LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 2, 1999

• 1534

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (The Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Good afternoon, Dr. Goldbloom. We are very pleased to have you with us today.

[English]

We're delighted to welcome you, Dr. Goldbloom. And I note that you're still carrying the torch. I know that's been a heavy load, but you've lightened the way for a lot us, for which we thank you. As there is quorum, would you be good enough...? Do you have some introductory remarks? Thank you.

[Translation]

• 1535

Mr. Victor Goldbloom (Commissioner of Official Languages): If I may, Madam Chair, I would like to start by commenting briefly on two subjects.

[English]

A few days ago I sent to the committee a text. I am not absolutely sure at this moment if all members of the committee have received and seen it or not, but I would like to—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Have you distributed that text to the members?

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): I received it at my office.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I am just back. I did not know about it.

[English]

It looks like we have received it.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: You received it at your office.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Give me a copy, please.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I would like to offer, very briefly, a little historical background.

We will recall that the charter was adopted approximately 17 years ago and that its section 23 dealt with the right of families in an official language minority situation to have access to the education of their children in their language. That section was there on paper for quite a number of years without being put into appropriate application all across the country. In fact, as recently as five years ago there were still only two provinces, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, that had created a system of school governance for their French-speaking minority communities. And that was despite a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1990 interpreting section 23 and spelling out the way in which it should be implemented by the different provinces.

A further judgment of the Supreme Court was rendered in 1993, in what has come to be called the Manitoba reference. Subsequent to that, the Government of Canada took the initiative of providing financial assistance to the provinces for the implementation of school governance.

As a result of these different actions, school governance now exists in all provinces and in the two territories that existed until very recently.

[Translation]

We are struck by the fact that the long fight for school governance was a great achievement, but our success was only partial. Throughout the country there are eligible parents who have not yet chosen to send their children to school in French. Obviously, if school governance does not result in increased enrolment, it has not fully achieved its objective.

That is why we undertook a study to assess why some parents choose French schools, while others choose English schools, in spite of everything. You now have a copy of this report. There is a chart on page 20 of the French version which gives, in decreasing order of importance, the factors mentioned in our consultations with groups of parents. This is not a scientific study, but rather a compilation of views expressed by parents in our focus groups.

• 1540

We had two groups of parents: one that had opted for French school and another that had not opted for French school, even though they were entitled to do so.

I will leave it up to you to look at the report and to consider the views expressed by the parents. I would like to emphasize that we do not want this report to be merely a statement or compilation of the opinions we heard. We would like to share it with the community, with school boards, particularly the French- language school boards that now exist in certain provinces, and with national organizations such as the ACELF, the Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française and the CNPF, the Commission nationale des parents francophones. Our objective is to develop strategies to further encourage eligible parents to choose to send their children to French school, in the interest of their community and our country.

[English]

My second comments, Madam Chairman, bear on the report to which you have paid and will be continuing to pay considerable attention, the report of the task force on government transformations and official languages, chaired by Mr. Yvon Fontaine. It is entitled No Turning Back: Official Languages in the Face of Government Transformations.

Let me say clearly at the outset that this is a good and helpful report, and I am personally, professionally if you like, grateful to the Fontaine task force for the work they have done and for the quality of the report they have put before us. I am obliged, nevertheless, to say there are in particular three points on which I would have hoped the report would have been more explicit and more vigorous, and they are of considerable importance.

Since the beginning of this undertaking.... You will recall that almost a year ago, as part of my annual report, I put forward an evaluation of government transformations, notably of devolutions of responsibility from the federal level to the provincial level, the creation of para-governmental agencies taking over responsibilities from government departments, and privatizations, and I am sure you will recognize with me that there is a significant difference between devolutions and privatizations or the creation of para-governmental agencies.

The latter two changes are brought about by legislation, and Parliament can, and almost always does, include in the legislation the requirement that the language rights of Canadians be respected by the new agency or by the privatized entity. That has clearly been the case of the new agencies created with respect to the management of parks, the customs agency that has been created, the privatization of Air Canada, the privatization of CN, and the privatization of airports. The only—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): But not the privatization of Petro-Canada.

• 1545

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: That was the exception that I was going to mention. I recognize that is a more complex situation.

But be that as it may, the difference between privatizations and the creation of agencies on the one hand and devolutions on the other is that devolutions are by agreement. And the negotiations that have taken place between the federal and provincial authorities have not always brought about the full protection of the language rights of Canadians.

I have, since the beginning of my concern regarding this matter, pointed out that when a responsibility is devolved from the federal to the provincial level, the service is the same service. The citizen requiring or seeking that service is the same citizen. Therefore the rights of that citizen should be the same as they were before.

In particular, what has not been devolved or recreated has been a mechanism of redress and recourse, a mechanism whereby the citizen who does not obtain the service, in linguistic terms, to which he or she is entitled has someone to whom to turn to ensure that this deficiency is called to the attention of the responsible authorities and something is done about it.

[Translation]

I would have liked the task force to clarify this requirement, to make it clear that we need to reestablish a mechanism of recourse and redress to ensure that people's rights are respected and implemented.

I acknowledge two points. Since the provinces have duly elected democratic governments, I acknowledge that they do not feel that they come under section 25 of the Official Languages Act. This section states that if a federal institution transfers responsibility for a service to another level of authority, the federal institution has a duty to ensure that the new level of authority shall provide the service in both official languages where numbers warrant.

I acknowledge that the provinces do not agree with being considered parties acting on behalf of the federal government. However, the fact remains that the service is the same and that the citizens receiving the service are the same and that the right should be upheld and respected.

Even though devolution agreements may be reviewed and renegotiated at some point, in light of the fact that the process is irreversible, I would like to inform the committee that I have recently raised with my colleagues, the provincial ombudsmen, the issue as to whether they could assume responsibility for dealing with public requests, needs and complaints. They reacted very positively. I asked my colleagues to look into the legal framework that would allow them to do this, and they agreed to do so.

• 1550

But there are two problems. First, only eight of the ten provinces have an ombudsman. That means that in two of the provinces, this mechanism is not yet available. Second, the ability of the ombudsman and their offices to operate in both official languages is not guaranteed as it is when the federal Commissioner of Official Languages is responsible for the recourse and redress mechanism.

The second problem is that while the task force refers to it in the body of the text, it does not make any recommendation about the rights of federal government employees regarding language of work when they are transferred to the provincial government. There is no specific reference to these rights, and they do not exist in all the provinces.

Third, I'm somewhat confused about the task force's fourth recommendation. It seems to distinguish between a chiefly federal responsibility and one that is transferred to another level of authority. That brings me back to what I was saying a few moments ago. The report states that if devolution results in poorer protection of people's rights, the federal government should find some way of improving this protection.

If this was not done in the federal-provincial negotiations, I think it is difficult to imagine how the federal government could intervene, and ask the provinces to strengthen the protection of language rights.

