LANG Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

¹

1535

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.))

¹

1540

¹

1545

¹

1550

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sheila Copps

¹

1555

º

1600

º

1605

º

1610

º

1615

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.))

Mr. Reid

Ms. Sheila Copps

º

1620

Mr. Reid

Ms. Sheila Copps

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.)

º

1625

Ms. Sheila Copps

º

1630

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Sheila Copps

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Ms. Sheila Copps

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

Ms. Sheila Copps

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

º

1635

Ms. Sheila Copps

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Sheila Copps

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Sheila Copps

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

º

1640

Ms. Sheila Copps

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sheila Copps

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sheila Copps

º

1645

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sheila Copps

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sheila Copps

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sheila Copps

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sheila Copps

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sheila Copps

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sheila Copps

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sheila Copps

º

1650

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sheila Copps

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Ms. Sheila Copps

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine (Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, Department of Canadian Heritage)

Ms. Sheila Copps

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Viola Léger (New Brunswick, Lib.)

º

1655

Ms. Sheila Copps

The Hon. Léger

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Ms. Sheila Copps

»

1700

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Sheila Copps

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Sheila Copps

»

1705

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.)

Ms. Sheila Copps

Mr. Gérard Binet

Ms. Sheila Copps

Mr. Gérard Binet

Ms. Sheila Copps

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC)

»

1710

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

Ms. Sheila Copps

»

1715

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Ms. Sheila Copps

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Sheila Copps

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

---

CANADA

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

---

NUMBER 040

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[Translation]

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Today we continue the work of the Joint Committee on Official Languages on section 41 of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. We have with us the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Honourable Sheila Copps. Ms. Copps, we are going to invite you to make a presentation. Then we will proceed with the question period in the usual way, that is by alternating with the opposition and government sides until questions or time are exhausted.

    Ms. Copps, you have the floor.

    Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Good afternoon.

    First of all, I want to introduce the new Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for official languages, Eileen Sarkar. Some people knew her when she held other duties, but she has now been in this position at the department with Hilaire for about four weeks.

    Since the Department of Canadian Heritage has many other responsibilities besides official languages, I'm really going to try to provide a summary today. Some of you who were on Senator Gauthier's legal affairs committee may perhaps find this repetitive. However, I believe it is important to consider the context in which we are examining what must be done to reinforce Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

    We have provided an introduction and an overview of progress. We conducted an analysis of the communities to determine what their situation was today relative to 20 or 30 years ago. We also considered the issues of linguistic duality and Canadian government support for French language and culture, as well as the challenges that it raises. I have put the emphasis on support for French language and culture because English is clearly not in jeopardy. I believe it is more important to have an expanded policy on the French language.

[English]

    We've taken a look at some of the funding considerations, at reinvestment, and at measures taken by the government.

    Merci. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to you.

    The presentation is going to be a little more than a follow-up to the annual report on official languages. It will try to present some facts, results, and challenges the government and the people of Canada are faced with in respect of Canada's official languages today. Some of the achievements the Department of Canadian Heritage has been involved with will also be underscored.

    Overview of the progress made.

    Hundreds of thousands of minority-official-language young people have had access to education in their language in all provinces and territories.

[Translation]

    For the first time, Francophones now have the governance of their own schools across Canada. This has been in place for only two years now. The post-secondary network of colleges and universities comprises 19 institutions. Millions of youth are learning or perfecting their second official language across Canada. Seventy-four percent of young Canadians think that being a bilingual country is important for Canada. These are quite different figures from those we saw scarcely 20 years ago.

[English]

    We've made major investments to support French language and culture, and some of you may have seen some of the discussions in the paper today around Statistics Canada and the per capita spending for Canadians on culture. What we've tried to do is also reflect the priorities of provincial governments, and obviously in the area of language and culture the Government of Quebec is extremely present, and we've tried to reflect that in the investments we make.

    Unfortunately, such is not the case in many of the other envelopes for culture in other parts of the country, and when we look at the national priorities, that's also reflected.

[Translation]

    Now I'll talk about the network of local, regional and national community organizations in all activity areas.

    In this network, we now have 18 school and community centres. This is the result of the policy of the Commission nationale des parents francophones entitled, Où sont les milliards? They were wondering how to ensure that it would be possible to live in French after investing in education.

    As regards the media, since we must obviously explore all the means of expression that life offers us, there is a network of community radio stations, community newspapers and weeklies, which are funded by the Department of Canadian Heritage; there is also the Télévision française de l'Ontario, the Société Radio-Canada and Radio Enfant.

    With respect to cultural activities, there is support for creation and production. In economic activities, the first Forum des gens d'affaires du Canada was launched in the Francophone communities. There was a sense that it was good to travel around the world trying to forge trade relations, but that the same could be done here at home as well. That is why we launched this type of meeting. The first forum was held in Beauce, where participants had the opportunity to study the “Beauce miracle”. The second was held in Saint-Boniface, the following one in New Brunswick, and I believe the next one will be held in Ontario.

    As regards federal-provincial/territorial collaboration, there are services other than minority language education services, including agreements on provision of services in French with nine Anglophone provinces and three territories; the adoption of a French-language services act in Prince Edward Island, which was signed two years ago, the creation of a Provincial Francophone Affairs Secretariat in Alberta, which, in cooperation with our department, is attempting to develop French-language services in all departments in Alberta; and the signature of an additional agreement with British Columbia for the delivery of French-language services.

    Again in the context of this federal-provincial/territorial collaboration, we should mention the annual Conference of Ministers Responsible for Francophone Affairs, which includes all provinces and territories. Unfortunately, Quebec is still not a member, which is somewhat odd. The Government of Quebec claims it is a great defender of Francophones but refuses to join the Conference of Ministers responsible for Francophone Affairs. However, Quebec is present as an observer. We are trying through these events to get a handle on health services in French, economic development, Francophone early childhood, visibility of the French fact and dialogue with the community.

    This is where we launched the idea of the Année de la Francophonie canadienne, which took place in 1999. It was a resolution that had been adopted by the Ministers of Francophone Affairs in Winnipeg, Manitoba, in Saint-Boniface, in 1997, I believe. As a result of that decision, 1999 was a year in which a number of provinces showed their interest in Francophone issues.

    Where do we stand in minority language education? There are 252,000 students at the primary and secondary levels, of whom 150,000 study in French outside Quebec and 102,000 study in Quebec. Here we're talking about the minority language; we're not talking about immersion, but about students who study in their mother tongue. There are 1,039 primary and secondary schools, of which 679 are French-language schools outside Quebec and 360 English-language schools in Quebec.

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    That's a thumbnail sketch of where we are with students who are actually studying in their first language.

    As I mentioned earlier, there are seven CEGEPs and three universities of the English language in Quebec, and outside of Quebec there are 18 post-secondary French institutions. I said 19. Some of you will be aware of the merger of....

[Translation]

    Two educational institutions, the Université Sainte-Anne and the Collège de l'Acadie, joined forces to form a single institution, which receives greater funding and is probably in a better position to accept more students.

    As to school management, structures are now in place in all provinces. This has been the case for only two years now in the Province of British Columbia. Francophones now manage their own schools. This must be viewed in the context of Penetanguishene. Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier has probably been in all the battles for Francophones in Ontario. In 1970, they did not even have a right to manage their own schools. So this progress has been achieved in the space of 30 years.

    What can we conclude from that? When we analyze the progress Francophones have made in Canada, we also have to see where we have gotten in the area of education levels. In 1971, 31.6% of Francophones outside Quebec had never started secondary school. In 1996, only 3.3% of Francophones outside Quebec had less than nine years of education.

