LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 9, 1999

• 1533

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I see a quorum. We will therefore begin.

[English]

Just to advise the members of the committee, two of our members have been called away to a special meeting and will be back shortly. Please sit at the table so we can make sure we have a quorum. Thank you.

Mr. Massé, I know there was some reluctance on the part of these members, who were very anxious to be here to welcome you. They will have to catch up with your text when they arrive. I've been trying to tell them not to worry. I've briefed you and you've briefed me and we're all set to go.

We have a very interested minister, the head of Treasury Board, who we welcome today. There has been a lot of positive commendation on the swiftness of his actions with respect to the official languages since he took over Treasury Board. That doesn't mean there aren't a few observations that are of concern, but we'll get to them shortly.

Mr. Minister, if you have a few opening remarks to make we'd be very pleased to hear from you.

• 1535

Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be here today and to be able to report on what's happening in terms of official languages.

[Translation]

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Jolicoeur, the Secretary for Human Resources, and the Assistant Secretary to the Treasury Board on Official Languages, Gaston Guénette, are here to assist me on specific issues.

You know how much Canadians have supported the Government's efforts to reduce the deficit and to restore fiscal health over the past five years. This necessary budget exercise has not had any direct negative impact on the Government's services in both languages: not on service to the public, not on the language of work, not on equitable participation by Francophones and Anglophones in the federal public service. Service is still offered at offices where there is a significant demand, despite government downsizing.

The pool of bilingual employees has been kept at 112 percent of needs—65,400 bilingual persons where there is a need for 58,400. The proportion of bilingual positions has been kept at 32 percent, while the public service work force decreased significantly. Despite downsizing, we have kept the proportion of bilingual supervisors who meet the language requirements of their position at 90 percent.

[English]

Last year the Treasury Board Secretariat audited the quality of service to the public in several Canadian cities. This exercise confirms that our offices properly meet their obligation to provide service in both official languages. The same conclusion applies to federal offices required to provide bilingual telephone greetings.

Significant changes in the government and its machinery in the 1990s have raised many questions and concerns about respect for language rights in Canada. The Commissioner of Official Languages released a special report on the subject on March 31, 1998.

I personally responded to the commissioner's report by setting up a task force to analyse the impact of government transformations on the official languages and to propose any appropriate measures to improve the situation. The task force tabled a unanimous report on January 18, 1999. It was released the next day at a press conference by its chair, Mr. Fontaine. That same day I indicated I had favourably received the report. That same day the Prime Minister himself renewed the government's commitment to the Official Languages Act.

Treasury Board Secretariat officials are now working to implement its recommendations. I expect them to propose innovative and effective steps to conduct an ongoing campaign to make the staff of institutions subject to the Official Languages Act aware of their obligations under the act.

I can already announce the government's intention to strengthen the role of the committee of deputy ministers on official languages, chaired by the Deputy Minister of Justice. This committee will thus be asked to examine the best way to follow up on the government's official languages initiatives and to provide appropriate advice on integrating the official languages.

We must also examine the issue of appropriate management tools to ensure the official languages are considered in developing government initiatives. I expect my officials to come back to me with concrete and realistic proposals in this regard.

[Translation]

Finally, the Fontaine Task Force report's recommendations on single windows and on partnership with communities appeal to the Government's imagination and sense of innovation in serving minority official language communities.

My officials are studying three promising projects in this regard. First of all, there is a single-window project for the delivery of services offered by federal departments in Manitoba.

• 1540

This project would enable Manitoba's Francophone population to receive all available federal information and services in person or by telephone.

Second, there is the “Réseau de savoir économique et d'employabilité” [Economic Knowledge and Employability Network], which takes the form of an interactive electronic clearinghouse. This is an Internet-based virtual single window which offers, in a single location, all of the information needed for the economic development and employability of Canada's minority official language communities.

Third, there is a federal government-community partnership project submitted by the Société Saint-Thomas d'Aquin of Prince Edward Island, designed to provide a single window for federal and provincial government programs and services.

This is where we stand six weeks after the release of the Fontaine Task Force report and a very busy year.

Madam Chair, before we move on to questions, I would like to point out that, since the agreement reached by the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board, we have had quite a busy time. I would like to say that I still have a few concerns about the implementation of the Official Languages Act.

[English]

As I saw in New Brunswick a number of years ago, it is never easy to apply fairly and equitably a program of official languages in any environment. In the Canadian environment I know a lot of progress has been made since the first law on official languages. I was there when it was put into place and I was able to measure the results myself. But I'm concerned that we always have to revive our enthusiasm. We always have to persuade and do the work of missionaries. Perfection is never attained in this field because it is very difficult to have an identity that has two official languages—like the Canadian identity—and it is very difficult to be absolutely and always just and equitable vis-à-vis everybody.

So not only do I understand, but I see we still have a long way to go before we have fully and correctly applied the law on official languages. But I want to state that our purpose in Treasury Board is to try to do everything we can in order to permit the Canadian society to reach new heights in terms of the proper application of official languages in minority situations—the proper protection and promotion of official languages in minority situations.

[Translation]

Thank you.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much, Mr. Massé. I speak for the anglophone minority in Quebec, and I can assure you that your observations will make us feel much more comfortable, knowing this is in your hands.

I must say I'm delighted to see that the Deputy Minister of Justice will head the committee of deputy ministers on official languages. As we're talking about a matter of fairness, justice, and equity, I hope the Minister of Justice has figured out what kinds of sanctions or rewards he and his committee, he himself, or at least the services required in the society will be able to render through his efficient monitoring. Otherwise we'll efficiently monitor him, I guess.

I'm very pleased to see that my co-chair is here.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): I survived.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Welcome back.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Hello, sir. I am glad to see you here today.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I'm sure there are many questions people would like to ask.

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr. Massé, I get the impression you're not living on the same planet as the rest of us.

According to the report you are presenting us today, everything is perfect in the best of all worlds, whereas all the other reports published since 1995-1996 say exactly the opposite.

I'll take the liberty of citing three paragraphs, one from each report. The report of the Commissioner of Official Languages states:

Considering the effects of government actions (and omissions) in the achievement of the main objectives of Part VII [...] we can only observe that little account was taken of Part VII in the decision-making process. [...] In short, we have no reason to believe that the federal government's support for the vitality of the communities has increased relative to 1994 or 1998.

