LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, September 18, 2001

• 1532

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Ladies and gentlemen, if you don't mind, we will begin the meeting. First I would like to make a few short remarks, and then, we will move on to the presentation that our guest will be giving today.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge that it may still be very difficult for parliamentarians from both Houses to begin work, given the circumstances that we are going through these days. Yet I believe that the wisest course of action is for us to continue our work and continue carrying out our responsibilities, which is what we will try to do today.

The co-chairs of the committee, Senator Maheu and I, were in Australia last Friday or Saturday, and since we did not know that we could be back, we thought it was best to postpone one of the two meetings that had been scheduled for this week, tomorrow's meeting, because there were several witnesses and we wanted to give them some time to make adjustments to their schedules. Consequently, tomorrow's meeting will not be held. It has been postponed until later this fall, at the first opportunity.

As for today's meeting, we knew that there was only one witness. So, if it had been necessary to cancel it, we could have done so somewhat later, in a shorter time frame. This was not necessary, because we were able to get back to Canada, but unfortunately Senator Maheu is not feeling well today. I believe she will be joining her colleagues in the Senate tomorrow.

As for future meetings, I hope to convene a meeting of the steering committee very soon, in the next few days, to set the schedule for the fall.

• 1535

Now that we've got all that out of the way, Mr. Dion, when you were appointed minister responsible for official languages, we gave you all our congratulations, and we agreed that we would ask you to appear once parliamentary business resumed this session, on the second day. We are now ready to hear from you.

I see that Senator Gauthier has asked for the floor. Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have a question. You noticed that there aren't many senators here. The Senate is currently sitting. We are debating the massacre, if I can use that word, that occurred in New York. I would have liked to have taken part in that debate; I couldn't because I'm here, but I would like to remind you of one of the Senate's Standing Orders. I'll be saying a few more words about that in a few moments.

This committee should not be meeting when one of the two Houses is in session. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons don't say that, the Standing Orders of the Senate say so. It puts a senator in a difficult position. We have to ask for permission to come here. I didn't ask for permission today because today is an exception, but tomorrow I will be rising in the Senate on a point of order and I will be pointing out that the Senate must be taken into consideration when setting the agenda, and that will solve the problem. I'm well aware, Mr. Chairman, that at present there is no Standing Order that governs the operations of committees. The chairman of the day decides, and I put my trust in you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Senator Gauthier. I'm told that in any event, at the beginning of each session of the Senate, a motion is passed, as was done this year, allowing the joint committee to sit when the Senate itself is sitting. I was able to check chapter 20 in Marleau and Montpetit, which says that standing joint committees can sit when the House—and it does stipulate the House—is sitting, and during the adjournments.

We could re-examine this issue, but I am sure that we are currently able to sit, since we did so during all of last session. I understand the problem, Senator Gauthier, and I apologize. The circumstances are entirely out of the ordinary, but even so we thought it was our duty to continue the work of the committee.

Mr. Dion, please go ahead.

Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I quite agree with you that the tragic events must in no way delay or paralyse Parliament or the government. We have not been destabilized by these events. We are taking action, and we ask Canadians to continue going about their normal business and to work hard. This is what we must do. So, today we will discuss official languages, all together, since that is the purpose of your committee.

With your permission, I would like, first, to introduce the officials that I have brought with me, who are many in number.

[English]

First, my deputy minister, Mr. George Anderson.

[Translation]

I would also like to introduce my Chief of Staff, Mr. Geoffroi Montpetit; the Deputy Secretary of Intergovernmental Operations, Mr. Louis Lévesque;

[English]

Leslie Seidle, Director General, Strategic Policy and Research;

[Translation]

Mr. Jérôme Moisan, the Director of Official Languages, Strategic Policy and Research;

[English]

Michael O'Keefe, Senior Analyst of Official Languages;

[Translation]

Pierre Coulombe, Senior Analyst for Official Languages; José Laverdière, Analyst, Official Languages, who will help me show a number of charts to you; and André Lamarre, my Press Officer.

I have a number of charts to show you. We will be talking about official languages, the progress and challenges. You can go to the next slide. Everything is based on the Prime Minister's wish to strengthen our activities in this area, and this has been well set out. In the Speech from the Throne, the Government renewed its commitment to support minority official-language communities; to strengthen the French culture and language; and to redouble its efforts so that all Canadians can communicate with the Government in the language of their choice.

This is the framework in which the Prime Minister asked me to ensure liaison and coordination amongst the various departments and government ministers, in order to support them in their sectoral responsibilities. I am very pleased to have this initial meeting with your committee, and we will often have the opportunity to work together. I simply ask that you identify my role properly. I encourage you to maintain all your dealings with the sectoral ministers, with the Minister of Canadian Heritage, with the Minister of Justice and with the President of the Treasury Board. These ministers retain all their responsibilities. So, you can count on my full cooperation.

• 1540

I would now like to move to the purpose of today's presentation. We will have an opportunity to go into greater depth during our discussions when I appear before the committee again. For this first meeting, I think that we must try to see whether we agree on the diagnosis. How are official languages doing in Canada?

I will not be presenting a new action plan or a new program review, and so on. I would like to see whether we agree on the realities that we face, the realities we are confronted with. Do we agree on the progress that has been made in the past 30 years as well as the difficulties and challenges that we must take on?

I intend to do so without being overly optimistic or overly pessimistic, so that we can assess the situation as accurately as possible. Afterward, during our discussion, I would be pleased to see whether you share the Government's reading of the facts.

[English]

The first thing we all note is that you have demographic decline, both in Quebec for English speakers and outside Quebec for French speakers. If you look at English speakers, you see that it's decreased from 13.8% in 1951 to 8.8% for the last census in 1996.

[Translation]

In 1951, Francophones outside of Quebec represented 7.3% of the population outside Quebec, and by 1996, this percentage had dropped to 4.5%. The causes of this decline are well known: the decrease in the birth rate, immigration, and in the case of Anglophones in Quebec, the exodus. These are phenomena that governments have little control over. But there is a third phenomenon that we have more control over, and it particularly affects Francophones outside of Quebec, and that is assimilation.

Next slide. The first indicator that statistics will show us is the language most often spoken at home.

[English]

In English, the question is “What language does this person speak most often at home?”

[Translation]

“What language does this person speak most often at home?”

This is compared to the answer to the question on mother tongue: “What is the language that this person first learned at home in childhood and still understands?”

[Translation]

This gives us the differences shown in the chart, the proportion of mother-tongue Francophones using mainly French at home.

In Atlantic Canada, the levels are stable, at about 86%. In Ontario, there has been a slight decline and, in the West, a marked drop: 51%, 45%, 35% and 33%. What this means is that, in Western Canada, two Francophones out of three speak mainly English at home. I say: “mainly”. We do not ask them if they still speak French, or if they have forgotten their French, or if they have lost their French. We ask them if they mainly speak French. This indicator is a starting point, but it does not tell us much in itself.

There is something that can help us better understand this trend, and it is a fine thing in itself: love. I am referring to the fact that Anglophones and Francophones marry each other, and that they are doing so at an increasing rate. We see this on the next chart. We have here what we refer to as “exogamous marriages,” that is, marriages in which the spouses are from different language groups unlike endogamous marriages. I do not need to tell you that governments have no influence over this matter, and do not wish to have any. What we are seeing is that Francophones outside Quebec, like Anglophones in Quebec, are more likely to marry a person from the other language group than in the past. In 1971, 73% of Francophones outside Quebec were married to another Francophone, sixty-one per cent in 1991, and 59% in 1996. There is nothing to indicate that this trend will change. Neither you nor I can do anything about it. We may as well take it as good news, as a sign that the two solitudes are less and less solitary, and have moved closer together. However, a few years from now, this level may reach 50%. The probability of your marrying someone who does not have the same mother tongue as yourself will be one in two. How is this relevant to what we are talking about today? The next chart will make this clear.

• 1545

If you are a Francophone living outside Quebec and you marry another Francophone, you will probably speak French at home, and this is the case for 93% of couples. If you marry an Anglophone, it is almost certain that you will speak mainly English at home. Only 7% of Francophones who marry Anglophones speak mainly French at home. The others speak mainly English. If you live in Toronto and you marry an Anglophone, you will speak mainly English. That does not mean that you will lose your French, but the language spoken most often at home will be English. It is only logical. Governments can do nothing about it, and it is not a bad thing in itself. I think that it is quite logical. If you live in an English city and you marry an Anglophone, you will speak mainly English at home, you will tend to say “darling” rather than “chéri”.

In the next chart, we see that the real problem has to do with language transmission. This chart shows a somewhat exaggerated view of the situation. It illustrates the transmission of the mother tongue to children. If two Francophones marry, the mother tongue, the first language learned and understood by their children, will probably be French. This is what the chart shows. If one of the spouses is Anglophone, well, it is likely that the first language learned and understood will be English. This is what happens in four out of five families. I do not need to tell you that this percentage is even higher if the Anglophone spouse is the mother. In this case, it will be English. The real challenge is to ensure that, even if the children learn English first, they subsequently learn French. This is why exogamous marriages represent a major challenge for us.

