LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 11, 1999

• 1609

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (The Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.)): Good afternoon, Mr. Fontaine. It's a great pleasure to welcome you here today as you are presenting a report that we've been expecting for a very long time.

[English]

I know that at the request of the Honourable Marcel Massé, the head of the Treasury Board, you have convened and worked very hard in a very short period of time, and have deposited, for our information and our work, a really enlightened report that causes somewhat a degree of anxiety among the members of this committee.

• 1610

We hope you will be able to show us some direct ways in which we can ensure that the fundamental value of Canada, which is the bilingual nature of this country, is enforced in its full measure, so the wishes of the people, Monsieur et Madame Tout-le-Monde, are respected in their daily lives, both in their workplace and within the social environment in which they live.

Without further ado, I welcome you on behalf of my co-chair and my colleagues. Please proceed. I presume you have some opening remarks to make and some general observations, which we all are looking forward to hearing.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine (Chair, Task Force on Government Transformations and Official Languages): Thank you very much, madame la présidente.

[Translation]

First, I'd like to thank the members of the committee for their invitation to appear here today. I'm quite conscious that the work we have done is of interest to you as the very nature of your committee's work bears specifically on linguistic duality and language rights in Canada.

If you don't mind, I'll make a few brief opening remarks, presuming you've already had the opportunity to read our report. We will then have more time to answer your questions.

Last January 19 the Honourable Marcel Massé, President of Treasury Board, was given the report of the Task force on Government Transformations and Official Languages. I believe this report could have a marked effect on the future of linguistic duality in Canada.

As you will see in reading our report, the task force was made up of eight members coming from different areas of Canadian society, from Quebec as well as from outside of Quebec, francophones as well as anglophones. There were people from the academic arena and also from the private and parapublic sectors.

I would like to point out the presence, in this room, of one of the members of this committee, Ms. Linda Cardinal, a political science professor at the University of Ottawa, and I would like to take this opportunity to greet her.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You can invite her to come up and join us at the table. There's enough room for anyone you'd like to invite up.

[English]

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: As you probably all remember, it was in the wake of the publication of the Commissioner of Official Languages report on government transformation, the impact on Canada's official languages programs, that Mr. Massé announced the creation of the task force I have had the honour of chairing. I'd like to salute the commissioner; I think he's here today. It's quite a privilege and an honour for me to be able to attract the commissioner at this meeting today. I'd like to say hello to him and his colleagues attending the meeting today.

The mandate conferred on us by Mr. Massé was to conduct an analysis of the effect of transformation occurring in the government machinery on official languages and then suggest any appropriate measures to improve the situation.

Considering its tight timelines, the task force used the direct consultation approach. This approach made it possible to obtain a wider perspective on official languages issues, as articulated by organizations representing official language minority communities, and to reach the architects of these transformations in the government apparatus.

The task force also obtained the points of view of managers involved in government transformation and of regional management people.

[Translation]

Is it useful to remind the members of this committee that the presence of the two language communities in Canada has served to weave a federational link and model our national identity? Linguistic duality is a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society and the implementation of the Official Languages Act is a federal responsibility for which the Government of Canada must answer.

• 1615

In that context, the recommendations of the task force mainly bore on five major themes whereas the conclusions were grouped around 11 recommendations.

First, we reminded the government that it must respect its obligations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as under the relevant legislation, more particularly the Official Languages Act.

Government transformations are an opportunity for the government to show leadership in the area of official languages. Amongst other things, this requires increased sensitization of the federal government to its responsibilities in the matter of official languages, at all levels of its institutions.

[English]

Secondly, the report states clearly that when carrying out the transformation process, the government must engage provincial governments and the private sector toward official languages.

Even if there is not a master plan for transforming federal programs and services, there must be clear direction as to how those transformations will affect the linguistic rights of Canadians. This will require concerted action within the government involving particularly the Privy Council Office, the Treasury Board Secretariat, and the Department of Canadian Heritage.

[Translation]

Third, the report unequivocally states that the communities must be part of the whole process of government transformation as they are the ones who feel the effects most in the area of official languages. That's why official language communities in a minority situation must be consulted and why the government must adopt a creative approach through partnerships with them for the implementation of pilot projects and the development of options to provide services through a single wicket.

I would go so far as to point out that some of the concerns we raise within the context of government transformations, in the area of responsibility and consultation, are to be found at the very heart of the discussions held concerning the agreement on the social union.

[English]

Fourth, if the government is to fulfil its official languages obligation, it requires political will. There must be a comprehensive review mechanism to ensure the government is accountable for the outcome of the transformations that are undertaken. The government must take steps to monitor and evaluate these changes, establish mechanisms for redress, and submit the results for public scrutiny through annual reporting to Parliament.

[Translation]

Five, we exhort the federal government to act constructively by putting official languages at the forefront on the dialogue on values it is pursuing with the Canadian population. In its public discourse and in its internal policies, the government must reaffirm its commitment to linguistic duality and to the promotion of the full development of official language communities in a minority situation in Canada.

As we said in our report, the strength of a country is to be found in the vitality of its communities.

Madam Chair and members of this committee, that is the end of my opening statement. I will, of course, be most happy to discuss with you the contents and the philosophy of this report. Thank you.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much, Mr. Fontaine. You've certainly given us plenty of food for thought.

I have a first question I'd like to place before you. Did you find any place where the ball stops, where the final responsibility rests so someone can say this is it; you have an obligation to fulfil and you're not fulfilling it?

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: Is your question concerning the transformation project?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Whether it's transferring, downloading or changing the venue from federal to provincial, whether it is the justice department, the health department or HRD who in the final analysis, according to the new structure division between the heritage ministry, the Treasury Board and

[Translation]

all the champions we put in place

[English]

in each one of those ministries has the final say. Should it be with the Commissioner of Official Languages or should it be the Treasury Board chairman? Maybe there is someone, but in all the reports I've read I couldn't find who is responsible in the final analysis except the cabinet and the ministers.

