LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 29, 2000

• 1530

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. You have before you today's agenda. Colleagues, with your approval, we would like to hear the Minister's presentation right away, before moving on to future business, because the Minister is here for only one hour. I believe she will also have time to take your questions. She has told us that she has allocated one hour. Does everyone agree to hearing the Minister's presentation first?

Good afternoon, Minister, and thank you for coming. Since we don't know the names of the people accompanying you, would you mind introducing them, please?

The Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): With me today are the Assistant Deputy Minister for Official Languages Policy, Mr. Norman Moyer, and the Director General of Official Languages Support Programs, Mr. Hilaire Lemoine.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you very much. Please proceed with your presentation and we will move on to the questions afterwards.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Thank you. First of all, I'd like to thank the joint chairs for their invitation. It is wonderful appearing before a committee whose two joint chairs are women, because I know how involved women really are in linguistic issues. One's mother tongue has always been something that led to a number of subsequent decisions.

We will begin by reading a text that will outline, to some extent, the policies that we have begun developing. Afterwards, we will be ready to take questions.

First off, the last time I appeared here, we proposed a new framework to support second languages in Canada, precisely to respond to the needs of a growing number of young people who wish to study in a second language.

In fact, thanks to this new framework, we undertook a $70- million-a-year program renewal. We have also planned the celebrations for the first Year of La Francophonie in Canada. In addition, we have developed a new vision of linguistic duality.

One year ago, the government announced a substantial increase in the funding given to official languages, and we have accomplished much.

The Year of La Francophonie in Canada, which ends at the end of this month, was a great success. There are a number of highlights from this year, which was a great success in terms of the stakeholders' participation.

Here are the challenges and the opportunities that I foresee in the future. We have reached agreements with all communities across Canada, with the exception of Ontario. We anticipate reaching an agreement with Ontario in the near future and we have allocated budget increases which may even reach 50%, precisely because we have been able to bid adieu to the fight against the deficit.

These budget increases will allow communities to consolidate their activities and to fund essential projects. We have also begun developing a second generation of agreements aimed at improving coordination and planning mechanisms. What's more, we have established a new inter-departmental partnership initiative. We will be able to help other departments undertake ambitious projects and strategic initiatives involving their clients.

Thanks to these budget increases, total annual funding for communities is now $37 million. This is unprecedented support.

[English]

Why? We heard the message of Savoie and Fontaine. We have to give ourselves better tools to ensure that we continue to make progress in terms of the capacity of all Canadians to feel at home in their own language.

• 1535

We also understood the reports you made about the need for integrated leadership. The specific work you've done has been, in part, one of the reasons that we now do have a new inter-ministerial initiative. In addition, we do have a new role of the committee of deputy ministers to look at every piece of legislation that passes through the federal House to make sure it is respectful of the Official Languages Act. You saw that lately with the specific language changes as it relates to the transport ministry's bill.

We are continuing to fund activities that can help change the organizational culture in federal institutions so that we can underscore the fact that the right to receive service in the language of your choice is not just a right under the Department of Canadian Heritage, but it should also be a right for all citizens who receive services from the government.

The inter-ministerial partnership fund, PICLO, is a fund of $5.5 million a year, which we will add to projects that can show they're really moving to invest in the respect for both official languages in each department.

[Translation]

What have we invested in education? Has this investment been successful? We have signed a memorandum of understanding with the CMEC, the first memorandum of understanding where we have required an action plan.

[English]

There are 261,000 students in primary and secondary schools in second language learning.

[Translation]

There are 160,000 students in close to 700 French schools outside of Quebec and there are 101,000 Anglophone students in English schools in Quebec.

We ratified the Memorandum of Understanding on Official Languages in Teaching worked out by the federal government and the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada. For the first time, we required an action plan, because we listened to you. It is not enough to offer funding; there must also be an action plan to accelerate the construction of buildings and schools, for example.

We have established a partnership agreement with the provinces and the territories, which will cover the costs for teaching in a minority or second language. We have also reached bilateral agreements with each government. We are anxious to reach an agreement with the province of Ontario. I met with the Minister of Education who lately seems to have a lot of money for a number of different school sectors. We expect, after considerable effort for over one year, to be rewarded with positive results in the very near future. We have also worked with provinces on French-language school administration.

[English]

The most positive aspect of the whole process of second language learning has been underscored in the number of parents who would like to see their child learn a second language. In an Angus Reid poll done two years ago, 77% of Canadians said it was important that Canada's schools teach both languages. And I was thrilled to see the political party of the Canadian Alliance adopt a policy of bilingualism, which is a great step in the right direction.

I was very pleased to see the leader of the official opposition studying French. It shows that we have made great progress.

There are currently 2.7 million children studying English or French as a second language. That's 52% of the student population, including 317,000 students in French immersion.

In the 15 to 19 age group there's been a 38% increase in bilingualism in 15 years. And in the province of Quebec bilingualism has risen by 29%.

Many provinces happily exceed the national average. The study of French language in Prince Edward Island is up by 170%.

[Translation]

It is a modest beginning, but it nonetheless confirms that parents want their children to be bilingual.

[English]

In Newfoundland and Labrador the study of a second language is up 167%. In Nova Scotia it is up 100%, in Alberta it's up 70%, and in New Brunswick it's up 69%.

Through the summer language bursaries we've given the opportunity for 7,000 post-secondary students to study in a second language every summer. That represents 75,000 graduates of that program since its inception. And there are 42 institutions across Canada participating in this important summer language initiative.

• 1540

Let's look at Canada as a leader not only in official languages but also as a leader in language learning.

[Translation]

What is our position in the world?

[English]

We are working for the first time to market this asset internationally. It's an industry that represents $300 million in value in Canada and employs 11,000 people in our country. It's an asset that means, according to the 1998 survey of providers of training in English or French as a second or foreign language, there are 331 private schools in Canada and 159 public institutions involved in the teaching of a second language.

The growth in enrolment in these institutions in the past four years has been 22%. Of that total enrolment growth, 39% comes from foreign students, which gives us an opportunity to

[Translation]

show the two faces of Canada to foreign students. This is very important for our society, which wants a framework that will allow all the countries of the world to be heard.

[English]

The actual business of language learning is concentrated primarily in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia: 33% in Quebec; 28% in Ontario; 23% in British Columbia; 10% in the prairies; and 6% in Atlantic Canada. It is in many cases the product of small business.

[Translation]

We are also working in all provinces to offer services to minority communities.

[English]

For example, I was asked by one of the media members on the way in why we were involved in helping the English-speaking community in Quebec to organize in a centralized way. That's part of the job we do. In fact, we try to work with minority language communities across the country to make sure they can have services, not just in education, not just in expanded health services, but also so that they can interconnect in business, in all of the facets of life that every other Canadian should enjoy.

[Translation]

We know, for example, that in the field of health care, Franco-Ontarians have been in the vanguard of the battle for the Montfort Hospital because that is an important part of their culture. If they are unable to be cared for in their language, there is no point in fighting to preserve it. It's all well and good to go to school to preserve your mother tongue, but if you are unable to work, to have your parents cared for and to have your children cared for in your language, it's like having

[English]

one leg on the table. And we've built the table, but so far we have only one very strong leg. We have to work to build those other legs.