Those are the concerns I wanted to share with you, Madam Chair. I would like to conclude with two comments.

At the committee's last meeting, a member asked Mr. Fontaine how he had gone farther than the Commissioner in the report published a year ago.

I would like to suggest two responses. You will recall that when I made my report on government transformations public, the government reacted very quickly and efficiently—it established the task force chaired by Mr. Fontaine in 48 hours.

I must tell you in all honesty that my objective was to test the government's political will. The results were extremely positive. I take off my hat to the President of Treasury Board, Mr. Marcel Massé, who took the initiative to respond, to establish the task force and to give it this particular mandate.

Second, it happens that when the Commissioner of Official Languages tables a report, the committee invites him to discuss it and this captures the media's attention for a day or two, but there is no guarantee that the interest will be sustained.

• 1555

I am very much encouraged by the fact that this committee will have spent four meetings studying the report of the Fontaine task force. In addition, the clarification to the announcement made in the Budget Speech is encouraging for the future and the vitality of official language minority communities.

Finally, Madam Chair, I would like to say that all of this, the report on the motivation of parents, the Fontaine report and our concerns about devolution, deal with the very nature of our society and the existence within it, in each province and territory, of a linguistic majority and a linguistic minority. We have a political responsibility we must assume: we must define not only the rights of minorities, but also the nature of this society that includes minorities. We must focus on this task constantly, and that was our intention in our study of government transformations and their impact on Canadian society and on the rights of Canadian citizens, and in our study of the motivations of parents regarding the education of their children.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much, Dr. Goldbloom. You certainly have placed a very good chronological history of the evolution of the Official Languages Act. For some us, particularly as an anglophone from Quebec, the evolution has been a disturbing one in many areas, as well as, of course, for francophones outside of Quebec, particularly when you point to a Supreme Court decision with respect to the rights of children to access to languages that are the language of the family, which is not respected for all people coming to Quebec.

Before I have the interventions of our members, I did want to ask you, in referring to recommendation four of the Fontaine report—and I would remind you that the Savoie report was very important to this committee as well—that recommendation four says specifically:

...where a function is legitimately considered as being in a purview other than that of the federal government, the Framework specifies that the applicable linguistic regime must take the particular circumstances of the situation into account and that, inasmuch as this regime is less favourable than the previous one, compensatory measures must be provided to affirm official linguistic duality otherwise; more rigorous criteria be set out in the Framework with regard to support for the development and vitality of minority official language communities...

Yesterday the Minister of Heritage tabled a release in which she outlines how she's going to use that additional $70 million fund, and there is no indication that there would be compensatory measures that would provide for the absence that is found in many of the programs that you pointed out had suffered from devolution, if I could put it that way, in both HRD, Health, Justice, Fisheries, CMHC, and in Tourism Canada, as well as Petro-Canada.

Would you suggest that having devolved, let's say, HRD's labour market development programs, there ought to be money from the federal government to ensure access exists in the various provinces that meet the criteria of minority groups?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I don't think this is primarily a question of money; it's a question of jurisdiction and of legislative framework.

The legislative framework that exists at the federal level is a very precise one, and was thought out by Parliament in such as way as to ensure that rights are recognized, and if they are not implemented, there is someone to whom the citizen can turn.

• 1600

There is one officially bilingual province in Canada: New Brunswick. There are provinces like Ontario and Manitoba, and now Prince Edward Island, that have taken action to ensure that the members of their official language minority community have access to services. But we are still not in possession of a mechanism of recourse if the services are not provided.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Excuse me. Does that mean that the ombudsman role, which you could have as the Commissioner of Official Languages, could cover an action role to ensure that services are provided that are needed in these communities?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I would have to ask the committee to consider whether it would be conceivable that the provinces could be prevailed upon to accept that the jurisdiction of the federal Commissioner of Official Languages would continue to apply after devolution to the provincial level. My guess, out of a certain experience of Canadian history, is that the answer would largely be no. That's why—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): It doesn't sort of meet our commitment, either under our charter or under the Official Languages Act, does it? It kind of negates it.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: The relations between the federal government and the provincial governments over more than a century of our existence have been somewhat complicated. We have tried to arrive at a consensus on to what degree we want to be centralized and to what degree we want to be decentralized.

The general tendency at the provincial level is to urge more decentralization, to urge less federal involvement. Much as I would like to think we could completely transfer or reproduce the protective mechanism, the recourse mechanism, that we have as long as a responsibility is federal, I felt that the only practical alternative was to approach the provincial ombudsmen and ask them to examine their legislative framework and their ability to deal with the problems that have been put into the provincial domain by the devolution agreements.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you for that explanation. I find if you have a national value system, which includes, let's say, official languages—of which we're very proud—medicare, and equalization, the federal government has a role. But I understand the dilemma of federal-provincial relations.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank you for your comments.

I'll reframe the question that Madam Chair had asked. Do you believe the federal government has dropped the ball in terms of supporting the decision of the Supreme Court when it comes to language rights of minorities?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: No. I think that would be an unfair criticism. The federal government has done a considerable amount to support the official language minority communities—but not enough.

In an earlier report, when we looked at the implementation of part VII of the Official Languages Act, which specifically commits the federal government to supporting those communities and enhancing their vitality, we had to put forward or report that there were a great many shortcomings. But in this specific regard, each province that has concluded an agreement, for example, with regard to labour market training has negotiated individually with the federal government, and the outcome has varied from one instance to another.

Interestingly enough, the one that appears to have been most successful has been the federal-provincial agreement with the Province of Quebec, where, in an annex to the agreement, there are documents spelling out the way in which services will be provided to the official language minority community of that province according to the usual mathematical criteria.

• 1605

So it is possible to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement. Unfortunately, most of the agreements that have been concluded have said simply and simplistically—forgive a more severe word—that services will be provided in both languages where numbers warrant. No mechanism is spelled out as to how that would be implemented. And most importantly, there is no recourse and redress mechanism if the services are not obtained where they are an entitlement.

Mr. Inky Mark: This past week, members of the heritage committee travelled throughout this country asking for input from all the stakeholders to talk about Canadian culture. As you know, this past year we celebrated 25 years of multiculturalism. My question to you is what kind of impact and pressure will the multicultural nature of this society in terms of language have on this Official Languages Act?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Sometimes people put forward an opposition between the two-language nature of Canada on the one hand and the multicultural nature of Canada on the other. I personally feel quite strongly that this is an inappropriate conflict that is created. I think we are and we must be both a two-language country and a multicultural country.

When we look at the Canadian mosaic and we see a large number of languages within that mosaic, probably in round figures about 150, including our aboriginal languages, we obviously have a great diversity of linguistic heritage. Our multicultural policy is in part aimed at respecting and reinforcing those heritages and helping people to retain their heritage language, if such is their desire.

