second part of my question was on the transfer of services in an effort to bring them closer to the community. I gave Canada Post as an example.

In the past, Canada Post used to have a small post office in every village and neighbourhood. Then, to ensure that post offices could remain open 10 hours a day, seven days a week, it decided to provide services through corner drugstores, convenience stores and supermarkets, on the assumption that the community would receive better service. But in many cases, the service that resulted from this move was offered in English only. I do not know how far your department has authority to take action in some cases, or how you could defend the minorities who find themselves cut off from services in their language.

Mr. Ferguson: Every labour market agreement contains language provisions, stipulating that services must be provided in both official languages. In cases where power is shared, or power is not transferred but managed under a federal-provincial agreement on the delivery of labour market services, then HRDC personnel are responsible for ensuring service delivery.

The delivery of programs and services in both official languages is being considered as part of a three-year study of each agreement, and is subject to provisions on the development of an assessment structure. The assessments show that demand for services in both official languages is being satisfactorily met. That is where our department stands at present. We are monitoring the situation very closely. As for the Canada Post situation, that is something I would perhaps not be able to comment on.

Mr. Plamondon: I understand that you are not directly involved in the Canada Post issue. I did say that a federal-provincial transfer system could be harmful to minorities, even though in many cases the only things transferred are points of service, with no direct bearing on the Official Languages Act. In some cases the department has no special management structure for such transfers, or has not instituted any. Sometimes, there is no direct authority link with a specific department.

In the Fontaine report, however — unfortunately, I do not have the quote about the development agreements you cited — the Franco-Yukon Association is mentioned, amongst several others. The report states that through the many agreements entered into between the federal government and the Northwest Territories, the rights of francophones under federal statutes and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are frequently diminished, and even ignored.

Your comments seem philosophical, correct, full of good will, and taken out of some beautiful big book, but in the day-to-day reality of people, we hear something different. People say they feel their language rights slowly slipping away. There is also the assimilation phenomenon, which, in some regions, such as the riding of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, increased to 80 per cent in recent years. All these conditions combined mean that the minority does not demand service in its language and gradually people forget to provide it.

Mr. Ferguson: We do various evaluations within the department. We consult people, we organize focus groups and we analyze the information. To date, the information we get shows that people are satisfied with the service they get, where agreements are in place, with respect to service in the language of one's choice.

Mr. Godin: I would like to ask a question I consider important. Nova Scotia, to mention one example, acknowledges that it does not use federal education funding for the purpose for which it was intended. In an unprecedented admission, the Nova Scotia Minister of Education acknowledged in the provincial legislature on April 28 of this year that her department was using federal funds for education in French for other purposes.

In addition, Ms Jane S. Purves thinks that her department has the discretion to use federal funding as it chooses. This is terrible! Does the Human Resources Development Department have the same type of control? The transitional fund is a catastrophe. Does the Human Resources Development Department have the same type of control as the Department of Canadian Heritage with respect to funding for education? What type of control do you have in your department over funds that are transferred to a province? What happens in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario? I can just imagine what goes on with people like Mike Harris and Ralph Klein in charge! The funding comes from the federal government and they are the ones who decide what to do with it? The funding is for the francophone community, and we will decide how it will be used. I do not know whether my question is clear enough, but I would like to hear your reaction.

Mr. Ferguson: For Human Resources Development, the situation is that the labour market agreements have been signed, and there is an annual follow-up. There have to be reports to Parliament. The provinces must submit a report stating what they did with the money transferred to them.

In New Brunswick specifically, I am on a committee which also includes the provincial deputy minister, who is responsible for supervising the use of funds transferred from the federal government.

In Nova Scotia, Human Resources Development did not transfer labour market development to the province. The department is still administering the program. It is managed jointly. The same is true in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. The transfer has taken place in New Brunswick, Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec. British Columbia and Ontario are in negotiations at the moment. The context varies depending on the province.

Mr. Godin: I am astounded at what is happening in Nova Scotia. New Brunswick is bilingual, and we have fewer problems there. Perhaps there are more of us to raise our voices at the same time, but what guarantee is there that Alberta will comply with the agreements in light of the questions that concern Mr. Hill about the 5 per cent or less and the 5 per cent of these matters? What guarantees does the Department of Human Resources Development provide when training responsibilities are transferred to a province? How can we be sure that the province will respect bilingualism, particularly in the case of former federal programs transferred to a province that does not have the same laws in place?

Mr. Ferguson: The agreements contain clauses that deal with very specific language issues. The province must meet these obligations.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): I would like to thank Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Poirier, Mr. Lavoie and Ms Hamelin for their presentation and for their excellent answers to our questions.

I would now like to welcome our next guest, Mr. Ó Cuív a Member of Parliament and Minister of State in Ireland, as well as his delegation. I would invite them to come forward and be seated at the table.