• 1545

That's what the report on official languages says.

The Fontaine report states:

We conclude, as did the Commissioner of Official Languages, that government transformations have resulted in accumulative weakening of language rights in terms of service to the public, language of work, equitable participation and support for the development of minority official language communities.

That's the opposite of what you have just said.

Another report, the Savoie report, states, at page 40:

Very few respondents, in government or in the Francophone communities outside Quebec, appear to be pleased with present or past efforts to implement section 41 of the Official Languages Act. It appears that, each time the Commissioner of Official Languages publishes a report analyzing government efforts to promote section 41, the government reacts by adopting a new approach, ranging from the preparation of action plans to including efforts in departmental plans and designating “champions” at the higher levels of the departments responsible for the implementation of the Official Languages Act and so on. Despite these measures, the last report of the Commissioner of Official Languages still criticizes the efforts made and contends, for example, that the letter of understanding between the Treasury Board Secretariat and Heritage Canada has produced very limited results.

The three reports I have just cited, state exactly the contrary of what appears in your own report. You say this was done without affecting the public service, that budget cuts had no impact on language of work.

I also want to cite a few facts. Then I'll let you answer. This will be my only question for the first round, Madam Chair.

Although the population in Canada has increased since 1981, the dollar value of the budget allocated to official languages in the federal government is at its lowest level since 1981. The official languages guidelines in the various departments and Crown corporations have been eliminated and blended into the Human Resources departments.

Between 1970 and 1999, the number of Treasury Board employees responsible for official languages has been reduced by half. Ten years after the Treasury Board adopted a plan to make the senior levels of the public service bilingual, 40 percent of senior public servants still do not meet the linguistic objectives set by the Board.

When the program review was introduced, the Treasury Board, which distributed the guidelines for the way in which the review was to proceed, did not include the government's linguistic obligations in its analytical grid. That's serious.

In New Brunswick, although the Treasury Board report indicates an increase in the number of bilingual positions, recent studies by the Commissioner of Official Languages have concluded that there has been a several point decline in service to the public. There is no assessment of the language skills of public servants who occupy bilingual positions and the situation can often be characterized as hypocritical. I'll give you an example. The position of head of the Copyright Board was classified “bilingual imperative” in 1993, but is “bilingual desirable” in 1999.

I believe this is what the Commissioner of Official Languages is referring to when he talks about the subtle means used by your department to reduce services in both official languages. You are giving us completely different conclusions.

As a Francophone member from Quebec, how can you collaborate in the linguistic weakening of Francophones outside Quebec, while submitting reports whose main purpose is to conceal the government's reduced commitment to them?

Mr. Marcel Massé: Mesdames Chair, I'll answer the member's question with a similar question, just as politicized as his, but first I'll offer a general argument.

• 1550

When you consider the implementation of the policies of any government, it is possible to find weak points in the analytical reports on those policies. This is what the Auditor General does every year in trying to find the half or quarter percent of all policies that are improperly implemented. He shows the public excesses and inefficiencies in various policies, which are errors that must be corrected, but which do not give an accurate idea of the progress achieved through those policies.

I'll take just one of your examples; I don't have the time to respond to all of them. In the case of service to the public in New Brunswick, the Commissioner reported the remarks you cited. We checked what the Commissioner had said, and we realized he had used a different methodology.

There are two types of service to the public. First, there is passive service. This is the case where you enter or telephone an office which must provide bilingual services. You are answered in English in New Brunswick and you ask to be served in French. You have to look at the percentage of offices that can give you good-quality service in French.

There is also what is called active service. When you telephone a bilingual office, you are immediately answered in both official languages and offered services in both languages. Active service is definitely less common.

Those who made the checks or who asked Reality Canada to make them observed that the Commissioner of Official Languages had changed his methodology between the two investigations. In the first, he analyzed the number of passive services and, in the second, the number of active services. He of course arrived at results indicating a decline.

We had our audit conducted not on a sample of bilingual offices, but on all these offices. On this basis, and by comparing with the same methodology, we concluded that there had been an improvement.

Like the Auditor General, you can always find spots on the windows of a house. That doesn't mean you have to demolish the house, but rather that you should wash the windows. The Commissioner found spots that can be removed, but there can be no doubt that, as regards the Treasury Board's three obligations, that is service to the public, the percentage of Francophones in the public service and the possibility of working in one's language where numbers warrant, our percentages based on the statistics obtained from the departments and on audits indicate that there has been an improvement.

I asked the Fontaine Task Force to give me an idea of what happened during the last transformations and to give me recommendations on the nature of the various transformations to come. The Fontaine report concluded—and you cited the conclusion—that there had been a subtle weakening at the time of a number of those transformations. The nature of that weakening has to be analyzed.

I'll give you an example. In the negotiations for the transfer of manpower training with Quebec, when the time came to negotiate the official languages clause, we asked Quebec to implement the official languages provisions of the federal Official Languages Act. The separatist Government of Quebec answered that... I didn't interrupt you; don't interrupt me either, particularly since my French is definitely as good as yours.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: The right French word...

Mr. Marcel Massé: The French word is “separatist”.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: The real word is “sovereigntist”.

• 1555

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Ladies and gentlemen, I want to remind you that, first of all, I'm going to let the minister finish his thoughts. We are now eleven and a half minutes past your time allocation, which is generally seven minutes, so I'm sure the committee won't mind if we allow the minister to finish his comments, but notice, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Massé: I was citing the example of manpower training. Quebec's separatist government told us that it would refuse to accept the federal Official Languages Act because it wanted to implement its provincial Official Languages Act. The provincial statute definitely grants fewer rights than the federal statute to Quebec Francophones wishing to be served in their language when they request manpower training programs.

Here's an example of a situation in which the federal government may have been wrong not to require implementation of its statute, which provides better protection for official languages groups than the Quebec legislation. In this case, for obvious political reasons and to meet the demands of Quebec's separatist government, we put the Quebec statute in place and thus probably further reduced the rights of Anglophone minorities than if we had implemented the federal statute.

As I want to close quickly, Madam Chair...

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I wondered what you were going to do to fix that up.

Mr. Marcel Massé: Yes.