That is a different consideration from how the federal apparatus communicates with all Canadians. How do we reach all Canadians? If we use English alone we reach about 84% of Canadians. If we use English and French, we reach 98.6% of Canadians. In the last census, only 1.4% of Canadians said they did not understand either English or French. But if we add any other language to the mix, even the number three language in Canada in terms of use in the home, which today is Chinese, we can reach about a million Canadians, and that means we are not reaching about 28 million Canadians instead of just 1.4% of our population.

The other thing we observe is that there are competing forces that influence the use of language in our society. On the one hand is immigration. People have sought to become Canadians and have come from all the corners of the world. Obviously, many people coming here are not fluent in English or in French and use their heritage language in the home for a considerable time.

In the meantime, however, the other influence comes to bear. Children go to school and they are educated in English or French, as the case may be, depending on where they are in Canada. They play with other children who are likely to be of the majority, and become not only educated but also socialized in the predominant language of that part of Canada.

• 1610

That means that if immigration is considerable, the use of a given language will tend to increase in terms of use in the home. But if immigration is less, then the other factor will cause the children, and even the parents, to use either English or French rather than their heritage language as their principal means of communication in the home.

Let me just take a few examples of what we have seen. Let me take three languages that have been going up in home use in recent years—Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese. Let me take three languages that have been going down in home use in recent years—Italian, which was until recently the number three language in Canada, German, Ukrainian. This means we have a responsibility to the diversity of Canada. We also have, especially as federal institutions, a responsibility to be able to communicate effectively and understandably with all Canadians, and that requires us to use English and French where numbers warrant.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Dr. Goldbloom.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon, please.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Before addressing the Fontaine report, I will follow your lead and ask you a question about another matter which lies close to my heart—future appointments to the Copyright Board.

Mr. Manley, who is responsible for the Board, is on the verge of filling the positions of chair and vice-chair, as well as those of the commissioners. We are concerned because it seems he wants to appoint a unilingual anglophone as chairman. I'd like to know what you think of this.

My colleague, Ms. Lalonde, wrote you a letter outlining her concerns and asking that you intervene in the matter. You decided to write Mr. Manley and to send a copy of your letter to the Prime Minister, Mr. Chrétien. I would like you to table that letter with the committee today, and to tell us if you agree with the following categorical statement: the chair should be bilingual, and the commissioners, because of their legal function, should abide by parts III and V of the Official Languages Act, in other words, hear grievances without interpretation in both official languages.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Mr. Plamondon and Madam Chair, with your permission I will quote from section 16 of the Act. You are familiar with it, but I would like to read it aloud for the record.

16. (1) Every federal court, other than the Supreme Court of Canada, has the duty to ensure that:

(a) if English is the language chosen by the parties for proceedings conducted before it in any particular case, every judge or other officer who hears those proceedings is able to understand English without the assistance of an interpreter;

(b) if French is the language chosen by the parties for proceedings conducted before it in any particular case, every judge or other officer who hears those proceedings is able to understand French without the assistance of an interpreter; and

(c) if both English and French are the languages chosen by the parties for proceedings conducted before it in any particular case, every judge or other officer who hears those proceedings is able to understand both languages without the assistance of an interpreter.

In my opinion, the section is quite clear.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: It's clear as it applies to the commissioners. But as for the chair of the Board...

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: From what I know, the Copyright Board is an organization which has few members. I'm sure you'll understand the situation I found myself in, namely that I could not receive Ms. Lalonde's letter as I would a complaint, since had I done so I would have prejudged the government, which still hadn't made any appointments.

• 1615

However, as a physician, I am a fan of prevention. That is why I took the initiative to write to the Minister, quoting sections 16 of the Act, sending him a copy of it and telling him that it was hard to believe that a unilingual anglophone would not need interpretation to hear a case presented in both official languages, for instance.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Do you agree that part V, which concerns language in the workplace, also applies to the vice-chair, who may be called upon to preside a hearing?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Yes, that's another thing we have to consider. My main concern was to ensure that persons appearing before the tribunal could be heard and understood, as per section 16 of the Act.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: You could write a prescription, if not a recommendation.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: You asked whether I would table my letter. That would put me in a fairly delicate situation since the letter was addressed to a minister. The Minister said the letter belonged to him and that it was up to him to make it public if he so chose.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: But it was not a personal letter; you wrote it to him in your capacity as Commissioner. I would think it's part of the public domain. It contained a recommendation from the Commissioner.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I think it would be very dangerous, sir, to adopt the principle whereby any letter written by a senior official of Parliament must be a public document. We must leave open the possibility of privileged communications. In addition, when a letter is sent to someone, once it is sent, it belongs to the recipient. Thus I feel that I must advise you to approach the Minister and ask him whether he agrees to make the letter public. But let me point out that I have just given to you most of what I wrote to the Minister.

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

Mr. Louis Plamondon: May I continue?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You still have a minute left.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: My next question has to do with the Fontaine Report, Mr. Commissioner.

In the report, Mr. Fontaine wrote:

It appears that the cumulative effect of the government changes and measures to reduce federal funding have shaken the confidence of official language communities in minority situations in the federal government. Unless the federal government takes a serious second look at its commitment toward linguistic duality and support for official language communities in minority situations, its relationship of trust with the communities runs the risk of being increasingly jeopardized.

You began to reassess the government services in New Brunswick between 1994 and 1998, and found a decline in the services provided. Despite the funds that have been reinjected into them and the welcome announcements made by the Minister today, I wonder whether Treasury Board, which should be provided leadership, will be able to maintain this connection of trust, since it is the one which made it possible for the official languages divisions to be done away with in most departments, and to have them integrated within the human resources branches. I feel that it will be difficult for minority groups to trust them after the cuts they have undergone and the cancellations of these very important positions within the departments.

Should we not recommend the return of these divisions?

• 1620

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I do not want to boast, but the task force has echoed what I have been saying in writing for some time.

I am disappointed to learn that since my first report on service to the public by federal offices designated bilingual, published in February 1995 if I remember correctly, there has been no noteworthy improvement, and in some cases, the quality of services has even declined.

Thus I am fighting not only to have Part VII of the Act accepted in theory, but to have the federal programs and institutions take into account the needs and rights of official language communities in minority situations. We still have a way to go. I cannot deny that the government's recent announcement that it would increase the resources for communities is good news. It will certainly help them to feel more secure about their future. However, we still have some progress to make.

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

Senator Louis J. Robichaud (L'Acadie—Acadia, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was reading in the newspaper this morning that in 1970, Max Yalden was appointed Commissioner of Official Languages.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Keith Spicer.

Senator Louis J. Robichaud: Yes, Keith Spicer, in 1970. I simply wish to point out that over the years, we have had the misfortune of having exceptional official languages commissioners, including Victor Goldbloom, whom we will soon be losing, unfortunately. We have already had some contact with the person who will be succeeding him, and we are confident that she too will do well, and that the tradition of quality will continue.

