LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, May 25, 1998

• 1627

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): We will now proceed with the second portion of our meeting or to our second agenda, which deals with the Annual Report from the Commissioner of Official Languages. Mr. Goldbloom, I will now turn the floor over to you so that you can present the report.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom (Commissioner of Official Languages): Madam Chair, since time is flying by, I would like to reflect briefly on my seven years as Commissioner of Official Languages.

During the first part of this meeting, we discussed complaints filed by citizens and how these complaints were dealt with. This is an important or major aspect, I would say, of the Commissioner's role. However, this particular aspect of the Commissioner's role is a passive one, as it is the citizen who takes the initiative to file a complaint.

It seemed to me that the processing of complaints, as important as that may be, represented only part of the duties performed by the Commissioner. I wanted to take a more active role and conduct studies without waiting until complaints were filed, because I had seen some problem areas.

The first problem area that struck me was the absence, in most provinces, of a school management system for the minority official language community.

• 1630

Indeed, at the beginning of my mandate and for a time thereafter, only two provinces had turned school management over to French-speaking communities. Today, every province and both territories have a school management system. This system is not in complete compliance with section 23 of the Charter, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in all provinces, but at least a structure has been set up, and that enables me to foresee a brighter and more encouraging future for the communities, because education is now in the hands of the community itself. These priorities can be implemented, as can choices made with respect to curriculum content and resource distribution. When decisions are made by the majority, there is always a risk, despite the good will of this majority and its school commissioners, that the needs and desires of the minority community are not fully taken into account. I am, therefore, extremely pleased that we have been able to make such progress. In addition, we have seen the number of school centres and communities jump from 5 to 15. Others are at the planning stage. Building community life around the school is an important aspect of this community's vitality.

Two other events have further bolstered the general support given to minority official language communities. The Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada, which is gathering strength, has now formed a network. This means that instead of simply being a local resource, this network is national and enables communities to communicate amongst themselves.

Last, but not least, the Regroupement des universités de la francophonie hors Québec has also established a network, enabling a student from one location to register for a course given in another institution located somewhere else in Canada. In this fashion, the student can take the course without having to move or register in a university from the majority community.

All of this is important because—we have all said this on more than one occasion—assimilation remains a real problem. With every census, we're forced to note the declining populations in the various communities. We have deplored this situation without being able to do much about it until the introduction of these measures that I've just described. I would not be so presumptuous as to claim that such measures will automatically halt assimilation, but without them, the problem would still be serious and the future less bright.

I would also like to talk about the initiative I alluded to earlier, namely, to undertake systemic studies. The most important such studies, in my opinion, would be those dealing with public service. I told you some time ago that we had conducted a province by province follow-up on the 1994 study. We have not yet completed all of our follow-up work; however, in the provinces and territories where we have completed the follow-up, there has been, regrettably, a lack of improvement. This is difficult to understand given that there has been a reduction in the number of offices that are designated bilingual, thereby freeing up bilingual personnel, but we don't find these people in the remaining offices and the services are not better.

• 1635

We have changed the way we operate somewhat. This time, we focused on each office individually and we prepared specific recommendations for each office. I had the pleasure of receiving letters from many deputy ministers telling me that because the shortcomings of such and such an office had been specified, they had been able to take remedial action.

[English]

The implementation of part VII of the act is something we talked about a few moments ago in response to Senator Beaudoin's question. Like in every other sector of the economy and of society, there have been cutbacks in funding resources available, and I had expressed the hope that the official language minority communities across the country, English-speaking and French-speaking, would be perceived as fundamentally different from organizations—and I'm not speaking negatively about those organizations—that receive federal funding and carry out their function, whether it be in the sector of sports or cultural activity or whatever.

The life of the community depends on the vitality of its central organizations, and I had hoped there would not be a decrease in the funding support to the communities. In fact, throughout the country, English-speaking and French-speaking communities have been cut back in their available resources.