What can we as a government do to make sure that the couples in these exogamous marriages transmit French to their children? The next chart provides one answer. If you marry a unilingual Anglophone, it will be very difficult for you to transmit French to your children. But if the person that you marry is already bilingual, there is a greater likelihood that you will transmit French to them. We see this reflected in the chart.

Learning French as a second language therefore becomes a very important factor—I would even say the most important factor. What we must learn from all this, is that too often, French immersion schools are pitted against the schools of the French-speaking communities, even though they both support each other. The French-speaking communities must realize that their children will probably—in one out of two cases—marry an Anglophone and that if this Anglophone is bilingual, he or she will be better able to transmit French to the child.

So, we must determine how to go about changing unilingual people into bilingual people, how we can help them learn the second language. This will be a key influence on the future of the French-speaking community outside Quebec, and it is our main lever.

[English]

What is the language that this person first learned at home in childhood and still understands?

[Translation]

On what will we base our actions? I will now review the progress that we have made in the last few decades. These are the achievements that we have to build on and improve on, because these are our levers for action.

The first issue that I will speak to is, of course, the issue of rights. Very considerable progress has been made in the area of minority rights. You see here the milestones, but you know as well as I do that there are other dates that could have been included in the chart. Shown here are the Official Languages Act of 1969; the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982; the strengthening of the Official Languages Act in 1988; the Mahé decision on the expansion of minority language education rights in 1990; and the Beaulac decision concerning a broad, liberal interpretation of all language rights in 1999. These are key levers. They did not exist before; they do exist now and we can build on this foundation.

When we talk about language transmission, we must remember the progress that has been made on the issue of schools. Canadians have better access to minority-language education, thanks to the application of section 23 of the Charter. Today, nearly 150,000 Francophones outside Quebec attend some 680 schools providing instruction in their language.

• 1550

[English]

I didn't speak so much about English speakers in Quebec on this problem because in Quebec it's different. It is the exodus that is the big challenge. During the 25 years preceding the 1996 census, some 397,000 anglophones left Quebec for other provinces, whereas only 152,000 moved to Quebec from elsewhere in Canada, for a net loss of over 244,000 people. So the problem for English speakers in Quebec is different from the one you have about French speakers outside Quebec.

[Translation]

In 1982, there were no French schools in half of the provinces. As recently as 1982, in half of the provinces, there was not a single French school. That was our starting point. In 1990, only Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick had school governance by minorities. Today, we have school governance in all the provinces.

Another crucial point is that experts confirm that the great majority of children from endogamous families (where both spouses are Francophone) living outside Quebec go to French school. The challenge lies in ensuring that children from exogamous families go to either a French school or an immersion school—and a good immersion school—or that they learn proper French as a second language at their English school.

Now, there are other tools that we can use, areas in which we have seen encouraging progress. In the public service itself, the number of bilingual positions has risen: 21% in 1974, 25% in 1978, 28% in 1984, and 35% in 2000. So, we have made progress right where we can act most directly, in the federal public service. Improvements have also been achieved in the number of Francophones in the public service: 25% in 1978, 28% in 1990 and 31% in 2000. As you can see, this is also reflected at the management level: 18% in 1978, 22% in 1990 and 27% in 2000. My theory is that bilingualism is a factor that contributes to success in the federal public service. This is a known fact and, since Francophones are often more bilingual than Anglophones, especially Franco-Ontarians, for example, they consequently are better able to obtain positions and get promotions.

No doubt you read in the newspapers that this was not reflected in the senior levels of the public service. The deputy minister level was primarily Anglophone. You know, we are working with very small numbers. A few shuffles and percentages change. I will provide you with the latest percentage. Of the 21 deputy ministers who support a minister, such as Mr. Anderson who supports me, six are Francophones, representing 29%. You just have to replace two deputy ministers with another two and the percentage would change, but as we speak, it stands at 29%.

Francophones represent 34% of the other full-time Order in Council appointments in effect, namely 156 out of 466. This figure does not include judges and lieutenant governors, but it includes everything else.

As for Francophone participation in all federal institutions where the Treasury Board is not the employer, namely all Crown corporations, etc., the figure is 25%, or one out of four. I think, therefore, that we have made some very good progress in that area, we have had some very good breakthroughs.

[English]

In Quebec, almost 102,000 anglophones attend 360 schools that offer teaching of their language.

[Translation]

A task force was set up to look at ways to increase Anglophone participation: better advertising of positions, recruiting initiatives, promoting the public service as a career, and the Quebec Council of Senior Federal Officials is also following this file very closely.

I wanted to say something else about this graph. As you know, we are not doing as well when it comes to Francophones' opportunity to work primarily in French in the Public Service. We know that, very often, this is not the case. Some progress has been achieved, but once again, let's not put on any rose-coloured glasses.

• 1555

[English]

Now, the rate of participation of anglophones in the federal public service in Quebec is lower than their representation within Quebec's population. They make up 13% of Quebec's population, according to the last census—1996—but only 7% of the public service, excluding the national capital region, in 2000. You will see, however, that the rate of participation by anglophones in all federal institutions for which the Treasury Board is not the employer is 15%. So if you take everything, it's okay. In the civil service, we have a deficit.

[Translation]

Quebec's Francophones are more and more bilingual.

[English]

The key point is to make this country more bilingual. It has been said that Canada is a bilingual country shaped by unilingual citizens proud to be a bilingual country. If you look at the four categories of Canadians we have regarding languages, the champions of bilingualism are francophones outside Quebec, followed now by anglophones in Quebec, followed by francophones in Quebec, and the last of the class are anglophones outside Quebec.

What is encouraging, though, is that we have an increase among the new generation. The new generation of Canadians is the most bilingual of our history. This is very encouraging. You have the table here that shows that among francophones in Quebec, the rate of bilingualism was 31% in 1971, and it's 42% now.

[Translation]

The following graph illustrates this.

[English]

For English speakers outside Quebec, it was 7% in 1971, and it's 15% now.

We need to make sure this progression will continue. Fifteen percent today, 20% tomorrow, and we must go on and on. This is the key point, according to the way I see this situation.

In order to make an improvement, we need to have the support of Canadians regarding bilingualism. We must have positive attitudes about it. So what are their attitudes regarding bilingualism?

Support for official bilingualism in Quebec is very high. As you see, it was 85% in 1977, and 89% in 2000. You see some progress in Atlantic Canada, from 48% to 60%; in Ontario, from 43% to 47%; in the west, from 29% to 42%. So the trend is good. But what is most important is that the trend is even better with the new generation of Canadians.

[Translation]

Moreover, studies show that there is a strong correlation between the frequency of contacts amongst Canadians of different languages and support for bilingualism. If you have more frequent contacts with the other group, you will be inclined to value bilingualism more. This is why it is very important for the Government of Canada to continue enhancing exchange programs between Canadians. This is not the only reason why we need to improve these exchange programs, but bilingualism is an important reason and we must take action in this area.

[English]

You don't see any effect of generations in Quebec. Support for bilingualism is overwhelming, whatever you are, young Quebeckers or older Quebeckers. But outside Quebec you see that for the youth, support for bilingualism is 69%, and for the elderly, or let's say the 60s and more, it's 27% only. So with the new generation of Canadians, not only are they more bilingual, but they are more willing to put positive values and to link their Canadian identity with bilingualism.

[Translation]

Our immersion schools are one of our treasures.

[English]

We have some solid tools and we must be sure that these tools will continue to be solid and will be better in the future. Key among them is the way we teach the French language among English speakers. I may tell you that I think the provinces may make some progress here; it's their jurisdiction. The federal government may help. We'll see how we may help more, but it is their responsibility.

As you see on this table, only one out of two students has an enrolment in French second language programs. It's not improving. I think we need to see how our constitutional partners may make sure that more English speakers will learn French at school.

[Translation]

I said earlier that we had to see how the provinces could improve the way that they teach French outside of Quebec, but in order to do that, we must ensure that the Government of Canada is itself exemplary. This will help the Government convince its partners to take better action. We are not always exemplary. I will show you a graph that illustrates the fact that we do in fact need to improve things. We can see that there are problems in offices that have been designated to provide services in both official languages. The Commissioner of Official Languages recently rapped us on the fingers and you can understand why. I would point out to you that generally speaking these problems occur outside of Quebec.

We can see from the graph on the left that there has been at best a stagnation and, at worst, an unacceptable decline in the provision of quality services in both languages. To the right of the graph, you can see that too many designated offices do not have an adequate number of bilingual personnel to provide such services. These people have been designated bilingual and yet they cannot provide bilingual service. This is unacceptable. We have a legal obligation to provide quality services in all cases, as these are offices that have been designated to do this.

Despite the efforts that we have made in the public service, there is still much to do in order to create a workplace and, as the Commissioner of Official Languages said, a culture of work that is truly conducive to the use of both official languages, particularly French. We must demonstrate leadership that is both exemplary and vigorous and I wanted to state this today.

[English]

Here you'll see you have a levelling off of French immersion. It's roughly 7%. I think we need to see how we may improve it. A recent report by Canadian Parents for French indicates that the quality of French second language instruction is threatened by inadequate teaching materials, a lack of qualified instructors, and dropout from the program by students at the secondary level. So we need to be sure that French immersion schools will be a priority.