The last question I'm going to ask is what government is best trying to preserve the rights of francophones in Canada? Is it a government like ours, which has a law on official languages and tries to maintain the rights of linguistic minorities everywhere, or is it the representatives of a party that asks for the separation of Quebec, something that would certainly deprive all francophones in all provinces except Quebec of their linguistic rights?

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

Mr. Bellemare.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. Unlike my Bloc Québécois colleague, I'm going to stay on the same planet as everybody else, and I won't offer any kind of argument, let alone a separatist argument, in an attempt to justify a position. Instead I want to know what the Minister is doing to constantly improve the situation or at least to try to maintain service to French Canadians and minority English Canadians in their communities.

I must congratulate you, sir, on your presentation and reply. I'm sticking strictly to your presentation for the moment. When you talk about the number of bilingual employees, you say it represents 112 percent of needs in the public service. A little further on, you say:

We have kept the proportion of bilingual supervisors who meet the language requirements of their position at 90 percent.

If we have this kind of surplus of bilingual persons, why are there not enough bilingual supervisors, proportionally speaking?

Mr. Marcel Massé: There are two reasons. The first is that certain persons who occupied bilingual positions, but who did not have a level C, B and C bilingual capability were unable to keep their positions. The second is that 112 percent does not necessarily coincide with the distribution of bilingual positions. In other words, you have more bilingual persons than designated bilingual positions. The population of bilingual persons is thus higher. As for positions occupied by unilingual Francophones or Anglophones at the time the act was passed, certain persons have remained in their positions for a very long time and others have been promoted to positions for which they were absolutely necessary, even though they had not yet acquired the required linguistic capability.

• 1600

These are the two reasons why, even if there is a surplus of bilingual persons in the public service, those who occupy a certain number of management positions are not necessarily bilingual. They represent 90 percent; there is a 10 percent shortfall.

This is why the Treasury Board—and here I'm answering your first question: What has the Treasury Board done to improve the situation?—has now indicated that, after a certain period of time, 100 percent of supervisor positions that meet the definitions will have to be filled by bilingual people. There will be no more grandfather clause protection for those already occupying a position without having the necessary language skills.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: With your permission, sir, I would like to turn to the government employee component, which is a bit removed from the official languages issue.

Government employees are increasingly being hired on a contract basis, and there are fewer and fewer people in permanent positions. When you consider the present situation and the future proportions of full-time employees, part-time employees and contract employees, isn't there reason to fear a reduction in the number of bilingual employees?

Mr. Marcel Massé: No. The relationship between contract employees and permanent employees is a problem that has very few or no consequences for the proportion of bilingual persons. In most categories where we have contract employees, there is in fact a surplus of Francophones.

The main problem you're raising is one that has been around for a long time. We know perfectly well that the unions prefer our employees to be permanent because they then increase the work force and benefit from collective agreements, whereas contract or term employees can be laid off sooner when they are no longer needed.

The recent trend in all public services, including our own, is to spend a larger portion of the budget to hire term or contract people. This enables us to have them do the work for which they are hired and then not to have to spend taxpayers' money.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I have two other questions, Madam Chair.

In the second paragraph on page 3 of your speaking notes, you say:

Finally, the Task Force report's recommendations on single windows and on partnership with communities appeal to the Government's imagination and sense of innovation in serving minority official language communities.

I believe these are code words. What do they mean when they're decoded?

Mr. Marcel Massé: I'll ask the people who wrote it. Gaston.

Mr. Gaston Guénette (Assistant Secretary to the Treasury Board on Official Languages): The Task Force realized it was difficult to reach the clientele in places where the minority population represented 0.5, 1.5 or 2 percent of the overall population. We wondered whether the official language minority communities might not enter into a contract with the government so that, for example, Francophones could provide services to other Francophones.

We also realized that, when the minority population was scattered or very small, the departments did not always have a large number of bilingual persons. Consequently, 4 or 5 percent of employees in the offices might be bilingual and it might be impossible to find someone to take over when employees from one office, such as the Human Resources Development office, were on vacation, sick leave, etc.

• 1605

The purpose of the Task Force's proposal was to group two, five or 15 departments together, somewhat like the Business Service Centre, and to have, under a single roof, someone who could receive the clientele in both official languages.

The purpose of one of the pilot projects you mention in your presentation, sir, is to establish a virtual single window, like the Economic Knowledge and Employability Network, where clients go to obtain services.

They will thus have service in both official languages because these programs will have been developed in Ottawa, and they will then be referred to specialists who know the client's official language.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: That leads me to my question.

You mentioned three key words: “virtual single window”, that is the Internet.

I have a few concerns about this because not everyone has a computer. Francophones in small communities who have computers are often used to English terminology. Since English is easier to read, they'll read the labels or answers in English. French is more precise and thus harder to understand for someone who is not used to it.

Isn't there a risk here that people in minority Francophone communities living in regions far away from Ottawa, or in the National Capital Region, may become anglicized? Out of intellectual laziness or because of the needs created by their environment, they might find it easier to use the Internet in English.

Mr. Marcel Massé: What's the choice? Either you have an English system, and in that case assimilation is a certainty, or you have a system offering service in both languages. In that instance, if Francophones are motivated, they can learn the terms used in English and in French. It's better to have a bilingual system providing service in French.

Since they are more used to using English words, they will have a few problems at first, until they find the right French word. They'll learn the appropriate French word in the process.

What we're doing, that is to say offering a single window in French, enables those who wish, those who are motivated enough, to obtain all the information they want in French, with the right words. The only problem is motivation.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I like your answer.

I have a brief final question.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Excuse me, Mr. Bellemare. I'm sorry, but your time is up.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I have so many questions to ask.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): They'll be for the next time.

Mr. Muise, please.

[English]

You can now muse too, please.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you.

[Translation]

Madam Chair, I would first like to welcome the Minister. Thank you for coming here today.

Sir, would the deterioration in the implementation of the Official Languages Program, which is described in the report of the Commissioner on Official Languages and by the Task Force chaired by Mr. Yvon Fontaine, be corrected if the Treasury Board Secretariat placed greater emphasis on audit, evaluation and monitoring?

Mr. Marcel Massé: I believe you are alluding to the concrete measures that we are implementing. The Treasury Board is much more concerned with the institutions of government. That's our role. These are the duties that have been assigned to us in the implementation of Canada's official languages within the departments and Crown corporations.