It has been said to me, and I have said in response, the essential fairness in the application of part VII of the act is indispensable if we are to counterbalance the cutbacks in resources given to the community. It is clear that when planning takes place, planning of programs, planning of allocation of resources, part VII of the act and the existence of official language minority communities is not uppermost, is not in the forefront of the thought processes of the federal institutions.

I have expressed the hope that we could at last develop a Pavlovian reflex that would cause people to think automatically about the needs and rights of official language minority communities when programs and resource allocation are planned.

Finally, as you have seen, this year's annual report, which bears on the calendar year 1997, has a special component. That special component is an examination of the transformations that have occurred within the federal government and in the transfer of responsibility by the federal government to provinces, to the private sector, to paragovernmental agencies being created, as has been part of the discussion here today. There again, the Pavlovian reflex has been absent.

• 1640

What has particularly concerned me is that as long as a responsibility is that of a federal institution, there is a recourse mechanism, which is principally, because we're talking about language issues, the Commissioner of Official Languages.

The transfer of responsibility has been carried out without carrying over the recourse mechanism into the agreement with the province, or in some instances with the private sector. In fairness, in many of the privatizations, the application of the Official Languages Act has been maintained, but in transferring things in general, there has not been anything more than the general statement that services will be provided in both languages where numbers warrant.

I have received assurance that that will be carried out on the basis of the same criteria that apply to the Official Languages Act. So far, so good. But the citizen who does not obtain satisfactory service no longer has the recourse, no longer has the mechanism of redress. I have therefore put down and repeated in this year's annual report a set of principles for the conclusion of transfer agreements and the preservation of the rights of citizens and the interests of minority communities.

[Translation]

Madam Chair, I would be remiss if I were to conclude this opening statement without thanking the Parliament of Canada which, seven years ago, chose me as its Commissioner of Official Languages and which, throughout these seven years, has listened to me carefully and politely and, in many cases—and I am pleased about this—responded positively to the recommendations I made.

One of the most important recommendations is the one that concludes the report on federal government reform, namely, the striking of a task force. I was—and this not an exaggeration—delighted with the quick response and political will of the government. If my memory is correct, it took 48 hours to strike a task force, and this group has honoured me by asking me to meet with them. I was therefore able to outline why I decided to undertake this study and I was able to explain the reasoning behind the observations and conclusions. I asked this task force to refrain from restricting itself to the transformations and to examine, at the same time and in connection with the transformations, both the implementation of Part VII of the Act and public services, which were dealt with in other studies and reports I prepared.

[English]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you very much, Mr. Goldbloom, for this presentation. Before turning the floor over to my colleagues, I would like to tell you that I'm happy to see that you feel Part VII is a priority. Part VII of the Act certainly represents, if I can say it this way, the survival of our communities.

I know that you're going to be visiting the Atlantic region. You will certainly be meeting with community groups that are sounding the alarm and who are very worried about not being able to continue helping the community. Such groups include the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, whose funding has been cut back substantially. We wonder how survival will be possible. These are the very organizations upon which community life depends.

So, once again, thank you. I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Breitkreuz or Mr. Jaffer.

[English]

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): It was interesting. I appreciate your taking the time and winding up your report and giving it to us here at the committee.

• 1645

The question I have I know has come up before in the committee. We've talked about the effectiveness of the Official Languages Act to promote bilingualism across the country. It's been effective, obviously, in Quebec, but there's been some question as to its effectiveness outside Quebec. You mentioned specifically today the problem of the funding to various francophone groups being cut, and obviously there could be a correlation to how effective the act is there.

Often the solution for many problems is to throw money at it and ultimately the problem will be solved. Looking especially at my own community, which is neither French nor English, promoting our language in our community has become a community responsibility; we don't rely on anyone else except ourselves to do that. I'm curious as to how seriously you take the importance of increasing that funding and how effective that will be in the final product. Shouldn't it be to some extent also done within the community itself, to promote its language and its culture? Maybe that's not happening as effectively right now.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Certainly if a community shows no vigour and vitality, then providing funds will not accomplish a great deal. There's an important difference between, if I may use your expression, throwing money at a problem—increasing the funding that is given to a particular sector—and not reducing the funds on which a community has counted for a certain number of years. That's been my regret.