• 1600

[Translation]

There was also the issue of money, the crux of the issue. This does not entail only the overall amount; it is the allocation. The graph indicates approximately how much has been allocated: 29% for educational support; 24% for minority support; 2% for the Commissioner of Official Languages; 28% for translation; 17% for the public service, training and the bonus. All of these percentages can be subdivided. We have to look at the numbers very closely.

As for the overall amount, the following table shows that the amounts allocated today are clearly below what they were in 1990-1991. The amount was decreased further to program review in 1994-1995, but the decline had begun in 1990-1991. In 1994-1995, there was an increase because of a particular situation. This one-time increase was the result of a court decision compelling the government to pay retroactive bilingual bonuses to RCMP officers. Therefore until 1998-1999, there was a decrease. I would remind you that the graph we have here is in today's dollars, not constant dollars. The decrease is even greater in constant dollars.

Spending for official languages in comparison to that of the federal government was .62% in 1990-1991 and is now standing at .48%. While it is true that the federal government has cut back on spending just about everywhere, this is particularly true in the area of official languages. As you can see, this trend began back in 1990-1991.

As soon as the Government of Canada got its finances back on track, the Prime Minister wanted to reinvest in official languages and announced that an additional $70 million per year over five years would be added to the official languages support program allocation. If you do not see an increase of $70 million here, it is because this amount enabled us, in part, to absorb the cutbacks that would have occurred in other programs if we had not injected this $70 million. Of this 70-million dollar amount, 50 million went to education, ten million went to communities, four million went to provincial services in areas such as health and six million went to the creation of an inter-departmental partnership with official language communities.

Now that our financial housekeeping is back on track, we can put money back into the Official Languages Program, but doing better does not simply mean spending more. We must ensure that we are spending money properly. Any impressions or opinions that your committee may have in this area would be very useful.

• 1605

This amount does not cover everything that we are doing now. The Government of Canada is doing things indirectly to help official languages. We are doing things in the areas of immigration, health and culture.

The next graph shows the situation that prevails in Quebec. In Quebec, the two linguistic communities need cultural policies to support their situation. Culture makes a language live. This is true for the Francophones, even those in Quebec, who are a minority in the continent and in their country, Canada, despite the fact that they are the majority group in Quebec, and this is true for Quebec's Anglophones, our only Anglophone minority. The Government of Canada is spending a great deal of money in the cultural sector. You can see that this amount is 52%. Half of the spending in Quebec's cultural sector comes from the Government of Canada.

And so this is a lever, and if Ms. Copps is a member of the liaison group I chair, it is not only because of her direct responsibilities in the area of official languages. It is also because culture and language are two very closely related sectors.

You can see from the graph that the Government of Canada is making a significant contribution to the development of culture in Quebec. It has made an investment of $924 million: $517 million has been earmarked for radio and television broadcasting in Quebec, $176 million has been earmarked for museums and archives, parks and sites, and $122 million has been set aside for movies and video.

In addition, had I had the time, I could have prepared a table showing the role that the Government of Canada plays to promote French throughout the world through many interventions within the international Francophonie; the Francophone Summit in Moncton in 1999, the fourth Francophone Games held this summer in Ottawa-Hull, investments made in TV5, etc.

Before concluding, I would like to say that I would have liked to have discussed many other things with you. This is far from being a complete picture. There are all kinds of files that are discussed by your committee, matters that are raised by the Commissioner of Official Languages and which involve the Government of Canada, whether it be the issue of broadcasting the House of Commons debates in both official languages everywhere in the country, the Air Canada situation, Montfort Hospital, or bilingualism in the City of Ottawa. I do not claim to be giving you an exhaustive list today. I have tried to provide you with a diagnosis of the major trends facing us.

[English]

I just mention this point, but what we have to do is broader than that. We need to strengthen the means of action. Areas in which we propose to act are service delivery, language of work in the public service, programs to support linguistic duality, particularly education, programs to support official language communities. The committee I'm chairing is looking at all of that.

[Translation]

I am available to answer your questions and, in particular, to hear your suggestions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

[English]

To conclude, we have a set of questions that we need to answer to know how we may improve the situation. They are connected to the Speech from the Throne.

How can we strengthen linguistic duality, notably by increasing the number of bilingual Canadians, especially bilingual anglophones outside Quebec, and the bilingual capacity of institutions in Canadian society? This is the first target.

Second, how can we provide better and more support to official language communities?

Third, how can we make the public service a model of linguistic duality, notably in terms of service to the public and language of work?

Fourth, how can we ensure a greater influence of French throughout Canada, including Quebec and abroad? Also, how can we build on our strengths and encourage the promotion of duality within government, within the population, with other governments, so that Canadians can benefit fully from the richness of linguistic duality and are inspired to promote it more actively?

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have on all of this, and especially to hear your suggestions and views.

[Translation]

Senator Joan Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Just out of curiosity, are we going to have time for a second round of questions, or will one round be it, in your view?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): At this point, I suspect one round might be it. But let's start.

Mr. Scott Reid: Okay. That gives me an idea of how to structure my questions.

It's very nice to see you here, Minister. Welcome to our committee.

I wanted to, if I could, start by asking you—and this relates back to some of the figures you were using in your presentation—about the measures that are used by the Treasury Board and Public Service Commission with relation to the measurement of participation rates of francophones and anglophones in various agencies and departments of government, for example on slides 13 and 14.

• 1610

One of the things that has been done for a very long time in the public service, and in government measures, is a measurement of people by first official language spoken. That's how we designate them as francophones or anglophones for purposes of measurement. But figures don't seem to be provided that take measures of the participation rate of unilingual francophones and unilingual anglophones. I think that's a significant problem, which I'm hoping you will recognize and want to address. I think it's a problem because it tends to put everything in terms of a zero sum contest between francophones and anglophones for a limited number of jobs. Any gains accomplished by francophones are at the expense of anglophones, and the reverse, without recognizing that there's a serious problem in which unilingual persons of either language group are in fact excluded from the majority of higher-level positions and from an increasing proportion of lower-level positions.

That's something that does not come up, although it's certainly hinted at when you talk in one of the slides about the number of posts that are designated as bilingual. But of course that sort of post, bilingual essential, is not available or open to a person who speaks French only or English only.

So I wondered if I could just have some commentary on how you might address that problem.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Thank you so much.

The first point is that 65% of the posts don't request bilingualism. The second one is that we have programs to help people learn the other language. This is something we need to continue. It's costly—it's part of the budget I have shown—but it's very important to continue it in order to help the problem you mentioned, that many people are unilingual and still want to work for the government and they must have the capacity to do it. We need to help them have some familiarity with the other language.

Mr. Scott Reid: In my book on bilingualism, which I wrote in 1993, I did some research through access to information and found that in 1974, when the policy of using and adopting bilingual essential positions was formed, 34,000 jobs in the public service were available to unilingual French speakers. By 1992, only 25,000 were available. So we saw in fact that this policy had a very detrimental impact during that period.

I wonder if you have access to any more recent figures that would indicate that that situation has improved or gotten worse.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: We'll see if we have some and we will provide them to you.

Mr. Scott Reid: I'd be very grateful for that, if you could.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Minister, please provide it to the clerk so we can share with all the members of the committee.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: D'accord.

Mr. Scott Reid: If I can continue then, in the figures you provided, I was very happy to see that you made reference both to mother tongue figures and to home language figures. One of the problems I have found looking at the census in Canada is that we do collect figures on both of those measures.

The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism recommended, of course, the home language figure and argued that the mother tongue figure is a generation out of date. As a result, in 1971 their recommendations were taken into account.

One of the problems is that the home language measure is only taken on the extended form, not on the form that's handed out to every house. Only the mother tongue, and less accurate figure, is taken on the form that all of us fill out. This means that particularly when you get to the communities where a fairly small proportion of the population is... and where there are fairly small numbers involved... I'm thinking of Gravelbourg in Saskatchewan, for example, and some of the other smaller communities. It's very hard to get accurate measures of the minority language community.

I wonder if that would be something you would be willing to take up with Statistics Canada, perhaps for a correction in the next census.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: If I'm not wrong, Statistics Canada will ask additional questions in order to well identify different categories of familiarity of Canadians with bilingualism.

I agree with you. Mother tongue is not the key indicator. The key indicator is, are you able to learn both languages some time in your life? The fact that you learn first English and then French—if at the age of 15 years old you understand both languages, I don't think it matters to the government. The government may help people become bilingual. We cannot decide in which order people will learn the language.

Mr. Scott Reid: Right, but the home language is in fact a more accurate measure of preference. As you were stressing in your presentation, it just seems to me that failing to get thorough measures from StatsCan... Essentially I think the argument I'm making here is that in accordance with the proposals of the B and B commission, we ought to reverse the order in which we collect this number so that every person indicates what their home language is on the census, and only the extended form, which goes to one in ten people, one in twenty, will record mother tongue. I think that would be a much more useful thing for purposes of the kinds of policies you want to make.