    As for university graduates, 30 years ago, Francophones outside Quebec were less educated; today they have the most university degrees, on average, of all groups. Today, 13.5% of Francophones outside Quebec have a university degree, whereas 11.7% of Quebec Francophones and 13.1% of Canadians in all language groups have a degree. This is an approach that has produced results, even though, after completing your education, you still have to find places where you can work and be at home.

    Now let's talk about targeted results in support to the communities. We have worked on a refrancization policy. We said to ourselves that, if we wanted a country where Francophones and Anglophones could really grow and develop, an attempt had to be made to encourage young Francophones who had an Anglophone parent and a Francophone parent or who had lost their French to relearn that language. That's how we began to work in the day care centres. If we can begin to encourage the French fact starting in day care, it can spread.

    We also focused our work to a considerable degree on the use of new technologies. We're facing challenges with regard to qualified teachers, better tools and pedagogical methodology and continuity between elementary and secondary levels, where we have a problem with Francophones dropping out. I'm talking about Francophones because Anglophones don't risk being lost in a vast Francophone sea. There is a problem in the entire development of the education system: it is always difficult to compete with the schools that have had football teams for 50 years and those that have been investing money for several decades. The challenges are greater in French-language education than in English-language education, and that must be reflected in funding.

    With respect to community vitality, we have launched a youth-based strategy with a program from early childhood that has been in existence for only a few years now. We have created the community centre system precisely to ensure that there are places for people to gather. If after their education, people cannot go to work, go to a restaurant, have social relations and go to church in their language, they lose that language.

    We also put the emphasis on more provincial and territorial services, but I believe you're also interested in seeing where we have gotten in the case of social and other agreements that we have signed to ensure the French fact outside Quebec and the English fact in Quebec.

¹  (1545)  

    Let's talk about challenges in minority language education. There are problems with the quality of minority language education. We are starting up a new education system. In British Columbia, for example, this new system started only two years ago. Obviously, the quality of instruction at the start is not equal to what exists for the other linguistic group.

    Half of students who are eligible for French school, those who are entitled, don't go to French school. Why? We won't get students by force of the law, but by providing those students an open and welcoming place that provides services of the same quality as those provided in the schools that have been in existence for 40 or 50 years. There's some catching up to do.

    There's insufficient funding for small schools. In rural areas, there are places where there may be 20 or 25 students in a school, which creates a difficult situation. We want to increase the quality of education and ensure that there is a sufficient critical mass to encourage students to stay there. Today, parents relocate more often. If the quality of education is not sufficient at a school, they will send their children to another school that is larger, better equipped, that has gymnasiums, sports and so on. Many of these issues probably arise from the history of the school, which has not been in existence for a long time. For parents wishing to ensure follow-up for their children, these are things that must be encouraged. They cannot be forced to send their children to French school. We live in a democracy in which parents and families have the opportunity to make their choices and decisions.

    We also have major problems with limited access to post-secondary education in French. At present, Canada is among the OECD countries where there are the fewest students travelling from one province to another. Every province develops its own post-secondary institutions. We do not have a very highly developed policy on post-secondary education in French.

    The University of Toronto, which is very well known and very highly rated, finds it easy to obtain funding. Laurentian University has more difficulty obtaining funding. That's always the problem with institutions that are 100 or 150 years old and those that are new and do not enjoy the additional recognition they should have.

¹  (1550)  

[English]

    If we're really committed to the idea of an equal playing field, we have to be prepared to make a bigger investment in those areas, and at this point we have not. That's why—

[Translation]

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Copps, I'm sorry, but you have perhaps 10 more minutes.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: All right. I can leave you the document. I'm trying to make you understand that the vitality of the French fact in Canada is not only a matter of education. The committee has devoted a great deal of study to the question of education levels. For example, we created Young Canada Works, which did not exist five years ago. I created Young Canada Works because I thought it was important that young Francophones have the opportunity to work in their language during the summer. Young Canada Works, together with the other programs we have put in place, will now enable 15,000 young Canadians to experience linguistic duality each year. These are summer programs, official language monitor programs, summer bursaries, bilingual exchanges. As a result of all these programs, relations are developing between the communities. We also have non-linguistic exchanges; 35,000 young Canadians have the opportunity to go on an exchange each year.

    “French for the Future”. We created a youth forum in six large Canadian cities, emphasizing the value of learning a second language. We encouraged Rendez-vous de la francophonie, an activity raising awareness of the French fact across Canada.

    Seventy percent of Canadian youth are interested in linguistic exchanges, 77% of whom are Francophones.

    Demand for bursaries is nearly twice the capacity of the bursary and monitor programs. If we are asked to organize a linguistic duality program and have to turn down half of those involved, that's something we have to examine.

    We must reinforce the capacity of the voluntary, municipal, parapublic and institutional sectors to work and provide services in both official languages.

    The means are as follows: increase the number of participants in the bursary and monitor programs, increase financing available to offer bilingual services and conferences in both official languages; support the development of bilingual Web sites, offer counselling services and so on.

¹  (1555)  

[English]

    Second language education.

    More than 2.5 million primary and secondary students are studying their second language through a course and 324,500 students are in French immersion. I might tell you that that number could grow. The amount of financial support we have been giving to that area of development has been cut drastically, and we need to redress that if we're going to be able to ensure that the schools that are offering French immersion continue to do so. There are 2,000 schools across the country that offer French immersion. In Quebec there are 557,000 students who are studying English as a second language and 40,000 students in French immersion.

    Seventy-nine percent of English-speaking Canadians support French language instruction, and I think that's also a great turnaround. I remember the days when we fought in this place about cornflakes boxes, and it wasn't that long ago.

    Bilingualism is highest in the age group that has been the beneficiary of the change in the official language policy. So if you're looking at where the policy is going, don't look at this year or last year. Look at where we were in 1980 and where we are today. The number of anglophone young Canadians who are bilingual is twice the level of the overall anglophone population. Indeed, it's one in five anglophones. You see at the Olympics and when you're out travelling how many young Canadians can really express themselves in their second language, and that has a great benefit in creating a sense of partnership in this great adventure called Canada.

    Eighty-four percent of young Canadians think bilingualism increases job opportunities, and 68% believe that all high school students should have a working knowledge of English and French. Part of Canada's innovation strategy—and this is why I'm saying this is not just about a narrow program—includes doubling the proportion of high school graduates who have a working knowledge of English and French.

    There are challenges. According to a recent Canadian Parents For French study, second language enrollment has levelled off. One of the reasons for that is decreased federal funding, which has also led to a problem of supply and not demand, and also the inadequacy of potential teaching materials and the need to develop a greater level of qualifications.

    Targeted results.

    What do we need? We need to sensitize more young people about the benefits of second language education. We need to increase the number of bilingual graduates by 50%. We need new innovative programs, better tools and pedagogical materials, and more linguistic and cultural exchange opportunities.

    I might add en passant that there are about 30,000 Canadians who work in the language industries. Canada is known around the world for its capacity to deliver in the language industry. So there is an economic benefit from this as well.

[Translation]

    Canadian government support. The Government of Canada is a major player. Canada's support comes primarily from us, the Department of Canadian Heritage, but also from its portfolio agencies. Here are a few examples. Some things are important to know. When, for example, we created the Canadian Television Fund, we thought at first that we had to set aside a certain amount for French-language productions. The executive committee reflects linguistic duality. One-third of support is reserved for French-language productions. That's a decision I made. With one-third of the funding, we can ensure that there will be French-language productions.

    We have also begun to witness the creation of projects undertaken in French outside Quebec. In 2000-2001, projects representing 47 hours of new programming in French were created in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario and British Columbia. Radio-Canada's programs are offered in French and in English, and, for French television, operating expenses are in the order of $284 million. The new arts service, ARTV, reflects the unique character of Québécois culture and the needs and characteristics of Francophone communities from other regions. For French radio, we're talking about $93.6 million. The Première channel reaches 98% of Canada's Francophones.