I don't feel money is the only solution. In fact, the English-speaking communities in Quebec and the French-speaking communities in other provinces have found it necessary to seek greater efficiency, to reduce their staffs, and to reduce their expenditures, because the money is simply not there. This is putting a very substantial burden on volunteers in those communities.

I think all of us have been at various times in our lives, and many of us presently are, involved in volunteer activities within our communities. That is certainly an important measure of the vitality of a community. But volunteer effort has its limits. If you are trying to run an organized structure, you need some full-time support to be able to carry out certain things. It is often difficult to replace that resource with volunteer undertakings.

You said, Mr. Jaffer, that one of the objectives is to increase bilingualism in Canada. With respect, that is not my perception of what the act is about. I focus on service to the public. I focus, because Parliament did in part VII of the act adopted in 1988, on support to the communities.

The question of the two-or-more-language ability of Canadians is primarily a provincial responsibility. About half the provinces—I think five—have legislated and said they must teach a given language, specifically French, in their schools. The other five provinces have not, and it is the local school board that makes the decision about what is taught, for how many minutes or hours, and so on.

I have, for personal historical reasons, a considerable empathy for the multicultural, multilingual, multi-religious nature of Canada, and I am overjoyed when people cherish their heritage, including their linguistic heritage, and take their own action to preserve that heritage. But there is a particular issue here, which is how do federal institutions communicate with and serve all Canadians? Each of the 150 languages that make up the Canadian mosaic is a contribution to the diversity of Canada and the richness of our society. But when we ask ourselves how we reach all Canadians, we come down to this. We can reach 84% with English, and we can reach 98.6% with English and French. No other language allows us to approach anywhere near those figures.

• 1650

So we come back to looking after our own citizens in those two languages, because that gets us to 98.6%. And that requires, if I may add just this one word, a commitment on the part of the government to give support to this process.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Would you like to add to this?

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Yes. Do I have lots of minutes?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Two minutes, because you have five between you two. You've already had the five, but I'll give you an extra two just the same.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Mr. Goldbloom, you mentioned that it wasn't your place or your role to promote bilingualism in the country. It certainly was the intent of the Prime Minister of the day who sponsored the first Official Languages Act to promote bilingualism across the country, and there are a lot of people who think that he didn't want to stop at that.

You must feel quite abject in leaving your seven-year term, which I understand is coming to an end, because right at the beginning of part two of your report, you basically say that it was kind of a dismal year. I find it interesting that you say it just as you leave—that as a year it was not one of plenty either for the official languages minority communities or for the official languages program in general.

You mentioned investigations and research and that kind of thing, and complaints, especially. Can you tell me if some of the complaints come from your own staff?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I have to scratch my head, Mr. Breitkreuz, to think if we have received any from our own staff. It's quite rare. If the sense of your question is do we take the initiative of raising issues, the law does provide that the commissioner can establish a complaint process on his own initiative. I do that once in a while, either because I myself have had an unsatisfactory experience somewhere in Canada, or because I perceive something that needs to be looked at.

Allow me to make a distinction. It's not that I am not interested in encouraging people to be able to speak more than one language; I am very enthusiastic about it. I have a modest pride in being able to manage two languages, and a considerable regret that it's only two. I wish that everybody in Canada, especially children, were able to manage three and four languages.

What I said was that it is not the essential purpose of the Official Languages Act to cause people to be bilingual, and I emphasize that for a particular reason. When a public opinion survey was done some time ago and people were asked what they perceived to be the fundamental purpose of the Official Languages Act, there were a lot of people who said the purpose is to oblige everybody to be bilingual. That is simply not the case. Then the same people are asked,“Do you consider that official bilingualism has been a success or a failure?” and they say “a failure”, but they are saying it's a failure on the basis of a misunderstanding of the purpose of the act.

Only 17% of respondents identified from among four choices the right answer to the question, which is to provide services where numbers warrant. -*-*-*-*DISK$HOC$DATA01:[FIN_EDIT]LANG12007301.TSE I want to make that distinction between the laudable objective of improving our language skills across the country, and the purpose of the act, which is to ensure good service to the public.