• 1620

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: I think your reading of the different reports and the conclusion we came up with is the same. As you probably know, the framework for alternative program delivery is a general framework, and there's no master plan for transformation of government. This was really a decentralized process. There were some general guidelines. There was some encouragement by both the cabinet and to an extent by Treasury Board to have the different departments and the different services of government look at ways to transform the way they act and the way they deliver services. But I would suggest there was no central authority that would sign off any transformation process.

If it were a transformation that required legislation, then the final say would have been Parliament. And that has happened in some of the cases, as you know. In some other cases where it didn't require the intervention of Parliament, it depended. If it was a request made by cabinet or through a budget, for example, to establish l'Agence des douanes et du revenu, that was the will of government and the process was political.

So that was one other concern we had. There was no place where there was a central watchdog in terms of the impact of a transformation on official languages to ask, does this meet the requirements of the official languages regime of Canada? Should we sign off this agreement?

I think the best examples are the examples in terms of the labour market development agreements with the provinces. That did not require Parliament's approval, and we have I think 12 agreements that are not the same from one province to the other and don't have the same requirements in terms of official languages.

What we've discovered is there was no central agency or office that would say yes, you can sign off; yes, you are respecting the requirements of the Official Languages Act or the official languages regime of Canada. That's one of the reasons why we have recommended—I think it's recommendation six—that we should have a mechanism for joint action; that is, we should have at least a different intervener in terms of the different departments that have responsibilities in terms of official languages to look into any transformation project and give advice as to whether it meets the requirements of the Official Languages Act or in general the official languages regime of Canada.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Is that fed into Treasury Board, into Heritage, or into the commissioner? Who—

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: At this point there's no New Zealand approach to transformation of government. There's no one central authority that signs off for transformations of government. Basically it could be at one point the Department X that has an idea of delivering services in another manner, so it would take the route of that. And that's what happened in the past. Since there's no central organization that approves, or one single entry where we finally approve a project, it's hard to agrafer to that central office a responsibility in terms of saying yes, it meets the requirement of official languages, or no, it doesn't. So basically if you look at how the government has proceeded in terms of transformation of government, since there's no master plan it's hard to say the situs of the responsibilities is always at the same place. It moves, depending on the project.

• 1625

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Is PCO the best locus? That's my last question.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: We've looked into this, and basically we did not feel, because of the way the government does transformation, there was one place that was the best place to do this. We are sure that the closer it is to a central agency, the better it is, but whether it should be Treasury Board or the Privy Council Office, there is some room to debate this issue. But I think the one thing that is sure is we need to have a mechanism whereby somebody has to take a thorough look at this and give

[Translation]

the most objective advice possible as to the effect of a government transformation on official languages. We can't let that question drift by. Even though Heritage Canada and Treasury Board consulted us in the past, we don't get the impression they have followed a single model or chosen a single path in this matter. That is surely why we very often witness, from one transformation to another, that there's one law for the friends and one for the foes and that there is a linguistic regime that is different depending on who has been appointed watchdog in those matters.

[English]

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

[Translation]

Before giving the floor to Ms. Tremblay,

[English]

I would like on behalf of this committee to welcome the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Victor Goldbloom. Thank you for being with us.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Good afternoon, Mr. Fontaine and Ms. Cardinal. First of all, I'd like to thank you for the work you have done and ask you to please transmit this message to the people who worked with you.

Before getting into a more general question, I'd like to ask you if you worked on this as volunteers.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: Yes.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Was your committee granted a budget to do its work? If so, how much went to research, consultation and travel of your members and the people you had as witnesses?

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: We didn't manage our own budget directly. Mainly because of time constraints, the members of the committee quickly came to the conclusion it would not be possible to have consultations from one end of the country to the other to meet people in the field. You know as well as I do that if we had taken two years or if our task force had been a royal commission, we certainly would not have proceeded in the same way. We could count on the co-operation of the main stakeholder groups in the matter and we had them come here, to Ottawa, which held our expenses to a minimum. The members of the committee were not very big spenders either. However, some members did have to travel and we did have to see to their lodging in Ottawa, but once again it was minimal.

In terms of research and documentation, we are essentially the ones who found and collected whatever documentation already existed. Our members analysed these documents on their own. I must specify that we asked for no specific budget for research assistants for the simple reason that we rapidly saw, when we consulted the groups, that the data already existed. Our report does reflect that fact. Our work wasn't to collect data but rather to try to find the main elements of the question based on existing documents. That's what we did.

We were not given a budget we could spend at our discretion. So we didn't really manage our own budget.

• 1630

I must also tell you that we did not think we needed any simply because the time available to us was very short. As we explained in the methodology used, we preferred to go directly to the source and do the work ourselves. Amongst us were people who, on the one hand, possessed good knowledge of the existing documents and, on the other, had the proper ability to analyse them.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: If my information is correct, the Commissioner tabled a report basically requesting your committee be created.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: That's it.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: And in what way does your report go further than the Commissioner's?

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: I'd say it's possibly in two areas. We very closely examined the Commissioner's report. I believe the work done by the Commissioner and his team in establishing the documentation on what happens in the field was remarkable. We managed to find a certain number of situations where there had been clear inequality of treatment in the area of official languages during a transformation. The group was conscious of that. We actually also went directly to the source to look at the different agreements and we analysed them to find how the language regime had been treated.

We analysed the matter in two parts, first, in a far broader context than the simple question of government transformation. We made a certain number of recommendations having to do with a problem that goes beyond government transformations.

We were told, both by the communities and by the diverse stakeholders in the government transformations, that there seemed to be some disinterest shown by the government in the matter. Actually, that was the focus of our first recommendation which, in my opinion, is rather strong. It also comes out in our second recommendation and also in the conclusion of our report which rather pressingly does invite the government to get its act together and affirm far more openly and consistently the importance of Canada's linguistic communities' vitality.