[Translation]

Obviously, people in every province are worried when it comes to services. We know, for example, that

[English]

outside Montreal, anglo Quebeckers are concerned about the reduction in services, about the decision of the Quebec government to forego revenues, and their decision not to renew the agreement on health and social services in English. These are important issues for the minority language community and for their support.

[Translation]

There is a new mechanism for service delivery that is being tested in Manitoba. It is a one-stop French services centre. This is something that we would like to offer in all of the provinces and that is why we are working with all communities across Canada.

Last year, the Department of Heritage coordinated the Commissioner's study entitled The Government of Canada and French on the Internet. So, I was very happy to hear the Minister of Finance announce yesterday a supplementary investment of $30 million starting this year. This is an investment of $20 to $30 million by the year 2004 for Internet content. This is an aspect of the budget that has not received a lot of attention, but this is part of our commitment to ensure content in both languages.

• 1545

French on the Internet is part of a Canadian content strategy, which is why in the development of the program, we require that 50% of the $20 million investment be earmarked for the creation of French-language content.

We will be investing twice the proportion of Francophones in this country, because we believe that the need is greater in French than in English, given the fact that Internet content is currently 97% in English.

I think that the Commissioner was quite happy with our response. In my opinion, one of the best things that we inaugurated during the Year of La Francophonie in Canada was linking the Francophone universities outside of Quebec. We were the first in the world to invest not only in the university information highway, but also in a university network that will be established via the information highway. We were able to do so because our Francophone institutions are not vertical in nature; they are horizontal in accordance with their needs.

In other fields, we have been involved in preparing the Canadian Francophone Games in Memramcook. These are the first Canadian games. This surprised me when I became Minister, because there have been the Francophone Games in Ontario and in western Canada, but there had never been a Canada-wide version. We hope that this will continue, because it's so wonderful to see young people playing together, not only for the sport, but also to get to know each other a little and to build ties. Thanks to the information highway, these links can be maintained. It is now very easy to have conversations between different cities, which was not possible five years ago.

We have explored the universe of la francophonie in Canada through a Quebec initiative to create an educational kit which represents 32 francophones who left their mark on Canadian society. This kit was distributed to grade five and grade six classrooms in French schools and French-immersion schools across Canada.

There have also been a number of activities organized for the Rendez-vous de la Francophonie. As well, we organized a Forum on Cultural Development of la Francophonie, which will take place in April, to promote the distribution of French-Canadian cultural products around the world.

Let's now talk about the Games of la Francophonie in Ottawa- Hull in 2001. The Congrès mondial acadien, in Grand Pré, Nova Scotia, will highlight the 400th anniversary of the arrival of Champlain, which will be celebrated in three years' time. We are already making plans with the people of Port-Royal in Nova Scotia and with other francophones in the Atlantic region.

For the first time, we've established a new vision of Canada's linguistic duality as a key element of our diversity. Canadians desire for their children to learn a second language is a response to the policies that we have developed gradually since the 1970s.

[English]

These are our five strategic priorities, and linguistic duality is present in each of these cases. For the first time, we are working to reinforce our horizontal cooperation in the department. As I said when I became the minister, I was rather surprised to find that if it involved a minority language, if it was French outside of Quebec, you were automatically sent to Official Languages. If it was English in Quebec, you were automatically sent to Official Languages. It could be culture, it could be sport, it could be something completely different.

We developed our own stovepipes, and we're trying to break them down. We're actually trying to allow the department to interconnect on that kind of horizontal cooperation

[Translation]

which has also been successful.

[English]

We require all elements of our own department to contribute more effectively to language duality, and we're hoping to set that as the vanguard for the government.

We are committed to increasing the use of the French language within Canada. There are 12 million Canadians who use French in business and daily life. As I said before, that's double the level of bilingualism amongst our young people. In other words, this is the target we're setting for ourselves. Some may say “Why have a target?” We have the target that we want to see 12 million Canadians using French by 2010, which means we have to take the level of bilingual teenagers from 24% to 50%, so that one of every two children graduating from Canadian high schools will be bilingual. We think we can make that happen with the mix of programs we have available.

• 1550

We will use the schools, we will use information technology, we will use the Internet, and we will use community organizations to target both youth and adult second language learning. We are also going to use the ministerial round table on official languages to help achieve this goal.

Because the provinces for the first time have agreed to an action plan, we think if we put the collective force of the people behind us—people who want to see their children either educated in their own language or able to establish second language learning—this is a doable goal. That's our target from here to the next decade.

I've finished my presentation and now I'm available for questions.

[Translation]

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

Allow me to inform the new members of the committee of the procedure that we have adopted in order to allow everyone the opportunity to ask questions. For the first round, each of the parties is given seven minutes. We will begin with the Official Opposition, followed by the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party with Senator Beaudoin.

Following that, for the second round, there will be five minutes for each question.

Mr. Hill, seeing as you are used to this, you may begin.

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Thank you very much. Thank you to the minister for being present.

The Official Languages Act states that the federal government is committed to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada. You've just said that your goal is to have 12 million Canadians speaking French by 2010. It doesn't sound to me like the first commitment would be kept by that goal. So I'd like to know how that fits with the first goal of this Official Languages Act.

Ms. Sheila Copps: The first goal is to provide support for minorities in minority language situations. The second goal is to encourage the development and use of the French language by all Canadians. I don't see the two goals as being inconsistent; I see them as complementary.

If anything, there's a tendency in a very anglicized world to see the disappearance of the French language. I don't think the English language is at risk of disappearing; therefore if we can reinforce support for the minority French outside of Quebec and the minority English in Quebec, we can achieve both those goals.

Mr. Grant Hill: That's a very important distinction to make, and it's a distinction that isn't often made, especially in the west, where fostering the vitality of English in Quebec is considered to be very valuable and fostering the use of French outside Quebec is also considered to be very valuable. But the prospect of using the Official Languages Act to promote one language is not clear, and you're making it very clear by this goal.

If I could go to the issue of fostering the two languages in the minority situation, I've looked very carefully at the finances of the committee and what it does, and there's a fair disproportionate use of funds. I'd like to go to that specific issue of the use of funds in Quebec to promote the English minority and the use of funds outside Quebec to promote the French minority. Give me some indication of why those funds are so disproportionate, just for fostering the minority language in the minority position.

• 1555

Ms. Sheila Copps: I guess I'll give you the example of my brother, who lives in Montreal. He's an anglophone living in Montreal, his wife is a francophone, and they speak French at home. If my brother wants to go to an English movie, he only has to pick up the newspaper. I think there are probably 20 or 30 cinemas operating in Montreal in the English language. So he is a minority English person living in Quebec, but he certainly has no problem accessing the services we would consider to be part of our social circle.

My sister-in-law, who used to live in Cold Lake, Alberta, is a francophone and did not have access to a French cinema. Now she and my brother are married, so she's back in Montreal. But anyway, when they were living in Edmonton, Alberta, the only activities in her own language were listening to the French CBC and accessing activities around the francophone community. They were largely supported by initiatives of the government because they were small in number and didn't have access to the same commercial market the anglophones do in the major urban centre of Montreal.