While listening to you, I got the idea that in spite of all the progress made to apply the principle of the Official Languages Act, there were still places where bilingualism cannot be taken for granted. There will always be difficulties, and we must be aware of this fact.

Mr. Commissioner, do you know whether there are parts of New Brunswick where students cannot attend school in their mother tongue, be it English or French? I am not referring to municipal, provincial or federal services, but rather access to instruction in the mother tongue.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Not as far as I know, Mr. Senator. There may be situations in particular regions that I do not know about, but having had sustained communications with the parent associations and with the SAANB, I have not heard of any such problems. It is not like other provinces, such as Prince Edward Island, where parents have gone to court to obtain a school in their community. I'm not aware of such situations in New Brunswick. Perhaps I do not have all the detailed information, but I have not had such problems brought to my attention.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Neither have I. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

We will miss you when you leave. Before you do, do you have any advice for the Official Languages Committee to help us in our future work?

• 1625

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I don't have a French translation for the English expression, “that's a tall order.” It's an on-going job for the committee on the one hand, and for the Commissioner on the other. Where there are deficiencies in service to the public, we must continue to insist on being truthful about it.

If we say that a federal office is bilingual, people who speak the official languages must be able to actually receive the services they need there, service of the same quality in both languages. Those who are in the minority language group should not have to wait longer than those in the majority group. The service provided to a minority group individual must be provided by someone at the same level of competence as the one providing the service for a majority group member, which is far from always being the case. They will use someone who has good intentions and who wishes to help the person, but who does not have the necessary professional competence, since he or she is from another part of the department; that's not acceptable.

Even more important to me, because it is more fundamental, is the application of Part VII of the Act. Progress has been made, but it's still not what it should be. We have obtained an action plan from 27 federal institutions and agencies. In many cases it has been applied satisfactorily. In other cases it's satisfactory on paper, but in reality it has not yet been applied. Some departments assume that because a policy has been put down on paper, it is being applied throughout the department; that's certainly not always the case.

Finally, we should look for two results. That's what the national capital of francophone parents told us a few months ago. Results are what count, and for children and people in the minority group, results should be as good as those in the majority group.

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

Senator Louis Robichaud: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Dr. Goldbloom, in regard to services to minority language communities, there was an entente signed with Quebec at the MRCs to ensure there would be an English-language service provider on the MRC boards in the outlying districts off-island. Is that the position they had, and has that been undertaken as an entente again?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: If I understand correctly what you're referring to, there was a federal-provincial agreement whereby English-language coordinators were attached to the regional health boards throughout the province. That agreement has run out. To my knowledge, as we speak, it has not been renewed.

• 1630

I have taken the initiative of writing to the appropriate ministers at both levels and urging that the agreement be renewed and the coordinators be continued in their functions, particularly because we have been going through a difficult time with regard to the approval and implementation of access plans for health care and social services in English in the different regional councils or regional boards of health care and social services. So the role of the coordinator is all that much more important, in my view.

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

Senator Rivest.

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest (Stadacona, PC): Mr. Commissioner, I have two brief questions. The first concerns your study on...

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Eligible parties.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: ...francophone eligible parties. For example, you're talking about francophones outside of Quebec who choose or decide not to exercise their right, acquired over the years, to French schooling. Does the same thing happen in Quebec for the anglophones? Have you studied the matter? Are the reasons the same for the young anglophones in Quebec who have the freedom and the choice—francophones don't have it but the anglophones do—in the matter of preferring French school to English school?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: The problem presents itself differently in Quebec. The English educational system and their school governance have been in existence for quite a long time. Some parents, especially in recent years, for their children to be able to have a full and interesting future in Quebec, have chosen to send their children to French school and get involved in the culture and the linguistic context. That raised some concerns because the legislation concerning the right to access to anglophone schooling says that the parents must have gone to those schools themselves. So, eventually, the grandchildren might find themselves in a different situation.

The discussions and concerns in Quebec have to do with the definition of eligibility. This definition, for the French-speaking communities, is found in section 23 of the Charter and in the Supreme Court interpretations of that section. In Quebec, it's the definition created by the Charter of the French language that, with some restrictions, defines the eligibility.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Of course, the situation is totally different because, in Quebec—and I think that, in fact, it doesn't happen—there's no rate of assimilation for anglophones who lose their language. Despite all the reservations that are in the legislation, there isn't a single anglophone—to my knowledge, anyway—who lost his or her language because they lived in Quebec, whereas in the rest of Canada the rates of assimilation are enormous, considerable. Among the reasons for assimilation that are given—I understand that this isn't scientific and you said so very well yourself, but these are the real reasons for assimilation—for example, you have the lack of interest for French and so forth. Finally, the reasons given are somewhat indicative of an assimilation factor. It's probably not true in New Brunswick, but it's certainly very true elsewhere in Canada.

A while back, in talking about the Fontaine report, you mentioned devolution. I know that when the federal government gets rid of service through devolution to a provincial government, the Official Languages Act should technically apply but it doesn't always. You mentioned ombudsmen and so forth who watch over this. But the ombudsman's jurisdiction at the provincial level, to my knowledge, is limited by provincial legal jurisdiction. By definition, these are people who answer to legislative assemblies and so on. Your initiative is certainly praiseworthy although I think it's not a very sure means of doing it.

• 1635

The problem is that outside of New Brunswick, and Quebec, that goes without saying, there's no real political will in the ranks of our Canadian political leaders. I don't remember ever having heard a provincial prime minister in Canada, except for those of Quebec and New Brunswick, say he was concerned with the rights of minorities. Where schools are concerned, most challenged these rights before the courts and the francophones had to fight to get them.

How do you want us not to have serious problems when we know full well that federal services in a province... In fact, the francophones outside Quebec are sort of standing only on one leg. It seems to me that when you're a citizen in a country that has linguistic duality, you're a full-fledged citizen. So the federal services are provided to you in your mother tongue—more or less so but it's a lot better than in the past—but the provincial services are not guaranteed by any kind of political will shown by Canadian political leadership in the provinces. It's a bit curious. After that, people are astonished that, in many regions of Canada, the assimilation rate of francophones is very high.

So the federal obligation to provide service in both languages, in French for those who desire it, is devolved to the provincial level; that's fine, but the problem is still there. The problem is much greater than that, because francophones are not entitled to the other municipal or communications services. Do you understand what I mean?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: When I had a telephone conference with the provincial ombudsmen, I was encouraged by the goodwill they exhibited.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: I would like to know if they are being supported. They are quite sympathetic toward the cause, but if there is no Canadian political leadership, it will lead nowhere. The ombudsmen are fine people, but if they are not protected by Canadian leadership, it will lead to nothing.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: That's why I asked them to examine the legal framework which allows them to act or which places constraints on them. In all honesty, Mr. Senator, I find you are somewhat unfair toward some provinces. Ontario, after all, has a law for services in French and...