• 1655

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Dear colleagues, you know that according to our usual rules, during the second round, we turn the floor over to the opposition parties, and then to the government. Today this is our last meeting with Mr. Goldbloom and I know that you probably want to make comments or express your appreciation for the comments he has made. According to my list, I will be recognizing Louis Plamondon, Senator Beaudoin, Mauril Bélanger, Mark Muise, and Claudette Bradshaw. I am fully cognizant of the fact that I'm not abiding by the rules.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): We will be obedient, Madam Chair.

Mr. Commissioner, you have just spoken about the observations you made in your last report regarding the decrease in the number of francophones outside of Quebec. On page 16 we find a rather surprising sentence. You state:

The slight decrease in the numbers of francophone communities in other provinces and in the Northwest Territories might only be temporary.

After that, I asked a specialist in mathematics and in demographics, Mr. Castonguay, to appear before the committee. He seemed to be surprised by your declaration because of the following facts. Regarding the renewal rate of francophones outside of Quebec, there are 87 000 francophones in the 0 to 9-year-old age group, but there are 150,000 in the 25 to 34 year-old age group. So, there is a 58 % replacement rate for the present generation. Thus we have a 42% intergenerational deficit. These are 1996 statistics. He noted that according to this formula, the linguistic reproduction rate of francophones during the 1996 census was 49% in Newfoundland. He was always pointing to this connection between the 0 to 9 age group and the 25 to 34 age group. If the present generation is not reproducing at the same rate, then there will be a decrease in the future. We have 43% in Prince Edward Island, 45% in Nova Scotia and 72% in New Brunswick. Even New Brunswick francophones are only reproducing at that rate of 72%. For the first time, a census shows that the francophones are stagnating, and no longer increasing in numbers. So we have 60% in Ontario, 56% in Manitoba, 42% in Saskatchewan, 36% in Alberta and 28% in British Columbia. So there is a 72% deficit in British Columbia.

He added:

Therefore, we should not be surprised that even in New Brunswick, certainly for the first time in our history, the francophone population is stagnating — in British Columbia, but a 72% intergenerational gap means that the French-language minority has no viable demographic base in this province.

So this observation based on figures is highly dramatic. Looking specifically at the anglophone minority, we come up with a reproduction rate over 92 or 95% in Quebec, and with this, the anglophone minority feels very secure, especially with the assimilation of immigrants as well as of francophones. The renewal rate that I just spoke about, should, Commissioner, lead you to make less tentative statements.

I would like to give you a chance to respond to that. With your permission, Madam Chair, after having heard the Commissioner's reply, I would have a very very brief question that could be answered simply by yes or no.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Every census consists of numbers, and numbers can being interpreted in different ways. Some are more pessimistic; others are more optimistic.

• 1700

I am not a statistician and so I have no personal experience in this field. However, I do have a glimmer of hope, due precisely to what I was mentioning: the fact that there is school management and there are community and school centres. I know very well that in many places, there are people who even now, have not availed themselves of their right to receive instruction in French.

I base some of my hopes on the will of the parents who now have the right to deal with a francophone school system—not merely a school, but a school system—which communicates with them to find out what their desires and priorities are, and this should create an increase in the number of school registrations.

I cannot help saying that if none of this happens, the future will not be so bright, and will be of great concern to me. But at the very least I wanted—excuse me for speaking on a personal note—to spend my term getting things done, by working to obtain school management, by participating in the opening of school and community centres, by encouraging universities and by encouraging colleges. We now have two francophone colleges in Ontario; both were founded very recently, the Collège Boréal and the Collège des Grands Lacs. These are resources which we did not have before. The Cité collégiale has expanded in a spectacular way.

Thus, there is a greater number of francophones in the school system at every level. There is some hope that people will want to take advantage of what is available. As I said in my second to last yearly report, I wanted to encourage everyone to stop whining—this is the word we used; in English they say "wring you hands"—and to start getting things done. I see that things did get done. I hope that the next census will show a more encouraging situation as compared to the deplorable trends of the past decades.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Let us go on to the brief question which the Commissioner can answer with a simple "yes" or "no".