[English]

Mr. Minister, I should like to welcome you to Canada, especially to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages of the Parliament of Canada. This particular committee is formed of both the upper chamber and the lower chamber. Today, votes are taking place in the two chambers, as well as some interesting committee meetings. That is why there is a great deal of absenteeism here today. However, everything is reported and studied thereafter.

Honourable members, in July 1997, Mr. Eamon Ó Cuív was appointed Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, with special responsibilities for Gaeltacht and the Islands. He was party spokesperson for Rural Development and the Islands from 1995 to 1997. He has been a member of the Dáil since 1992. He was a senator at one time as well.

You are working in reverse, Mr. Ó Cuív. Here we become senator after being a member of Parliament.

He was also on the Cultural and Education Panel from 1989 to 1992.

I am a little embarrassed because in about four minutes the bells will begin ringing on the House of Commons side to call for a vote at 5:30. This will provide some time for you to make a presentation on how you cope with bilingualism in Ireland. At 5:25, however, most of us will disappear very quickly, or else we will be whipped and flogged.

Mr. Eamon Ó Cuív (Minister of State for the Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Parliament of Ireland): Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank you for the invitation to appear here today. We have had a very instructive visit to Canada. The areas that you had difficulty pronouncing are the small areas in the country where Irish is still the dominant spoken language. They are mainly on the west coast, and they are very fragmented.

I will provide a very short background to the situation of Irish in Ireland. Irish is a very old language and has been spoken in Ireland for over 2,000 years. It has a very old literature, having been written originally by the Christian monks in the 5th century. It is a highly developed language and was the dominant language in the country until the 17th century. For various reasons, it declined rapidly in that period, but there were still over a million Irish speakers in the country at the time of the Great Famine in 1847. It declined very rapidly between then and the end of the last century to the point where it was in danger of extinction. However, the literary and cultural revival at the end of the last century stemmed that decline somewhat. It also was tied up very clearly with the independence movement, and that has provided us with a peculiar bilingualism that is very different from the situation here in Canada. The vast majority of the people in the Irish State see Irish as their ancestral language, so they have some affinity for the Irish language.

The actual position today, however, is that about 1 million people, or 30 per cent, say they know Irish, but only about 100,000 people use it on a daily basis. The rest of the people who have learned it at school probably could do an interview in Irish if they prepared for it, but they do not use it as a day-to-day language.

Within the Irish Parliament, the Dáil, I would estimate that about 10 per cent of the deputies are fluent enough to have a good argument in the Irish language. Another 30 per cent have a good understanding and certainly could take part in prepared speeches, but they probably would feel at a severe disadvantage if a heated argument were taking place. Another 30 per cent would understand it reasonably well, and the remainder do not understand Irish as well and in my opinion do not understand it at all. Whether that is a biased opinion or not I do not know.

It is also fair to say that when independence came, the target was to turn the Irish state into an Irish-speaking state. They set ambitious targets at that time, which are still overhanging the way in which we approach the language. For example, at that time, Irish was obligatory in order to join the public service. However, to have enough public servants, they had to keep reducing the standard. As well, it was compulsory in terms of public examinations to receive school certificates.

The Irish language is also used ceremoniously. That can be good and bad. On very important public occasions, most people would start a speech with two words in Irish. The terms with which you were having difficulty — the Dáil for the House of Representatives, Oireachtas for the Parliament of the Whole, Ceann Comhairle for the Speaker of the Parliament, and even the names of public companies — are used in the Irish language because of this ancestral attachment. We do not use the word MP, or member of Parliament. We use Teachta Dála, or representative to the Parliament, the Irish version, because of that ancestral attachment to the language.

For example, all of our presidents have been inaugurated in the Irish language. The nearest equivalent I can think of was the way Latin was used in universities, certainly in Europe.

Interest in the Irish language waned, but there has been a revival of interest in recent times. For example, we have seen the growth of all-Irish education, with English speakers sending their children to all-Irish schools. An Irish-language television station has been established in the last four years, providing television coverage on a dedicated basis for the first time in the Irish language.

That brings us to the purpose of our visit. It was my view as an Irish speaker that there was a need for us to accept a concept of bilingualism and to move away from any notion that it was likely in the short term or even in the medium term that Ireland would become an Irish-speaking country. On the other hand, we must recognize that Irish is a fundamental part of what Ireland is today. Different people at different levels of our society have different approaches to the language. Some people want bilingual signs, even though they do not speak Irish. On the other hand, there is an Irish-speaking community that wants services in Irish and wants to use Irish as a daily means of communication.

The Irish language is a working language. For example, in my department, the Gaeltacht sections, the island sections, and so on —  although not all the islands are Irish speaking — do their internal business in Irish. It is quite a developed language and has no difficulty coping with modern technology and modern vocabulary.