• 1615

There was one last question. I'm running out of time. Going back about a decade, when you were at the University of Montreal, you spoke about the nature of the language policy that would be appropriate for Canada. You talked about the idea of an asymmetry—a policy in which, and I'm quoting, “the best solution would be a unilateral devolution only to the legislature of Quebec of powers over language”. I wonder if you still feel that's an appropriate measure or appropriate policy, or if you think that perhaps some other policy is now more appropriate, some more symmetrical policy.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I disagree with myself at that time, because I know more. In fact, the debate at that time about Meech was the relationship between the charter and the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. We know more now, especially because a former chief justice has said that in fact the charter would apply. And today the judges are taking into account the reality of the Quebec society. It's not true that they are making their decisions without taking into account that in Quebec society anglophones need protection and francophones too. The decision made on commercial signs is a good example of that. You know, being in Ontario to say that you need to have English in commercial signs... But it makes sense to say that in Quebec. It's what the judges have said.

So when you look at all this information that we have now, I would not say the things I said at that time. I don't think your party will blame me, because you have changed your minds too.

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

Senator Fraser.

[Translation]

Senator Joan Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Minister, this has been a most interesting presentation and there's an awful lot of information in it. You may, however, not be surprised that I am most interested in the elements relating to English Quebec.

I notice, for example, in your list of current issues, three pages from the back, CPAC, Air Canada, Montfort, and bilingualism in the city of Ottawa. I think these are all really important issues, and my colleagues have heard me, I expect at greater length than they would wish, on these issues. But there are a bunch of issues in English Quebec that I think do merit some attention from your ministry, and you only referred to one of them.

I was very glad to hear you refer to the problem of under-representation in the federal civil service in Quebec, and I hope that your joint group is really going to make progress. But we also have problems with bilingualism in municipalities, as you know. The Government of Quebec has just wiped out bilingual municipalities. If there's one left, it has to be about as big as a postage stamp. All the big ones are gone. I don't know whether the Government of Canada even said boo about this.

There are continuing pressures on the health care system. You are aware, I'm sure, that the Larose report, for example, said that there shouldn't be any guarantees any more for English-language services; it should all just be left up to the tender mercies of the CNTU/CSN. Yet despite repeated suggestions from members of this committee, and I believe others, I don't think the Government of Canada has ever made maintenance or creation of minority language health services a bargaining chip when it was handing out billions of dollars to the provinces to improve health care.

In your list of priorities, where does the matter of English Quebec and its concerns sit, and what can you do about the specific issues I've raised?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: There are many things that we are doing for the English-speaking minority. When I gave the 50% of spending on culture in Quebec, it is also for McGill University and all the institutions that you have. Our leverage to act in a federation as decentralized as Canada is not overwhelming. We have never stopped a merger in this country, neither outside Quebec nor inside Quebec.

• 1620

We are observers with regard to the case that you now have in court regarding the mergers, so I will not comment more. You can understand why.

Senator Joan Fraser: You are interveners?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: We are observers.

Senator Joan Fraser: Just observers.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Yes.

Senator Joan Fraser: The official languages commissioner is an intervener.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Yes, she is an intervener. You may have heard me explain, when the question came in the House, why that is. It was her decision. She is not the government, as you know.

We are observers. It is difficult for me to comment because it is still in the court, but this is an example of how, according to the Constitution, the capacity of the Government of Canada to act on a merger against the will of the provincial government doesn't seem to be very strong. It's not the case in minority federations, but it is the case here, being well connected with provincial power.

Regarding health care, for neither French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec nor English-speaking Canadians inside Quebec we have put language as a condition in the transfers to provinces. You have five conditions that are in fact moral principles regarding the... to make sure that we don't have a U.S. system in Canada. Language is not one.

Senator Joan Fraser: Why not?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Why not? It's not, and it's not for anyone.

Senator Joan Fraser: You were one of the negotiators last year when that very large, very impressive amount of money was being handed out.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: The main transfer by which we get money to provinces is the CHST, or equalization payments. In equalization payments you have no conditions. We can agree about that. In the CHST we have some that are more moral principles than the conditions you will see in the United States, or Germany, or Switzerland when the federal government gives money. So in a decentralized federation, this is the way it works. To change the CHST, to add a new condition, you need to have the consent of the provinces. It is in the act that created the CHST. It is already difficult enough to come to the provinces on the health plan. The last time, we didn't think it was realistic to think we would negotiate that aspect in the CHST.

That said, we are reviewing, as you know, the impact of any devolution to a third party, the impact with regard to languages. Madame Robillard will communicate in the coming weeks what will be the guidelines for the Government of Canada to make sure that, for instance, when you give manpower training to provinces, the minorities will have protection. This is not only with regard to the provinces, by the way. It may also be the private sector.

I know your committee has a lot of concerns around this aspect, and we are reviewing it. Madame Robillard will communicate something pretty soon that will be very encouraging.

Senator Joan Fraser: May I suggest that you put the question of minority language health care back on the agenda. I appreciate the legal difficulties, but this is a core issue for not only English Quebeckers but also the francophones of Quebec. This issue goes to the heart of the maintenance of a community.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Yes.

Senator Joan Fraser: I would be hard pressed to think of a more important one.

Finally, you say that the problem for English Quebec has been the exodus, and that there's not much governments can do about that. I think there is quite a lot that governments can do about that, both positively and negatively. So go back and put your analysts back to work.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Good afternoon, Mr. Dion.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You have seven minutes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Good. Wonderful.

I would like to welcome you and the people accompanying you. I am pleased that you are appearing before the committee for the first time and I dare hope, as you yourself said, that you will come back here many times.

We almost met on June 23, during the annual conference of the Fédération des communautés Francophones et acadiennes du Canada, but we missed each other.

Your presentation was very proper, but since you were appointed last April 25, nearly six months ago, I would have liked to have heard a presentation with two themes. Yes, there is this diagnosis that we must examine, but when you were appointed, the Prime Minister said that your main duty would be to formulate a new action plan to strengthen the Official Languages Program. At this rate, we are not going very fast. Yes, you have to make a diagnosis, but at one point, you have to stop the situation. I was therefore expecting you to present a program with clearer objectives. I would have appreciated more clarity, given that this is a word that is important to you.

• 1625

As far as the graphs that you have shown us are concerned, I feel that four are missing. In fact many are missing, but four main graphs in particular are missing. I will ask my questions afterwards.

What you said about the bilingual positions is factual, but according to a Treasury Board report, there is also a figure that shows that throughout the departments, the number of full-time employees with official languages responsibilities has dropped by 50% over the past five years. You forgot to show this table, nor did you present the budget for the Commissioner of Official Languages, which has been slashed by 28% since 1992-1993. You should have perhaps also shown the graph illustrating the population with French as the language of use in Ontario, which has decreased by 13% since 1971. You talked about other problems such as Montfort Hospital, Air Canada, etc.

That being said, since April 25, how many people in your department work in the area of Official Languages Act promotion and compliance? How much new money have you received in your department?

Furthermore, we know that 27 out of 200 federal institutions consult Francophone minorities and table a report before the House of Commons. This is not a very large number. Unlike this great majority of institutions, do you foresee tabling an annual report and making a mandatory appearance every year before our committee to report on the excellent work that you will be doing in this area?

And since you have not completed the task assigned to you by the Prime Minister, namely, to prepare an action plan to strengthen the Official Languages Program, when do you intend to table this plan, along with objectives that we are all hoping will be very clear? You asked for some concrete examples. I can tell you right now that in one of the diagnoses, all of the participants, without exception, stated that the Official Languages Act was not coercive enough. In the action plan that you will be tabling, do you foresee making this legislation more coercive?

If I have the time, I will ask other questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Thank you. You refer to three tables that I could have added. Indeed, many others could have been added. I tried to present the major trends. I note that you found inaccuracies in what I said. Indeed, we could have included many other things.

As for my team at Intergovernmental Affairs, we have the cream of the crop and therefore the team is not very large. It is a small team that is in every sector. There are perhaps 50 professionals, setting aside the support staff. This number may be a bit bigger, but not by very much. Six people have been assigned to official languages. I do not intend to table an annual report because I am a liaison group with the executive, nothing more. However, I intend to examine everything, including the legislation itself if necessary.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If you are the minister responsible for official languages, and you have not been given a new budget or any additional staff and you do not intend to table a report on the work that you intend to do, what, aside from being a symbol an answer to a concern raised by the Commissioner of Official Languages, is your job?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: You can accuse me of many things, but not of being a symbol or of being no more than a symbol. Listen, I am not the minister...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Do not take that personally.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: No, no. I am not the Minister of Official Languages. I am the minister responsible for coordination within the government. Ms. Copps, Ms. Robillard and Ms. McLellan retain all of their responsibilities. I am to ensure that the link between all of these departments will be more effective and that we will prepare a more cohesive and effective action plan for Canada's official language minorities.