Mr. Louis Plamondon: This brief question has a part (a) and a part (b). Mr. Commissioner, I listened to your explanation, but you did not necessarily convince me. However I do think that you have a plausible point of view. Mr. Castonguay's point of view is far more mathematical whereas yours is much more philosophical.

Here is my question. You are winding up your seven-year mandate, which you carried out with great honesty, much work and also good will. I have no doubt about this, as I knew you well before you were appointed as Commissioner for Official Languages. You had been a minister in Quebec and you were listened to and respected during your whole mandate. And this was also the case for you here.

I would like to have a simple yes or no answer from you to a very simple question, which could perhaps help us to emphasize a concrete reality. Some witnesses who appeared here said that the first thing that should be done to help minorities would be to tell the whole truth about the situation of both minorities.

Here is my question: Do you agree, and I would like you to answer with a simple yes or no, (a) that the francophone minority is in greater jeopardy and danger than the anglophone minority?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I have to say yes.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you.

Now, (b), if the francophone minority in the other parts of Canada, outside the Quebec boundaries—if we don't want to use the expression outside of Quebec—had the same rights as the anglophone minority in Quebec has, would it be a very attractive step forward for this francophone minority?

• 1705

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I cannot answer that one with a simple yes or no.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: You are becoming more diplomatic.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: This is because history has brought about different situations. For historical reasons, the anglophone community in Quebec is enjoying resources that are not available to the same degree in most other provinces. Obviously, if the situation were to be equalized, it would be a great advantage.

I have no problem with what is written on paper, because the principles are there. Part VII tells us that we should support minority communities. The problem resides in the application of practical measures and in the absence of this Pavlovian reflex that I mentioned.

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

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): You spoke a great deal about Part VII of the Act. Most of the questions that I put during the hearings of this committee dealt with this part of the Official Languages Act. I think that it is a fundamental part and I am impressed by the way you answered the question.

Since you are coming to the end of your mandate, I might perhaps be allowed to bend the rules somewhat, and tell you how much I admire you for fulfilling your duties as you have. I have always believed that commissioners and senior officials who report directly to the Parliament of Canada have a role that is both crucial and difficult. So I must tell you that the way in which you have fulfilled your mission is genuinely impressive. This has been very important to Canada, and very important to culture in general.

French and English are both official languages in this country, something that is not always easy to deal with. We have passed legislation and created institutions, but we still have a great deal to do, since nothing is perfect. However, the way in which the four official languages commissioners have approached their mandates is very interesting indeed. So I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Thank you.

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

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): My comments will be brief, Madam Chair. I'll start with the sentence I have used occasionally: every society needs its pessimists and its optimists. The optimists invent the plane, and the pessimists invent the parachute.

You, Mr. Goldbloom, have very clearly been an optimist, and I share your optimism in part. Look at the 1996 figures, for example—in many provinces, school management and elementary schools did not even exist. Yet now, they are springing up everywhere. There is a will there. It's not always easy, because there are always many obstacles to overcome, but we can feel the will is there. If we take the trouble to travel to little towns in the West, for example, we can see that will. The will was always there, I suppose, but now, people have tools they did not have before. Perhaps not in the field of science or statistics, as our friend Mr. Plamondon hoped, but, the community—if we recognize it has the will—will now be going back up the slope it might have slid down over the last decades. I hope that this continues, and that we follow examples like yours. You made every possible effort to come up with concrete measures that were essential to such communities.

I think we can let Mr. Plamondon play the role of pessimist. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you. Do you have any comments to add?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Just a brief word, Madam Chair. Mr. Bélanger is quite right to call me an optimist, but one has to be realistic as well. If I had not occasionally seen things from a pessimistic perspective, if I had not taken the unfortunate things that can happen to communities into consideration, I believe I would not have been as useful as you seem to feel I have been.