[English]

    The CRTC.

    In the autumn of 2000 we began regional consultations and public audiences on the

[Translation]

French-language broadcasting for minority Francophone communities. In February 2001, a CRTC report reinforced measures designed to expand, throughout Canada, the choice of French-language broadcasting services offered to consumers. Those measures have been in place since September 2001. On November 6, 2001, the CRTC decided to make CPAC accessible in two official languages. Licences were granted to increase distribution of la Chaîne culturelle in all provinces. There are 23 licences to date.

º  (1600)  

[English]

    In cultural policy we've set aside $2.1 million for festivals and artistic events, in the francophone milieu, from a total budget of $5.3 million. That program was replaced by Arts Presentation Canada in 2001-02, and 47% of the contributions in Arts Presentation Canada were awarded to Quebec-based organizations and $164,000 was awarded to arts organizations in francophone communities outside Quebec.

    Going back to the Statistics Canada report today on what has been spent, as well as building on a national policy in support of minority languages, we also seek to support the provinces that invest in culture. In the province of Quebec right now, their investment in culture is double that of their neighbour, Ontario. That must also be reflected in national priorities. I'm hoping my friends in Queen's Park are listening to this, so they might start investing a little more in arts and culture.

    On the national arts training program, $2.5 million has been given to high-level training institutions in the francophone milieu. Mauril will remember that when he was my parliamentary secretary, we did not have a system for national training. We've developed that now and have about 21 institutions that are developing training programs. We're also insisting on developing a component that makes sure you can get training in either official language.

    On Cultural Spaces Canada and

[Translation]

the Development Program to Support the Publishing Industry. We're talking, for example, about the Francophone sector and our stories.

[English]

    We can't speak about our stories without talking about what we do in book publishing. We have a major investment in book publishing, with $30 million set aside for the four sections: editors, distributors, associations, and international commercialization. In the French language industry sector, almost 50% of the funding, or $14.5 million, is set aside.

[Translation]

    We have works published by Francophone publishers. In 2001-2002, 3,446 works were published by Francophone publishers.

[English]

That is 100 more than was done the year before. These are also ways of telling your stories, because it's not just about how you talk to each other in the classroom and in the hallways, but also whether you can you read your books and see yourselves reflected in television, feature films, etc.

[Translation]

    The Magazine Publishing Program.

[English]

    I think there was some criticism in some of the anglophone newspapers about the fact that we are investing in francophone magazines.

[Translation]

    We created a support to French magazines component to ensure that, over the long term, we will have the capability to express ourselves. I know that some are always comparing with the Americans, saying that they don't have this kind of program. We are the only country that covers six time zones, that has two founding peoples of different languages and approximately 150 other languages and a population of 30 million inhabitants. You can't make that comparison. If we want to have a country, we have to have ways of speaking to each other.

º  (1605)  

[English]

    We have a program called

[Translation]

Publication Assistance Program.

[English]

We provide mailing privileges at a reduced rate for organizations that have subscription periodicals. In that

[Translation]

organization of the Publication Assistance Program, we have one component providing $5.7 million in support for Francophone writing content and $9.1 million in support for French magazines.

[English]

    I spoke a little bit about

[Translation]

Year of la Francophonie 1999.

[English]

We hosted here in the National Capital Region

[Translation]

the International Francophonie Games, and we created the Canadian Francophonie Games. Imagine that, in a country as big as Canada, we funded the Jeux de l'Acadie, the Jeux du Québec and the Ontario Games, whereas we had never funded games to bring Canadians closer together. Once again, we decided to hold those games in Memramcook. They were so successful that we are going to have a second edition this year in Rivière-du-Loup from August 1 to 5.

    We've also made an investment in TV5. These are questions of acquisition.

[English]

We don't have to get into the details.

    We also have what we call the Canada Music Fund, and again we have set aside 40% of the funding for French language musicians. Is that representative of the per capita population? No, it is not. Why have we done it this way? We've done it this way because we feel that in the North American continent there's probably a greater danger of losing the French language than the English language. Therefore, when you create programs you should try to equalize the balance.

    MusicAction is also now working with the whole country, as is FACTOR. In fact, a common board of directors has been created, so we might truly reflect the duality of the country.

[Translation]

    The Canadian Culture On Line Program. When Mr. Jean Chrétien announced the new $560 million investment in culture, we talked about investments in arts and culture, but in fact the largest part was based on the Internet. We made an investment of $200 million over three years, 50% of which is for Canadian content. For that reason, we are beginning a digitization project. We are connecting all of Canada's museums. By 2004, all of Canada's museums will be connected to the Internet through the Culture On Line Program.

    We have also made a specific investment in new media. Last night, I was in Toronto, where recognition of new media was celebrated. With 5% of the world's Francophones, Canada is currently doing 20% of the multimedia work. We nevertheless have major opportunities there too.

    We have introduced a protocol agreement between Telefilm Canada and Canadian Heritage to ensure that one-third of development and production resources are reserved for French-language projects. Thirty-four percent of the projects supported are in French. As for the Feature Film Support Fund, 39.5% of the budget has been allocated to projects in French. We have also provided support to 33 film festivals which also attempt to encourage socialization. We have French-language production centres in Moncton, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec.

[English]

    I won't bore you with all the details on the investments we've made, but suffice it to say that

[Translation]

40% of the National Film Board of Canada's productions were in French. There have also been 12 French versions of original English productions and co-productions and 29 English versions of original French productions and co-productions because co-production is becoming very important and very promising for Canada. These are also things that bring us together.

    The National Film Board of Canada's Strategic Plan 2002-2006. The National Film Board people are going to work with filmmakers from all regions of Canada and make a particular effort to help filmmakers from minority regions in order to better reflect our diversity.

    Canada Council of the Arts.

[English]

    I won't fill you in. I can table the budgets and what they've tried to do. This is also fairly new ground. When I became the minister, the Centre national des Arts had some exchanges, but we've really worked hard at building the exchange component. Even with...

[Translation]

the Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act, which is an item on the Heritage Committee's agenda, we have begun to conduct artistic exchanges which are now starting to produce results.

    Targeted results: support for French language in culture. Make the federal...

[English]

    Page 30 is the moot point. Official languages support programs were cut by 33% in the program review process, falling from $309.4 million in 1992-1993 to $206.8 in 1999-2000. During this period, contributions to provincial governments and territories through official languages and education assumed reductions of 43%. Support to minority communities was decreased by 23%.

º  (1610)  

In 1999, grâce aux efforts de quelques-uns qui sont autour de la table, the Government of Canada invested an additional $70 million per year in federal official languages programs, including $50 million in new funds for minority language teaching and second language education. We also made a direct community investment of $10 million, bringing the community component from $21.8 million to $32 million. This represents an unprecedented level of support.

    Funding at this point was nearly back to 1992 levels in sheer, or unadjusted, dollars. We still need $38 million to get us back to the levels we were at in 1992, or $89 million to get us back to the revised levels that would have existed had we not suffered the budget cuts and program review.

    Certainly, this is part of the exercise we're undertaking with the committee of the Honourable Stéphane Dion to see how we might better encourage reinvestments in these elements of the official languages policy. But these are not the only parts of part VII. We need additional finances to take us up to the levels we were at.

    We also need to strengthen part VII. I've included in the document the memorandum of understanding I signed with the Honourable Marcel Masse when he was the minister responsible for Treasury Board. For those of you who weren't around at the time, in 1994 all of the accountability for official languages lay in the Ministry of Canadian Heritage. There were a number of interveners who felt, with very good reason, that because we're not a line agency, we're not in the best position to be doing the overall review of holding the pen on certain programs.