• 1630

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: When?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Well, this is a work in progress. We began in the spring and we continued throughout the summer. In the fall, we will be holding discussions within the executive, namely, the various committees and the Cabinet. We will certainly have an opportunity to reappear before this committee to talk further about the action plan. Today we are talking about the diagnosis phase with you, but the executive is continuing to work on the action plan.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Do you not think that six months down the line, you could have at least presented us with the beginnings of a clear action plan to strengthen the Official Languages Program? Furthermore, do you not think that you could, as a minimum, table your coordination report with this committee once a year?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Once a year before the committee? I don't know how long the Prime Minister will think it's necessary to have a liaison group. That's at the executive level. You don't need a legislative existence. As for how fast we'll be going, well, we'll work well, we'll take the time we need and we'll achieve proper results.

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

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Things have been going well so far. We've had good questions. I didn't say anything about the answers; I was talking about the questions. I'd like to get you back down to ground level, as we say back home.

The Official Languages Commissioner tables an annual report that this committee examines. I imagine you've read it. There will be another one next September 25. Ms. Adam will be tabling her annual report next Tuesday.

In her 1999-2000 Annual Report, she was rather harsh. She said there had been a cumulative erosion of language rights. Ms. Adam has raised the alarm. It was clear enough, at least in our eyes. She said the government was lacking commitment, firm resolve, that there was no action plan. Mr. Sauvageau asked if there was one. I didn't understand the answer very well because I have to interpret what I hear.

If I understood correctly, Minister, the Prime Minister gave you a specific mandate: to set up or at least come up with new energetic measures to support those official language communities living in a minority situation. Have I been wrong so far? Is that it?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I'm to help the government find the proper strategies in that area.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I met you once last April and I mentioned the problems of the French-speaking communities outside of Quebec. I submitted a list of some 13 things that I found important and you raised a few today. There are some which, to my mind, are simple enough to settle; all that's needed is the political will. For others, it's more complicated. Forget Montfort: the courts are taking care of that and we Franco-Ontarians will win that one.

As for Ottawa, our country's capital, to my mind, it wouldn't be complicated if there was the political will to amend clause 16 of our Constitution. Clause 16 is the only one that alludes to any municipality in Canada: Ottawa, the capital or the seat of government.

I'm no constitutional expert—there are some here—nor a lawyer, but I think amendments could be made for the capital of this country to reflect this country's reality, both official languages, linguistic duality.

Have you thought about any possible amendments and, if so, could you come back before us to address them in a while?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: You can be sure, Senator, that if we drifted that far, the Government of Canada would act with all clarity and address this, especially before this committee. But I hope it will never get to that. At this point, the official opposition at Queen's Park, unless I'm mistaken, is coming forth with a private member's bill. The resolution of the mayor of the municipality of Ottawa was addressed to the Ontario Legislative Assembly and not to the Ontario government. So we are waiting for the Ontario Legislative Assembly's response and we can't imagine that the Ontario government won't change its mind.

• 1635

Its position is so untenable. Its original position was to say: “We will impose nothing upon the municipality.” If they're imposing nothing upon the municipality, why are they saying no? The municipality is asking them to change the act to recognize their initiative in the area of bilingualism in the City of Ottawa. It's not much. It is not very hard to do and we expect the Ontario government to do it and review its position. We had the opportunity to say directly to the Ontario government what I am saying to you here today.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Minister, in Ontario, no municipality can officially declare itself bilingual.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Agreed.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Only the province can do so. Ottawa, the capital of my country, should, in my opinion—it is logical, it holds water—be a reflection of Canadian reality, its duality. That is not a provincial responsibility, it is a federal one in my opinion. If, and that is IF, the political will were there, I am sure that you would have the support of the provinces, of at least seven of them and 50% of the population to make a constitutional amendment so that the country's capital is a reflection of Canadian reality, its duality. Anyway, I know what the situation is and I know there is a problem but it is not the official opposition in Toronto that is going to settle that problem. They have a resolution that will not settle anything, it is wishful thinking. You need a bill and, after that, they have to come and see you to amend the Constitution. They will never do what Mr. Harris said, they will never declare Ottawa an officially—and I am emphasizing the word “officially”—bilingual city. I do not agree with Mr. Harris, but that does not matter.

The federal government, to get to another question, is soon to approve its new government transformation policy. I do not know if you know about that. I have the title here, the policy is called The diversification of service delivery modes. Are you aware of anything like that?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: We have had problems with some federal measures especially concerning the transfer of obligations to provinces. Our two official languages are not respected. You remember the famous Offences Act that we went before the courts about, and we won. Are you in a position today to give us assurances, Minister, that there will be coordination on your part to make sure that the language rights will be respected in every agreement and every policy affected by the diversification of the delivery mode of federal services?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: First, about Ottawa, the bilingual city, I would like to explain that the Government of Canada thinks it is important for the solution to come from the community itself rather than being imposed by the Government of Canada because, in the field, things will go better. We all know that if the people of Ottawa have the feeling it is their policy, a policy that they have adopted themselves, things will go better at street level rather than if it is the federal government that decides. That is what happened. We must congratulate city hall for the policy they came up with.

We also think that things will go better if the provincial government endorses it and changes its legislation consequentially. Things will go better if the provincial Parliament does it rather than if the Canadian Parliament goes over the head of the provincial Parliament. It is the same logic. That is why we are not rushing in to act. But everyone knows what we think about that. It is clear there are huge advantages for Ottawa because it is the capital of Canada, very huge benefits. With that also come obligations. One of the obligations is to show a reflection of this country's bilingual reality. That is not asking for much. The Mayor of Ottawa is very much in agreement. We are astonished to see that the premier of Ontario is not and we still hope he will change his mind.

As for the other aspect of your question, as I have already had the opportunity to answer that, Senator, I would say that Ms. Robillard will soon be announcing a policy to that effect which, in my opinion, should make your committee very happy.

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

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Firstly, I would like to welcome the minister to this meeting of the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages. I have been looking through the comments that you made and the document that you tabled. I am a little disappointed and I feel that I have to say, right at the outset, that I don't believe that I'm the type of person who beats about the bush. I will tell you straight.

On page 24 of your document, it states: “Support for Culture in Quebec”. But what about the rest of Canada? I myself am a Francophone New Brunswicker. The term “Francophone outside Quebec” is used. As far as I am concerned, I am a Canadian Francophone. I have a document here issued by you, Minister Dion, which refers to culture in Quebec, which accounts for 52% of federal spending in this area.

• 1640

In New Brunswick the SAANB was forced to close its office because it did not have sufficient money to run it and to carry out its lobbying activities. I understand that this coming Saturday, you will be in New Brunswick, attending the annual meeting of the SAANB, which is a group of great importance for New Brunswick Francophone culture. The work that it does is well known. However, you have given us a presentation today which talks about support for culture in Quebec. That reminds me of Heritage Canada, which allocates over 80% of its Canada Day resources to Quebec, whereas we have to fight to obtain $1,000 for Caraquet.

When I see this type of situation, I am saddened in a way, because as a Francophone in my home region, I should be respected as such. I do not think that your document reflects that. In fact, I believe that that is the crux of the issue. I would like to hear your opinion on this matter. Why did your public servants draft a document like the one that you have tabled here today, which refers to spending in Quebec? It is as if you were recognizing that there is indeed an English Canada and a French Canada, and that English Canada is made up of all the regions outside Quebec. I do not like the substance of this document. I hope that in the future, any further documents will reflect my opinion and how I feel. I do not appreciate being told by the government that I am a Francophone outside Quebec. I am a Canadian Francophone and as such, I should have the right to the same respect in Canada as anyone else. I think that this drum has been beaten far too much. I am being frank with you here. I'm telling you exactly what I think.

Secondly, your new position requires you to make sure there is coordination in each department. Mr. Dion, even today, people still use the telephone to contact various departments. I know that if people want service in English, they press 1 and if they want service in French, they press 2. But then if they can't get through, they are returned to service in English.

I have already pointed out this situation several times before. It is especially the case at Human Resources Development, whom I deal with on a regular basis. They are unable—even with modern technology—to organize their telephone system in such a way as to put us through to someone who speaks our language. I'm sure, because I've seen it first hand in French-speaking areas, that Anglophones experience the same problem. Even when they press the button corresponding to their language, it is possible that they get through to someone speaking the other language.

For example, I attempted to get through to the French-speaking service at Human Resources Development and I was patched through to Brampton, Ontario. Later, I got through to someone in Toronto. You will remember that I raised this issue in committee. I find it unacceptable that in 2001, the government of Canada, which advocates official languages and wants to enforce them, is incapable of getting its act together in its own departments. I think that you should review the services provided by each department. At least that would set an example.

And one other thing. In the spring, you stated that you would not tolerate non-compliance by Air Canada of official languages in Canada. In July 2000, Air Canada became subject to the Official Languages Act. On August 23, I flew from Bathurst to London in Ontario, for the Canada Games. I think that in Montreal, there are at least 5% Francophones. However, I took the plane and an Anglophone was on duty at Air Alliance, a company which is supposed to be subject to the Official Languages Act.

Air Canada was a very important topic when we discussed it in committee. We have had several discussions on this subject, but things have not changed. What penalty will be imposed on Air Canada if it fails to comply with the act? Excuses upon excuses will not do. I might even have understood if the same situation had arisen on a flight between Toronto and London—there has to be some give and take—but on a flight between Montreal and Toronto, this type of situation goes beyond my understanding.