• 1710

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

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Goldbloom, I would like you to help me understand the situation I am currently experiencing at home, in Baie Ste-Marie, Nova Scotia. It's about the homogeneous education program. Most people around Baie Ste-Marie are francophone, unlike the Dartmouth area, where most of the population is anglophone, with a francophone minority. That's where the Carrefour school is located, a school that offers a homogeneous education program in French. But in our area, where most of the people are francophone, there is one group demanding a school that offers a homogeneous study program. I don't understand it. The situation in Baie Ste-Marie is different from the situation in Dartmouth. This groups wants a school offering a homogeneous education program in an area where they are not in a minority, but a majority. We always come back to the same concept: where numbers warrant.

I would like you to tell me why people are demanding the same thing in our area, even though our area is somewhat different from the Dartmouth area. I have trouble understanding this.

I want to be clear on this. French is my mother tongue, the language I speak 80 % of the time. French is very important to me. On the other hand, I can see the difficulties that are beginning to arise because of the way these two groups are acting. I would like to know how we can meet the needs of both groups. The situation is beginning to create serious problems in our community.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Nova Scotia is unique, to my knowledge. You must know this even better than I do—at one time, Nova Scotia had schools that were known as Acadian schools. These schools were greatly appreciated by the French-language community. When the provincial Acadian School Board was established, some people feared that their children would have access to fewer advantages as a result. The Acadian schools were fairly bilingual, and the children who attend them—some of these schools do still exist—receive instruction in both languages.

As you know, the situation aroused very strong emotions, making things somewhat difficult for provincial authorities and for the community itself. The problem is still around. A transition period until the year 2000 has been provided for, if memory serves, and some people would like to see it extended.

It is fairly difficult for me to comment on this. I understand what people are feeling. I am not an educator myself, but to my mind the fear that homogeneous French-language schools deprive children of good English-language instruction is not really justified. If that fear were justified, I would be extremely sorry about it. In my view, children must develop their skills in both official languages. I think that's essential.

It would be difficult for me to say more than that.

• 1715

I know there are differences that have led to some interesting discussions between the province's three regions. I'm well aware of the situation involving the Carrefour school in Grand-Havre, which has only half its students in permanent facilities. So, the school board will have to deal with a great many problems, and we hope that the provincial government will assist them in their efforts.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Goldbloom, I quite understand why you cannot comment on this. But I wonder whether you could give me the specific figures that might justify the situation. Fifty out of 300 students, or ten out of 300 students? I wonder what those figures are, because I would like to understand what is happening. The only thing my community wants to do is to live in peace and harmony with everyone else. This was a situation I experienced as I was growing up, when I was a student myself. In our community today, there is an Acadian secondary school which can provide all courses in French, if necessary, and meet the need that way, but this is not enough. I am not expressing an opinion here. I would just like to know what "numbers warrant". I would like to know those actual numbers. I know it is very difficult for you to answer me, but I would very much like some indication of what they are.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Every Department of Education establishes criteria. They say that they will establish a certain kind of school if there is a minimum number of students, or, X number of students who will be attending. That's how they do it. The actual number of students may vary, and there may be some flexibility in applying the "where numbers warrant" provision. In some small communities across Canada, parents are absolutely determined to keep their local schools, even if they are not attended by many students. This is a human and understandable response.

The parents' will is also a factor. Parents are to some extent free to choose where they register their children. So this is not necessarily just about numbers. Mathematical criteria cannot be applied stringently. The will of the community plays a role, as do the principles which have been established, particularly by the Canadian Supreme Court in its repeated interpretations of section 23 of the Charter.

[English]

Mr. Mark Muise: Chairman, in closing, I want to show for the record that I uphold Mr. Goldbloom's premise that it's great that we are able to speak two languages, and I wish I could speak two or three more. I think that would be excellent, but that's the context in which I was asking my question, not to be critical in any way but to understand.

Thank you, Mr. Goldbloom.

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

[Translation]

Ms. Bradshaw.