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Yes, Ontario and New Brunswick, but what about the others?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: ...I recognize with you that the premier of this province...

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Excuse me, but this is why I am rather sceptical sometimes. When the Charlottetown Accord was signed, they tried with New Brunswick to incorporate in the Constitution of Canada, as had been done in the Victoria project in the early 1970s, the use of French in all the legislatures. Just one MP rose to exercise his right, guaranteed under the Constitution, and he was called to order.

I feel that the leadership in the other provinces, outside Quebec and Ontario... And even Ontario recently rejected bilingualism; it refused to authorize it in the legislature.

The great difficulty, despite the Fontaine report and all the rest, is that when there is no political leadership at the provincial level and when you have to fight in Ottawa, where there is already opposition, you have to admit that at the level of the individual and at the program level... We can say that a good deal of progress has been made, and it has, but the rate of assimilation is still increasing, according to the statistics, and you have to wonder why.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: You have touched on a whole series of topics. Of course we are concerned about assimilation. Education is an important part of the fight against assimilation, and that was my reason for requesting and publishing the study that you have in your hands.

I have to agree that not all the provinces are taking on their true responsibility toward the minority official language community, and specifically the francophone community. Some are doing things reasonably well. Some good things have been happening in Manitoba for some time; the Prince Edward Island government has just announced measures to provide services in French.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): And so has Newfoundland.

• 1640

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Newfoundland has, yes. But I have to say in all sincerity that when I hear it said that official bilingualism—a term which I hate—is coercive and should be done away with, that the responsibility should lie with the provinces, my hair stands on end.

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

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: That confirms what I am saying. It proves exactly what I am saying: if there was confidence, and if Canada had the leadership and political will to consider the country bilingual and to promote bilingualism, we would not be afraid to entrust it to the provinces. It would be quite normal. They have it in Quebec and it works.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you, Mr. Senator. I could say that it's lacking in a few small areas.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Yes, but it's not the same thing.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes, but that's the case.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: We might have some real problems. What is the assimilation rate of anglophones in Quebec?

A member: Zero.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I have not counted. No, they're bilingual.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Yes, that's right.

Senator Louis Robichaud: You must have an open mind.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: We must have a sense of reality. There are problems in Quebec, and there are a number of claims on the part of the anglophone community, which I find quite legitimate, but you cannot compare one with the other. When you compare the existence of francophones outside Quebec and that of anglophones in Quebec, you are not talking about the same language reality.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes, that's true.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: It just isn't the same thing.

Senator Louis Robichaud: It's like comparing apples with oranges.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Yes, quite right. Just look at the social services law...

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): But children are children.

Ms. Vautour.

Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Thank you.

You were saying that there are people who could have access to Quebec French schools but are not using them. On the other hand, what about those who in Prince Edward Island are trying to get a French school and must go to a court to do so? Some parents insist on having their children taught in their mother tongue.

When the Department of Human Resources Development transferred some of its employees to New Brunswick, these employees lost the right to work in their language. Service to the public might not have been affected, but clearly most of the meetings in that department are held in English, and francophones have to hold their meetings in English.

I listen to a good deal of reports, evaluations and discussions, but to me it is clear that francophones and anglophones in minority situations are loosing their language. New Brunswick is doing a very good job, but there is nonetheless a decline on this level. When employees who could at least hold their meetings in their own language can no longer do so, it's a type of assimilation.

These are all examples designed to show you that while there is a good deal of talk, there is not much action.

We might also look at what is happening when electoral constituencies are redefined at the federal level. When my constituency of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac was redefined, the name was changed. It used to be Beauséjour. They removed an entire francophone community and joined it with Miramichi, where the MP is anglophone. This community is now very much in the minority, and the situation cannot be changed. It will never be strong enough to have representation from a bilingual MP. Did someone take into account the language of these minority groups? Clearly they will not receive any service in French from their MP.

It's the same everywhere. There are all kinds of laws and gimmicks to help minority francophones, but unsatisfactory situations continue to exist. When Parks Canada was established—I took part in the discussions—they said that the Official Languages Act must be complied with. Much debate was required to get that point of view accepted.

I wonder whether we are doing enough to see that things are being done as they should.

• 1645

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Each government should look at this. The Commissioner has the power to assess what is done, to express his observations and to make recommendations. He does not have the authority to intervene and prevent a government from doing something or compel it to do something. The elected governments must accept their responsibilities.

Looking back seven and a half years, if I saw no progress, I would be very discouraged and would send a very negative report to Ms. Adam. I would not go that far. However, like you, I can say that some things are not going well, and some are quite strange, like the francophone organisation that has to use English as its language of work. Even the policy concerning the use of French was written in English only. It's hard to believe, but it's true.

I should point out that if I make no effort to see the overall picture, I will see only the negative side. I am responsible for taking complaints. Complaints are made when something is not going well. When things are going well, people do not complain to the Commissioner and he doesn't hear about them.

I feel that where school governance exists, and despite some imperfections it now exists everywhere, it should be used to ensure the future of the community. That's why I did the study that was recently publicized. As I said, it's not only to give an accurate picture of the present situation, but also to encourage those involved to develop strategies to attract and retain students, as a measure to strengthen their communities.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Are you finished?

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: I am.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Senator Fraser.

Senator Joan Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): If I might be permitted a short gratuitous observation in terms of situations in different provinces, it seems sometimes to me important to distinguish between situations on the ground and the nature of the political leadership exerted in a given province.

That said, my question, Dr. Goldbloom, has to do with the future more than the present. We are all thrilled about the increase in funding for language minorities. It comes perhaps providentially at a time when the Canada community agreements are being renegotiated, which probably makes them even more important than they would otherwise have been.

From your position, what can you tell us about what you have observed in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of those agreements the way they have been designed and implemented? And if you were negotiating the next round, what would you change?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: The Canada community agreements have been essentially a good thing. However, the most difficult aspect has been that in moving from the previous round to the present one the amounts were reduced very considerably, and what is announced now seems to indicate that the amounts will go back up.

I think that is essential, because some communities have found themselves obliged to let staff go, to close their offices. One community closed its offices entirely for two months during the summer. Yes, people take holidays in the summer, but an awful lot of people don't and are still there and need the services their community can provide them.

• 1650

The other thing, which is a dilemma, and I don't feel I know the right answer, the right balance, but there are two elements of funding.... I'm simplifying a little bit, but there is core funding and there's project funding. The notion that we are more helpful by insisting on project funding, that we are encouraging the community toward self-sufficiency to a greater degree, I think needs to be looked at very carefully, because if the community does not have the core resources to be able to function, then it becomes a vicious circle and there's less ability to develop projects.

The other element of this is that if the community does not have human resources that it can count on on a full-time basis, the burden that is imposed on volunteers becomes just enormous. Volunteers, by and large, unless they're retired or independently wealthy, have a full-time job and have to find extra time to devote to their community, which limits their ability to do that.