    So we signed an accountability framework in 1994 where we looked at implementation of sections 41 and 42. But in actual fact, that accountability framework needs to be strengthened and it also needs to be financed. If you have a protocole d'entente that doesn't have the financing, doesn't have the expertise, and does not have.... It needs the carrot and it also needs the stick.

    So I'm actually working with my colleague, Madame Robillard, on a strengthening of a new protocole d'entente that would ensure this more resourced support be given to the Treasury Board for the work it has to do now as a result of this agreement.

[Translation]

    What does the protocol agreement do? It encourages the federal departments and agencies to include the development of official language communities in the strategic planning, reporting and evaluation of their activities and builds an awareness of accountability among ministers and senior public servants regarding their responsibilities as champions, as well as the consultative committees of federal departments and Crown agencies because the Crown agencies must also respect both languages. Lastly, there's the analysis of business plans and memoranda to Cabinet with regard to their impact on official languages.

    The Interdepartmental Partnership with the Official Language Communities (IPOLC) began in 2000. What is the IPOLC? It's a five-year project, what I call the carrot. With the IPOLC, we are asking other departments to encourage the development of programs designed to support the vitality of minority communities. We contribute to funding by adding an amount to their share of funding. Thus far, we have signed 13 protocol agreements. Eleven million dollars have been provided by the departments, and our budget is $5.5 million. With $5.5 million, we have nevertheless been able to make a $16 million investment in the development and vitality of the minority language communities. We have several areas of intervention: health, the economy, and so on.

    Of course, we have done a lot, but it's not enough. The official languages should be a priority for all departments. Additional funds are essential and other measures will also have to be taken.

    I've already spoken about the protocol agreement with the Treasury Board. The protocol concluded must be renewed and strengthened, and Ms. Robillard has already made a commitment, with her officials and ours, to work toward renewal and consolidation and also to establish a framework which specifies the responsibilities of all departments and measures fixed objectives attained.

[English]

    That pretty well sums it up.

    In conclusion, the throne speech did reinforce the government's commitment to official languages. In 2001, Mr. Dion was given the mandate to coordinate a government-wide involvement in official languages, which is a really refreshing move because it basically means that all departments of the government are engaged in a process that has some input from central agencies. And he is working with colleagues—including myself, Madame Robillard, and other ministers who have a keen interest in these issues—on an action plan.

    With part VII as it stands, we can find the necessary mechanisms to do much more. I think, collectively, we can bring Canada's official languages to the forefront of the political agenda.

    Thank you. Merci.

º  (1615)  

    The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.)): Thank you, Madam Minister.

    I would like to start the questioning with Scott Reid.

    Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

    It's a pleasure to have you here with us, Minister.

    You made extensive reference, particularly in the latter part of your presentation, to part VII of the act, particularly sections 41 and 42. As you are no doubt aware, this committee has been discussing at some length the issue of whether sections 41 and 42, and part VII as a whole, are purely declaratory, or whether they are in fact binding upon the government. There have been a number of points of view expressed. I've maintained that it's declaratory. Other members have said that in their opinion it's binding upon the government.

    Obviously, I'd be interested in your opinion.

    For the benefit of those who are watching us on television, I'll just read the relevant sections.

    Section 41 says:

The Government of Canada is committed to

(a) enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and

(b) fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

    Section 42 reads:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage, in consultation with other ministers of the Crown, shall encourage and promote a coordinated approach to the implementation by federal institutions of the commitments set out in section 41.

    Section 43 goes on to provide some detail on how it will be done. I won't read the whole thing, but it says, in part:

(1) The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take such measures as that Minister considers appropriate to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society

—and it gives a series of ways in which that could be done.

    The question I have for you is whether you would say these sections are declaratory or binding. In the event that you regard them as declaratory, ought they to be made binding? That is something, of course, that would be within the capacity of your government to do.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Well, I'm not a lawyer, and I think the distinctions between “declaratory” and “binding” have been well reviewed before this committee by the Department of Justice and others.

    I've taken the view that I think we need, as a government, to be more horizontally involved in the application of what the Official Languages Act means. I think the way of achieving that is first of all to understand what it is we're doing. At the moment, there's a lot of emphasis placed on minority language education across the country. We've been very successful in developing an official language minority system of education, but to encourage the growth and development of official language communities across the country, you have to do a lot more. We have to understand where we're losing the kids, because they're going to be the generation that will come up. And where we're losing the kids is as they go into high school. There are good reasons for it. Some of those reasons are scholastic.

    But if you were to take the position that the Ministry of Canadian Heritage has a justiciable right to intervene in matters of education, which is my responsibility, where would you go?

    I think the comments I've tried to lay out before you...there's a very broad road map. I was actually a member of Parliament in Ontario who called for Ontario to be declared officially bilingual in 1982, so I don't shy away from these issues by any stretch of the imagination. I've believed in them, worked on them, and lived them all my life. But I think before we start creating justiciability for others, we need to get our own house in order. That's what the process of the review is doing.

    Also, some of our more horizontal approaches, as to how we invest.... If you invest in an education system but all your books are in only one language, this is a broad-ranging challenge. In the short term, if you look at where we were in 1982 and where we are today, we have made incredible progress. I don't think there's a country in the world that can turn around the statistics in education as dramatically as we have done in 20 years.

    Is it enough? No, it is not enough. I'm also cognizant of the fact that most of the people who sought and acquired those rights sought and acquired them when they were not conferred by governments. So there were legal cases that led to some of those changes.

    I'm certainly very sympathetic to a longer-term review, but I think in the short term the committee itself needs to take a look at what we're doing in our own departments and what reinforcements we need to be more successful in what we all agree is our stated mission.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Scott Reid: I have to admit my understanding of justiciability is different from yours. It's not so much something that says you would have the right to get involved in these things. You would have the obligation, which could in fact be enforced by exterior actors taking court action. That would be how I would understand it.

    But moving from that to the question of how much advancement we've made, I appreciate your comment with regard to the number of young people in Canada who are bilingual. The statistics clearly reflect a rise in the number of bilingual people in the age groups you mentioned. That does speak to some success of second language education.

    There is another issue, though, that occurs to me where there seems to be a lack of success. I'm not blaming this government. I'm not sure any government could succeed at this goal, but it's the goal of trying to reinforce and stabilize the minority communities--the anglophone minority in Quebec, obviously, and the French-speaking minorities in the other provinces.

    If you take the most important indicator, which is home language, the language of primary use in the home when there are no exterior factors to cause one to choose other than one's language of preference, what we see is a steady decline--a decline that does not seem to have been slowed by the enactment of either of the two official languages acts or by the measures that this government or its predecessors have taken--in the number of people speaking French as their preferred language, in particular once one gets beyond the so-called “bilingual belt”, Sudbury to Moncton.

    I'm wondering if you anticipate that the measures you're taking are going to stop what up to this point has been a steady decline.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: That's why I think we need to look at it in a broader perspective than just the education system, because if you walk out into any Cineplex-Odeon in Ottawa or Montreal, most of the forms of cultural expression that have become popular in the early 21st century have come from Hollywood. The reality is that as our kids see on television the tremendous influence that the American culture has had on the country to the north, which is Canada, it's clear that our children are facing real challenges that must de facto be supported by the spaces and places for Canadian stories.

    That's one of the reasons why the issue of languages and cultures has to also be tied into what we do for the cultural industries of Canada. For example, my brother speaks French at home. He lives in Montreal and his two children are seven and nine. They go to a French school and they speak French at home. They have a very strong French influence in the city that is Montreal.