If you take a look at, for example, an anglophone living in the Gaspé, in a sense an anglophone in the Gaspé is in a much similar situation to a francophone living in Cold Lake. I'm talking now about social activities, going out in the evening, having dinner, day care, etc. Monsieur Plamondon is saying there's no comparison. I'm not talking about services of government and provision of government services; I'm talking about the other things you would do in your lives outside of government, i.e., where would you take your children to child care, where would you

[Translation]

socialize, go and eat in a restaurant, do things as a family?

The reason why we invest more for Francophones outside of Quebec is that it is more difficult to live in French outside of Quebec than it is to live in English in Quebec. In remote areas of Quebec, Anglophones are more likely to live in a minority situation. That is why we readjusted the spending in Montreal in relation to the spending in the other parts of the province.

Mr. Grant Hill: I have one other concern. The Official Languages Act stipulates that where numbers warrant, the federal government will spend money. I'd like to know from the Minister, what is this number? What percentage of people belonging to a minority living in a community outside of Ottawa justifies this spending?

[English]

Ms. Sheila Copps: You're dealing with two issues. The Constitution says every Canadian has a right to be educated in their official language. So if I am one person, I have the right to be educated in my language. That's a constitutional right.

In terms of provision of services, under section 41 and section 42 of the act, you're going to see the President of the Treasury Board coming to speak specifically to the issue of provision of other government services, because my job is to build the framework for the communities to educate and live in the language of their choice, not to decide which government services are delivered at which level.

Because we signed a bilateral agreement as a result of the work of this committee, we've actually spread the responsibility amongst a number of government departments. Treasury Board is responsible for provision of services.

[Translation]

Mr. Grant Hill: My question is for the Minister of Heritage: what percentage of people belonging to a minority justifies the provision of service in the minority language?

[English]

Ms. Sheila Copps: I guess I'd like to put the question in a reverse way. Speaking again to your concern about the anglophones in Quebec, if the anglophones in the Gaspé peninsula become too small a number, should we stop serving them?

[Translation]

Mr. Grant Hill: What is the answer?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Your time has expired, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): I'm ready to allow the Minister to answer the question on the percentage, if she would like.

[English]

Ms. Sheila Copps: As far as I'm concerned, as a Canadian citizen I'm very proud of the fact that the Constitution gives every young Canadian the right to be educated in the language of their choice. I'm very pleased that the Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, upheld this right.

• 1600

I feel that we are moving in the right direction, and as far as I'm concerned, I'd love to see us mature enough as a country that we could make all services available everywhere in both languages. That's my position.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Minister, thank you for coming.

We don't have the same vision, you and I, with respect to the role of the minister responsible for official languages. However, I am in the process of writing you a letter in which I outline what I believe the position of the government of Canada should be if it really believes in the Official Languages Act, and if it really intends to have it implemented as it should some day be implemented, according to the Constitution and based on the principle of language equality, not in terms of standards, but in terms of equality.

However, I will simply say this, and this is something incidently that I have already said, Minister. Since you have been in charge of this department, you have been delighted with the increasing number of people who are becoming bilingual. And of course there is nothing wrong with this and your department sees itself changing gradually into a department that sings the praises of bilingualism. However, for me, the issue is one of rights and services, not only in education, but also in health care and social services and access to the Internet in my language, which is not what I'm getting with the current Canadian service. Nor do I have any guarantee of being able to use my language anywhere in Canada. So the goal is not to become bilingual.

Besides, I was reading last week a book in which it was said that the provinces where the greatest number of people were becoming bilingual were also the provinces where there was the highest rate of assimilation and the greatest drop in the number of francophones.

I'm not against bilingualism, but I would like you to understand that, despite the reasoning that you've been using since you've arrived—your predecessors as well—there is an assimilation rate among French minority of 50% in the provinces other than Quebec. In Quebec, it is stable compared with the English minority. Of course, we are in a north american context, and you need to take this into account. It is easier to preserve the English language in North America than it is for Quebec, in a minority situation, to preserve the French language, and it's even more difficult still when you are outside of Quebec, because we know that there are 3% of Francophones in North America. It stands to reason.

Considering this, Minister, is this crazy dream to become bilingual not a bit too much? Should we not rather be providing guarantees when it comes to education, health care and social services in the language of our choice?

Ms. Sheila Copps: What I find unfortunate in your statement, is this idea that these two concepts are irreconcilable. They are not. In reality, the greater the number of francophiles you have who understand what it means to speak and to live in French, the greater the opportunity to create a truly equal society. With respect to the question about assimilation, I'm sure that the policy stemming from the Constitution on education rights is fairly recent. There is another policy that could help even the balance between English and French in Canada, and that's the immigration policy. Unfortunately, Quebec is one of the areas which is least requested by immigrants, but it would be possible to easily increase the number of Francophones coming to Canada if as much were being done in the field of immigration as in other provinces. It is a tool.

• 1605

It's not only a question of services. We also need to take into consideration the number of immigrants who speak both languages. Currently, immigration provides part of the population base for future generations. You say that assimilation is greater where people are bilingual.

Take the example of my father, who came from Northern Ontario. Obviously, 30 years ago, Francophones in that region worked in the forestry industry and they didn't necessarily have access to education in their language. My father, incidently, learned his French on the street. He was never educated in French, because this just didn't exist. He was an Irishman who learned French on the street, and his town was becoming more and more English because those who spoke French and those who taught French did it in the conditions that I've just described. When their kids started school, they lost it all. If we want to turn this situation around, we have to give the school system the opportunity to take root. This is what we are trying to do by investing in French outside of Quebec.

In the report Where did the Billions Go?, the investment we made in the schools is mentioned. But you have to go beyond the schools and we tried to do that. That is the primary mandate of our department. Moreover, I find that in politics the more people understand one another, the more you get their support. The Reform Party and Alliance Quebec are now beginning to endorse bilingualism. That was unthinkable 10 years ago. That means more support is developing. The more support there is, the more services there will be. It snowballs. I don't think the two principles are irreconcilable. I think they go together.

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

Mr. Plamondon, you still have a minute left.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I'll give others a chance. However, I must say you are not convincing me, Minister. What you're saying doesn't convince me that there's any hope of seeing the French- speaking community—and I'm still talking about those provinces other than Quebec—make any progress. Even in Quebec, I think it is in danger. Outside of Quebec, the French-speaking community is on a slippery slope and nothing, at this point in time, can stop it because it is an ongoing process. According to Statistics Canada, the annual deficit in births and deaths is 50% if you're looking at renewing the French-speaking population. So we're marching towards oblivion. In that sense, I think the policy we've had for years leads directly to the disappearance of the French fact.

You spoke of immigration. Give Quebec full powers over its immigration and I won't worry about the survival of the French language. A lot of efforts have already been made and there's actually a lot of co-operation between the two governments when it comes to favouring French-speaking immigration to Quebec to keep the French fact alive in North America.

You know that in Montreal—and I don't know if these are this year's figures or the ones from a few years ago—only 52% of the population is considered as being Francophone. It's the metropolis of Quebec. French is in danger even in Quebec. Imagine the situation in the rest of Canada. So it seems to me your policy has to take a turn.