I think all of this needs to be looked at very carefully. It may be possible to say to a given community, you have not done all that you could have done to develop autonomous sources of funding; you have not done enough to make yourselves independent of government support.

I do not think that is the case for most communities. I have difficulty in thinking of any community for which it is true. I would like to suggest that we look as objectively as possible at these various factors as we decide how much we're going to support the communities and where we are going to place our requirements as to the use of those funds.

Senator Joan Fraser: I wonder if you could comment, in the same vein, on complaints from some English Quebec groups that the current share of funding really is inequitable. I don't think anybody disputes the fact that the English community of Quebec has, for many reasons, most of them historical but not only, more universities, more schools, more hospitals, more of all those good things than most francophone communities can even dream of. Nonetheless, there have been increasingly heated suggestions over the years that the discrepancy in per capita funding from the federal government, shall we say, overcompensates for that fact, and that English Quebec in fact is getting the short end of the stick, even taking into account its rather different situation. What would your view be of that?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Looked at on a per capita basis, there is an appreciable difference. I have not had the opportunity to study this in any precise way, and would therefore hesitate to express an opinion about it. I think it's important to keep clear in our minds the distinctions between federal and provincial responsibilities, and that limits my ability to enter into certain issues.

Senator Joan Fraser: Except that you're the most expert observer we have at this level.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: To be simple and straightforward, I have been particularly concerned about the issue of access to health care and social services. I have expressed myself quite strongly on this.

• 1655

I recognize that people who have rights with regard to their working conditions have linguistic rights within that package of rights. But when it comes to people who are ill, they need to be able to explain the nature of their illness in the language in which they feel most able to express themselves clearly. They need to be understood and to understand the explanation of the diagnosis, the risks involved, the treatment, and what they need to do to look after themselves after leaving the physician's office or leaving the hospital.

It seems to me those are absolutely fundamental human rights, and they have to take precedence over any other rights, including rights with regard to language of work in collective agreements or anywhere else. I feel very strongly about that. That to me is more important than funding, because I think that although obviously the English-speaking community could do more if it had more funds, it has problems that are closer to the heart than the question of the exact level of funding.

So let's look objectively at the funding, but let's also keep clearly in mind the human responsibilities we have to people who need the services of others.

Senator Joan Fraser: Thank you.

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

Actually that would lead me to, if I may continue, another question in that regard. I had the privilege of attending a session of the Quebec Community Groups Network, the QCGN. Many things struck me, and I think Senator Fraser raised a number of those issues, and I thank you both for the answers. But I was also concerned about the fact that we've been talking a lot about education, and there are other things that link communities besides the educational milieu. Those are arts, culture, and theatre; Quebec farmers in the anglophone community; the community-based newspaper; and the health and social services you referred to.

One of the things that was mentioned, Commissioner, was the need for Statistics Canada to do more effective questioning, but there is no money that has been accorded to them to pursue baseline and ongoing research. Has that been brought to your attention? If so, could you comment, please?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: There is clearly a need for more detailed, more sophisticated research with regard to the English-speaking community of Quebec. I have on a number of occasions discussed that in general terms with the various organizations of the English-speaking community, notably Alliance Quebec and Townshippers' Association.

I do not have enough resources to be able to undertake the kind of research Statistics Canada would be able to do, and I would certainly encourage them to undertake the things the community perceives as its needs with regard to better knowledge about itself. As you can see, the report we have tabled now is based on 81 people and focus groups in four different cities. That's far short of what would be considered a scientific study, but it's the best we can do with the resources available to us.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I think, Dr. Goldbloom, you've rendered us a very good service in that regard, because I was thinking really of Quebec at the given moment of my question, but you raised it in a broader perspective, which was very important.

In looking and listening to the 15 groups in Quebec and that full spectrum that I just outlined, it struck me that if we're going to respect two official languages as a national value, it's not just an administrative task. It's dependent on what level of government, provincial or federal, is responsible. But if it's an expressed value—which I sincerely hope it is—in order to move forward we need that statistical background.

• 1700

It would seem to me that with the new money that has been accorded, the record ought to show that in 1983 the official languages budget was $216.28 million; in 1993 it was $287.88 million; and in 1999-2000 it will be $293.5 million per year. I would hope that within that bottom-line budget there is room to move in some of the very important areas that you started to investigate for us as a society, so that the value will start to be met in a more concrete way.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I do note, Madam Chairman, that it is indicated in the communiqué that 4% to 5% of the additional funds will be devoted to areas such as research. It doesn't specify how much for research and how much for other purposes, but at least there is an indication that there will be resources for research and that it will be of considerable value.

I must say that the preoccupations are different depending on which province one looks at, and there are provinces in which survival is the most important thing. In terms of the battle against assimilation, it would not necessarily appear that research would help to resolve that. In light of the way in which parents think about the schooling of their children, I hope this very modest undertaking will cause people to think about what they can do to strengthen the school systems of their respective provinces. But very specifically, the English-speaking community in Quebec has spoken with me on more than one occasion about the need for additional research.

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

For those of us who have strong feelings about this, I remind you that Madam Copps will be here tomorrow instead of next Tuesday. She'll be here at 3.30 p.m., in Room 237 Centre Block. I hope you will all be present.

We have Monsieur Plamondon, Mauril Bélanger, and Andy Scott. Is there anyone else who wishes to add their name to this list?

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Senator Simard, would you like to speak?

Senator Jean-Maurice Simard (Edmundston, PC): No, that's fine.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Are you sure, Senator?

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Maurice Simard: No.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Are you sure?

Senator Jean-Maurice Simard: It's okay in New Brunswick.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I would like to ask a question, but I almost feel like making a comment. You may respond if you wish, Mr. Commissioner.

There's a debate on Canada's duality. I feel that where problems exist, they're on the francophone side rather than on the anglophone side in Quebec. At least, that appears to be the case. North America's francophones make up 3% of its population. I don't think we are assimilating the other 97%. The reverse is happening. Thus, assimilation is occurring in each province. For example, the rate is 72% among the francophones of British Columbia, according to the latest Statistics Canada report. Even New Brunswick has come to a standstill in terms of the French fact.

Canada's French-speaking population has declined by 50,000 since 1951. In other words, the number of francophones has declined by 1% since 1951. If we believe in dualism, we can see that the survival of one of the two minorities is highly jeopardized. You were talking about social and health services. In Quebec, Bill 142 says that health services and social services must be provided in English to those who request them. This is an individual right, not a right provided where there is a sufficiently large group of people. It's an individual right. Only one person is needed.

I recall that in an Abitibi hospital a nurse who was not bilingual was replaced one Friday evening because the manager was anglophone. That's what happened, and that is right. It's tremendous that the minority is protected not only in education, but in social services and health services also.