The Commissioner may do so regularly, but he did not do it in the context of the report he prepared for government transformation.

Then, our recommendations bearing strictly on government transformation go further. They bear on the more technical aspect of implementation, on where the different valves of government machinery should be distributed to make sure that these things don't go unnoticed in a government transformation project.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I have another question, Madam Chair, with your permission.

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

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: In reading the report, I get the impression that the two minorities were treated on an equal footing. However, this approach, where one tries to be equitable, does have a bit of a perverse effect in the sense that it prevents us properly analysing the situation, especially the situation of francophones outside of Quebec, and seeing exactly what their situation really is, and coming up with an answer to the real needs that can be identified. In reality, the two minority communities are absolutely not in the same situation. For example, let's just take provincial commitments, services that are accessible and so forth.

In using the same analytical matrix for both minorities, isn't the francophone community outside of Quebec, in a way, being treated less favourably?

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: Well, the asymmetry theory is well known to me. To a point, the theory on asymmetry is rooted in fact. In that sense, you can't say that there's absolute symmetry between the francophone communities outside of Quebec and Quebec's anglophone community. In any case, there's no symmetry either between francophone communities outside of Quebec. The real situation of the New Brunswick Acadians, that I know very well, is very different from francophone reality in Saskatchewan.

• 1635

So the theory on asymmetry is valid, without a doubt.

On the other hand, one thing is sure: I'd like our study to be looked at in the context of its terms of reference. The problem we have here and that we've always had is that, whether one likes it or not, the minorities, anglophone in Quebec or francophone outside of Quebec, have always considered that the federal government was the one who, in the past, has shown great leadership in the area of the vitality of our linguistic communities.

I can see Senator Simard here and I'm not forgetting that I am from New Brunswick. But one must admit that, legislatively speaking, the New Brunswick government has always followed the federal government very closely, and sometimes moved faster, in the matter of official languages policy and recognition of the linguistic duality of official language communities.

However, one hears that the provinces and the federal government have distanced themselves somewhat from the interest they used to show in official language communities. The wish of the communities is to hold on to the hope that the federal government is present, that it is present and very strong.

As to whether, in our report, we recognize the existence of a certain asymmetry as concerns the situation of anglophones in Quebec, we saw what everybody knows, to wit that there are rather different realities, for example in the area of assimilation, in Quebec as compared to the other provinces.

As you know, Quebec's anglophone community has a whole series of institutions that are the envy of some francophone minorities outside of Quebec. But the institutions of the anglophones in Quebec, in my opinion, can be compared to the institutions of the New Brunswick Acadians.

So one must be careful not to talk about asymmetry only by comparing anglophones in Quebec to francophones outside Quebec. The theory of asymmetry can also apply to francophones outside of Quebec, amongst their different communities.

Our terms of reference led us to put this question: When the federal authorities decide, through privatization or transfer to the provinces, to hand over the jurisdiction they had in the past when they offered services to whoever needed them, should the beneficiary of that service be affected or not? Our viewpoint on that is that this question is no different for the anglophone community in Quebec than for the francophone community outside of Quebec.

That doesn't mean that we think the challenges that anglophone communities must meet are the same as those of the francophone communities outside of Quebec. If our study had been broader, the matter of asymmetry could have shown up more clearly in the conclusions of the report.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you. Ms. Fraser.

Senator Joan Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

Welcome. I found your report very interesting. I was struck by, among many other things, recommendation four, less perhaps the recommendation than the rationale, in which you set out hierarchies of federal functions. The reasoning is that depending on the degree to which a given function is inherently federal, the rigour with which language guarantees should be required in transformation varies.

I have a two-part question. I wonder if you could give, very briefly, examples of what would come under these different hierarchies. I think there are four of them. Secondly, why have hierarchies in the application of language rights? Why not just say if the federal government is there now, the Official Languages Act applies and the principles should apply, whoever is fulfilling the function?

• 1640

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: I think this recommendation was the centre of a long discussion and long reflection among the members of the committee, without any doubt. I'm not surprised that's one of the questions that is coming from the committee today. I think it is a legitimate question.

I would say two or three things as they relate to that recommendation. First of all, I don't like to use percentages because I haven't really done the mathematics on them, but I would suggest that about 90% of every case that we could imagine would fit into the first part of the recommendation. Whether it's 95% or 96% or 98%, I'm not sure. That's the first thing.

Secondly, I think the exception, if you like, is one that would be hard for the government.... According to the approach we're taking here, it would be hard for the government to try to argue that a situation is one that was foreseen by this second part of the recommendation. I think there would be a strong onus on the government to say this service is not one the population would logically think should be offered by the government.

Thirdly, if there are some cases where the government could meet the onus of proof that would be theirs, we're not suggesting that they could transform the service or give the service to somebody else and not have any other types of responsibilities to the communities of official languages. That's a real challenge, because if in all cases we put the government in a straitjacket in a way that what was really useful for the communities to enhance the duality in the 1970s or the 1980s is still useful and proper to do in the year 2020.... We felt that was probably not the best way to look at it. The best way to look at it is there might be some cases where the trade-offs would be better for the communities than just saying that technically we're obliged to do this or that, but that would not be helpful to either enhance the linguist duality of Canada or help the communities survive and prosper.

One example we looked at is a deal the government made, a partnership with a company called La Fleur de la Capitale. The National Capital Commission used to keep the lawns and plant the flowers and things like that in the capital region with its own employees. They decided to contract that out to La Fleur de la Capitale. My understanding is that even in that case there is an obligation to serve the public in either language where there is a service to be provided.

Ms. Linda Cardinal (Member, Task Force on Government Transformations and Official Languages): To serve the flowers.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: So that could be one example.