    That's not the case for some of my constituents in Hamilton East. We have a French school; we have a French church. They walk outside that door and what do they have to attach them to their language? One of the reasons why we have the long-term process of building into community centres, of supporting the arts, of creating réseaux, is to build those linkages.

    I know so many people in my community who are francophones who gave up speaking French when they were young because they were ashamed. Now there's a pride attached to it that is coming back, but it's not going to happen in the space of even one 10- to 20-year period. That's why we need to build community centres. We need to have child care centres. We need to have medical services. There has to be an integrated approach. It's not going to be the Official Languages Act that's going to fix it.

    The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Minister.

    Senator Gauthier.

[Translation]

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Thank you, Madam. Good evening, Ms. Copps, and good evening, sir.

    You head up a very important department. I acknowledge the work Canadian Heritage does. I also acknowledge the importance you attach to certain issues.

    For eight years, since 1994, you have been receiving the annual reports of 29 “federal” institutions. You have to analyze them, examine them and report your findings to Parliament. I have some difficulty with this because it's not easy to see in your reports tabled in Parliament the evaluation you have done in terms of results. I'm not talking about existing programs, about the lists you give us every year of the programs of the agencies and institutions; I'm talking about results.

    In addition, the Auditor General of Canada audited one of your programs, the Official Language Community Support Program. In comment 5.188, she criticizes your department's administration of the program and says that approximately one-third of grants made out of the $33 million you mentioned earlier, that is to say $9 million, is more or less poorly administered. Perhaps that's not the term she used, but changes are needed.

    I read your reply. I have taken it into consideration. Your reply is far from satisfactory, in my view.

    Can you tell us whether you now intend to tighten the system somewhat in order to give us, not a list of programs, but results? Were they effective? Were they efficient? Do you have what it takes to impose your will? Do you have coercive means enabling you to tell a federal institution that what it's done is not right? Can you change things? My question is simple: what kind of power do you exercise over the 29 federal institutions that report to you annually?

º  (1625)  

    Ms. Sheila Copps: None. We have the report. We table the report in Parliament. The Department of Heritage does not exercise the power to change other departments' action plans. That's why we are currently in discussions with the Treasury Board to see whether there is any way to reinforce that with a central agency.

    You remember when the first agreement was signed with Mr. Masse. At that time, we had a great deal of difficulty convincing a central agency to get involved in the field because those agencies don't tend to operate in programs. They prefer administration only. When we signed an agreement, it was a political decision between two ministers: Mr. Masse and myself. Then it took five years' experience for us to determine the results of those reports and we observed that, based on the reports tabled in Parliament, the only recourse was for Parliament to take the files in hand and study them.

    Second, you spoke a moment ago about $30 million and the Auditor General. I have had meetings, for example, with the FCFA and people whom you all know like Georges Arès and others. Those people say that the audits currently conducted for gifts of $5,000 or $10,000 for a volunteer group working in the community are also very difficult to balance. Sometimes when you talk about audits, it doesn't mean a Crown corporation with a big budget, but an organization for the elderly, the Knights of Columbus of Chicoutimi, organizations with few people. You want us to bear the burden of mathematical effectiveness, but we need a certain amount of flexibility with those groups.

º  (1630)  

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Ms. Copps, I understand all that, but you will understand that, for a parliamentarian, it is absolutely impossible to examine or delve more deeply into this question with a witness who tells us that she has no power, that she has no stick, that she has no carrot, that she has nothing. We wonder then who has the power. The Prime Minister has appointed Mr. Dion. I call him the minister delegated to Canadian Heritage because he does coordination.

    Section 42 of the act is clear: you have an obligation to encourage all departments to cooperate to enhance the vitality, advancement and development of the official language communities, and you're telling us you don't have that power.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: That's not what I said. You asked me whether I had the power to take action once the reports had been submitted. I said that, under the agreement, we had the power to dangle the carrot, which was implemented by the IPOLC. Heritage Canada doesn't have the power to act. That's why we signed an agreement with the Treasury Board. You're asking Canadian Heritage to start looking into the files of all the departments to see where they stand. In practice, what we do is what's written in this. We stimulate and encourage. Currently, the carrot is more successful than the stick. We also need a stick, but Canadian Heritage can't hold the stick. When we signed the federal-provincial agreement...

    Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: A document was distributed to this committee recently, yesterday or the day before.

    The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Excuse me, senator, but your time is up.

[English]

    I'm sorry, Senator, but your time has finished.

[Translation]

    Ms. Sheila Copps: I'm prepared to answer any question. I said that we did not have a stick and that we were looking for a process so that we could get a stick. It's precisely because we are considering these weaknesses. I'm not here to say that no change has been made or should be made, but the progress we have made through our efforts and those of many others should nevertheless be recognized.

    The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Madam Minister.

    Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Madam Minister, I would like you at one point to give us a document similar to this which would be an organization chart of the implementation of the Official Languages Act. As Senator Gauthier said, you are responsible for certain things under section 42, whereas Mr. Dion is responsible for coordination and Ms. Robillard is responsible for Part VIII of the act. It's a bit difficult, even for the FCFA and even for us, to know who does what and who is responsible for what in all that. You say yourself that your department is like a mailbox for the 29 organizations which send you documents that you hand on to government and that you have no power. It would be good for us to have an organization chart telling us who does what.

    I appreciate the figures and information that are here, but they have to be related to your annual report. You tell us that 74% of young Canadians feel that bilingualism is important and that 84% of them think it's a good thing, but, when we look at your annual report, we see that only 7% of Anglophones living in a minority setting are bilingual. We can always say that all is well in the best of all worlds, but this is a reality. So page 18 of your annual report states that 7% of Anglophones living in a majority situation are bilingual.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes, but you have to see that in the context of the demographics of young and old people. Not a lot of seniors are bilingual.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, but I'm telling you that there's a difference between the proportion of those who think that it's a good thing and the proportion that put that into practice. I think it's a good idea for us to compare the two documents so that we can see intentions and the reality.

    With your permission, I'm going to ask two questions at the same time.

    My first question concerns the testimony you have given here, but also that you gave on April 18. I'm going to read it:

With the new credits we have obtained, we have virtually returned to 1992 funding levels. Over the past 10 years, those levels have fallen considerably. We still need $38 million in additional investment per year to return to the levels of 1992, that is 10 years ago, or $89 million in constant dollars,...

    Furthermore, when I look at the sponsorship program budget, I see that $40 million has been spent each year on average over the past five years, for a total of $252 million. I find that sad. There was no money for the Francophone communities, but the same amount was invested in the controversial sponsorship program. I would like to hear you on that.

    Here's my second question. When you signed the $500,000 contract with Groupe Everest to consult on amateur sport, did you ensure that that firm was in compliance with the Official Languages Act?

º  (1635)  

    Ms. Sheila Copps: I didn't sign any contracts, sir, either for sponsorships or for advertising. That's not how things work.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: How do they work?

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Well, an official makes a recommendation and the contract is signed by Public Works and Government Services. The $500,000 contract you refer to was signed by Public Works. I wasn't involved in that matter at all. The normal process was followed. When the department needed a service, a committee was struck to conduct a consultation, and an official asked Public Works to recommend an agency. The Department of Public Works signed the contract and recommended the agency. That's how things work in all departments. I can't speak on behalf of the other departments, but I can tell you—

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Are ministers generally accountable for their budgets, or are officials responsible for them?

    Ms. Sheila Copps: There is a process for contracts. The minister doesn't sign all the contracts. Excuse me, but we're here to sketch the outlines of policies; we are definitely not here to sign all the department's contracts. The Department of Canadian Heritage has a budget of more than $3 billion. Do you think I sign all the contracts? Of course not.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But you're responsible for the officials who sign them.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Contracts are awarded by Public Works. Canadian Heritage doesn't award them.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: With your permission, I'm going to come back—

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Excuse me. May I answer the other question?