That brings us to our interest in what you have done in Canada. We recognize huge differences. For example, French is a major international language with a huge base of speakers worldwide. Therefore, in terms of media coverage, in terms of books, and so on, it is totally disproportionate to our difficulties in relation to the Irish language. On the other hand, in terms of providing services in some of your provinces, there will be certain parallels where you will have small numbers of French speakers and you want to provide them with a bilingual service.

I am at the moment, with the assistance of my officials, in the process of drawing up an Official Languages Act.

I should have said that the Irish language in the 1937 Constitution of Ireland is the first official language as the national language, but the constitutional position with English as a second language and the real position in day-to-day life are poles apart. What I am seeking to do now, under a provision of the Constitution which allows us to regulate by law the use of either one of the two languages, is to set down in law criteria and services that would be available to people. This is where we looked at the Canadian Official Languages Act, the Welsh Official Languages Act and the languages acts we could find. We were very interested in the different dilemmas faced by different jurisdictions in dealing with two languages that were not of equal strength within a country. We were particularly struck by the thoroughness and the efficiency with which you have undertaken the task here. We were interested to see firsthand how you treated equality where there were differing numbers in terms of speakers in various areas of your country. Our expectations have been more than met in the willingness of people here to engage us and provide us with information. I have been very struck by the realistic and practical manner in which you deal with this issue.

We must, in our situation, move from targets that were unrealistic and that delivered very little to the people on the ground who wanted to avail themselves of services in Irish to targets that are much more limited but where the delivery of what we would set out to deliver would be of a much higher quality. That has particularly impressed me in Canada — that is, how much you set out to do and how much has actually been implemented in full. We have a lot to learn from that. How you have also tailored what you do to what is possible and what is deliverable is also interesting. Government policies that set out to achieve great things but do not take into account the real facts of life often fall much shorter in terms of delivery than policies that are slightly more limited but actually set out to fully achieve in practice and in detail that which they seek to implement.

I should like to thank you for the opportunity to say a few words today. I fully appreciate your problem with the votes. We have that problem at home all the time, although you have a little more time to arrive at the chamber than we do. We have exactly eight minutes, and then the doors are closed and we must vote.

I thank you for the courtesy and for the opportunity to meet with you and say a few words. I would be more than willing, when it is opportune for you, to answer any questions you may have and engage in a bit of dialogue.

The Acting Joint Chair (Mr. Bellemare): Your presentation was very interesting and educational.

At 5:25, in two minutes, we will adjourn the meeting. I would invite everyone to come back for a short reception.

Mr. Hill: One thing we have done in Canada is try to encourage people to become bilingual. Is that something you are doing in Ireland? Is there an active program to teach Irish?

Mr. Ó Cuív: We have always promoted the Irish language amongst everyone. It is taught in every school. We have promotional bodies for the Irish language. This was given an extra impetus with the peace process in Northern Ireland because one of the six first implementation bodies to be organized on the North-South basis was the language body. Its main emphasis is on the promotion of the Irish language, but a small unit is also involved with the promotion of Ulster-Scots. About 90 per cent of the budget is related to the Irish language. It has been done on a cross-border basis, so it has now become central to the peace process. In the short time that the executive was operating, there was a great interest, both North and South, in promoting this body. There are considerable funds to be made available by both governments. We are putting in 3 pounds and they put in 1 pound on the Irish-language side. On the other side, it is the other way around. They put in 3 pounds and we are putting in 1 pound.

Ulster-Scots is basically Robbie Burns' language. That language was spoken within the lowlands of Scotland.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): In Northern Ireland, do they speak Irish or English only?

Mr. Ó Cuív: If we take Northern Ireland as an example, it would be 45 per cent nationalist and 55 per cent unionist. Very few in the unionist community feel any great affinity for the Irish language. While for many of them it would have been their ancestral language, for political reasons they would not have traditionally felt, with a number of exceptions, any great affinity. However, in the nationalist community, even amongst those who do not speak Irish, which is the vast majority, they would feel the same ancestral attachment to the Irish language that the rest of us in the rest of the end of Ireland feel for it. This has become a major issue in the peace process, with some of the nationalist parties in the Northern Ireland peace process pushing the Irish language issue very strongly. Of the 12 ministers in the Northern Ireland executive, allowing that very few of the unionists speak Irish, I would never speak to three of the ministers in English when I meet them on a one-to-one basis because they are fluent in Irish.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): In Ireland, the Irish language is the official language. What is the status of English?

Mr. Ó Cuív: It is an official language as well.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): You have two official languages like us.

Mr. Ó Cuív: Yes.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): Do you strive to ensure that in the education system everyone can learn and will learn or should learn the Irish language?

Mr. Ó Cuív: Traditionally, it was part of the core curriculum in every school in the country. With very few exceptions, everyone had to learn.

The Acting Joint Chairman (Mr. Bellemare): We apologize, but duty calls. I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing today.

The committee adjourned.