Ms. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Goldbloom, I would also like to congratulate you at the end of your seven years as Commissioner. As an Acadian from Moncton, I can tell you—

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]— and I was among the first students at the francophone secondary school in Moncton. That was in 1963. We had to fight and succeeded in getting books in French in 1967. The official language is important for me and especially for us Acadians and Canadians.

I am the Parliamentary Secretary for the Francophonie, and I had the opportunity to go to Newfoundland on the weekend where a school system is being created. There are 3,000 francophones and what they're doing is amazing. It was a very special occasion for me.

[English]

I have a hard time understanding why, in this country, we would have people question the two official languages. For me, it's twofold, and I would like your opinion on it.

• 1720

One is the French immersion classes, which are so important.

[Translation]

I am thinking about the Francophonie summit that will be attended by 52 countries in Moncton in 1999. The only request I made of the organizing committee was that students from the immersion classes sing at least one song at the opening, so that the 52 countries can see that an effort is being made in New Brunswick to ensure that our anglophones can speak French.

Here is my question, Mr. Commissioner. When we look at the economy, we say:

[English]

“It's a global economy”. If the majority of our children wanted to learn French and English, how many countries in the world would they be able to communicate with? I don't think we look at that.

The other one is that if we put more money into our French immersion and if we encouraged all our children to speak French and English, with your optimism—and I'm an optimist too—would our children then, because they would have the ear for the two languages, want to learn two, three, four or five languages? With respect to the future of our children, it's a global economy.

Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Certainly research and experience indicate to us that as we learn a language our mind expands. Obviously the roots of different languages are similar in many cases, so learning a second language does make it easier to learn a third language.

Someone said not long ago, very wisely, that if everyone in the world were to speak English, that would be a great thing because we could all talk to one another, but on a cultural and intellectual and heritage basis, it would be a terrible thing for the future of the world's society. We would be losing enormously by doing that. We have to get that balance right, the balance between having a common means of communication and having a diversity in our ability to communicate with other people.

French immersion has been around for some 30 years now. What strikes me is that particularly in the 1980s there was a mushrooming growth in enrolments, and I asked myself—because I became commissioner in 1991—am I going to see a falling off in those enrolments? Will it prove to have been a passing interest, a fad, if you like? The fascinating thing is that it has not fallen off. You can find one school where enrolments are down, but other schools are up. There is, in fact, an unsatisfied demand for French immersion in this country, where we have simply not developed the resources and the schools to be able to accommodate those people.

To me, that means something fundamentally important. Parents are very concerned about the quality of their children's education, and about the results. If the results of French immersion were as negative as a few people in Canada claim they are, then 1996 parents would have been telling 1997 parents, “Don't touch it—it's no good!” And obviously 1996 parents are telling 1997 parents and 1997 parents are telling 1998 parents that French immersion is a good experience, that they have found it worth while for their children, and that other parents should do the same. That, to me, is a very positive manifestation.

I'm interested, for obvious reasons, by what is happening in the province of Quebec. We hear a lot about provincial legislation in Quebec and about restrictions on the use of English. There are people who write letters to the editor and ask why people in Ontario or British Columbia should pay any attention to French, because Quebec is a unilingual province.

• 1725

The fact is that the enormous majority of parents in Quebec recognize the value of two languages and want their children to learn English as well as French.

[Translation]

A few months ago, I went to a school in Saint-Eustache, north- east of Montreal, I believe it was to Jacques-Labrie school. The school board authorized this school to provide half of the sixth grade entirely in English. The school authorities said to the parents: "If you agree to our proposal, your students will have to work twice as hard in the other half of the year in order to succeed in the other subjects." The response was very enthusiastic. I was shown around the school and visited eight to ten classrooms. At the door of each class I was greeted by two francophone children in English, and we conversed in English. Parents at Jacques-Labrie school have created a provincial association of people who want their children to learn English as a second language.

In light of all of this, it behooves us to look very objectively at what we are doing to support either of the two languages, particularly in minority situations. In my opinion, it would be anti-intellectual to say that we can be unilingual and that we don't need other linguistic resources.