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, of course.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: You spoke of Part VII of the act. That part concerns the vitality of the minority language communities. In the case of official languages, there was a quite substantial cut in the budget when the programs were reviewed.

    Subsequently, in 1999, through the efforts of a number of members, we got an increase, and we need another one. At the same time, however, in the culture field, which is beyond the scope of the Official Languages Support Program, but which affects our ability to work, we have had substantial increases. I'm thinking, for example, of the Music Fund envelope or that of Telefilm. Previously, no Francophone outside Quebec had access to those things.

    Four or five years ago, we began a process to ensure that linguistic duality is reflected across the country. Previously, it was the Francophones in Quebec and Anglophones in the rest of Canada. When all the policies of those institutions were reviewed, an attempt was made to ensure that there could be cultural development everywhere, which had the effect of encouraging young people to live in their language.

    Let's talk about elderly persons who don't speak French. You cited the figure of 74%. That means that the vast majority of Canadians who don't speak a second language are in favour of the idea of everyone being able to learn a second language. Does that mean that a 70-year-old is going to go back to school? No, but that's definitely going to reinforce the investments we make so that young people can have access to a second language. That's what we're trying to do with the policy on official languages for youth.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Ms. Copps, section 42 states that the Department of Heritage is responsible for the development and influence of the Official Languages Act or, at the very least, of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. In the Throne Speech, the Prime Minister announced his interest in the official language minority community and subsequently appointed Mr. Dion. Do you think that, to bring about better coordination or assessment of the 29 plans, section 42 should be amended so that the President of the Privy Council becomes responsible for Part VII? As a result, we would no longer have a mailbox, but rather a person responsible who would receive those documents and would have the power to implement that part, as you wish.

º  (1640)  

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Before amending the act, it should be determined how we can reinforce the agreement already signed with the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board is important. It examines not only the federal-provincial agreements, but also all the government's agreements. When a contract is awarded to a Crown corporation, the Treasury Board has experts who can conduct an analysis and follow up on plans that do not respect official languages.

    The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Ms. Copps.

    We will begin the second round.

    Mr. Bélanger.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    First, allow me to congratulate Ms. Sarkar on her new position and responsibilities. I wish you well. We will be knocking on your door as often as necessary, Ms. Sarkar.

    Ms. Copps, I am pleased that you explained to us in your presentation why the agreement between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board has not yet been renewed. You say you are seeking to reinforce it. That's fine, but I imagine the intention is to sign a new one.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I understand why that's necessary. As a central agency, the Treasury Board has somewhat greater influence than the Department of Canadian Heritage might have over departments that are on the same level as it.

    My question is more on the agencies that report to the Department of Canadian Heritage. There are a number: the CBC, Telefilm, the NFB, the National Capital Commission, the National Arts Centre, Canada Council of the Arts and so on.

    What mechanism does the Department of Heritage have to ensure that those agencies that report to it comply with section 41? The department has a certain influence in that regard.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: That relates somewhat to the discussion we had on the subject of Telefilm and other agencies. Four years ago, I required that those agencies produce an action plan to reinforce the manner in which they enhance the vitality of the minorities. They subsequently had to conduct an in-depth analysis of their programs to ensure they were respectful of minority language and invested in their vitality.

    That's why we changed the way we operated in the music world, for example. That's why we created a specific envelope for Telefilm, based on the examinations we had done. You and I have talked a lot about that, but we had the impression that the vitality of the French fact was being enhanced in Quebec only and that the vitality of the English language promoted exclusively outside Quebec. That's why I required that the agencies give me action plans with fairly specific figures. If you wish, I can give you a more thorough analysis that might guide you.

º  (1645)  

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes please. If you could share with the committee the analysis the department has conducted of the action plans of its agencies, that would be very useful.

    If an agency did not comply with the letter or at least the spirit of section 41 of Part VII of the Official Languages Act, what mechanism could the department use? Could it review its budgets, allocate moneys elsewhere and so on? You have the stick in that area. How can the department use that stick in the case of agencies under it?

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Fortunately, I haven't had that problem to date. We started with the idea of encouraging them and that works fine with them. I haven't had any refusals. That's probably because the executive committees of those organizations are, to a certain degree, a reflection of Canada's linguistic duality.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If the committee could show that there are deficiencies at any agency, the department would be prepared to act, if I understand correctly.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): On page 32 of your presentation, you discuss action plans and achievements and you say that each year, 29 departments and agencies must submit them.

    Ms. Copps, why aren't all the departments and agencies of the Government of Canada subject to this requirement?

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Because they're not central departments.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Approximately 100 departments and agencies are not subject to that. There are many more than 29.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes, but that's done through the departments, which must conduct their own analysis of their department and their agencies.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Why aren't the other departments and agencies required to do that? Is there a reason? I'm not talking about Canadian Heritage's agencies.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: I understand.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Why don't we require all the departments and agencies, without exception, to prepare an annual action plan on the implementation of section 41 and Part VII of the Official Languages Act?

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Since the action plan process was introduced following this agreement, we decided first to make this request of the departments that were most directly accessible to the general public. There's no reason why that can't be expanded, but expanding it without having the necessary weight to do so would be somewhat like expanding an empty shell.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Just a minute. If you are in fact negotiating with the Treasury Board for it to help you renew the agreement on the implementation of section 41, couldn't you take advantage of the opportunity to ensure that it applies to everyone?

    Ms. Sheila Copps: The discussions are well under way because Ms. Robillard herself... We spoke earlier about the committee and about Mr. Dion's responsibility. If the Privy Council and the Treasury Board are involved in a matter, that moves things along more effectively than if it was being done by a department. There's nothing preventing us from having an agreement that would also involve the work currently being done by Stéphane Dion. That's part of the discussions we're having with the ad hoc committee that needs to discuss ways in which we can reinforce the vitality of the two languages. That's why we haven't gone into too much detail. We're tabling a report in Parliament, but since we can't take any action or don't have a stick, it's better to reinforce a new agreement than to try to impose a system that doesn't work on other departments.

º  (1650)  

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It seems to be working in the departments where there is good will.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes. We're trying to make it work. In our department, we have the desire to subject our agencies to it, but, when there's no will, what can we do? That was Mr. Gauthier's question. We were asked what our action was. There is no action. If there is any action, it must be taken by a central agency. You can't expect a minister who has a lot of programs, a lot of agencies and a lot of other things to do to conduct an analysis of what must be done in the Department of Agriculture, for example. That's not reasonable, and that's why, when we signed the agreement with the Treasury Board, the idea was to reinforce the power of a central agency to analyze these matters. They don't have the budget to do that. They have to create this analysis and action function. Who makes the telephone calls? Who does the bureaucratic analysis?

    The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Madam.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Excuse me. How many people are working in official languages right now?

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine (Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, Department of Canadian Heritage): For the interdepartmental cooperation file, we have a team of approximately 10 persons monitoring the departments.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: The Department of Canadian Heritage acts like a kind of Department of Education with respect to the decisions that must be made on each building, on each budget, on each school board. Our staff can't manage the entire government bureaucracy relating to a central agency file.

    The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Ms. Copps.

    Senator Léger.

    Senator Viola Léger (New Brunswick, Lib.): Good evening.

    First, I would like to say that your work is the work of a number of generations and that we are beginning to see results after 30 years. I would like to know whether your department is involved in the four areas I'm going to talk about.

    In the business world, I have noticed, in a city where Francophones are in the minority, that the day the dollar became French, French became important. Francophone businessmen and businesswomen started up businesses. So the city was forced to become a little more French in signage, newspapers and so on. It began to listen more.