Sometimes it's funny to look at everything the government is doing these days. We're just getting out of the welfare state, and the government did intervene in all kinds of areas of life that are not areas of activity governments are usually there for.

If you ask me to give you a specific list, I cannot, but my feeling is that they will encounter that in the future, and we think this recommendation is probably a well-balanced one. The spirit of this recommendation is that even though they think they can get by, they cannot. There's an onus of proof, but they would still have to do something else to help.

• 1645

And the compensatory issue on it is there. Let's not forget about that. We did not define this. It's not necessarily giving money, but it's maybe introducing different programs that would help enhance the communities in a better way.

I don't know if I'm answering your question, but basically that's the approach we've taken. Some suggest that they would like to see other approaches to this, but this is the approach we decided to take.

Senator Joan Fraser: Did it occur to you that category four, situations where the government is withdrawing from an area for which it legitimately does not consider itself responsible, might, depending on the philosophy of the government of the day, be the biggest loophole ever written?

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: No, I don't think so, because we have have a Constitution and we have section 91 of the Constitution, which states the different jurisdictions of the federal government. And in regard to this bullet four, I would be very doubtful that somebody could read in the Supreme Court of Canada that it means they can play with section 91 and transfer some of those jurisdictions to the provinces and not have the obligations we state in the first sections of that recommendation.

So yes, some might want to read it that way, but we don't think that's the way to read it, and that's not what we mean with this vote, not at all.

Senator Joan Fraser: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): What would be the types of compensatory measures that might be involved and that you discussed? When you were examining this and trying to decide yes, no, put it in or not, did you have some examples you played around with?

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: The whole approach to our report is that the government needs to do better

[Translation]

for civil society to include, in its institutional culture, in its organizational structure, a better understanding of linguistic duality.

On the other hand, we know full well that there are Canada-Community agreements, agreements signed by the Government of Canada and certain communities all across Canada through which the government can take steps to ensure the development of the communities or better access to institutions in the language of those communities.

Nothing prevents the government, in cases like those, from introducing more programs rather than making an appropriate effort to fulfil the real needs of these communities in terms of development, needs that are not necessarily recognized nor guaranteed, either under the Constitution or under the Official Languages Act.

Now, from our point of view, the government cannot in any instance take an approach that would relieve it of any current obligation and thus show less leadership with regard to those communities. The government should always do more and be more present for the communities than in the past.

The compensatory measures may come in many forms, and that's what we meant when we indicated the federal government must show far more imagination in how it responds to the needs of the communities and promotes linguistic duality.

We got the impression that that had not been a priority over the last few years. Well, it's very important and that's what we mean by compensation.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much.

Senator Beaudoin.

[Translation]

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I would like to come back to your recommendations 1 and 4. I've always said that in our Constitution there was symmetry and asymmetry. Sometimes, in our country, we're reluctant to call a spade a spade.

For example, federally speaking, it's clear that perfect symmetry was chosen; both languages are on the same footing in all federal jurisdictions. That's written into the very heart of the Constitution. In New Brunswick, the two communities were clearly put on the same footing. We passed a constitutional amendment to do it.

• 1650

On the other hand, if, federally speaking, perfect symmetry is the rule, and that is what, in my opinion, gives remarkable value to Canada, it's not the same provincially speaking. We have made very great progress. The Supreme Court helped us accomplish this in the Manitoba case. New Brunswick did its own work with section 16. But in the other provinces, Quebec being a fairly particular case, as we know, asymmetry is the rule more often than not.

In Canada outside Quebec, I often hear people say that it's a matter of numbers. It is true that the Constitution says: "where numbers warrant". But for the quality of French and English, it's not at all a matter of numbers. The fundamental value is that both languages are on an equal footing, no matter the numbers. Of course, I know that the wording "where numbers warrant" is found in section 23.

Based on that, I have always wondered whether, when the federal government delegates powers it has under the Official Languages Act, and allows municipalities to do such or such a thing or provide such or such a service, it should not bluntly make sure it will be done in both languages. Otherwise, it's easy to think that if the federal government does something, then it has to be bilingual, but if it's a municipality or a province that's not subject to bilingualism, then it doesn't have to do it.

We could discuss this at length before the courts, but that's not my problem with it. I'd like to know what you, with the experience you have in this area, think about this delegation of powers which might mean, sometimes, that bilingualism wouldn't be considered as a fundamental value or even as a value peculiar to our country.

Don't forget that in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the notwithstanding clause does not apply to bilingualism. That is sometimes forgotten.

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

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: It does not apply to bilingualism. I never miss an opportunity to point out that someone reading the Constitution, someone from planet Mars, for example, will notice that the greatest value affirmed in it is bilingualism. It's extraordinary to have that! You can't use the notwithstanding clause even though you may for a fundamental freedom, for legal rights, for legal guarantees and even for equality. For equality, imagine that!

I'm not in favour of the notwithstanding clause, but in any case, it is there. It does not apply to bilingualism and that's a good thing, I think. What do you think about this possibility of a delegation that could mean that you could get around the equality of both languages?

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: First, when you talk about symmetry, you're absolutely right. When you read the legal texts, you can see that the whole federal linguistic regime is based on the symmetry of both languages.

Now, concretely, even from one province to another, for example, when you look at how the obligation is spelled out in the regulations on official languages, you can see that something which, for a New Brunswick Acadian, is the right to work in his language if he's a federal public servant in Moncton, is not a right for a federal public servant in Saskatoon. Or what is, for a Franco-Ontarian in Sudbury, a right to be served in French in a given region by a given federal department is perhaps not a right for the Franco-British Columbian living in Kamloops, for example. So we have to say that this symmetry, in its implementation, has lost a bit of its absoluteness.