• 1610

Anyway, as I was saying, I'll think about this and write something to you, and you can answer in writing. This way I'll have more time to address this matter at greater length. In my opinion, things can't go on like this. We absolutely have to take a turn and focus our action of individual rights and the equality of both languages.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Do you want to answer, Minister?

Ms. Sheila Copps: First of all, concerning immigration, I know that Immigration Canada has asked the Quebec government to welcome a greater number of immigrants. You can check those facts. We want more French-speaking immigrants and the government of Quebec is helping us there.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Everybody agrees.

Ms. Sheila Copps: You're saying the number of French-speaking people has decreased because of the government's policies. In fact, the number of Francophones remains stable but the population is increasing. We will be able to increase their numbers through our support in the areas of education and immigration and by adding francophile political support.

I believe the anglicization problem doesn't exist only in Canada; it affects just about every culture. The network of culture ministers was set up because a lot of countries are afraid of losing their language. When the other countries see that we managed to build a country where our two languages have constitutional support and the rights of both language groups are protected, then they see hope.

We could just say that we'll stop making any kind of effort because trying to prevent English becoming the only language in the world is an impossible task, or we could say that societies can work together to increase the number of people speaking French. I for one am not ready to throw in the towel. The ministers responsible for the Francophonie in Canada have been working together for three years now and we've been thinking about a Canadian francophonie year. The celebration of that year of la Francophonie will allow us to emphasize what you've done and ask other governments to make a commitment. The Sommet de la francophonie in Moncton was certainly a source of pride for Francophones and was a starting point for the young people who'd like to follow it up.

I don't really understand the solutions you're suggesting. You seem to fear that nothing can be accomplished outside of Quebec and perhaps we should just throw in the towel and accept the fact that we have two peoples speaking two languages within their respective boundaries. I'm not in favour of that.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Well, we actually have to do something.

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

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

We could continue our discussion on this point but you already know my position on that. Bilingualism is like a hybrid; it does not reproduce anymore than that. But an official language does have a chance of reproducing if you give it a chance to flower. You know... [Editor's Note: Inaudible] There are two official languages in our country and that's all there is to it. Mr. Beaudoin might want to correct me but, to my knowledge, the word “bilingualism” doesn't even figure in the Constitution. That bothers a lot of people. In any case, let's go to something else.

You spoke about the Canada-Ontario agreement and that's a major concern. When I asked about it at your department last year to know how far things had progressed, I was told that things were progressing and that during the Sommet de la francophonie it would be announced that the agreement had been signed and that everything was going along fine. But nothing happened. I know a bit about the problem and I know there are two things at stake and the main one is the money that will be invested. Everybody knows it's some $20 or $21 million and you might be able to confirm that for me; otherwise, I'll just keep thinking along those lines.

There's a question that's eating at me and that was a great concern for us all in Ontario last year, and that's the matter of the management of the agreement. In my opinion, that's where the problem lies. You may correct me if I'm wrong.

• 1615

All provinces, except Ontario, have signed agreements. Am I right in saying that if Ontario hasn't signed the agreement yet it's because there are questions about its management?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I think the concern has more to do with the amount of money.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That doesn't jibe with the information I've been given. So I'm taking it for granted that I was not well informed.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Not necessarily.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Has the matter of the management of the agreement been settled?

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine (Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, Canadian Heritage): Mr. Gauthier, Ontario is getting ready to end its consultations with the community in all areas of the province with a view to establishing the mechanism that will eventually allow us to manage the agreement. We hope to be in a position to get Ontario's signature by the end of March, including its agreement as to the monies to be invested. The details that remain to be settled in Ontario have mainly to do with the choice of the organization or institution that will be managing the agreement. That is the status at the present time.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's going farther than the Minister.

Ms. Sheila Copps: That's not the first time.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I understand that consultations are being held presently, that they are to end soon and that we can expect the signature of the agreement in March.

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: Yes, that is what we're trying to do.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You have confirmed what I was thinking and I thank you.

Maybe I shouldn't talk about sections 41 and 42 because they are before the courts. On 12 May 1998, almost two years ago, this committee passed a resolution to have the CRTC fall under the Official Languages Act, specifically sections 41 and 42. I'll read you the resolution:

That this committee recommend to the government of Canada that the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission be added to the list of the 27 federal institutions designated within the accountability framework adopted in August 1994 to ensure the implementation of sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act.

Minister, are you ready to recommend to your Cabinet colleagues that they make the CRTC subject to the Act once and for all? I'll tell you why this is important. In Ontario, we asked the CRTC to grant us the right to broadcast TFO, Ontario's French channel, in Quebec. In answer to a letter I sent, the Chair of the CRTC answered that as soon as she had this matter in hand, she would inform me of her decision. I haven't received anything yet. Could you tell me if you know what's going on between TFO, the CRTC and Quebec?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's an important question for me.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'm telling you the truth. I for one believe that the CRTC should be subject to this.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Are you going to recommend that to your colleagues?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes, absolutely and I'll do a follow-up.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's all I had to say.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Are you through, Senator Gauthier?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes.

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

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I wanted to get back to this for the record. It seems that we have to revive this debate every now and then.

• 1620

When you talk about equality where numbers warrant, I don't agree at all because Canada's Constitution puts both official languages on the same footing. We should never forget that. It's not a matter of knowing if there are fewer Francophones than Anglophones, not at all. Both official languages are on an equal footing. That is what this country's Constitution spells out. It's not a simple piece of legislation.

You must absolutely read the decision in favour of the Prince Edward Island parents. It's well thought out and it's a very good Supreme Court decision. For the first time in the history of Canada, it is spelled out that language rights are community rights. That was never said before. The jurists have been discussing this for decades but the Supreme Court has now spelled it out.

I've always said that it's the languages that are equal. It's not a matter of numbers. What is protected by section 23 in the Constitution is the schools of the Francophones and Anglophones, the rights of Francophones outside of Quebec and Anglophones in Quebec. And for the first time, a figure has been set out: from 49 to 151. Of course, you can't have a school for a single person. Still, a right does exist.

I wanted to emphasize this point because it's fundamental, in my view, and this aspect always comes back in the debate. It's as though we were saying: “Official languages, yes, but where numbers warrant.” Yes, section 23 mentions a minimum number for schools, but when we're talking about bilingualism in section 16 or 133, it's not a matter of numbers. Both languages are official.

First, I'd like to thank you for your presentation that I found very interesting. I like it when people open up roads to the future. That's what we have to do. The future is ours, whereas the past is the past. You can change the future.

You've talked about the deputy ministers who see to the protection of the French language. I'd like you to be more specific as I myself worked in the public service some time ago, a faraway time when the French language wasn't as well protected as it is today. What are today's deputy ministers doing to ensure the protection of the French language?

Ms. Sheila Copps: The work you did in that regard was very useful. You recommended that more than one department be accountable for the responsibilities concerning the respect of both official languages. When Ms. Finestone was Secretary of State, the programs dealing with both official languages were the purview of Canadian Heritage, while the government was responsible for all the other aspects. The minister responsible for official languages had problems changing mindsets at Treasury Board, the Department of Finance and so on.