    Second, in the electronic world, in the Internet field, things move quite quickly. I imagine your department is involved in the electronic world. It's almost overwhelming.

    Third, yes, we're very much concerned about living in French. We're starting to talk about dying in French, in hospitals, naturally, and in the entire surrounding area.

    Lastly, for your department, are Aboriginal people minorities? I almost wanted to ask you whether they were invited. Is it automatic? We are Canadians, but they're very much in the minority. Do you give them a little more aid?

    Those are the four points I wanted to raise.

º  (1655)  

    Ms. Sheila Copps: The budget we have for the 54 endangered Aboriginal languages is minimal. It's a program of $5 million over four years, and that amount is allocated across Canada. It's nevertheless our first program for the preservation of the 54 Aboriginal languages, but there isn't much money. We advance the process a little for Aboriginal people in the heritage field. And that's why we will be holding a summit on Aboriginal peoples and culture in June. We will bring together all the decision-makers such as the CBC and Telefilm with Aboriginal creators and will ask the following question: to whom does this heritage belong? It's not just Anglophone and Francophone heritage; it's the heritage of Canada as a whole.

    In the case of business people, we've created the Business People's Forum. With the Business People's Forum, we have started to forge ties between business people, but an even more effective way of creating those ties would be to ensure that our innovation policy is viewed in this light. We have created the Francophone Business People's Forum, and there are people from Saint-Boniface meeting people from Welland and Sudbury.

    We're also making investments in the economy which do not affect this issue. That's why the action plan must be put forward. For example, we are currently creating 2,000 research chairs in Canada under a policy which we established. Are we enhancing the development of people living in a minority setting by ensuring that some of those chairs are awarded to Francophone universities and colleges?

    Normally, since this is an official languages matter, this is still up to Canadian Heritage. If it were possible for us, with the Treasury Board, to have a broader perspective, we could look at each new program more horizontally.

    It's the same thing in the case of hospitals. We have started the IPOLC process, but the Government of Canada does not manage hospitals. The provinces do. Of course, the investment we made in the Montfort situation helped Ontario Francophones preserve their vested right.

    Compliance with our own responsibilities is a challenge for us. You heard Air Canada's representatives last night. We also have matters to settle. There's currently a major automation project in the health system. Can we ensure that this is done in such a way that it is available to everyone?

    We have made an investment in the Internet field. The digitization of cultural collections is being done in both official languages. We have invested $150 million over three years in the Internet. We're creating content. That also has to be done when we create computer systems.

    These are major challenges.

    Senator Viola Léger: There are still a lot of things to do. I wanted to name them, because we're headed there.

    The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you.

    Mr. Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, Ms. Copps.

    There was a problem some time ago, and it was talked about on the news. I don't know what's going on now. The talk was mainly in the Nova Scotia region. I don't just want to talk about Nova Scotia because there must be other provinces playing the same game. I would bet that New Brunswick is doing it as well. The federal government gives money to the provinces for French language instruction and it's realized that the money is being used for other things.

    Ms. Copps, what action have you taken since then and what have been the results?

    Ms. Sheila Copps: We have asked the Province of Nova Scotia to submit an audit report to us on all expenses made in respect of those schools. We are currently developing the second five-year plan. The first one that we had signed required an action plan, but, in the case of those action plans and those we submitted to Parliament, no measures were taken when the agreement was not complied with. For the second five-year plan, which we are going to negotiate with the provinces starting next year, we're organizing a kind of transfer reduction clause for those that do not comply with the agreements put forward. In the case of Nova Scotia, an audit was conducted by one of our officers. I also discussed the matter with the leader of your party, in Halifax precisely, because she had expressed her concern about certain immersion schools. I believe that Mr. Lemoine could provide more details on that because it was someone from the Heritage Department in Halifax who did the audit.

»  (1700)  

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: Nova Scotia agreed to set up a committee to study the situation regarding immersion schools in the Halifax area, and they agreed to have the Heritage Department sit on that committee to analyze the impact of the merger of those immersion schools in the Halifax area. The decision on the matter is not yet final. So we nevertheless have a certain influence, if only to ask questions concerning those decisions.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Of course, if the federal government gives money, it can certainly go and check to see whether it is being spent for the right purpose. If it gives money to French schools and the money is spent elsewhere... It makes no sense that the federal government should say it is giving money for a particular purpose, when the provinces can do what they want with it once they've received it.

    Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: Madam Chair, I would like to say, with your permission, that what is involved is an audit which is currently under way in Nova Scotia. It was requested by the minister in order to determine how the province keeps its accounts and to ensure that the funds given for the minority in fact go to minority activities. The auditor's report on the subject will be made public in the first weeks of June.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: On page 21 of your presentation, you talk about cultural initiatives programs carried out under the arts policy. In 2001-2002, for the Arts Presentation Canada Program, 47 percent of contributions were paid to Quebec organizations and $164,000 was allocated to eight projects developed by arts organizations in Francophone communities outside Quebec.

    If we consider the example of a Francophone who wants to preserve his language, don't you think that the money should be spent instead in the regions outside Quebec, even though I don't like the expression “outside Quebec”? I'm talking about the Canadian regions where there are minorities. So don't you think that the amounts allocated to the regions are small, and I could name ours, for example?

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes, they are small, but the problem is that we're obliged to monitor the investment made by the province; unfortunately, the Province of New Brunswick makes few investments in the cultural field, and everyone suffers as a result. For example, if you look at where Quebec invests, you have to consider the fact that it invests twice as much in this area, on a per capita basis, as most other provinces.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: If that's the case, Ms. Copps, we're going to have a problem. If a province doesn't take a favourable stance on the French fact and decides not to invest in this area, Canadian Heritage money is therefore frozen and cannot help the Francophones in that region, as a result of which the department cannot play its role.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: You're talking about two things. When I spoke to you about these programs, I said that, apart from what we're doing for minority languages, there were things such as the Théâtre l'Escaouette, as part of a program we offered your riding which is not accessible to other ridings. That's part of the Minority Community Cultural Centres Program, which is funded out of the official languages budget. The other program comes under cultural investments. We can't create a situation. We're always asked the same question. One province may decide that culture is its priority, whereas another may decide that it has another priority. We reinforce the priorities selected by the provinces. We're not talking about a gross amount, but about an amount per capita. If New Brunswick wants there to be a genuine cultural investment, it must make an investment. The provinces cannot always come begging to the Government of Canada when they cut their own budgets. Otherwise, we take the place of the provinces which are not meeting their cultural commitments.

    We're trying at the same time to make individual investments to help the minority communities under the Official Languages Support Programs and to ensure that our investment at the Canadian level for other cultural programs is a good investment for both Francophones and Anglophones.

»  (1705)  

    The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Ms. Copps.

    Your time is up. Mr. Godin.

    Mr. Binet.

    Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Ms. Copps, I'm pleased to see you here today. I would like to congratulate you on your excellent presentation and your good work.

    First, I would like to talk about our situation in Quebec. Earlier I heard you speak about Ontario. People were ashamed to speak French. In our region, in Quebec, it was somewhat the opposite. There was an Anglophone neighbourhood, and there was a group that often went to beat up the Anglophones. Today, 30 years later, Francophones are taking English courses with the people from our minority. So the perception is different.

    Some want the act to be judicially enforceable. I think we should go with the carrot instead. I'll give you my own example. In primary school, my teacher told me there was no point in my learning English because Quebec was going to separate. Today, in our region, some people have their children educated in English, and they're using the carrot. They tell them that the day they become bilingual, they might give them a particular sum of money. So carrots are quite a bit more important than lawyers.