• 1655

To answer your question directly, I could give you the example of the Young Offenders Act, which is a flagrant example. That's why our fourth recommendation spells out that if anything falls under the purview of the government, it has to be the administration of justice. I'm convinced that it's totally unacceptable to transfer the administration of a certain number of criminal offences under this legislation to a province which, in its turn, may decide to transfer it to a municipal government. All of a sudden, with this passage from one level to another, you loose the obligation in matters of official languages and that is totally unacceptable. It's almost doing indirectly what you're not allowed to do directly. You realize that full well, as a senator and a teacher of constitutional law.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: [Editor's note: Inaudible] ...particularly law.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: Exactly. Our report comes to the conclusion that it is a totally unacceptable situation. When a State activity is involved, because of the very nature of the activity, you must absolutely ensure, when you decide to provide the service another way or hand it over to another level of government, that it will be subject to the same obligations. In other words, that the trustee will be under the exact same obligations, in terms of the linguistic regime, as was the federal government before entrusting this to that third party.

Otherwise, you run the risk of seeing real erosion of language rights in Canada. That is what we state very clearly and very vigorously. We have acted thus to a certain point with some manpower agreements where the linguistic regime was roughly preserved in some, while in others, it was not. All of a sudden, because of certain transfer agreements—and I'm not talking about co-management agreements—we were all slightly astounded because the legislation didn't apply in its entirety and the Commissioner no longer had any jurisdiction. What recourse does the aggrieved party then have? So there is a fundamental problem and we raised the issue very strongly in our report.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: It has to be remedied. I think it is possible to correct this situation because all of these agreements are to be reevaluated and renegotiated in the future. In any case, if memory serves, it is possible to ask for amendments to these agreements with two year's notice, in most cases. So it is already possible for the federal government to act differently than it did in the case of the 12 agreements on manpower where you have something like six different linguistic regimes. In our judgment, that is unacceptable.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: All citizens are equal before the law. It is also said that in the administration of justice, it is not enough that justice be done; it must appear clearly to be done. In the word «clearly», to my mind, you have the whole matter of language.

Since 1982, at the very least, everyone has the right to a criminal trial in French or in English in Canada. Clause 14 of the Charter provides that one has the right to an interpreter. The Supreme Court was very clear and very specific on that point.

But when you get into other areas, in the area of the Young Offenders Act, for example, we're not dealing with criminal law anymore. It can be, to a certain extent, but you could also be dealing with provincial punitive law. There is a difference between an act of murder and an offence against the highway code. The same principle does not apply at all in that case. It's a matter of delegation.

If there's one thing that can be done under part VII of the Official Languages Act, it has to be that. Promoting bilingualism, in my opinion, is fundamental. You'll never have bilingualism if you don't promote it. It's impossible because instinctively, people are not inclined to speak more than one language; speaking two is already a lot, and so on.

So, if we want justice to be done, it must also be seen to be done. That's the principle.

• 1700

We must change our attitude towards bilingualism. Why say we want to delegate this responsibility to the municipal level, when we know full well that they don't have the resources to promote bilingualism at their level? So I say to the federal government that it is bound by the Constitution and must ensure a complete and absolute level of bilingualism, although it is hard to speak in absolute terms. Well, let's say complete. I say to the government as well that it can't simply delegate. I've always maintained that. I remember that Madam Chair spoke to that issue in the Senate. This is important. I'm very pleased you share our point of view in this regard.

There's been talk of symmetry and asymmetry. I once entertained myself by examining symmetrical and asymmetrical aspects of the Constitution. People say: "Well, yes, but that's...". It was an interesting exercise and I'll send you a copy if you like. The Canadian Constitution contains a lot more asymmetrical powers than you'd think: provincial representation in the Senate, representation on the Supreme Court, and much more. Most examples are quite acceptable and very good, in my opinion. That's all I have to say on that matter.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): Did you want to say anything else?

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: The senator raised a very important point. I hope that the people who are interested in our report will read it again to understand what he is saying.

Of course, from an official point of view, the challenge is to ensure that there will be an obligation to transfer bilingualism to an authority. That's one issue, but there is another challenge, which is to ensure that bilingualism and the spirit of bilingualism will flow naturally, beyond the letter of the formal obligation. I'm concerned that we should not impose a bilingual system. If you simply create an obligation and do not follow it up, you're not creating a receptive environment. If a new level of government must enforce bilingualism where the federal government used to, it must do so gradually and come to truly understand what it means to have two large linguistic communities in Canada. The new government may try to apply the mechanics of the law, but in real life it won't be as effective as when the federal government was in charge.

I've spoken to people who are close to government and who told me: "We feel that bilingualism is not valued as much anymore, even within government organizations in Ottawa, such as Parliament or the public service." However, the cohabitation of both languages, as well as bilingualism, is much more pronounced here, in Ottawa, compared to the government in New Brunswick, where I'm from, and I can tell you it's a challenge.

Our third recommendation deals with provincial governments and the private sector. I don't know how you can expect them to take on that responsibility. The federal government can't simply decide to transfer this responsibility to another level of government and leave it at that, saying that the new authority simply has to enforce the law on bilingualism. You also have to develop a mentality, and the federal government has to be made aware of that. It must not take lightly the fact that bilingualism will die if it is passed on to another level of government, since in our province anglophones and francophones do not coexist side by side as much as they do on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. Furthermore, there's not as much accountability as there is in Ottawa. It's a real challenge, and I'd like us to think about it. I don't know how we'll solve this problem, but we certainly need to give it some thought.

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

Denis Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib): Thank you. We have heard from two people today, yourself and professor Beaudoin. So I had the privilege to hear two interesting presentations today.

However, Madam Chairwoman, it is unfortunate that, once again, the Reform Party is not present today. The topic is culture and both official languages, and the Official Opposition is not even here. This goes to show once more what their interests and priorities are.