• 1610

In this field, we have to ensure that the three objectives we have set are met. Wherever there are sufficient numbers of Francophones, particularly outside Quebec, we must be able to provide them with federal government services in their language. That's one of our objectives.

As Francophones living outside Quebec, they must be able to join the federal public service in numbers proportionate to their availability.

In regions where their numbers warrant, they must be able to work in French and their supervisors must understand the memos they write, the conversations they have and the arguments they raise.

In this process, we are trying to give a 100 percent service. In some regions, we are almost 100 percent successful. In the National Capital Region or in Quebec, we have nearly reached 96 percent for Anglophones. As this is audited, we know from year to year, even though we have not achieved perfection, we are providing service that is constantly improving.

This is also true of service to the public. Our audits in New Brunswick showed a rate of 89 percent. In audits, we telephone the classified “bilingual” offices and request service in French. We can get it in 89 percent of cases. This audit was not done by our employees, but rather by a group specialized in this area.

I quite agree that 89 percent is not perfect. Senator Simard will agree as well. We should be able to achieve a higher percentage.

Following this audit, we send a letter containing the investigation results to each of the offices checked, including of course those where we were unable to obtain service in French. A similar letter was sent to the heads of those offices in each of the departments they report to.

We have also created the “official languages champion”, a person responsible for ensuring the implementation of the Official Languages Program. We should have done this a long time ago.

We at the Treasury Board have established task forces to ensure that, when we conduct an investigation, government employees are aware of what the Official Languages Act requires of them. When we conduct an investigation, these task forces ensure that, if an office is not complying with the act, it will become more efficient in future.

The gap between 89 percent and 100 percent is hard to close. We have put mechanisms in place to make improvements from year to year.

As regards the percentage of Francophones in the federal public service, there are no problems with regard to number, and this percentage has remained at 32 percent, even during the budget cuts in recent years. These figures can be checked. These are people who describe themselves as Francophones in the files revised each year by the Human Resource departments. We therefore know what the percentages are.

I'm sorry, it's 29 percent, not 32 percent, but the percentage of Francophones in the general population is approximately 24.8 percent. So this is clearly higher than the percentage of Francophones in the general population.

We also have position adjustment problems, particularly at the EX or executive level, where we need Francophones for the language of work. This is also true of Francophones who have not yet reached this level or who are protected by the grandfather clause.

As I explained a moment ago, even for these positions, we now have a Treasury Board directive requiring that all level C, B and C bilingual positions be occupied on an imperative basis by bilingual employees.

Mr. Mark Muise: You mentioned the grandfather clause. Does that concern people who are not bilingual, but who were in their positions before the Official Languages Act was passed?

Mr. Marcel Massé: That's correct.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

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

Mr. Mark.

[English]

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

Like other committee members, I want to thank the minister and his staff for taking the time to come before us today. Also, you may not know it, but Reform does support the protection of minority education rights throughout this country. It's probably a well-known secret.

• 1615

Last week Commissioner Goldbloom made some very interesting statements here before this committee. One thing he did say was that social needs should come before language needs. I just want to ask you what your government is doing to ensure this takes place in a province like Quebec.

Mr. Marcel Massé: I'm not sure what he means, that social needs come before—

Mr. Inky Mark: In the case of emergency services, social needs come before language needs.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Health and social services guaranteed in one's language. In Quebec, that comes under Bill 142.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Which they haven't applied yet.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Massé: Yes, and that's also what's happening in the Eastern Townships.

[English]

I'm not sure we have a policy on social needs in their own languages. My own feeling is clearly that educational needs—and now you're talking about anglophone communities in Quebec—

Mr. Inky Mark: If I can interrupt, I think he's probably talking about emergency health requirements, like going to a hospital.

Mr. Marcel Massé: I have no doubt that the times when you need to be able to do something in your own language are when you're sick in a hospital and when you're being educated. If you look at the way the budget of $284 million or whatever is being spent, you'll see that most of that money is being spent on education. Why? Because the survival of minority language groups depends on their ability to maintain schools in which the children of that community can learn in their own language, at all levels up to the university level if possible. This is why the bulk of the money that we have in the official languages program is spent on education.

Health, of course, is a field of provincial jurisdiction, and one in which each province must guarantee these social rights to their people. In that area, I therefore speak as a private citizen. I would hope that each province would spend enough money to respect the civil rights of their people in order to be able to give them services in the language of their choice. Now, if you have 200 languages and you can't find somebody to speak in Swahili, I would understand this, but you should be able to get service at least in French and English in a country where these two languages are the official languages of the country.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Actually, Mr. Minister, I think what you're referring to are the English-language coordinators that were attached to the health and social services centres across Quebec.

There are sixteen regions in Quebec, and the bill that was being referred to by Mr. Plamondon is the health and social services act, under which access to English-language services was supposed to be renegotiated every five years. There has been a great lag between the time when the Quebec government was supposed to accord English-language rights of service and the application of that law, particularly in the health services sector.

The federal government actually paid for a coordinator on each regional health board to ensure such service in sectors outside of the Island of Montreal, where some of the sectors are as big as countries in Europe. They needed to have a coordinator so that they could ensure services were delivered and received by the English-speaking community. That remains a non-renegotiated contract as of yet. It was supposed to have been renegotiated, and I'm hopeful it will be signed by the federal government and the Quebec government in order to ensure services to the English-speaking community. And that's just in the health service sector.

Madam Fraser.

[Translation]

Senator Joan Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): Mr. Massé, first I would like to reassure my colleague, Mr. Bellemare, on the matter of computers because, in my case, it happened the other way around.

For two years, I had to work with a Windows system and related systems in French. Despite this immersion course, each time I was fortunate enough to come upon a bilingual site, I selected service in my language. Even though the commands on my computer read “imprimer” rather than “print”, I chose my language on the site I was visiting. I'm convinced that all Francophones in Canada would do exactly the same thing. If they are offered a bilingual site, they will choose the French version without hesitation.