• 1705

Do we have that in the rest of Canada? No. Should we have it? Yes. How do we get it? Well, it requires effort. But the effort and money should be focussed on the most endangered minority. That seems obvious to me.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: All the money.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: That's what the senator said also, I think.

I'll give you another example, namely transferring to Quebec everything having to do with vocational training. You know the $250 million agreement signed just before the 1997 elections. This agreement was made in Quebec, and Alliance Quebec, which represents the anglophones in the Montreal region but not those outside Montreal, who no longer wish to be represented by Alliance Quebec...

Senator Joan Fraser: Even some of those in Montreal.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes. So, Alliance Quebec was very optimistic and very satisfied, as is stated in chapter 4 of the Fontaine Report.

In a report you did in 1994 on federal services in Quebec, Mr. Commissioner, you said that the service in English in Quebec provided by the federal public service was almost exemplary. You said that people were satisfied 98% of the time. I'm not sure we can say the same about francophones in British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Prince Edward Island. I think that we will never attain this level of satisfaction. We must recognize that the effort and money should be used primarily to help the endangered minority. The objective should be to bring it to the level of what Quebec's anglophones have now. We can continue to fight to have a little more, if that is possible. So let us make a true comparative analysis and help the Quebec francophones reach the level of the anglophones. As for the latter, they must continue to progress. Minorities must always be treated in the best possible way. There's always room for improvement, including among the anglophones of Quebec.

I don't know why I said that, because that was not my question. I'm going to ask it, but I first felt like making a comment. Thank you for listening, Mr. Commissioner; and thank you, others.

I wish to express my concern over the fact that Treasury Board is the one promoting Part VII of the Act. Treasury Board was the one that authorized the abolition of the branches, as I said in my first question. You also expressed reservations about this in your report. I'm not taking aim at Mr. Massé, the President, as an individual. What concerns me primarily is the fact that it is centralized in the Treasury Board. For example, in the case of New Brunswick, there was a contradiction between the Treasury Board's annual report and yours. I do not wish to shock you, Mr. Robichaud, because I know that you are quite sensitive about New Brunswick.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Absolutely.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: And rightly so. You concluded that not only was there no improvement, but the services were diminishing, while the Treasury Board report said that things were going much better and services had increased. Thus if Treasury Board is given the responsibility of handling this new money and replacing the branches in each department, I am concerned. If they can produce reports that totally contradict those of the Commissioner, well, I am concerned about the decisions they will make. I don't know whether you have a comment on this.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You have finished, because it was a question.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you for your patience, madam.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Do you want to wait for another question, or do you have a comment?

[Translation]

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: There were differences in methodology. We took the initiative of checking the federal offices on-site. If I understand correctly, the Treasury Board did this to some extent, but it also relied on reports prepared by the departments, which—it's only natural—tend to paint a rosy portrait of what they are doing.

• 1710

In each of our reports on services to the public in the federal offices that are designated bilingual, we write that we acted as if we were francophone clients seeking service in an office. The first time, we were somewhat insistent. The second time, we decided not to be insistent, having decided that people that insisted are somewhat rare. There is a certain element of intimidation. You find yourself before a government authority who is familiar with all the services and who manages access to these services, and you are more interested in getting the service than in insisting on using your own language, in many cases.

There is clearly a long way to go, and I am especially disappointed. I would say that the differences are not tremendous, and might not be statistically significant, but there has been no improvement, and that puzzles me. There are fewer offices than before, and fewer offices designated bilingual. Thus there are people who were working in bilingual offices that are now closed. Where are these people? It's a great mystery. Many offices that are designated bilingual do not have enough people capable of speaking both languages, and I feel that it should be an easy problem to resolve. I encourage the government to take a close look at it.

I wouldn't want to exaggerate my optimism, but I would like to say that we too have changed our method somewhat. In our follow-up, we have specifically examined individual offices and prepared recommendations office by office. I am pleased to say that I have received a number of letters from deputy ministers thanking me for pointing out deficiencies in certain offices and pledging and promising to correct the situation. On my part, I encourage them to look at the other offices, those that I have not been able to visit. I hope that they will do so.

I do not believe that we at the Commissioner's Office have the resources required to continue making follow-up indefinitely, but I do hope that the situation concerning services to the public will improve.

[English]

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

Mr. Scott.

Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's a pleasure, Dr. Goldbloom.

I would agree with the observation that was made. I don't think there is a status quo on this issue. It either gets better or it gets worse. I don't think it stays the same. It has been my experience that the biggest single obstacle, particularly in the province of New Brunswick, has been the question of active offer. As you say, you pursued the service aggressively and got it, but when you went back and pursued the service less aggressively, you found there was less willingness to present the service, if you like. That has always been a problem. Particularly among people of goodwill, they'll have a tendency to try to accommodate and not demand. I therefore think it's imperative for the government to not only protect those rights, but also to in fact inform of them, to promote them, and that is a challenge.

• 1715

There's a recommendation—I think it's recommendation three—in the report that has to do with the opportunity that exists around devolution. How realistic is it in your mind that as the federal government moves federal activity and employees, many of whom in some provinces are exposed to doing their work in both official languages at a level that would be greater than the provincial government would probably offer, I think it's fair to say—what's the likelihood that will bring some elevated capacity? Or, in reverse, without the supporting infrastructure to accommodate all of that new capacity, is it likely to drop to the level where it exists now? I'd be curious as to how you see that happening and if there's any evidence to suggest one or the other.

I'm also curious as to how much the role of the commissioner has to do with the selling of or explanation of official languages policy to the non-minority communities in jurisdictions. I did a little of this in a past life, and found that although you have a legal entitlement, and I would not be proposing for a second that anybody would have to somehow sell the idea of a legal entitlement, at the same time much of the level of service of the minority community in my own community of Fredericton is determined by the private sector. Much of that is determined by whether you get service in grocery stores and retail stores and so on. The promotion of the concepts, even though it goes beyond legal entitlement perhaps, carries a tremendous quality-of-life value, I think. How much of the role of the commissioner picks up on that?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): What about the role of the parents, Andy? What about the role of the parents in demanding service or in asking for service if you live in an area where there's a supermarket and you need service in French?

Mr. Andy Scott: All of the above.

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

Mr. Andy Scott: I wouldn't disqualify anybody's responsibility here.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I think our observation of what has happened has been that in general there is a certain level of service and of entitlement that exists at the federal level, and in most cases there's a lower level that exists in the provincial domain. When something is transferred the level goes down to the provincial level. I think it should have been possible for the federal government in negotiating these devolution agreements to say “We would like you, the province, to take this over. We need you to recognize that we provide this service in both official languages where the criteria are met. If we are going to turn this over to you, we have to ask you to plan for dealing with this.”