• 1705

That said, you had quite a lot to say today. We already talked about it. It's the whole issue of shifting responsibility and the double standard. Aren't accountability and deficit reduction—or government restructuring—incompatible, insofar as they result in transfers of responsibility and the creation of new agencies, and so on? As in the movie "The Thin Red Line", there is a fine line between the creation of new agencies and the public service, or bureaucratic power. The enforcement of the Official Languages Act necessarily involves the power of the people—the power of Parliament. We have to be responsible and bring down the deficit, but there won't be any real accountability if we keep on creating new agencies.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: Our mandate was not to determine whether the government had adopted the best approach in managing its business, or to find other ways of delivering services. We were not given the mandate to determine whether the government should have this kind of program. However, you do raise a fundamental point.

Of all the people we talked to, no one categorically stated that the government should completely abandon the program of the past five or six years. We did not try to determiner whether government restructuring was a good or a bad thing. It is an issue which could be discussed at another place and time.

Mr. Denis Coderre: In fact, two issues seem to pinpoint the debate on official languages. First, we've had to bring down the deficit.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: Yes.

Mr. Denis Coderre: So, there had to be budget cuts.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: Yes.

Mr. Denis Coderre: And we've all noticed that, as a result, flight attendants on Air Canada now give safety directions in English and pop in a cassette for the French instructions. That's it, that's all. We agree on this.

The second issue is government restructuring.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: Yes.

Mr. Denis Coderre: You have to recognize that mistakes were made, and I congratulate you for pointing them out, as well as for your work in general. But when the government signs an agreement to transfer responsibility, you'd think it would follow up on its actions. We have to monitor the new agencies. For instance, I was part of a study which analyzed the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and we discovered that some mistakes had been made. We must never let our guard down.

Doesn't the fact that the assessments must be made and the fact that you're calling for accountability make the situation rather irreversible? Do you believe we can come back to the way things were? That's what you're basically saying.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: Yes.

Mr. Denis Coderre: You've said that there are things wrong with the system, that we've missed the boat and cut corners. Do you think things can be set right again? We managed to reach an agreement with Quebec on manpower training, but there's no mention of language issues. The federal government can't tell Quebec it must provide services in both official languages. It doesn't matter whether we discuss symmetry or asymmetry—the fact remains that if under an agreement on manpower training, Quebec anglophones can't receive services in their own language, something's wrong, since the federal government is supposed to protect both languages.

The reason I'm asking you all these questions is because we've just signed an agreement on the social union which, amongst other things, includes worker mobility. Given all this, as well as the fact that Quebec hasn't signed on, do you believe the federal government has the authority to enforce bilingualism, despite the Constitution?

• 1710

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: From a theoretical point of view—

Mr. Denis Coderre: My point of view, yours, ours.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: As you said, a certain number of changes have occurred over the past ten years in terms of the structure of government. This has somewhat weakened the federal government's role at the local level. By the way, we mention this in our report. The government's role was weakened for two reasons: one, the legal transfer of responsibility for languages was not always made, and two, even of it had been, public accountability changed. Say, for instance, that the federal government does not respect its obligations towards bilingualism, the voters of Acadie-Bathurst may vote the government out of power at the next election and remind it that it hasn't done its job. But when you transfer linguistic responsibility to another level of government, you're not as accountable to the people anymore. Democracy is weakened. We are very aware of the fact that this is a problem of accountability and monitoring, and we've addressed this matter in our report.

Senator Beaudoin no doubt knows more about how the Canadian government has changed over the last 35 to 40 years—I'm covering a long period to try to depoliticize the issue—but I know there have been cycles. It hasn't all been downhill, as we say. As we openly stated, we feel we were in downward cycle and so called on government to help. But now the economy seems to be improving, so it's time to pull ourselves together.

Members of our task force hoped that it would be enough for the government to openly commit itself to bilingualism in the coming weeks—but will this be enough? We had a job to do, and perhaps we even exceeded the very technical mandate we were given. But we are putting the word out: the government has to recommit itself. What we found out as a result of government restructuring is probably indicative of the government's real level of commitment. The government didn't suddenly decide it had other priorities and put language issues on the back burner. We should never set aside the issue of bilingualism in Canada. It must always be uppermost in the public's mind, because if we forget it, even for a moment, it will lose ground. That's in fact what happened in the last few years. The government's agenda was focussed on money matters. I can't speak to that, but I think the federal government should realize that language should always be a priority. If it doesn't realize it, we'll fall behind. It doesn't take long. It's much easier to fall ten steps behind than to take one step forward.

Therefore, we hope that our modest efforts will rekindle the debate in the national capital and elsewhere and highlight the importance of this linguistic cohabitation.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Don't forget that Minister Copps has announced additional funding for English and French communities. But sometimes, the level of service is different in government community programs and programs for public servants.

• 1715

If you had to grade the government on its work, what kind of mark would you give it?

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: You mean regarding government restructuring? On the way it handled the language issues during government restructuring?

Mr. Denis Coderre: I'm referring to sections 41 and 42.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: I think we've already clearly pointed out that linguistic policy was not a government priority. In our study, we viewed official languages as part of the public interest and sought to find out how committed the government was to provide services in French—and to what extent. We obviously did not impose any sine qua non conditions. When you're at the negotiating and drafting table, you keep your eye on the ball. If an issue is not crucial, it's not a priority.

I'm a university professor and I'm a tough marker. However, I'm not as strict as my colleague Linda Cardinal.

Mr. Denis Coderre: You're not the only university professor who gives bad marks for bad papers and good marks for good ones.

I'd like to talk about logistics. Was interpretation provided at your meetings?

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: Like here?

Mr. Denis Coderre: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: No, we did it ourselves.

Mr. Denis Coderre: All right.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): They're fully bilingual, just like you.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Listening to myself, I feel I'm speaking Italian.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: We met in meeting rooms. When we met with French groups, we spoke French, and we met with English groups, we spoke English. But I'd like to note that most of our committee members are bilingual. When we met the Commissioner, we spoke in both official languages, which we are trying to do here, as well, as much as possible.