    You said that Quebec was absent when the Annual Conference of Ministers Responsible for Francophone Affairs was created. What reason does it give for not being involved?

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Since I've been minister, it has always said it preferred to come as an observer. The deputy minister is involved, but the minister has decided not to appear. I can't answer on behalf of the Government of Quebec and say why Quebec does not take part.

    Mr. Gérard Binet: If it had a seat, could it contribute something?

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Its seat isn't empty because the deputy minister is always there.

    Mr. Gérard Binet: So the Government of Quebec is not making policy outside Quebec.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: The minister isn't there, but that may change this year. I don't know.

    The Government of Quebec was the only government to refuse to recognize the Année de la Francophonie canadienne. When we passed the resolution in 1999, the governments of all the provinces, except Quebec, agreed to recognize the Année de la Francophonie canadienne before the Sommet de la Francophonie.

    Mr. Gérard Binet: Does it do so outside the country?

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes.

    Mr. Gérard Binet: Thank you.

    The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Senator Beaudoin.

    Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I have a brief question.

    We always talk about the Official Languages Act. It's an act that puts the two languages on an equal footing. In my opinion, until we have equality, the text of the act will be imperative. It cannot be otherwise because that's the purpose of the act. The purpose of the act is to put the two languages on the same footing. In my opinion, there's no doubt that the Official Languages Act is imperative.

    There is another point we never talk about here, and that's section 18 of the 1982 Constitution. It's not just an act. That section is in the Constitution and states that everything that's done at the federal level must be done in both languages. That's not an act. It's the Constitution. It's the act among acts. I believe we should advance these arguments from time to time. Sometimes I hear it said that the two languages, indirectly, are not official. That's false. The Constitution states that they are equal.

    That's all I want to say.

»  (1710)  

    The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Herron.

[English]

    Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I might want to put a little ribbon or some small ray of sunshine on some success stories, if I may.

    One is on behalf of the municipalities in the province of New Brunswick. It's the first time you've been before the committee since the contribution the Government of Canada made in assisting New Brunswick in the translation of the municipal bylaws, and that's greatly appreciated. I've had a chance to extend the same to Minister Dion and I'd like to do the same to you as a New Brunswicker.

    I think your contributions with respect to CPF and the summer career bursary program are fabulous initiatives. In any way that other people can help you to put a little pressure to augment those budgets, that's a good thing. The summer career bursary program actually unites Canadians for the first time. It mean that sometimes someone from Saskatchewan has a chance to meet someone from Nova Scotia, and they do it while speaking French. I think it's a very fabulous program in that regard.

    I do want to speak to the immersion program. This is my only question, if I may. We have had some fabulous results--and I come from one of the anglo bastions of New Brunswick. We have 14,000 people in my riding who now speak both official languages. Half are francophones, because of their institutions such as the Samuel de Champlain Centre, the Roméo LeBlanc Daycare, and other institutions that work for them, but because of the immersion programs that anglophones have taken, they've acquired a strong proficiency in the language.

    There's something that I'm a little alarmed about, though, and I think it may be worthy of a pilot project at some point in time. All these, we'll say anglophones who have acquired a strong proficiency in French, quite often find posts of employment where they utilize their French; on occasion, they don't. I think there could be merit in some initiatives being brought forward to ensure that where people have acquired a certain level of language proficiency, they don't lose it, because we're only at the front end of that group of those 25-, 27- or 30-year-olds who have gone through that program. I would like to raise a flag that this may be a next step you may want to consider down the road.

    That's my comment. Thank you, Madam Minister. Thank you for the flexibility as well.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: That's one of the reasons we're looking at the whole issue of cultural industries. If you look only in the area of television and audiovisual, there's $6 billion worth of business being done in Canada in audiovisual. If you can create a milieu where you can work in a minority language,

[Translation]

it's the cultural industries.

[English]

    It also means that you then can find employment after. As you say, you have this group of people who are graduating at a very high level, and they need to be able to continue the interconnected experience.

    The other thing is, Yvon or Benoît raised a point about language and the people

[Translation]

in the Thetford Mines region who didn't dare speak English.

[English]

    When I was a kid growing up, it wasn't just the French language; people were embarrassed about speaking any other language. I learned to speak Italian in high school. In my class there were 42 kids; two were anglophones, myself and one friend, and there were 40 Italians.

    All the Italian kids in those days used to get called names by other people. They would be called DPs. I'm talking now about the fifties and the sixties. This whole business about Catholics and Protestants...I went to a Catholic school. I was constantly beat up by the Protestants, and vice versa. We used to have horrendous fights. We'd come to school with black eyes every day.

    Those are old times. They're gone. They're so far gone that instead of making future decisions for your kids based on old battles.... When I learned a second language—my father grew up in northern Ontario, so he spoke fluent French, but he'd never studied it; he only learned it in school—I felt that it opened me up to a whole new world. I would encourage my children to learn as many languages as they could. I found that it actually created an openness of my own mind that hadn't existed when I only spoke one language. That part opens you up to all kinds of new experiences.

    Is it available for everybody? No, it is not. Yes, my mother went back to school at age 60 to learn French, and she's not bad, but most people at age 60 don't. You have to look at really investing in the young generation and then giving them an opportunity to use it in a more societal atmosphere.

    That's why the whole issue of broadcasting is also very important. The average child spends more time watching television than they do in a classroom. We obsess about what's going on in the schools, and we don't realize that most of the experiential feelings they have are going to be derived from these other experiences that are beyond the control of the official languages laws or anything else—some of them.

»  (1715)  

    The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Madam Minister. With your permission, I'll start the second round. We have three questioners so far.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Do we have a timeframe on this? I was supposed to be somewhere else at five o'clock.

    The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Savageau, very briefly.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I want to clarify a point.

    You told Mr. Godin that certain provinces receive more money for culture because they invest more in that sector and that you don't want to interfere in the orientations of the provinces.

    Am I to understand that Quebec invests the most in Canada Day celebrations? Quebec receives the biggest budget for Canada Day. Does the same logic apply in that case?

    Ms. Sheila Copps: Yesterday, Statistics Canada published a report on the Canadian government's investment in Quebec. It shows—

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, I'm talking about Canada Day. You cite 75% or 76% of the budget. No? All right.

    Ms. Sheila Copps: The answer is somewhat the same as the one you received last year and the two previous years. The answer is somewhat the same as the one we gave to Mr. Bouthillier, the president of your corporation. He's an Acadian. I saw him last week in Montreal.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

    Ms. Sheila Copps: In the case of l'Escaouette, Yvon, you obtained funding for a theatre. It's a theatre worth a few hundred thousand dollars. Thetford Mines, in your riding, is not eligible for funding for a theatre. Are you being spoiled? No, you're not being spoiled. We did that because you're in a minority situation. We make investments for people. We say that, in Yvon's riding, people are entitled to a theatre, whereas that's not the case in Thetford Mines. I don't think we have a société Saint-Jean-Baptiste that finances the Government of New Brunswick.

[English]

    The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Order, please.

[Translation]

    Ms. Copps, I know you don't have much time. Mauril simply wants to make a closing remark.

    The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It's not a closing remark. I would simply like to mention that, for the next committee meetings, as a result of the discussion we had, we have obtained confirmation that I would like committee members to take note of.

    On June 3, the CRTC will appear. On June 4, it will be Telefilm. June 10 is open, but don't forget that two reports have been submitted to us for us to approve or amend. We could do that on June 10. It appears the House and Senate will sit until the third or fourth week of June. So, on June 11, we will receive the Public Service Commission to discuss section 41 of Part VII, and it is possible that the RCMP will appear on June 17. That will be the last meeting if we sit until then. Thank you.

    The meeting is adjourned.