We signed an agreement with Mr. Massé concerning a sharing of the responsibilities between Canadian Heritage and Treasury Board. Treasury Board is henceforth responsible for preparing annual reports and it has set up a committee of deputy ministers to try to advance certain matters, particularly that of both official languages.

You no doubt know that just as federal-provincial labour agreements are analyzed, the justice department does analyses to determine whether the provisions of the Official Languages Act are being respected or not within the context of our federal-provincial agreements. When we're ready to renew those agreements five years down the road, we'll be able to see if we actually did respect the law. That's a question that concerns this committee of deputy ministers.

I'd ask Mr. Moyer to give you more information.

• 1625

Mr. Norman Moyer (Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Identity, Department of Canadian Heritage): The deputy minister committee was set up about a decade ago. Its mandate was renewed and broadened pursuant to the work of this committee and also because of the Savoie and Fontaine reports, which emphasized that within the government's executive apparatus there was really no entity examining this whole matter.

This committee, which has been given new terms of reference, is chaired by the Deputy Minister of Justice and is made up of all the deputy ministers that have a major role to play in this area. The deputy ministers meet every two months, draw up an annual plan of action, examine the most sensitive files twice a year with the official languages commissioner, and study precisely the kinds of questions the Minister has just raised. Among other things, they discuss transfer of powers, the implications of certain factors on minority language communities and the protection of the rights of both language groups in Canada, for example within the context of legislation on air transportation.

It's a committee that has become more active, that has been given a renewed mandate and that is directly supported by Privy Council.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: There is a second point I'm also interested in. Although my colleague Senator Gauthier said that some sections were sub judice, I must say that despite the fact that I have much respect for that doctrine, I believe that a parliamentary committee can still discuss the provisions of legislation.

I think your attitude has always been that what is at issue is Part VII of the Official Languages Act, unless I am mistaken. In my opinion, the primary objective of sections 41 and 42 and the following sections has always been, as conceived by the legislator, something that has some value. It's not only window dressing, it's more than that. There is some obligation, something imperative in there. I'd like to know if there has been a change, administratively speaking, at that level. Is that still what the Canadian government believes?

I don't want to get into the court case because that's a different kettle of fish. But wasn't the objective of that part of the Official Languages Act to broaden the scope of the legislation somewhat?

Ms. Sheila Copps: We're still in agreement with this approach. What is happening presently, however, is that when we try to maximize the provision of services and rationalize the relationship between the federal and provincial governments, we don't always communicate these requirements to the other level of government. That's why we're concerned with this aspect of recognizing the provisions of the act when we conclude agreements. It's the Deputy Minister of Justice who has the responsibility for arguing cases and chairing the committee of deputy ministers.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: But aren't we closing doors for the future?

Ms. Sheila Copps: No, no.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: The law is there, it is always there and it was passed by Parliament.

Ms. Sheila Copps: That's what we want.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: What I'm saying is that we shouldn't forget that official languages are written into our Constitution. It's very clear in the 1982 legislation.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Mr. Beaudoin, let's take the labour agreement on the workforce we signed.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes.

Ms. Sheila Copps: The labour agreement provides that both official languages must be respected. According to certain legal interpretations, since the declaration of respect for both official languages figures in the preamble of the agreement, it doesn't have the same weight as if it figured in the text itself of the agreement. That's a fact that Mr. Savoie was pointing out, amongst others.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: The court will decide.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes, that's it.

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

Mr. Yvon Godin.

• 1630

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, thank you for coming here today.

Here's the question I'd like to put. In the 1999 budget, $5.5 million a year was allocated to the Interdepartmental Partnership with official languages communities. Could you tell us what was done this year in the context of this partnership?

Ms. Sheila Copps: The IPOLC? I'll ask Mr. Lemoine to answer you.

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: The minister announced or launched this initiative on 2 March in Moncton, as you know. The program includes a $5.5-million annual budget over five years. Right now, we're finalizing the approach that will eventually be used in the implementation of this initiative.

We want to make sure that these funds will actually be used to set up or really change the culture of the departments with whom we're trying to establish this partnership. We want to go at it using a relatively strategic approach, in other words, not a scatter-gun approach focusing on all kinds of projects that don't amount to concerted action.

We're finalizing the program with a view to formally implementing it as of April 2000. So the five-year period is still in the cards, except we wouldn't want to implement the program before being sure that a real cultural change is going to be effected in the departments.

Ms. Sheila Copps: We also had a choice to make: we could have distributed the $5.5-million amount among the provinces for setting up smaller projects; the other possibility was to try to do something strategic, because the $5.5 million as seed money, to which other money can be added, could lead to more important projects. If little amounts were scattered here and there, they probably wouldn't have much effect on the way the projects were managed. Now, the intent is truly to fund pilot projects that can lead to change and respect for both official languages in all departments.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have another question.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Godin, you have two minutes left.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Two minutes? I'll try to do with half a minute.

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

Mr. Yvon Godin: It has to do with student loans. As you know, Madam Minister, I come from a francophone community outside Quebec. About 80% of the people in my riding are francophone. It's Acadie—Bathurst; it's a part of Acadia.

It is unfortunate that since the government has transferred student loans to financial institutions, students back home are getting answers in English from the Toronto financial institutions that don't want to speak French to them because they aren't able to. I've already complained about that. The same goes for the debt collection agencies.

What kind of policy does your department have to make sure that language rights will be respected when you make that kind of change? Think fast, I only have two minutes.

The same thing happened with the Canadian Blood Services. It came and set itself up in Caraquet and the staff members were all English-speaking. They wanted to speak to the people but they didn't even speak French. That's unacceptable. Unacceptable! How is it that organizations like that are transferred from one place to another under such conditions? What policy ensures that such things won't happen again?

These are two examples of things that happened back home. It was the same thing in the Air Nova case. You know, things aren't that hot outside of Quebec.

Ms. Sheila Copps: About Air Nova, that's one of the reasons the Minister of Transport required that both official languages be respected, not only by the major air carriers but also by the regional ones, and that will change things.

In fact, you're raising exactly the kind of problem that we have at the department. If you take the loans, for example, that would be a beautiful case for an IPOLC project. If the government of Canada authorizes banks to offer their services, they should do it with respect for both official languages.

• 1635

I do invite you to think about these things because we're trying to do it. We thought that with IPOLC we could have a few pilot projects jointly with other departments, like Finance, for one, which might be interested in participating in this program.

Mr. Yvon Godin: How about the Canadian Blood Services, for example?

Ms. Sheila Copps: The Canadian Blood Services, if memory serves, answers to a committee that used to be called the Canadian Blood Committee. It's a federal-provincial committee and delivery of blood products is under provincial jurisdiction. So you'd be in a better position if you were to talk to me about loans first because there's no jurisdictional problem on that.

I'm not the Minister of Health, but when I was the critic, if memory serves...

Mr. Yvon Godin: You're not the Minister of Health at this point, you're the minister responsible for official languages.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I understand that, but you were talking about the Canadian Blood Committee.

Mr. Yvon Godin: No. I wasn't talking about the committee. I was talking about the people who come to serve us in our regions. I was talking about the people coming from Saint John to serve us in Caraquet and who don't speak a word of French.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'm sorry, but wasn't your second question on the people from the Canadian Blood Committee?