Mr. Denis Coderre: So, ultimately, the government nevertheless—

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: [Editor's note: Inaudible]

Mr. Denis Coderre: —chose its committee members well.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: I can't say if it did so only on the basis of their ability to express themselves in both languages.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It's like an exception, Mr. Fontaine, given the nature of the committee.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: It had to be that way.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Fontaine, did you look at the guiding principles for official languages in government transformations that was put in the commissioner's report?

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): He set out guiding principles for official languages in government transformations. Related back to the fact that this is in section 91, I think it is a fundamental value; it is an obligation.

I wonder if you had looked at it in that light. You have noted in your own report these fundamental principles. Did they meet the task? Did they meet the qualifications that you would suggest as the guideline? Did you examine them?

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: You are referring to the five principles that were stated in the commissioner's report?

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

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: Oh yes, we've looked at them for sure.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You would approve of that process as a guideline?

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: Our task was not to confirm the commissioner's report. I think the commissioner did a marvellous job, and I mentioned that. He looked at it from one perspective. We were asked to look at this situation, and I would say that the commissioner's report was one of the main documents that inspired us in our work. That is not to say that our task was to state exactly the way the commissioner was seeing things. We had our own independent way of looking at it. On a good majority of the issues, I think we see eye to eye.

I'm sure the commissioner will have a chance to appear before you pretty soon, and he will give you his impression of our report. I think we will respect that. We were quite aware and conscious, and we have read the report and we surely agree with most of what was said in the commissioner's report.

• 1720

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

My colleague has a question, but I would like to finish this part of the questioning, if you don't mind.

You did some research. You met with the groups. I think the fact that you undertook this in the way you did with your colleagues is absolutely wonderful. I think it's a great example to the Canadian public about how you can be effectively involved in public service and deliver a report that has substance and meaning.

In the course of your investigation on the Canada community agreement, when you were consulting with the groups, how many of these groups found it effective and fair and found that it reflected the diversity in their own province if they were the spokesperson for that particular province? As an example, in Quebec you had Alliance Quebec as the interlocutor. On the other hand, there are other groups in Quebec besides Alliance Quebec. Did you speak with the other groups? And in the rest of Canada, did you speak with other groups besides the one group that had been appointed?

Further to that, what was their vision of core funding versus project funding? Do they agree with the way it was imposed, and did they think this was healthy for the community development aspect of the mandate of official languages?

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: We did not consult with groups other than l'association officielle. So in Quebec the only formal consultation we had was with Alliance Quebec.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): And with one person I see. You only met with Len MacDonald.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: Yes, we invited Alliance Quebec, and I can't remember if there were one or two of them, but I know that Len was there.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Why didn't you consult with more anglophone groups from Quebec?

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: Because, as the Commissioner recommended in his report, and as Mr. Massé confirmed when he gave us our mandate, we only had eight weeks to produce the report—not a very long time.

As well, we felt it imperative to hear from as many communities as possible. Needless to say, it would have been better to hear from an even greater number of people, but we didn't have enough time. It wasn't a lack of money, but a lack of time. We heard from various groups for two entire days in June.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Linda Cardinal, you're welcome to speak into the mike yourself.

It's freedom of expression, but it's subject to section 33. You realize that.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: As Ms. Cardinal reminds me, we met with quite a lot of people, including federal officials working in smaller communities and many other government employees caught up in government restructuring. We also heard from language consultants—but that was about it. We spent about five or six working days talking to people concerned with this issue.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I think the reason for my question is maybe the same thing is happening in Manitoba or Saskatchewan or in any other province, and certainly in Ontario, but when you meet with one group who are the supposed spokespersons for all the regional groups, given the diversity of Canada and the ethnic diversity of the mix in Canada, it's very hard to have one group to whom you address yourself.

• 1725

It's not a criticism of Alliance Quebec or a criticism of any of the other groups, it was the system that was set up. I was really trying to get to the system itself. When they set up the Canada community agreement it was set up by the federal government. I don't know how much consultation took place to ensure that the groups were satisfied with the choice. I don't know if we have the right to return and change the formula of consultation, and I don't know how the core funding versus project funding got imposed, but I wondered whether you got some feedback as to the process in the selection of the Canada community agreement process and the core funding versus the project funding.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: We did not discuss at length with the groups the content of the Canada community agreements, but concerning the core funding versus project funding I think most of the groups told us that this has become almost an impossible task for them because they're spending so much time trying to prepare submissions for projects that they just don't have time to intervene where they should be working, which is

[Translation]

at the level of community involvement and work.

[English]

That was a major complaint by the groups, but I can't remember that we spent much time concerning how the Canada community agreements should be negotiated and what should they include.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Given that, and I understand what you've just said, sir, my concern is if these are minority groups within a large society there is a fragility that's implicit in that structure. Therefore, to force them into a mould to design projects versus the recognition that you're supposed to help these communities have substance and potential for growth, was it your sense that we would have been far wiser to have ensured core funding and then perhaps additional funding in the project direction?

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: As I said, I think this was one main issue that was related to us by the groups, that they're spending too much time in project funding and they don't have enough core funding so that they can really do what they're supposed to do. Whether we did fully agree with that or not, I don't think it's part of the report, but that's one of the concerns we heard.