In New Brunswick, an officially bilingual province, the RCMP, a federal institution, has raised the issue of bilingualism once again. Earlier, Ms. Fraser referred to health. The fight is ongoing to preserve Montfort Hospital to give ordinary people access to a Francophone hospital here in Ontario. In New Brunswick, even though my province is officially bilingual, the same situation has arisen. There is also a problem in Miramichi.

• 1645

I think that the federal government must play a role because it does provide money. The government must take action to make sure that services are available in both official languages.

I would like to hear your reaction to some of the concerns that I have raised and to some of the specific situations I have talked about. I would specifically like to hear your comments on the specific support that the federal government can provide to New Brunswick Francophones to enable a group such as the SAANB to function on the same footing as an organization in Montreal representing Anglophones. I am not going to quote figures here, but I'm sure that the Anglophone association in Montreal has a far larger budget than we do. I don't think that it will have been forced to close its offices during the summer because it ran out of money. What can the government do to help us?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Thank you, Mr. Godin. You asked why my public servants drafted this document. Well, I asked them to. They never do anything without my asking them to do it. Their role is to serve me, and as a result this is my document.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm sorry. I didn't in fact ask why they drafted this document. I asked why they had drafted it in this way.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Well, because I asked them to.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Yvon Godin: —

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I'm sorry, but I think it's a good document. I'm disappointed that you didn't appreciate it, but nothing in what you have said indicates that I am mistaken or that I have not identified the correct targets. I did not table an action plan here today and I am not promising one either, but I have given a good indication of the government's priorities under the circumstances, taking into account the major downward trends that we are facing. I'm sure that upon reflection, you will see that this document does in fact offer food for thought.

On the question concerning the table dealing with culture in Quebec, why did I choose this province? Well, I shall tell you why. It is the only province with two linguistic minorities. Anglophones are not a minority community in New Brunswick. I am not in a position to provide you with the percentage of federal government spending on culture in New Brunswick compared to that of the provincial or municipal governments in that province. I have a sneaking suspicion that it might be quite high. However, I could get them for you. We could dig the figures out and send them to you. However, this money does not go entirely to minorities, because Anglophone New Brunswickers are not a minority community. Francophones in Quebec are a minority, not in the province of Quebec itself, but in Canada and in North America. The government of Canada is well aware of this fact and has adopted appropriate policies to provide assistance to Anglophones and Francophones in Quebec. This is why we included the table on Quebec. However, if you would like us to provide you with specific information on New Brunswick Francophones and more specifically, on Acadians, we could do that. I do not claim to have covered the whole issue. I should perhaps have referred to New Brunswick and the other provinces, but you have only allowed me limited speaking time.

As far as the issue of delivery of services is concerned, you have noticed that things are far from perfect, and I believe I said so. I believe I showed you a chart, no. 20, which shows this. I did not try to hide the problem we are facing, which the Commissioner of Official Languages has identified. It will not be easy to solve, but we must produce results. We agree on that.

As regards Air Canada, an interim report has been drafted and we are awaiting a final report. I have spoken to Air Canada since, not only publicly, but also directly. We will draw conclusions from the final report, but the messages have been sent.

As far as the issue of health is concerned and the conditions that we might add, I would refer to you to what I just said to the senator on this issue. I believe it would be much more effective to convince the provinces to do more without necessarily adding a new standard to the Canada Health and Social Transfer, which comes under legislation that would not be easy to amend without the provinces' agreement.

Mr. Yvon Godin: One last—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Godin, you took seven minutes to ask your questions and the minister took two and a half minutes to answer them.

Mr. Yvon Godin: On a point of order.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Go ahead.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to clarify one thing. I never said that the document was not accurate. I said that I did not agree—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. I understood.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I accept the document, but I said there was one part that should be corrected.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I have taken note of it. Thank you.

Ms. Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Mr. Minister, gentlemen, I am very pleased that you have given me the opportunity to express some of my concerns regarding bilingualism in Canada.

I believe that bilingualism in Canada should start here, on Parliament Hill. Over the last year or so, I have heard more and more comments from people in my riding and from people in my riding office, and from other Quebec members who have made the same remarks.

• 1650

There is some slight slippage, but the accumulation of little things that we ignore like that becomes considerable. I am not going to give you any examples because I do not want to put anyone involved in an awkward position, because they are clearly not to blame. Ms. Adam clearly states in her report that the government is not committed to the implementation of the act, and I would like that to begin here, on Parliament Hill.

There is also the problem of designated bilingual services in the other provinces, in Quebec or here. The most blatant example is customs. As members of Parliament, we often find ourselves in airports. Last week, I was once again in Toronto's airport. There were approximately 10 immigration officers. There were signs saying "Bilingual Service" in two different places, but both wickets were closed. It is not very nice to be welcomed home in this way.

There is also, of course, the issue of services provided by people in bilingual positions. If we are not concerned with the situation in a major airport like the one in Toronto, and apparently no efforts are being made to correct the situation, well, then, we can forget about the other provinces.

Those are my comments.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Merci.

Senator Rivest.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest (Stadacona, PC): Good afternoon, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Goldbloom, the former Commissioner of Official Languages, mentioned the rate of assimilation of part of French Canada in one of his reports. In Quebec, as far as Francophones were concerned, the assimilation rate was zero, but the rate was approximately 70% in the Canadian west and 33% even in Acadia. But the information you have provided us with is very reassuring. I would like to ask you who is right. Is there cause for alarm or should we calm down? Your statistics are reassuring, but those given to us by the former Commissioner of Official Languages and other spokespersons, including the Fédération Francophone des communautés Francophones et acadienne du Canada, show that the situation is very serious. There does not seem to be much of a problem if we go by the statistics that you have provided.

Secondly, you said that the federal government's powers to promote duality and above all to support the people who live in a minority situation are limited. We can of course provide federal services. There is also Part VII, which you will no doubt take an interest in. There is the support provided by the community itself. The Canadian francophonie is not simply made up of individuals. It is a community, and the individual, in order to preserve his or her cultural and linguistic identity, needs the support of the community.

Regarding community support, the Canadian government can intervene under Part VII, of course, but the bulk of government involvement, properly speaking, comes under provincial jurisdiction. In your action plan... There does not seem to be much political will or real concern within provincial political leadership in Canada as to the issue of linguistic duality. Amongst all his Canadian counterparts, only the Premier of New Brunswick, who is closer to this reality, is championing the cause of duality. Moreover, in carrying out their own responsibilities, these premiers do not seem concerned by the matter. There are no programs.

• 1655

Does your action plan include some measures through which you could make the Canadian political leadership, not only federal but also provincial, more aware of the need to support and strengthen Canada's linguistic duality?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Thank you very much, Senator. As I said at the beginning of my presentation, I did not come here with rose-coloured glasses nor with dark ones. I tried to give you an accurate picture of the situation, such as the government sees it, and I believe the figures before us to be the true ones. However, they are not reassuring, because if the trends we see there do not improve, well... Right from the first chart, we are facing a decline in population. There is little we can do, unless we shut down immigration into our country. The percentage of our immigrants that will swell the ranks of Francophones outside Quebec will remain weak, whatever we do. We know this. But improvements are possible.

When I went to Vancouver, there were Haitians there who had no idea where the Francophone community was. So there is definitely work to be done. This is why my liaison group must work on this. The Minister of Immigration is working on it. There are definitely things that can be done to improve the situation. Statistically, it will not change much, but it will help the community in its day-to-day life.

Given that fewer Francophones are being created outside Quebec through births, we have to create them through education. Education allows Francophones to keep their language and it allows Francophones who marry Anglophones to raise bilingual children, and this also allows Anglophone parents to ensure that their 17, 18 and 19-year-olds are bilingual. It is possible, and the necessary efforts must be put into the quality of teaching, of exchange programs and of support for the community. You are absolutely right, and this is why we must act. Personally, I do not find the situation reassuring. But it is not discouraging. If your figure was correct, if we had an assimilation rate of 65%, it would be discouraging. This is not the case.

The closest figure to that is in chart No. 5 of the presentation. The proportion of western Francophones who speak mostly French at home is around 33%: only one third of them speak mainly French at home. That does not mean that the other two thirds have lost their French. It means that they very likely married an Anglophone, and that if you are in Calgary, you speak mainly English at home. The real challenge is to ensure that the Francophone half of the couple does not lose his or her language and passes it on to the children.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: But on the whole, there is a decline in the number of Francophones.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: No, but what I'm saying is that the government has no means at its disposal to limit the trend towards exogamy, that is marriages between people who speak different languages. First, this is a good thing. Second, governments cannot regulate love. Spouses choose whom they love. So, there is nothing you can do about it, and this trend is on the rise for two reasons. The first is urbanization. People are leaving their communities to go to the city, where they meet their future spouse... The second is secularization. Religion is not an obstacle anymore to Catholics and Protestants getting married to each other. It is quite likely that children of Francophones living outside Quebec will end up marrying Anglophones.