Unfortunately, this has not been done, with the exception of Quebec, where the negotiation was carried on for a longer time and was, I think, more intense than it had been in some other instances. The province agreed that it would incorporate it in the document, as an integral part of the document—because unless you specify that it is an integral part, an annex is not considered part of the agreement. It was specified that the annex was part of the agreement, and the annex spelled out the conditions under which services would be provided. That's much more detailed than in most other provinces.

It seems to me that on the one hand the federal government, looking at what other governments were doing—New Zealand was probably the first to undertake this type of transformation—said they were going to carry out this process of simplification of government responsibilities and they were going to create a different balance between the federal and the provincial levels. There was an eagerness to accomplish this, which caused the enthusiasm to carry over to overcome the preoccupation that should have been there.

• 1720

This brings me back to something I have often said. There is no Pavlovian reflex that causes people to think about official languages and about official-language minority communities when something is going to be changed. And I keep asking for that reflex to install itself in the collective minds of both federal and provincial governments.

Your second question was to what extent is the role of the commissioner an educational one, and particularly with regard to the majorities, because by and large the minorities don't need to be educated about their own problems.

I think the answer is that the commissioner generally does more than he—or, in the future, she—probably should, but nobody else is doing it. If a person like yourself takes up this responsibility, at the very least of responding to the inaccuracies that are disseminated in letters to the newspaper and on open-line programs on the radio, then it's the old story—something that is repeated and repeated penetrates into people's minds and is considered to be true. I have been unwilling to allow that to happen.

Each day when I get the press clippings, they include letters to the editor, and I sit down and I respond to those letters. It's rare that I see a response from anyone else in Canada. I go on open-line programs. I haven't done that many recently, but in the early years of my mandate I did open-line programs in every province of Canada. I saw that as I continued to do that there was a certain decrease in the aggressivity and the unreasonableness of the people who called in and a definite decrease in the unpleasant mail I received.

I think it is essential that we all do this. I would very humbly and respectfully suggest that members of Parliament and senators could do and ought to do more than they are doing.

Mr. Andy Scott: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I think, Dr. Goldbloom, you've found your fourth or fifth career here. You could be the public broadcaster who could tell the majority all about why it's valuable to have a minority that's well served. You could certainly do that in a good way.

Mauril.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I am sorry that Mr. Plamondon left, because I would like to have responded to some of his interventions.

I would first like to say that in the House, when the Industry Minister was questioned on the Copyright Commission of Canada, he clearly said that in the appointment it was preparing to make the government would comply with all the legal and regulatory requirements. Thus I do not feel that questions need to be asked in that regard. I appreciated the comments of the Commissioner, who said that there was no need to make a case based on assumptions.

I would also like to make a quick comment on the question of action plans. The Minister, who is coming tomorrow, will probably be able to go into greater detail if she is questioned. In my mind, it is important to see whether there has been any progress in all the agreements that have been made. The Canadian government signed with Ontario an agreement on school governance and multi-year funding, for five years, totalling $90 million on the part of the Canadian government. This agreement came with a very detailed action plan specifying where the funds should be allocated; they gave categories and measurable objectives in order that the scope of the effort might be measured at the end of five years.

• 1725

The government intends to include action plans with the agreements that will soon be expiring and are being discussed with officials of the provincial governments.

One thing concerns me greatly. I am a French Canadian who lives in and is a native of Ontario, and I am very disturbed when I hear some comments by my French-Canadian brothers who live in Quebec and who seem to see only the negative side of things. There are indeed difficulties and problems, and as one who is in a minority situation, I am in a good position to see them. However, the spokespersons from this community themselves are saying that progress has been made since the passing of the Official Languages Act, progress which can be measured. With the efforts of the Official Languages Commissioner and article 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nearly all the provinces—not all—have French-language teaching institutions, something that is essential to the extension of our communities. However, our confreres choose to focus on assimilation and ignore and deny the progress. I hope that they will change their attitude one day.

Incidentally, we had a little history lesson, and I would like to ask the Commissioner a question on our country's history.

Commissioner, I imagine you have done some reading. I plan to do some for my own information, but perhaps you can help me. In cases where communities have used the courts to obtain compliance with the rights granted to them by the Charter or the Official Languages Act, have there been any cases where governments from provinces other than the provinces in which the legal challenges were occurring have intervened? If so, was it to defend and support the francophone communities, or the opposite?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: There have been a few occasions where a provincial government has intervened in another province. I recall two occasions where the Quebec government intervened in provinces with an anglophone majority. In one case, it was not to support the francophone community of the province.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We talked about leadership. We must not lose ourselves in that.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: As a rule, the provinces standing against the claims of a minority community finally complied with the court's decision. However, when we talked about the situation in Prince Edward Island, where the Summerside parents wished to obtain a school nearby rather than having to send their children 30 or 40 kilometres away to the Abram-Village Évangéline school. The parents won the case before the court of first instance, but the province appealed and won before the Appeal Court. The case has now gone to the Supreme Court of Canada.

But, even if generally court cases are expensive and time- consuming, I feel that they're absolutely necessary in some cases, because it is the only way to obtain what the Act and the Charter state. This is the case with British Columbia, where there is now a francophone school authority.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I imagine that during the many years of his mandate, the Commissioner has sometimes found himself in some funny circumstances. I wonder if you have a couple of anecdotes.

• 1730

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: It's difficult to say on the spot. I derive a good deal of pleasure getting compliance out of stubborn people.

No, I don't really have any anecdotes...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You can put some in your memoirs.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: ...if there are any funny ones, and if any come to mind, I will write to you.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I imagine you will publish them.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Maybe, maybe.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Are you finished, Mauril?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Have you a few minutes yet? The Senator wishes to ask a question.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Yes, yes.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Rivest.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: We were talking about changes in government, etc. There has been a really important social union agreement in Canada, and I am prepared to agree with it. The premiers, the political leaders met at 24 Sussex Drive and talked about the use of the federal government's spending power, transfers to the provinces and the right to withdraw in some cases. I do not wish to get into the details of the agreement, but not much was said about duality and the protection of francophones when a province exercised its right to withdraw. There was nothing in the agreement about that, was there?

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: I would have to say that the text said nothing about Canada's linguistic duality, made no mention of official language minorities and their contribution not only to Canada's life but to its very nature. There is a very general reference to the diversity of Canadian society. I must say that to my mind, this was not a strong recognition of our linguistic duality.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: That is what I was saying.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Well, Dr. Goldbloom, it's been an absolutely enlightening exchange—long and arduous for you, I'm sure, but notwithstanding that, you always do this extremely well. I think our country has been very fortunate to have you heading up the official languages. I do wish you'd had a little more power to perhaps have sanctions of some sort. Notwithstanding that, I do see an evolution during your mandate, and I think it has to do with your vigilance, for which we thank you. We hope that we can only see the positive sides growing. A lot of your bons mots over the many years certainly will guide many of us, and for that we thank you very much.

Mr. Victor Goldbloom: Thank you.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): The meeting is adjourned.