• 1620

[English]

Minister, I was very interested in what you were saying about champions, the deputy ministers' committee, etc. Basically, that goes to an issue that has been coming up for years and years, and is still coming up. Essentially, there is no central authority in the federal government that can make sure not only that the Official Languages Act in the narrow sense is enforced, but that the fundamental policy of supporting both official languages is enforced at all levels and in all ministries. Secondly, there is really not much incentive in a great many departments for people to do anything other than draw up the necessary action plan, file it and forget about it until they have to do another one next year. What do you envisage to change this dynamic?

Mr. Marcel Massé: On the question of central authority, this is certainly a point that has been made in a number of cases in past years. In particular, it's one of the five main recommendations of the Savoie report. The easy answer is that this is a question of government organization, and therefore a prerogative of the Prime Minister. The tougher answer is that we have tried to distribute the responsibilities for official languages between the Department of Heritage, which has the budget, basically, and more recently—in the agreement we did about two years ago—to the Treasury Board Secretariat, for the reason you mentioned, because Treasury Board can be a better enforcer.

We have started to do exactly this, and we get at departments in two ways. In terms of the first one, as you know, Treasury Board has business plans for all the departments. They are verified each year, and more in-depth every third year. We know what the department's plans are, including in the way of official languages. These plans are not only included, they are looked at by our people in terms of official languages. We have told departments that we would enforce their plans in all areas, including official languages. That means we can freeze budgets here and there unless we see the results. That's where the usefulness of Treasury Board as enforcer comes in, and it's a role that could not be carried out by Heritage.

The second one has to do with the committee of deputy ministers. Deputy ministers are in charge of their departments, and they are liable for the performance of their departments. What we have indicated to them is that the implementation of their official languages plan was part of their overall evaluation through COSO, the committee of senior officials, which looks at deputy ministers every year and establishes their level of performance.

So we have now acquired two pretty efficient means of making sure the plans are not just made and then forgotten, but are actually implemented.

Senator Joan Fraser: Do you actually see progress being made? It's perfectly true that any member of any minority in this country can quickly produce a dozen examples of how things go wrong. One may even have the impression sometimes that things are backsliding. The mechanisms you're talking about sound good, but do you actually see differences being made?

Mr. Marcel Massé: We've had that responsibility for only two years. When did we write that agreement?

Senator Joan Fraser: 1997.

Mr. Marcel Massé: That type of change, by the way, is an area in which you use persuasion rather than coercion. It's a change in attitude that we want among civil servants. In various parts of the country, it's difficult enough to underline all the time that this is a bilingual country. It's a fact that is not totally accepted—I'm just reflecting reality—in all parts of society, so we want to make sure the federal government becomes the best example. We still have a lot of persuading to do. That's why we decided to start to give some teeth to the law on official languages, which by itself did not have teeth.

You're asking me if we've been able to bite in the last two years. We have been able to do so softly so far.

• 1625

There's no doubt that there has been very considerable progress in the federal public service in the last twenty years, a period of time for which we can measure things. I was in that public service twenty years ago, and I was there ten years ago and five years ago, so I know the difference and the difference is major. Through the law on official languages, we have established a profound change in attitude in the public service. That is absolutely certain.

In terms of the view in Canada that our Canadian identity includes two languages and is modified by it, and that our view, our amount of relativism, our amount of tolerance, and our status in the world have in fact been façonnés or sculpted by this, I have seen this myself. I have seen it in international circles and I've seen it in the various provinces. So I know there have been results.

Have we been able to get better results in the last two years? I think so, but very marginally. It's over a longer period of time that we will be able to say—I hope—that Treasury Board has been successful in taking a law on official languages that was not showing great progress and has been able to make it a much more powerful instrument of overall government policy in Canada. I really hope this is what we will be able to say in a few years about the performance of Treasury Board.

Senator Joan Fraser: Thank you.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon, you have the floor.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Massé, I was surprised by part of your answer a moment ago, when you spoke about the manpower agreements with Quebec. You claim that, under these manpower agreements, the rights of Quebec's Anglophone minority might be respected to a lesser degree because they no longer come under federal jurisdiction. However, the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages said this manpower agreement was exemplary and that Anglophones were satisfied with it. He characterized it as exemplary. He did not say as much of any other province where such agreements had been reached. So perhaps we should view this matter in another light.

In addition, sir, when you conduct a virtual trial of the Quebec government over Anglophone rights in Quebec...

Mr. Marcel Massé: The separatists in the Quebec government do not always feel this way. As I indicated, a separatist government that achieved secession would necessarily mean the end of Francophones in the rest of Canada in the short or longer term.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: That's not the part I was talking about. I'm going to talk about that later. I'm talking about the other part, where you said that Quebec Anglophones were not as well served when there were jurisdictional transfers to Quebec. I would like to tell you that the day you announce to Francophones outside Quebec that they have the same rights as Anglophones in Quebec—I'm talking about individual rights such as those guaranteed by Bill 142 respecting social and health services—will be the happiest day Francophones outside Quebec have never known.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): They should try applying it.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: However, and I said this in my last remarks to this committee, Quebec Anglophones have rights. They must continue the fight to improve them, while Francophones must aspire one day to have the same rights and continue to fight. I'm not saying that Quebec Anglophones should wait for the others to catch up to them because that will take 100 years. I believe they must continue. However, it must be acknowledged, and the Commissioner has acknowledged it, that if there is work to be done, it is to save the Francophone minority which is in much more difficulty than the Anglophone minority in Quebec. That's obvious, and the last census proves it. Although there is no assimilation in Quebec, there is assimilation in the various provinces. In British Columbia, the rate is 72 percent, whereas a dangerous stagnation in the demographic weight of the Francophone community has been observed in New Brunswick. The latest statistics clearly show this. The witnesses who came to analyze the latest statistics said so.

• 1630

As for the last part, that is the question whether a sovereigntist government—since you want to engage in politics, sir—would better protect and influence the rights of Francophones outside Quebec, I can tell you that all sovereigntist governments that have sat in Quebec City have guaranteed that the present rights of Anglophones would remain the same in a sovereign Quebec and that we would continue to try to improve them.

As regards the relations we have with Francophones outside Quebec and the budgets we currently allocate to help them survive, those budgets are still being paid out. However, I have not heard the federal government say that, if Quebec became sovereign, it would continue to comply with its own Charter and Constitution as regards Francophones outside Quebec. I have not heard it say that publicly.