I am saddened—and I say this honestly and with regret—by people whom I meet occasionally and who say that they are proud to be unilingual. However, I must say equally candidly that I understand them to some extent. They did not have the opportunity to learn a second language properly in their youth, and they don't have the opportunity to use a second language because they live in a homogeneous environment. When I tell them that it is an advantage and enriching to be bilingual and that it increases their chances in the labour market, some people will say: "You are telling me that it is an advantage to be bilingual. I am unilingual. Therefore you are telling me that I am disadvantaged in the labour market because I am unilingual." That is not what I want to tell people. I'm pleased to note that bilingualism is increasing, particularly among young people, adolescents and young adults who today constitute the most bilingual generation in the history of Canada. This is a good thing.

However, I would like each Canadian to feel comfortable with themselves. If they are unilingual, I would still like them to feel comfortable with themselves.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Very good. Mr. Paradis.

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): I would merely like to join my colleagues in congratulating and thanking Mr. Goldbloom for his seven years of work. You said that in discharging your mandate, you wanted to take action, to move things along. You did this through your strenuous and devoted efforts in the past seven years.

I had an opportunity to see that you came to visit my riding, Brome-Missisquoi. You visited the groups. In my riding of Brome- Missisquoi, 20 per cent of the population is anglophone, while 80 per cent is francophone. It's a little like Quebec. The two language groups get along extremely well, in an atmosphere of harmony, understanding and generosity.

• 1730

You were talking about schools a little earlier. We have the same kind of system at Sutton and at Massey-Vanier, a huge secondary school with two campuses. The two communities, which have a population of over 1,000 students each, attend the same secondary school. It works extremely well.

This is just to tell you that, to my mind, your past experience in the Quebec government—perhaps as Environment Minister—has allowed you to create a positive environment here at the federal level. I'm not saying that this is either optimistic or realistic, but just that you are bequeathing a positive atmosphere to your successors.

On behalf of the Quebec Liberal caucus, which I have the honour to chair, I would simply like to thank you for your work over the past seven years.

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

Angela.

Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour-Petitcodiac, NDP): I too would like to congratulate you. This is the first time I have had the opportunity to meet you, but I know that you have done some very good work.

I have only a few things to say. What really counts in the area of official languages is respect, as you say. Some anglophones are quite comfortable being unilingual anglophones. I know some francophones who are very comfortable speaking English, while others are comfortable only when they speak French. We have to respect their decisions. Official languages should not, as we so often say, be pushed down their throats. I would be against that.

In my riding, there are both anglophones and francophones, as well as Aboriginal people. The Aboriginal communities have their own school system, and their students are instructed in their own language. I have enormous appreciation for different cultures and different languages. That is what makes this country the wonderful place it is today. It makes me very sad when people say that they want to remove this source of richness and beauty from our country. I congratulate you for the work you do.

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

As Joint Chair of the Committee on Official Languages, I too would like to thank you in my turn, Mr. Goldbloom. By your comments here today, you have demonstrated once again that you have done the work of a philosopher, and that your work was done both with your head and with your heart. That is the kind of approach that has made it possible for you to forge ahead. You have listed a few of your contributions, particularly in the area of school governance. You have moved forward with a number of initiatives, initiatives that today make a difference to many Canadians. I thank you very sincerely.

Before the end of June, we will have an opportunity to see you again, and socialize a little. We promise you a party.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Madam Chair, please allow me to thank you and to thank all committee members for their very kind comments. I would also like to remind everyone that, though I am here at the table alone, I do not work by myself. I have the support of a wonderful team, and I would like to ensure that your congratulations and thanks are transmitted to them as well.

[English]

I would like to name every one of the 120-odd members of our team. That would be too much to ask of your patience, but I would particularly like to thank my five directors: Mr. Michel Robichaud, Mr. Gérard Finn, Ms. Monique Matza, Maître Richard Tardif and Ms. Marie Bergeron. They are the principal people—not the only ones, but the principal ones—who make it possible for me to give reasonably intelligent and reasonably cogent responses to the questions you raise and the points you put forward.

[Translation]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you. Please rest assured that we are fully aware of the contribution made by your colleagues.

The meeting is adjourned.