Mr. Yvon Godin: No. My first question was...

Ms. Sheila Copps: I understood that your first question concerned the students.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, the students. The second one is because the Canadian Blood Services...

Ms. Sheila Copps: That is what I mean. The Canadian Blood Services.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Just a minute. I'm going to explain what I mean. I will say it and you try to understand me. I said that the Canadian Blood Services, which is now in charge of collecting blood, is transferring employees from Saint John, New Brunswick, to Caraquet and Tracadie, and that these employees do not speak French. These are employees who do not speak French. Is it clear now? That is where the problem lies.

So what is your department going to do to ensure that such organizations, when they take charge of a federal responsibility, at least in part, offer service in French in Francophone regions, in a region like mine, which is 80% Francophone?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I am responsible for providing the community with education services, for example. Moreover, the government, through the Treasury Board, is responsible for ensuring that the agreements with the other departments respect official languages. That is why Ms. Robillard will be appearing before you next week.

From my understanding of the agreement, New Brunswick and not Canada is responsible for blood collection.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): It is New Brunswick's responsibility.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Each province is responsible for the blood collection system as such. You could undoubtedly obtain more information on that from the chairman of the other committee.

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

Ms. Folco.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)): Thank you. I am asking this question as a member of the committee. First of all, I would like to refute the comment made by my Bloc colleague, Mr. Plamondon, who said that 52% of people in Montreal do not speak French. That is something we hear often, unfortunately. However, you must bear in mind that the 52% is for the most part due to immigration, and that the first generation of immigrants, obviously, does not always speak French. Their children, who go to French school, learn French.

So the 52% does not show that Montreal does not speak French and that the rest of the province does. It is a question of receiving the first wave of immigration and what happens from there. We know that these children, the children of these immigrants, go to French schools. I think it was important to point that out, because in 10 or 15 years, when these children enter the work force, we will see that they speak French, as do the descendants of older immigrants who still live in Montreal.

I also have a question for you, Minister. It deals with the issue of funding for community groups that represent minority language communities in Canada.

We know that for several years now the federal government has refused to give these community groups core funding and, instead, funds projects. That has caused a lot of difficulties for these organizations, since their very raison d'être is often jeopardized. I was wondering if it were possible, in the Canada-Community agreement, to reverse this procedure and help communities through core funding instead of project funding. Designing projects takes up a lot of their time.

• 1640

Ms. Sheila Copps: Ms. Folco, we have maintained core funding. Under the Canada-Community agreement, 80% of the amount is used as core funding and 20% for projects. All communities have accepted this principle, except Ontario.

We felt that was important. Take the example of the Jeux de la Francophonie canadienne, in Memramcook. If there had been no project funding, apart from core funding, we could not have organized joint projects, because in reality there are 12 groups. Each province and territory has its own group.

One of the requirements under the agreement is that 80% be used for cor funding and that 20% go to projects.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Have you finished?

Mr. Bellemare.

[English]

I'm sorry. Monsieur Hill, did you have a question? No? Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to welcome the Minister. I was very impressed by your presentation, especially when you talked about second-language teaching throughout the country. When I say throughout the country, I mean in Quebec and outside Quebec.

Earlier on, I heard the Reform member say that he was open to French-language teaching and French-language services if numbers warrant. For him, the number corresponds to a percentage. Obviously, that attitude can crush a minority. In fact, such a prerequisite could mean that the percentage would never be high enough in certain regions.

He seems to forget about the basic philosophy, the essential point accepted by the country that there are two official languages. Senator Beaudoin explained it very well earlier on: the official languages are important and they are equal.

Now let's talk about the teaching of French. In my opinion, it establishes French as a second language, and if Louis Plamondon from the Bloc Québécois were here, I would say the same thing with respect to the teaching of English in Quebec. It's a question of open-mindedness, of opening the minds of all Canadian communities, of offering employment opportunities to all Canadians and making Canadian unity possible. This is something important that neither the Reform Party nor the Bloc Québécois seem to understand. The Bloc Québécois is always trying to play down the French fact.

What is often forgotten is that people talk about “pure laine”. Even at Statistics Canada—I am strongly opposed to the way they do things—, they say that there are so many Francophones here, so many Anglophones there, forgetting that there are also bilingual people. The people who are bilingual, to various degrees, are above all francophiles. The ones who are unilingual are often francophobes, or anglophobes, which is often due to the situation they find themselves in or to unfortunate situations they have personally experienced. That happens.

So by promoting teaching, I think you are being faithful to my basic philosophy, which has developed among all Canadians an attitude of acceptance and even learning to like the other language in Canada, one of the two official languages. At the end of the day, we will have a united country, and in the global village, throughout the world, we will be able to function better. In fact, often people who are interested in language learn a third or a fourth one, which in the context of globalization can be very advantageous.

Having congratulated you for your programs, I now have two questions. Here's the first one.

• 1645

In my riding, which includes many Anglophones, I am often asked what I do to help Anglophones in Quebec. I say that it is true that the Quebec government does not seem to want to offer services in English to Anglophones. Very few public servants are bilingual or Anglophone.

What can we do at the federal level to promote, help, push or encourage Quebec to equip itself with a public service and public servants who are more bilingual or who can better serve Anglophones?

Do you want me to ask my second question right away? You could answer the two together.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Okay.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The last time that the head of the CRTC appeared before us, she surprised me when she told the committee that the CRTC does not recognize the bilingual nature of Canada's capital from the point of view of broadcasting television programs, for example.

So, when private organizations like Rogers Cable decide to broadcast programs for their customers in Ottawa, they are not required to follow the same rules as another area that is designated bilingual, because Ottawa is designated Anglophone. What can we do to get the CRTC to recognize that the capital of Canada is surely an exception, that it should be the Canadian model for TV broadcasting in both official languages?

Ms. Sheila Copps: As regards the CRTC, I told our colleague from the Senate that I was going to follow up to ensure that the organization complies with the Official Languages Act. It could have a positive impact on the aspect you address in your second question. However, perhaps you should reinvite the CRTC to appear before your committee, because I am unfamiliar with the specific details of what a policy should contain.

With respect to your first question, on this point, we have to be careful because it affects a number of policies. However, when the Quebec government decided not to endorse the Year of Francophonie in Canada, I found that ridiculous, because it was ready to go and celebrate la Francophonie in Paris, but not at home, in Shawinigan, in the Saguenay, etc..

But that is also more a question of open-mindedness. You know this as well as I do, Mr. Bellemare, since you have fought for the rights of Franco-Ontarians in Ontario for a long time. Even when we were young, we were not entitled to French schools. They did not exist. We have always challenged the where-numbers-warrant principle. That has always been the case. Remember the battles in Penetanguishene and in Windsor. Fortunately, these battles were won.

It remains true that Quebec, because of historic facts, offers a lot more services in English to Anglophones, even today, than what a lot of Francophones receive outside Quebec. That is undeniable. Even if Quebec reduced the services that it offers, and other provinces increased theirs, many Francophones would be happy having services as well developed in their area as the ones that currently exist in Quebec for Anglophones, thanks to what has happened historically.