On another matter, you did not say much about the phenomenon of assimilation in your overall analysis. Of course, you were conducting an analysis concerning public servants and service to the public, but, like Ms. Copps as well, you appeared to have no concerns about the phenomenon of assimilation which is still eating away at the Francophone minorities. I would like you to tell us what you think about assimilation.

I have one final question. You are the guardian of everything that goes on in the public service to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Program. You are also responsible for the current negotiations with federal public servants. Three bargaining rounds have resulted in one settlement and two rounds are under way, or the reverse. Whatever the case may be, there are rounds where bargaining is still under way. Five days ago, I spoke with union representatives, who told me they were surprised that all the negotiations are taking place in English only. Do you agree that negotiations should take place in English only? At any event, that's the information I have received from union representatives from the Quebec Region, who were very surprised to see that everything was being done in English.

Mr. Marcel Massé: Madam Chair, I may ask Alain Jolicoeur to answer the third question on the language of negotiations. Mr. Jolicoeur is our senior negotiator at Treasury Board and he is conducting these negotiations himself.

Mr. Alain Jolicoeur (Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat): Mr. Plamondon, it is true that the bargaining is taking place in large part in English. In all cases, that's obviously at the request of the unions, in view of the linguistic level of their chief negotiators. That's the case of all but one of the 15 unions. This is being done at their request. Of course, all our proposals are available in both languages and we are offering to work in both languages. Our bargaining teams can function in both languages, but that's not the case of our counterparts. So it is true that, in practice, that most of these discussions are being held in English.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Are the documents you present always bilingual? Are the documents you take to the bargaining table, on one or two hours' notice, all bilingual?

Mr. Alain Jolicoeur: I can't absolutely guarantee that. The documents are not always bilingual, since they are written as the negotiations progress, quite often during the night.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: In the Canadian language, that is to say in English.

Mr. Alain Jolicoeur: They are written in the language of our counterparts. Most of the union negotiators are unfortunately not bilingual, but that's not the case of our negotiators.

Mr. Marcel Massé: As regards the first question or questions, there are definitely a certain number of conclusions on which I can agree with my honourable colleague, particularly the fact that the Anglophone communities in Quebec have been and are still, in most cases, among the best treated minorities in Canada. I know that you, Madam Chair, have previously indicated to me that, in the case of the manpower agreements, you personally had unfavourable experiences. However, I believe I can say that the Anglophone majority in Quebec is better treated than the Francophone minorities in the rest of the country, although the Francophone minority in New Brunswick is now much better treated than, for example, approximately 25 years ago.

• 1635

I also agree that I would be very pleased if the Francophone minorities in the rest of the country were treated as well as the Anglophone minority is treated in Quebec. Now that does not mean that things are perfect in all cases. Quebec Anglophones obviously represent a much larger proportion of the minority official language population than in all the other provinces, except New Brunswick, where the Francophone minority represents approximately 30 percent of the population.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: In Quebec, Anglophones represent 10 percent of the population, as do Francophones in Ontario.

Mr. Marcel Massé: Well...

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I would also remind you that the English community in Quebec built all their own institutions and had them there from before Confederation. So I don't think we should compare minority groups. You treat all minorities, wherever they are.... It is the litmus test of a society. I'm not interested in a comparative nature between Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, or Prince Edward Island. I want to know that all minorities have justice, equality, and access.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Massé: That being said, Madam Chair...

Mr. Louis Plamondon: The question was for the minister, not for you, Madam Chair. Next week, if you want to testify, I will be pleased to question you.

Mr. Marcel Massé: That being said, having lived in New Brunswick for a certain number of years and as my mother is from Saskatchewan, I feel somewhat as though I belong to the Francophone minorities and I would be pleased if all these minorities could be given equal treatment in all provinces.

This leads to another question: assimilation. This is a question we usually avoid. Now there can be no doubt that, in all the countries of the world, and Canada is no exception to general sociological rules, when you have a minority within a majority, the latter exercises a very considerable power of attraction.

One of the reasons why the Anglophone minority in Quebec is not being assimilated as quickly as the other minorities is that it has institutions which are, in certain cases, not only several hundreds of years old, or at least roughly 100 years old, but which are also very highly developed. I'm thinking, for example, of the English-language telephone stations in Montreal. These are stations which can obtain programming from the rest of the country.

The Quebec Anglophone community also has the opportunity to work, in most instances, virtually anywhere in Canada as a result of mobility policies. So there are good reasons why a community which is a minority community in Quebec, but which is part of the majority in Canada or in North America, finds it easier to retain its customs and language and to establish its own institutions.

However, the Official Languages Act has the effect of slowing assimilation. Before coming here today, I looked at the statistics by province. In some cases, it has stopped assimilation, which is a very rare phenomenon when you have minorities that are relatively small relative to the population of a given province. I would have thought instead that the proportion of Francophones in Ontario was roughly 5 percent, but, whether it's 5 percent or 10 percent, it's still a relatively small minority. In other provinces, we have minorities representing 2 percent, 1 percent or 0.5 percent of the population.

It is much easier in New Brunswick to have a Francophone community that is doing a good job of resisting assimilation because it represents approximately one-third of the population. So, yes, we expect there to be assimilation in all societies where there are a minority and majority. However, the Official Languages Act has delayed assimilation and stopped it in certain instances and in certain provinces. We definitely have a much greater chance of preventing the assimilation of minority groups in Canada with the Official Languages Act than without it.

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

Senator Simard, you have the floor. Then it will be Senator Robichaud's turn.

• 1640

Senator Jean-Maurice Simard (Edmundston, PC): Thank you. For the moment, I only have one question for Mr. Massé.

As a preamble, I can say that, on June 17, 1998, I began a debate in the Senate on the implementation of the Official Languages Act at the federal level. My speech concerned the slow, but gradual deterioration of services to Francophone minorities outside Quebec. I communicated with more than 60 groups dedicated to the advancement of language rights in and outside Quebec.

I also read and reread the Savoie report. I read and reread the Fontaine report. I contacted the political parties at the federal level and in all provinces. I proposed to meet with the Commissioner of Official Languages within the month. If you are willing, I propose to meet with you, Mr. Massé, within the month, to discuss the Savoie and Fontaine reports. I propose to meet with the President of Alliance Quebec, Bill Johnson. I'm going to submit a report to the Senate in late April or perhaps May.