But in this regard, there is something we can do. We can try to encourage exogamous couples to teach both languages to their children, to value such a thing, to convince them that it is the right thing to do and to provide them with the means to achieve this, namely by establishing good schools in their neighbourhoods. That is key. You are perfectly right in saying that it is not simply up to the individual. If you have a community which values such a thing, which provides support, well, it will be easier. We must work on this and you are absolutely right in saying that we must work with the provinces.

There is an encouraging sign at the provincial level. We now have a generation of parents whose children are in immersion. The wife of the Premier of British Columbia—I hope I'm not revealing any secrets, but it's a known fact—works in a French immersion school. I met the Finance Minister of Manitoba; he speaks French very well and his wife works in French immersion, or their kids are in French immersion. There is an emerging immersion culture which we must not lose. We must bolster it. We must work with Canadian Parents for French. We must ensure that the situation will improve because it is one of the key factors for our future. I hope this is not reassuring nor discouraging.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: There has been an enormous amount of justified criticism about the way the government implemented Part VII of the Official Languages Act, which applies to communities. Do you have any preliminary thoughts you would like to share with us on that subject?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: There certainly is work to be done. I have never met a group which has not asked me for a group home or cultural centre, etc. There is a great need out there, and we do not have the means to meet that need—just ask Ms. Copps—but we have reinvested in that area. Do we need to do more? Certainly. But how can we do better? That is one of the issues our liaison group is examining. But the need is great and we don't have the means to fully respond.

• 1700

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

Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orleans, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, thank you for having taken on your position, since I, as a French Canadian, have faith in your ability. I repeat: I call myself a French Canadian, and not a Francophone living outside Quebec. When I hear “living outside Quebec”, it makes me feel you're either inside the tent or outside the tent. For me, all of Canada is the tent. Therefore, as a French Canadian, I have a great deal of faith in your ability.

I have been an MP since 1988. My colleague and friend Senator Gauthier has been in Parliament since 1972, I believe, and we are more or less on the same wavelength. Your statistics refer to mother tongue, but there is also the issue of language spoken in the workplace. I have the impression that statistics on mother tongue may be misleading because they may paint a rather negative picture which is in fact worse than the situation really warrants. How often do you meet Anglophones who speak French?

There are several bilingual families in my riding, that is, Francophones who are married to Anglophones and vice versa. It often happens that, depending on the personalities and circumstances involved, the family is very Francophone. However, sometimes the family is more Anglophone. Is it your intention to check with Statistics Canada to see whether we can improve the statistics on who is really a French-speaker, perhaps at different levels, in Canada as a whole?

I have another question. Would it be possible to also find out how many people speak French in the workplace?

Your report is a statement of facts. I have been a member of the Official Languages Committee since 1988, and each minister has presented statistical reports. If it wasn't the minister, it was the official languages representative most of the time, that is, the Commissioner, and for a French Canadian, it was always disheartening to see statistics which always pointed to a decline. It seems the situation has always been in decline.

So, I believe the problem may arise from the way statistics are compiled and that the statistics distinguish between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Small-minded people use these figures as a pretext to say: "You don't count anymore or you hardly count anymore. You're not worth the trouble and we don't have to give you anything anymore."

So, I imagine that you will move on to the second phase after your initial statement of facts, which most French-Canadian MPs were already familiar with, despite the fact that two words were missing from their vocabulary: “endogamous” and “exogamous”. Like a good professor, you taught us something new today.

People always talk about federal services when they discuss language issues. They talk about education, but it seems there is a reluctance to talk about health issues in Canada. There are the issues of education and federal services, but health services are accessible to everyone. But depending on where you live, it may be difficult for you to access health care in your own language. Even here, in Ottawa, some people die in the other official language. It's unfortunate that this happens in a place like Ottawa. There is a lack of services in both languages. Do you feel we should now move on to the next stages, which involve other services, such as health care? I raise the issue of health because I know full well that the federal government sends money to the provinces.

• 1705

I will stop here to give you the opportunity to respond.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Thank you very much. Regarding your last point, before I forget, I should say that Mr. Rock is a member of the liaison group. He has led initiatives on health care in minority situations, and I suppose he would be very pleased to discuss the matter before your committee.

I am a French Canadian. The reason I talked about Francophones living outside Quebec is because I want to highlight the situation of Francophones who are in a double minority situation, even a triple minority situation. They are a minority on their continent, they are a minority in their country and they are a minority in their province. As a French Canadian from Quebec, I am in a minority situation on my continent, I am in a minority situation in my country and I am in a majority situation, linguistically speaking, in my province. My provincial government was elected by Francophones by a margin of 82%. That places me in a unique, or distinct, situation. Call it what you wish.

An Anglophone living outside Quebec is an English Canadian or a Canadian Anglophone living outside Quebec. That person is in a triple majority situation: on his continent, in his country and in his province. In Quebec, this person is in a double majority situation and a single minority situation in his province. This places him in a unique, or distinct, situation.

Therefore, Francophones and Anglophones living in Quebec share a unique, or distinct, situation, and the government of Canada cannot ignore this fact, nor can the courts. And when we go about our work, when we try to pinpoint the various needs of people, we cannot ignore that fact. I hope that when I talk about Francophones living outside Quebec, you will understand that I need this category to decide on which policy I will implement.

I do not consider myself any less French Canadian than you do, as someone from Ontario. We are linked very deeply through that. In the same way, when Mr. Godin says that I was talking about Quebec and not New Brunswick, it was for that reason. Does that mean that the government of Canada feels it is less important to look at what can be done with the Acadian situation, the situation of Francophones in New Brunswick? Absolutely not. Moreover, I forgot to point out that next Saturday, I will be speaking to the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick. I will be delivering the same speech I delivered here, but with data adapted to the situation in New Brunswick. I would be more than pleased to send it to you. If you happen to be there, you can attend in person. That is what I wanted to say on that issue.

We are all French Canadians, but we are facing different situations according to whether we are in Quebec or Ontario. Statistics show that the situation in Ontario or the situation for the Acadians in New Brunswick is not the same as the situation facing people in the West. Having visited several communities in the West, I can tell you that the challenge is greater in Saskatchewan than it is in Manitoba, where there is a concentration of Francophones in the Winnipeg region, or in Alberta, where more means are available. The province is richer, and even Francophones have more means to set up institutions like the Faculté Saint-Jean, for example.

In British Columbia, a rather special francophonie has developed in Vancouver; it is not simply made up of French Canadians, but also Francophones from throughout the world, and it is more and more organized all the time. It is quite fascinating to see what is happening there.

So each situation is quite special, but there is nevertheless a huge gap between the situation of Francophones in Quebec and Francophones outside Quebec, and the Canadian government must take that into account.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Minister. We should not forget that we can also be minorities in our respective municipalities.

Mr. Rocheleau, you have a maximum of five minutes.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This won't be long.

I have a twofold question. The first part deals with the question my colleague Mr. Sauvageau asked and which I believe you did not answer. He asked you if you planned to give the Official Languages Act more teeth. We would like a clear answer.

Secondly, we would like to know how you reconcile the fact that the federal government funds Alliance Québec and its president, Brent Tyler, in their systematic attacks and aggression towards the Charter of the French Language and in their probable desire to abolish it, and the fact that you yourself wanted to constitutionalize the Quebec Charter of the French Language? I suppose this funding comes from your money as a taxpayer in Quebec and the Quebec people, and it is used to fight their own charter. How do you reconcile that?

• 1710

Mr. Stéphane Dion: For starters, the Supreme Court of Canada takes the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms into account. In the famous decision on signage, dating back to 1988, the Court stated that banning the use of languages other than French in signage ran counter to the Canadian Charter, but also the Quebec Charter. So it takes that charter into account. It is also part of the arsenal of legal realities in Canada.

As regards Alliance Québec, the funding we provide now goes to a network that distributes amounts to each organization, and funding for Alliance Québec has decreased. They are not very happy with that, but that is how it takes place. Do I agree with everything Alliance Québec does? Of course not, and that is well known. Nor do I necessarily agree with everything that happens in Francophone communities outside Quebec, but I will not start rationing my funding based on whether or not I agree or disagree. That would certainly not be desirable, and I do not think that is what you are recommending.

Regarding reforms to the act, I told your colleague that everything was on the table, including the act. If it has to be changed to be improved, I will, of course, make that recommendation to Cabinet.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Given that you are financially assisting Alliance Québec and its objectives, if, hypothetically, a request were to come from the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, for example, or from the Mouvement national des Québécois, for assistance, for federal funds to meet their objectives, would their requests be vetoed or would they be received favourably?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: The federal government is resolved to choose the best channel to help the French cause in Quebec.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: So we could take for granted that the Mouvement national des Québécois and the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste will defend French in Quebec. So they could be given a hearing? I am making a note of that.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: If your party were in power, it could set up something like that, but that is not the government of Canada's reading. We believe that we have better channels than the ones you have mentioned.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: You are passing judgment.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: That is why I am here.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: In terms of the amounts at stake...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But he did not pass judgment on Alliance Québec.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: That's correct. When you talk about Alliance Québec and its objectives, do you pass judgment? What amounts are we talking about? When you say that it decreased, much to their dismay, how much money are we talking about?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: For Alliance Québec, it was $1 million and it is now $600,000, if I am not mistaken. But that is the result of arbitration. I know that in Ontario, the same problem exists. There are more and more minority groups that are requesting part of the amount, and too much fragmentation must be avoided. This type of arbitration is often difficult.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Along the same lines—when we were talking earlier on about the Mouvement national des Québécois and company—I suppose that the Action nationale is not recognized either, in terms of charitable receipts. I suppose that that too is a question of objectives that is such that they are not recognized by Revenue Canada. It's consistent.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I do not really follow you, but I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize that helping the French cause in Quebec is one of the Canadian government's priorities. I feel that this is important to mention, because the Larose Report glossed over that and I have trouble explaining it. For a very long time now, we have played an important role in defending the cause of French in Quebec. Federal institutions in Canada have helped the French cause in Quebec significantly, and we will continue to do so, we are resolved to do so.