• 1650

The key issue is open-mindedness. We can see where Canadians are at now. The vast majority want their children to be able to express themselves in a second language, be it in Lac Beauport, where I was last week, or Vancouver. That is people's mentality.

However, this open-mindedness is not always reflected at the political level. And that is where we have work to do. When services for minorities are abolished, or when a decision is made not to offer them, that always kind of politicizes the linguistic situation.

But people are beyond that now. That may have existed a number of years ago, at the time of the Corn Flakes boxes, but it no longer exists. People want this knowledge. There are just some political leaders who sometimes use language to divide people because it serves their political interest.

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

Senator Hervieux-Payette.

Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette (Bedford, Lib.): I am going to give away my age by telling you that I was here 20 years ago, and that since the Act came into force in 1982 there has been a lot of progress. I see it every day in my new life at the Senate.

I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Canadian Heritage for her leadership, because strength of character was required to carry the flame of bilingualism or the two official languages in government, despite the budget cuts, etc. For me, it went hand in hand with the flame of national unity. I think the two go together, and I would like to recognize the exceptional contribution made by the Minister.

Since you are talking about open-mindedness, I would like to remind you that the television series on the history of Canada that is currently under way is a project that I congratulate you for, because I know your department contributed to it. Knowing that new Canadians make up perhaps a third of the total population, when we talk about understanding each other, we have to know where we come from. The Official Languages Act cannot be applied in a vacuum. Education systems have not always done their fair share to teach Canadians about the contribution of the two official languages in Canada and where we come from, so that we can move forward together into the coming century.

I have a little suggestion to make, one that is sort of linked to grants and loans, but from a different angle. Under the European program called Erasmus, which grants diplomas that make it possible to work in any European Union country, three languages are required. That is an essential condition.

I want to make the following suggestion to the minister so that she can share it with her Cabinet colleagues. More and more money is being invested in education, in scholarships. I am not proposing a penalty, but instead a reward; I would add an additional sum, over five years, for students at the graduate and doctoral levels who speak two languages. Starting in 2005, it would be the same for students at the undergraduate level, registered in a B.A. So people would have time to prepare for this new era. Moreover, with the objective of 2010 in mind, we would launch discussions with the provinces, because I think this should also be done with the provinces.

Having closely followed developments in telecommunications, the Internet, etc., I think that your initiative with Francophone countries is extremely important. That should be reflected in our Canadian reality. Despite all of the immigration, the birth rate in Quebec is on the decline, and it must be offset by other measures. Other people must be trained to speak both official languages through our education system, which is supposed to be one of the best in the world.

That is my suggestion for the Minister. I would like to know if she would feel comfortable with promoting the idea that students who already receive a major contribution from taxpayers—because we know that post-secondary education, at the undergraduate, graduate and doctoral levels, costs billions of dollars—should receive an additional amount as an incentive. It seems to me that it would be an incentive to learn both languages for students in both communities, Anglophone and Francophone, and an incentive to pursue their studies thanks to this additional assistance.

• 1655

Ms. Sheila Copps: I think it is a fabulous idea. When we set up the Millennium Scholarship Fund, many people said that we were encroaching on provincial territory, but there is one thing that has not yet been examined and it would be a good idea for this committee to examine. At present, Canada has perhaps the lowest rate of people who study in a province other than the one in which they were born. People do not travel, the system is set up so that someone who travels is penalized.

When we set up the Millennium Scholarships, I wrote to the chairman to ask him to suggest granting part of the scholarships to those people who wanted to study outside their province. I do not know how that can be followed up, since it is an organization that is outside government. I experienced that myself. I wanted to study at Laval University, and I was told at the University of Western Ontario in 1971: “You cannot go to Quebec because the education system there is not as good. You have to go to France.” So I was forced to go there. Now, it is no longer like that. I paid my own way. I did not receive a scholarship. I wanted to experience a community different from my own, and that made me more open-minded.

If we believe in that for Canada, why don't we have an incentive system to encourage people to study in provinces other than their own? They would learn things elsewhere.

Secondly, on the topic of history, Senator, you were talking about young people who have recently arrived in Canada. I have not conducted any studies, but I don't think that newcomers to Canada are the only ones who do not know our history. A minister in British Columbia said that he was going to make Chinese the second language in his province. He showed a lack of knowledge of the way our country started.

In my riding, the first language of eight out of every ten people is neither French nor English. When people ask me why we have two official languages, I tell them that it is for the same reason that we respect their diversity. When we created the country, there were two founding peoples who had two different religions and two different languages. It was quite incredible at the time, and it is what enabled us to have more than one language.

Talking about adopting Chinese as the second language encourages multicultural groups to fight against the Francophones. In my opinion, that is the worst kind of politicization of language.

Allow me to address the issue of economic progress. Three years ago, I appeared before your committee. Earlier on, someone mentioned a prototype for Francophones. I have a lot of respect for high-technology schools, but at present, people who do the best in the working world are the ones who learn a second language. It's not the engineer. Engineering is a good beginning, but when you analyze people's ability to contribute to the economy, you can see that people who perform the best at present are those people who can speak more than one language. Why? Because social sciences and communications are very important. We cannot forget about this asset in the world of tomorrow.

Perhaps the committee could study this phenomenon. It would be interesting in the context of preparing our young people for big challenges. In Europe, it's nothing to speak two languages, whereas here, it's almost “Oh my God!”

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you, Minister. The time that you had for us is already up. I thank you for your availability. I wonder if you could give us another five minutes, because two other people have given notice that they would like to ask a question: Senator Joan Fraser and Mauril Bélanger. I would be very grateful if you could stay an extra couple of minutes.

• 1700

[English]

Senator Joan Fraser.

Senator Joan Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): Thank you very much, Minister. I have two quick questions.

I was very interested by the reference in your presentation to a new inter-ministerial initiative, and I wonder if you could say a little more about what's involved and what we can expect from that.

I'm also interested in the question of the strategic priorities that are drawn up under the memorandum of understanding. Maybe it's because I haven't been on this committee long enough, but I don't know how we find out what those priorities are and how we do on meeting them once they've been decided—what the follow-up is and whether that is brought to our attention in any way.

Ms. Sheila Copps: On the first question about the PICLO, as Hilaire explained, we're trying to devise some criteria that will ensure it will reward innovation in other departments and also encourage fairly significant changes in approach and behaviour.

Senator Joan Fraser: So that is what he was talking about? The new initiative is what he was talking about?

Ms. Sheila Copps: That's the inter-ministerial PICLO, and as Mr. Moyer mentioned, the committee has been meeting for some time, but because of concerns that have been underscored around a number of the issues of devolution, they are particularly looking at how services are being guaranteed when they are being transferred into other jurisdictions.

In terms of the question around priorities, are you talking now about ours, or the priorities of the inter-ministerial committee?

Senator Joan Fraser: The memorandum of understanding says that you, in the light of the action plans, will determine some strategic priorities.

Ms. Sheila Copps: There are two memorandums of understanding. There's one memorandum of understanding that I signed with the President of the Treasury Board, and that's the memorandum of understanding that led to the Treasury Board taking over a number of the regulatory functions for delivery of services outside of the official language groups.