The only question I have for Mr. Massé...

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I'm sorry, but could you please ask your question?

Senator Jean-Maurice Simard: I would like the Minister to confirm or deny the rumour circulating in New Brunswick that the language of work of federal public servants in New Brunswick is English when they meet amongst themselves.

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

Mr. Gaston Guénette: We did an audit on the satisfaction of federal public servants in New Brunswick as regards the use of the language of work. The idea was to determine whether employees were aware of their rights and obligations, whether they had work instruments in their language, and, in short, whether they were satisfied. We noted that 6,000 of the 10,600 employees answered. This consultation was distributed in a statistically acceptable way in that 36 percent of all employees were Francophones, which roughly corresponds to their representation in the federal public service in New Brunswick. Eighty-eight percent of respondents said they were completely satisfied and indicated that they had the information and tools necessary.

Where there was a problem was with professional training. Not everything was perfect in this area.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Senator Simard, we can come back to this if necessary. I know that Senator Robichaud has a meeting. Senator Robichaud, very briefly.

Senator Louis J. Robichaud (L'Acadie—Acadia, Lib.): Thank you. I would like to ask the Minister a question. The Savoie report—I know Mr. Savoie very well—is full of common sense. In your opinion, does this report contain recommendations that are not acceptable to your department and, if so, which ones are they?

• 1645

Mr. Marcel Massé: The Savoie report contains five basic recommendations. The first is that there be an annual Cabinet meeting devoted to official languages. When I mentioned this to the Prime Minister's Office, the reaction was positive, but I was given no guarantees. The decision is much more up to the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister.

The second recommendation concerned the creation of the position of Secretary of State for the communities. There are pros and cons to this recommendation. I also spoke about his with Donald Savoie, not only while he was writing his report, but also when he was one of my employees in New Brunswick when I held the position of Cabinet Secretary. We have always gotten along well and we talked about the subject. He is well aware of the pros and cons of the recommendation, but put it forward so the Prime Minister could decide whether or not to exercise his prerogative.

The third recommendation is that a fund of $60 million over five years be established to help promote minority languages and the minority language communities, particularly in the wake of the cuts of recent years. I believe the Minister of Heritage announced last week that her basic budget had been increased by $70 million a year. Her parliamentary secretary knows the details. This is excellent news and will virtually bring us back to 1992-1993 levels. This is one of the first programs that have been restored to their earlier levels since the government reforms.

In his fourth recommendation, Mr. Savoie also requested public service awareness measures under section 41. Today I have spoken a great deal about the formation of the deputy ministers' group, the establishment of champions in each of the departments, the fact that the Treasury Board should first increase the awareness of its own people and ensure that all programs submitted to it contain an official languages component where appropriate.

The fifth recommendation concerns the reinforcement of the role of the committees of deputy ministers responsible for official languages. This has already been put into practice under the chairmanship of Justice Deputy Minister Morris Rosenberg, who is perfectly bilingual and very much aware of the importance of the Official Languages Act. We have already begun to implement this recommendation and it is being given serious consideration. This recommendation, which in a sense was the most difficult prior to the budget, has been implemented through the budget.

Senator Louis Robichaud: What this ultimately means, sir...

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I'm sorry, Senator. I suggest you keep your question for when you come back because you have to leave now. You can't even wait for the Minister's answer, or you'll be late for your meeting at five o'clock.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Yes, yes.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): With your permission, you may leave.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): The last address will be by Mauril Bélanger, then I will have a message for the committee.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): My remarks concern the third recommendation of the Savoie report. Two figures, among others, should be borne in mind. The first is the envelope of $70 million in annual increase for the official languages programs. The Minister announced last week in Moncton that $10 million would be allocated for assistance to the communities through the Canada-communities agreements, which brings this envelope to approximately $32 or $33 million, the highest level to date.

The second figure to be kept in mind is the $6 million reserved for implementation of section 41. My question is a sweet and sour question. You know it's easier to get cooperation that way. Does the Treasury Board intend to use the fact that $6 million is available to the Department of Heritage to induce or encourage other departments to share the cost of initiatives for the implementation of this section?

My second question may be a little harder. It concerns the agencies created or being created by the Canadian government and the right to work in French. This question must be a concern for us.

• 1650

Are Canadian government employees able to retain the rights they had with respect to language of work even when they come under the authority of an agency, whether it concerns parks, revenue and so on? If that is not the case, what could we do to correct the situation?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Marcel Massé: On the first question, as regards encouraging the departments, the answer is yes. Our proposal is definitely to establish champions in each of the departments whose role will be to ensure that the Official Languages Act is implemented. This is an expenditure for the departments and an allocation of staff. This will enable us to do something through the departments themselves, something we couldn't really do ourselves because our role was to ensure that the implementation plans for the provisions of the Official Languages Act were established. They didn't really have teeth, as someone has already said.

Now there is a positive incentive. Instead of telling people that we are going to freeze the budgets if they ever fail to do this or that, we have someone in the department who is known to the Deputy Minister, who in turn knows that his evaluation depends on this. This champion's role is to see that the implementation plan for the official languages... [Editor's note: Technical difficulties]... and to serve as a kind of ombudsman because this is what will happen in practice.

This is a role that must be expanded, and the departments themselves will begin to spend more to do it when they see that their overall performance is evaluated in part on this issue.

The second question is one we have considered, and it is one of the reasons why we had the Fontaine report. We have progress reports in a large number of cases. We have already announced the creation of the revenue agency and the parks agency, and the answer here is clearly yes. We have the right to require—in these cases, there will be agreements in the form of contracts—that the Official Languages Act apply to agencies, to Crown corporations and to what are called alternative services agencies. When Air Canada was privatized, for example, we required it to implement the Official Languages Act completely. Although it no longer reports to the Government of Canada, it is bound by the contract under which it was privatized and we intend to do the same for the other agencies.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In the case of agencies, I believe the provision of the act is specified. Reference is made to section 25, and that's a question of third parties. The question in my mind concerns the employees. Twenty percent of the public service work force will be in the revenue agency. I'm talking about the language of work of these people, not section 25 of the act, which concerns services provided to the public on the government's behalf. Is that the same thing?