The only concrete criticism from the Larose Report was first of all that we have not moved completely out of the area of immigration, that we have not handed over all responsibilities relating to immigration to the Quebec government. All that remains in federal hands in the selection of immigrants and the integration of immigrants in Quebec are refugees and family reunification, which are in any case governed by international standards.

As regards refugees, I do not understand the criticism levelled at the government of Canada. Is Mr. Larose recommending that Quebec keep only refugees who speak French? Well, that is absurd. As regards family reunification, does he want stricter criteria for non-Francophones and more liberal criteria for Francophones? That would also be absurd. However, he glossed over the fact that 35%, or more than one third of the federal government's envelope for the integration of immigrants, goes to the Quebec government, whereas the Quebec government only receives 15% of immigrants in Canada. That fact was glossed over and I cannot understand why.

The second criticism levelled at the government of Canada is that the French in signs is not more prominent than the English. This has been presented as showing a lack of respect for Quebeckers.

• 1715

All the surveys I have seen show that three quarters of Francophones from in Quebec—not Anglophones—approve of the fact that the two languages have equal status on signs. Quebec has the right to give French prominence in its signs. That has even been recognized by the Supreme Court. In any case, that is how I interpret the judgment of the Court. However, there is nothing anti-Quebec in saying that the two languages are to be equal on federal signs. We failed to see why we would spend public money to change all our signs just to please Mr. Larose.

Consequently, I think the criticism of the government of Canada is relatively pointless, whereas the positive measures taken by all federal governments received no comments. I am unable to explain that.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Mr. Chairman—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Your time is up now.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: The government is not giving any gifts to Quebeckers in any case. That is our tax money. I would like to know whether the funding you give to Alliance Quebec is included in the 52% that goes to support culture in Quebec.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Excuse me, but you have no time left for questions. You may come back on the third round, if we have one.

I would like to ask a brief question if I might, Minister, before handing the floor over to Senator Gauthier.

One of the issues the committee studied last session was the broadcasting of the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament in both official languages throughout the country. We found that there were some difficulties and some budgetary, legal and practical constraints as well. We also found that the decision seemed to lie with the Board of Internal Economy, which is a sort of combination of the will of the House and parliamentarians, but also of the influence and will of government leaders.

I would like to ask you a question. I do not know whether you can answer it, but what is the attitude of the government and its leaders regarding the broadcasting of the proceedings of Parliament in both official languages?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: The government would like this to be done. It is studying the ways of proceeding, the technological resources available. We have noted your committee's position in this regard, which, I believe, was directed to the CRTC, not the government. Mr. Boudria, the House Leader, should be announcing our reaction very soon.

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

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have three questions, Minister. First, if I understood you correctly, you told Mr. Rocheleau earlier that the Official Languages Act is on the table. This committee has been studying section 41 for months, probably years. You are familiar with it:

The Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development...

The minimalist interpretation—that is my term—of the Department of Justice, to generalize ... All the ministers I have known to date have always defined section 41 in the same way, to say that the government has not made a commitment, that this is a mere motherhood statement or resolution, and that it might do something to promote the vitality of these communities. I am sorry, but that is one of the reasons the departments have lost interest in this. Our Official Languages Act has no teeth.

In my view, section 41 of Part VII of the act is weak, incorrectly interpreted and harmful at the moment. Does the government intend to do something to improve this situation?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Of course, we must take action to improve the concrete situation, the commitment of ministers, their leadership and their sponsorship of specific initiatives. We are reviewing this very carefully.

As to whether or not section 41 is binding, if the Department of Justice gives us an interpretation, it is difficult for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to say: “No, the legal experts in the Department of Justice are mistaken.” So that is not how I see my role. I see it rather in the field, to ensure we show leadership, regardless of the way in which section 41 is interpreted.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I know all that, but it is possible to amend the act, Minister, and you know that as well as I do.

Second, you said earlier that you will not be tabling an annual report. Are you not a federal institution? Are you not one of the 27 institutions that must table annual reports on their activities? I see Mr. Anderson is saying no.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: No. If you are speaking about the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, we come under the Privy Council Office. So this is an institution that really reports to Cabinet and counts on the support we give it.

• 1720

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Are you familiar with the Committee of Deputy Ministers of Official Languages? Do you chair that body or does it report to you?

Mr. Stéphane Dion: That is Mr. Anderson.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Anderson chairs that committee. Could we meet with you some time? Would you be available to come to speak to us here at the committee?

Mr. George Anderson (Deputy Minister, Government Affairs, Privy Council Office): I have no objection to doing that, but we support the ministerial committee in our work, and in one sense, I think that what counts is what the ministers do with our work.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: If you are dissatisfied with the deputy ministers, you should be dissatisfied with the ministers, because it is up to us to ensure that the deputy ministers do a good job. That is why we are elected.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Gauthier, is that it?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is fine.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The bells are ringing for a vote that will be held in 12 minutes, I believe. So let us take another 10 minutes. We may have time for two other brief interventions. I will start with Mr. Godin, and then turn to Senator Rivest. We will close after that.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is brief.

During your presentation, Minister, you spoke about the exchange programs, particularly those involving immersion schools. In our area, that is the Bathurst Middle School. The students there are in immersion and they would be interested in exchanges. I will just outline the problem quickly. There are 141 students who want to go on exchanges to Quebec City. You were saying earlier that there were certain programs, but that they could not handle such a large number of students, except when they come here to Ottawa. Do you plan to have any programs in the future that could be geared to the needs of groups this size? I think it would be of interest to schools such as the one in Bathurst, where there are 141 students, to have everything organized. They are not asking the government to pay for everything, just part of the cost, so that the program has a chance of working.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Thank you very much. I will reply quickly, because we have only a few minutes left. Our country is huge, and its population is quite spread out. It is expensive to travel in Canada. Our climate is such that we tend to go south at vacation time. There is the language barrier as well. We have no mandatory military service, and I am not advocating that either, but in many countries, this is how young people learn about their country. All of these reasons mean that we need to strengthen our exchange programs. I could not agree more. In fact, this is mentioned in the third Red Book. We have started to reinvest in this, and we must continue, for the reasons relating to bilingualism, which I just mentioned, but also for a host of other reasons and because this is an important part of education. Young people who come back from such programs are generally enriched by them. These are experiences that will be meaningful for the rest of their lives.

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

Senator Rivest.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: I was discussing your definition of Francophones outside Quebec with my colleague, Mr. Godin, Minister, because our Francophone colleagues from Ontario do not like to be identified in terms of Quebec. I am not a Francophone outside New Brunswick. I understand your explanation, but the problem remains, I think. I am not a Francophone outside Ontario.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: Perhaps at some point we will find a social phenomenon to justify such a description.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Yes, that is it. I have learned from the beginning of my time here on the Committee on Official Languages that I should not use the expression Francophones outside Quebec.

I come back to the issue raised by Mr. Gauthier about section 41. I think you demonstrated today your desire to play a leadership role with the public service. This is very much in keeping with the mandate given to you by the Prime Minister. However, as to whether or not the section is binding, you say you are going to encourage the departments to assume their... And some day, you will no longer be in this position, and there will be someone else who is less dedicated.

The fundamental problem we have talked about many times here is that there are legal opinions as to whether or not the section is binding. We do not know the answer. When you say you will be re-examining the act at some point, one of the main challenges will be to deal with this problem. In any case, that is what I would like to see, and I think that all committee members agree. I think all those concerned about minority rights in Canada will support you. Like others, I very much hope that you make this section binding to put an end to the confusion and that the departments will then act accordingly. That is what we want.

Mr. Stéphane Dion: I would certainly agree with such an approach. All I meant was that in the meantime, we should not be using the fact that the section is not necessarily binding as an excuse not to shake up some departments that deserve to be shaken up.

• 1725

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

Committee members and colleagues, we will try to have a steering committee meeting next Tuesday, the 25th, and next Wednesday, we will be hearing from Ms. Adam, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the day after she presents her report.

In closing, it remains only for me to thank you, Minister, for the seriousness of your presentation. If I followed the discussions correctly, I understand that you will be back a little later this year, once the work you have undertaken has progressed, so that we can see the emergence of some action plan. Thank you and good afternoon.