Actually, coming to that, I think we thought that the Canada community agreements are a good tool in order for the government to be more active in terms of community development. I think they should open far better this approach than they've done in the past, because basically the Canada community agreements are Heritage Canada community agreements. Why don't we take this model and try to see how it could work out with other departments and other services? I think it could be a way to

[Translation]

to define and implement the government's commitment to sections 41 and 42. Our report calls for innovation and for us to draw on our experience with the Canada-Communities projects, and that we build from there. I think we should look at that tool and see if we can't use it in other ways. I know there will be an evaluation because the second generation of negotiations is about to begin. I understand the communities' point of view—they will demand some stable funding and they will ask that we focus our efforts on the real priorities of community development.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much, Mr. Fontaine. My colleague, the Joint Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Fontaine, I'm a professor, and I've also read the report. When I first read it, I thought it was well done and well developed. But when I reread it, I became more critical. You have to be careful before giving out an A+. I'm very pleased that you had the opportunity to meet and consult with representatives from various organizations.

• 1730

I briefly want to comment on the scope of your task force's recommendations. It would be good if all your recommendations could be implemented and if all levels—organizations, Crown corporations or governments—were to respect and implement them. But what happens if they don't? How can the federal government make sure your recommendations will be implemented?

In his annual reports, the Official Languages Commissioner denounces certain facts. Do your recommendations call for more drastic—so to speak—and enforceable action?

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: This is how we approached our mandate. Our mandate clearly stated that we should study this problem and propose ways to improve the situation. The word «improve» was at the very heart of our mandate. This in itself proves that the government believed the Commissioner's report was founded and that it wanted to take stock and do things differently in the future—better than what it had been doing in the past.

If we had followed our mandate to the letter, we would have focussed on the very technical aspects of restructuring and made only recommendations in that regard, but we thought it imperative to write a report which would push the government to action. I heard that the president of Treasury Board will come before the committee on March 9. He will probably tell you how the government intends to respond to our report.

I'm convinced that if the federal government implemented all of our recommendations, it would live up to its official languages obligations to a much greater extent than it did under government restructuring in the last few years. I think communities would come out ahead.

Could we take this further? I think you can always go further in life. Our report is not a silver bullet, nor is it the equivalent of a royal commission. We were asked to study a specific issue—government restructuring. As stated in recommendations 1 and 2, we chose to look at it from a wider perspective, and in our conclusion we call the government to action.

The government will take a big step in the right direction if it decides to implement our recommendations. Will this solve our problems for the long term? Even if we remain faithful to the report, there will still be room for improvement. However, believe me, the situation will never be perfect.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Did your mandate call for you to study the possibility that the Official Languages Commissioner should intervene in light of government restructuring? Were you allowed to review the mandate of the Commissioner?

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: Are you asking me if a citizen could complain to the Official Languages Commissioner and ask for redress if he felt aggrieved following a transfer of power from the federal to the provincial level?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Yes, exactly. Would such a complaint have been admissible under his mandate?

• 1735

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: Perhaps we could have gone further and made recommendations regarding changes to the Official Languages Act, but we chose not to do so. I would rather not speak to constitutional or technical matters, because I am afraid I am not familiar enough with the subject. I believe, however, that we can negotiate with the provinces in view of recognizing the Commissioner's jurisdiction in these matters. Perhaps we should look at that option.

Despite the fact that the report did not elaborate on this point, we felt it important to find some kind of a federal appeal mechanism in view of future changes in government. It may well be the Official Languages Commissioner himself who would hear complaints.

Given our deadline, we were not able to study this matter in depth and make a more specific recommendation. But it's important that the appeal be made at the federal level. Don't forget that when changes happen in government, new agencies are accountable through the federal government. That's why accountability and control should lie with the federal government, which would ensure that any change would respect the conditions of restructuring. The recommendation was made in that spirit.

There was another aspect to our recommendation, and that is that the government has signed agreements which still don't provide for any appeal mechanism. However, in these cases, the federal government nevertheless has a contractual relationship with its partner. If you feel you have been aggrieved, you should be able to—under past cases agreements where, unfortunately, no appeal system has been provided for, but not under future agreements—appeal at the federal level and complain that the provisions of such and such an agreement are lacking, and demand compensation.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Are there any other questions, big or small?

[English]

I was going to ask you what could fix the labour management training, management development, but I think we'll leave that to Mr. Massé and ask it about those contracts they sign.

I really thank you for the time and the effort, both here at committee and in the work you did. Hopefully, in listening to community-based groups as we travel across the country we will keep your questions in mind and make our recommendations to the crown.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: Thank you very much. Maybe if you'd allow me to ask my colleague if there are—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I was going to ask Linda.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: —things I should have said that I didn't say or things I shouldn't have said that I said, she could probably get me back on track.

[Translation]

With the permission of the Chair—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): With pleasure.

Mr. Yvon Fontaine: —I would like to give the floor to the person who supported me and give her the opportunity to add a few comments.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Please go ahead, Ms. Cardinal.

Ms. Linda Cardinal: I would simply like to say a few words in closing and thank you for letting me speak.

You will probably travel throughout the country to debate this issue. But please remember that this is a starting point and not a finish line. It might even be a new beginning. I would invite you to think long and hard about the idea of community development. This idea came to be in a francophone community outside of Quebec a long time ago, in the 1970s. Certain anglophone groups from Quebec, including the Townshippers' Association and the Quebec Farmers Association, became converts to the idea. It's important that the federal government give some serious thought to this matter.

• 1740

Community development may be one of the biggest demands by francophone communities outside Quebec and certain English communities within Quebec. It goes without saying that changes in government are important, but the federal government has a responsibility in terms of the new relationship it wants to have with Canadian citizens. We know that community development is one of the government's priorities and it must think about what it means, what it means for the communities themselves and the way it may be beneficial to the government.

References to these concepts can be found in the programs of the Quebec Liberal Party and the Parti Québécois. I think the federal government is also capable of dealing with this question. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you for your comments.

[English]

I will assure you that the Liberal Party is the one that brought in the Official Languages Act. They're the ones who believe that it is a core value. So I don't think they're prepared to back off on that particular perspective. And if they are, we shall make sure they don't. How's that? We will put an effort in, anyway.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. The next meeting is March 2 with Commissioner Goldbloom.

The meeting is adjourned.