Mr. Alain Jolicoeur: It's the same thing. The agencies are subject to the Official Languages Act. It's exactly the same thing for Revenue Canada. There will be the same obligations and the same rights when it becomes an agency.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): It would be a very good idea to include the question that was raised by my colleague in your audits because that's where we receive complaints.

Mr. Marcel Massé: Yes, indeed.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Have you completed your questions?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, for the moment.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I want to return to one matter with you, Mr. Massé, concerning the standards applied to manpower training.

I know hard work has been done on matters pertaining to training in French. Someone returning to the job market in Quebec must be able to work in French. I know there has been considerable discussion about the fact that French-language training courses are needed so that people can find work in Quebec.

[English]

If you can't speak French fluently and adequately and you're going to look for a job in Quebec, then you are in a diminished position in looking for a proper job. One of the concerns—

Mr. Marcel Massé: Madam Chair, I'm wondering if this is one of the examples where the Quebec law protects less than the federal law did.

• 1655

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): It is. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. It is an unfortunate reality that in the desire to transfer labour-training management to the provinces, and in doing it in the way we did in Quebec, there may have been great advantages to the transfer, because you're closer to the population in terms of the planning and administration of the responsibility to train people, job retraining and job skills, but it is not a fair advantage or a fair opportunity for English-speaking people who have not learnt and applied themselves in French.

There are many minority groups within the English-language community. It's not a homogeneous community; it's a community coming from many parts of the world. They require French as a job skill so that they can learn afterwards the technology or the technique of whatever they are going to do. I think it is grossly unfair that you would expect people who need to find a new job and new job training, who haven't had experience and worked in French up until now, to recognize that you're going to need French to get a job in Quebec. Therefore when you are retraining our workforce in Quebec you are not offering French as a job-training skill. I have talked about this many times, and it's a great frustration to me.

I want to know, if we really are going to respect the official minority communities, what undertaking will we have from the federal government to ensure the application of labour training with French?

Mr. Marcel Massé: In the case of the agreements that have already been concluded with the provinces, you will agree, I think, that it will be very difficult to change the present clauses. In a number of cases, and by the way the Fontaine report underlines this, we realize we have affected the rights that groups speaking minority languages have. In the example you describe, it is clear that the anglophone groups now have fewer rights than they did before. I think there is an example, and the Fontaine report also mentioned this, where the reverse situation happens. I believe it is in Alberta.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Very possibly.

Mr. Marcel Massé: In these cases, we are aware that if we get a chance and we're trying to persuade the provinces that this clause should be renegotiated, we will try to get all the rights and obligations that existed before under the official languages law. And this also is one of the conclusions of the Fontaine report.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I think one of the observations is that you may have gone through a divestiture to the province, and the province may have divested to the municipalities, but the bottom line, the key in a civil society that calls itself democratic, is the service to the individual and their ability to access that service.

I'm full of hope, frankly, for the minority communities across Canada, because I think the goodwill is there and now it's a matter of ensuring that it happens. I was joking about the deputy ministers, but there's no question that the way you have structured it deputy ministers have to be responsible for what they've undertaken to do. I think this is a good way to do it, and I think the access to money is another good way to do it. Hopefully, when we bring in our report from our tour of the country, and when you come back to hear what we've heard, perhaps we will have seen some further forward motion.

Committee members, are there any other questions at this given moment? The minister is going to wrap up perhaps with a final remark. I would remind all committee members that you have the list of community groups and the list of witnesses for our travels. I'd like you to please look through those lists. You are certainly free to submit any other names and any other organizations and groups that you feel should be invited.

[Translation]

You can send them to the committee clerk.

I would also like to ask you whether it would be possible for us to travel to Quebec City on our way back from Moncton, instead of going there after Montreal and Sherbrooke. This means that the witnesses from Gaspé and the North Shore would come when we were in Quebec City. We're going to Quebec City from Moncton instead of Montreal. I hope that suits you. Otherwise you will tell me. Is that all right?

• 1700

Mr. Massé, you have the floor.

Mr. Marcel Massé: Thank you, Madam Chair. Perhaps I should emphasize, in just a few minutes, that the implementation of the Official Languages Act, as many of those who have taken part in it have noted, is a long-term effort. I remember the situation in the federal public service in the early 1970s, when I entered it. At that time, there was no linguistic equality. In many cases, Francophone federal government employees were second-class citizens from a linguistic standpoint.

We have witnessed, and I have seen this in the federal government and in New Brunswick, a very considerable improvement in the situation of minority groups and, in particular, in the position of Francophones in the federal government and in New Brunswick. We have fought these battles together quite often. There is no doubt in my mind that the official languages situation is now much better than it was at that time. There has been an extreme improvement, to such an extent that, in most cases, we now have a form of equality which, although not complete, is very great, particularly in view of percentages that vary between 70 and 90 percent. This is not perfect, however.

It is true that the situation has stagnated in recent years. It was definitely becoming necessary to put more teeth and more enthusiasm into the implementation of the Official Languages Act. That's what we have done. As I mentioned earlier, a mere two years may not be enough to say that we have made major progress because we have achieved percentages which are now hard to improve. However, we must at least maintain what we have achieved.

We must improve as far as possible the way we apply the Official Languages Act. I agree completely with committee members on the importance of this act. What I can indicate to you is the government's commitment, which the Prime Minister restated scarcely a few weeks ago. I want to remind you of the Treasury Board's commitment to continue working to correct the current imperfections in the act's implementation.

Thank you, members of the committee.

[English]

Thank you very much for your patience and for your questions. I hope that together we can all manage to implement better the Official Languages Act, and I'm glad that—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Your seatmate arrived. I thought maybe he wanted to ask you a question.

Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): I can ask him tomorrow.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You'll ask him tomorrow.

Mr. Marcel Massé: We're seatmates in the House, so it's pretty easy. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I thank you very much. I'll remind the committee that the steering committee will meet on Thursday at noon to look over the witness list. No? We'll discuss it after.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There's a conflict of committees.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): There's a conflict of committees. Is there a conflict at 3.30 too?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Okay, so we'll make it right after question period, just the steering committee.

I think, Andy and Mauril, you gave me some additional names.

[Translation]

You'll tell me if there are any names to be added to the witness list. Thank you.

[English]

The meeting is adjourned.