The Savoie report reflected on the fact that in certain areas, the Government of Canada has not guaranteed to the extent that we might have the provision of services in a second language when we proceed with devolution. So some concerns were expressed around devolution, and that's in particular what the inter-ministerial committee is looking at.

Senator Joan Fraser: I'll tell you the paragraph that interests me, and maybe then I can be sure we're talking about the same thing:

The Department of Canadian Heritage identifies, as appropriate, in light of its analysis of the action plan of each key federal institution, certain strategic priorities likely to support the development of minority communities, which the Secretariat will, as the case may be, recall to the institutions concerned.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'll give you an example. This is all in the development stages now, but let's suppose, pursuant to Yvon Godin's concerns around the banks, a service has been devolved directly from the federal government to the banks, and the banks have not met their official language obligation. We could actually entertain a project, together with Human Resources and/or Finance—because the original agreement is a Finance-bank agreement, which is delivered upon through Human Resources—we could enter into an agreement with them to offer those services on a pilot.

If the Department of Human Resources put a proposal together, we could finance it fifty-fifty, or maybe one-third, one-third, one-third, so if the banks would put in one-third of the money, the Department of Finance could put in one-third of the money, and we could put in one-third of the money for provision of services for Canada student loans. That would be a legitimate PICLO project.

Senator Joan Fraser: Are these strategic priorities made public and is there follow-up to them?

Ms. Sheila Copps: They will be. What Hilaire has said is they were announced in the last envelope, and we have actually been developing the framework.

There was some discussion amongst some of the language communities that wanted to have projects in every province. Our view was that since we only have $5.5 million per year in this program, we would prefer to maximize it by making sure any programs we bring in are going to have some horizontal application. That's why we've refrained from having a dozen projects in every little local area. At one point it was thought that Edmonton had a project on HR delivery that we would partner with, and there was another one in Saskatoon, so we said we would rather do strategic things. This Canada student loans initiative could be a very legitimate initiative for PICLO.

• 1705

Senator Joan Fraser: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Chairs.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to raise several issues that concern me personally and that concern several people, but I'm going to raise one that is very pertinent at this point in time and for which we could perhaps come up with a solution. I'm referring to the situation that three post-secondary institutions in Ontario are currently facing: Collège Boréal in Sudbury, Collège des Grands Lacs and the Cité collégiale in Ottawa; as well as the Collège d'Alfred. These institutions have been waiting for over a year for the Canadian government and the Ontario government to renew a funding arrangement. Everyone recognizes that there are costs associated with offering education in French in an Anglophone community, where French is a minority. This arrangement reflects additional costs. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, the agreement hasn't yet been signed. So I'd like the Minister, if she does not mind, to tell us where we are at, because the situation of community colleges in Ontario is now critical.

Ms. Sheila Copps: This issue is also of great concern to us. In the paper this morning, there was some very interesting news with respect to investments being made by Minister Cunningham in all colleges and universities in Ontario. It is well invested, but we have been waiting for over a year for investment in Francophone colleges. I wrote to him today to ask him to come up with a solution as quickly as possible.

Secondly, and this is where we have to be careful, you know as well as I do that the Collège d'Alfred is not a standalone institution. It is part of the University of Guelph. When the province undertook discussions with the three colleges, Collège Boréal, the Cité collégiale and the Collège des Grands Lacs, we had to insist on funding for standalone colleges.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: [Editor's note: Inaudible]

Ms. Sheila Copps: No, that's not it. It is the opposite, because the government of Ontario now wants us to finance courses in French, etc. in other colleges. We refused. We are certainly prepared to help the Collège d'Alfred for specific projects, but the Collège d'Alfred is not a standalone college.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's a faculty of the University of Guelph.

Ms. Sheila Copps: It is a faculty of the University of Guelph. The University of Ottawa also has several faculties. We have to be careful when it's a question of investing money—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But for the Collège Boréal, the Collège des Grands Lacs and the Cité collégiale, can we affirm that the Canadian government has been ready for a long time now to sign a new agreement to renew the 1993 agreement?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Absolutely, and we have been for almost a year.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

Senator Sheila Finestone (Montarville, Lib.): May I have a supplementary?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Yes, I suppose you did not have your turn.

Senator Sheila Finestone: That's all right.

With respect to the question, Madam Minister...I hadn't intended to ask you a question, but your answer to Mauril Bélanger allows me to ask you about something if you're going with financing. I think it's a good idea to finance those universities and those colleges. Are you going to do that for Dawson College in Montreal?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'm not sure. What I've pointed out to Mauril is that we got the original request from the Ontario government, and there are three colleges in Ontario that are stand-alone French colleges. We have other faculties that are associated with universities, and we were insistent that the funding program for post-secondary be strictly available for stand-alone French colleges.

• 1710

In terms of Dawson College, I believe Dawson is a—

Senator Sheila Finestone: It's an English college.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes, but it's not a post-secondary—

Senator Sheila Finestone: Yes, it is.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I wasn't sure. I thought it was like Collège Jean-de-Brébeuf, which starts in secondary. It's a university?

An hon. member: It's a CEGEP.

Senator Sheila Finestone: It's post-secondary.

It's a mischievous question, but it's a very fair question, Madam Minister.

Ms. Sheila Copps: We have signed financial agreements with the Government of Quebec to provide those services to Dawson and other colleges, so we do have funding agreements with them, the same as we have with the minority French colleges. The reality is that there is a great need for the French colleges. Collège des Grands Lacs doesn't exist yet.

Senator Sheila Finestone: I know. It's going to be in Sudbury, right?

Ms. Sheila Copps: To make an investment from ground zero is a lot more expensive than providing supplementary assistance when a service is already there and you're providing top-up for the additional cost of a minority language service. In the other case, you are actually starting from scratch. That's why the envelopes would be more expensive in—

Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette: Yes, but Dawson has had billions of dollars in investments over the last couple of years.

Ms. Sheila Copps: We do fund them.

Senator Sheila Finestone: All right, it's not fair.

I'll pursue this with you at another time. It just strikes me that if we should decide to set up a branch of Dawson College in northern Quebec, in Sept-Îles or the Gaspé, we should be prepared to finance it so that the English language communities up there can get post-secondary education.

What about Champlain College?

Ms. Sheila Copps: We do that now through the envelopes, and we've signed the envelope with Quebec. The only province that has not signed onto the envelope right now is Ontario. We do fund in Quebec.

Senator Sheila Finestone: Okay, so the quid pro quo—

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I'm sorry...

[English]

Ms. Sheila Copps: Can I just point something out, Madam Chair? It is an important point.

[Translation]

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

[English]

Ms. Sheila Copps: Sheila, this is the first time that we've actually required that each province produce an action plan for the five-year renewal, and the Quebec government did produce an action plan.

Senator Sheila Finestone: Very good.

Ms. Sheila Copps: The reason we did so is that we want to make sure that when we're making an investment in education, it is indeed for additional investment and not to replace the investment that should be made anyway as a base education rate. So they actually have and are producing an action plan.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you, Madam Minister. Thank you, Mr. Lemoine and Mr. Moyer.

[Editor's note: The meeting continued in camera]