LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 12, 1998

• 1534

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): Order! Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to all witnesses.

Our witnesses today are from the Department of Canadian Heritage and Treasury Board. Since I'm sure this is not the first time you've appeared before the committee, I'm sure you are familiar with our procedure. We ask you to start by making your presentation, and then we have a question and answer period.

• 1535

I believe we will be starting with you, Mr. Moyer. Is that correct? You have the floor.

Mr. Norman Moyer (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Citizenship and Identity, Department of Canadian Heritage): Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Norman Moyer, and I am the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for canadian citizenship and identity programs.

[English]

Included in that is the responsibility for the official languages programs of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I have a presentation that will take, if I run through it at a normal pace, about 30 minutes. If you want to indicate to me before I start that you would like me to do it faster than that, I would be willing to try to do it more quickly.

[Translation]

If I continue to make my presentation at this speed, it will take me about 30 minutes. Is that acceptable?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.)): Mr. Moyer, there is a vote at 5:15, so if you take 30 minutes—

[Translation]

You did say 30 minutes?

Mr. Norman Moyer: Yes, that is what I said, and I asked you whether—

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Try to do it in 25 minutes, okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Norman Moyer: I will do my best and shorten up some points from time to time. I apologize in advance for that.

I will start by giving you a brief historical context to ensure that everyone understands when our department's programs were set up .

One of the basic principles of Canada is that its two language groups be well represented in its institutions. Initially, the government tried to introduce an assimilation model. Lord Durham's plan, which was designed to assimilate one group into the other, did not work, and since Confederation, Canada has been founded on the coexistence of two language groups functioning on an equal footing in Canada.

Since that time, since the Constitution Act, we have made slow but steady progress in implementing practices to promote Canada's two language groups. The major changes, if I can move quickly to this point in history, began toward the end of the 1960's. They occurred as a result of the Royal Commission on bilingualism and Biculturalism, which gave rise to the first Official Languages Act.

Since that time, the department I represent or its predecessors have had programs related to the development of minority language communities, either the anglophones in Quebec or francophones in other parts of Canada. Our efforts began with education support programs, which I will talk about at greater length when we get into a detailed description of our programs.

The Canadian Charter, which was implemented by the 1982 Constitution, was also an important step forward. At that time, with the agreement of the federal government and the other governments that signed the Constitution, rights were given to francophones and anglophones throughout Canada particularly in the area of education.

In 1988, a new Official Languages Act was passed. For the first time, there was direct reference to support for official minority communities in the legislation. This gave rise to a series of programs that still exist, and I will be speaking about them in a few moments.

The special measures introduced regarding school governance became a cornerstone of the assistance we provide to provinces in their efforts to implement the Charter. Finally, in 1994, the Prime Minister announced in Moncton a much more stringent process for implementing sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act. That added another dimension to our programs.

[English]

The next few slides touch quickly on the legislative framework. It is very important to look at our programs in the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the rights of English and French in federal institutions, provides for service to the public by federal institutions, and provides for minority language education.

The revised Official Languages Act really is the basis on which all of our programs are formulated today. It aims at equality in legislative and judicial proceedings of the federal government, equitable access to federal institutions, and the enhanced vitality of communities. So it goes beyond just the language of service or careers into looking at whether or not official-language minority communities in Canada have the institutions and the support that they need not just to survive, but to prosper.

• 1540

The federal government is committed to this vitality. It has been part of an essential vision of the governments of Canada since the late 1960s such that it would be possible to grow up, have children, have a career, and live one's life in both official languages in this country anywhere in Canada. Our department plays a very strong role in that through the programs I'm going to describe for you today.

I want to talk briefly about some of our principal partners, the people we work with in delivering our programs, so that you know who the people are who you know as groups and constituents and who we deal with as program partners.

There are minority-language communities throughout Canada. There are almost a million francophone Canadians who live outside of Quebec. They therefore live in a situation as a minority population that can be as large as 30% in the province of New Brunswick or as small as a fraction of 1% in Newfoundland. Those people are living in French, working in French, and trying to bring up their children in French.

We have a population of 600,000 anglophones in Quebec who are also a target—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Moyer, in your own official-languages documents, you list the minority Quebec population of English-speaking persons at 904,305. Where does the 622,000 come from?

Mr. Norman Moyer: What was the first document you referenced?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Existing Canada-community agreements, source: OLSP, Quebec: 904,305 English-speaking.

Mr. Norman Moyer: I'd have to look at that document.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I'll show it to you.

Mr. Norman Moyer: The 622,000 is the correct number, so we're going to have to correct other documents if they have the wrong number in them.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Your first set of documents a year and a half ago put it at 1.2 million, now this document says 904,305, and now I see it's 622,000. Are you trying to tell me that the English community has been extinguishing itself at that rate? I find that rather startling and also very disquieting.

Mr. Norman Moyer: No, I think the problem is with the numbers. There has been a decline in the English population in Quebec—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Not to 622,000.

Mr. Norman Moyer: This is the number that the 1996 Statistics Canada census has reported. It's important that we use that base. I'm not sure what the base is for the other numbers. We'll look at those and get back to you with an analysis of what they mean.

There are problems in statistics with definitions, and you can define groups in different ways. We're probably dealing with a definitional problem here, but I can't pinpoint it for you until I look—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I just wanted you to sort of help my heart attack. I know I lost all my children and grandchildren, but I didn't think I lost all my neighbours too.

Mr. Norman Moyer: As well as individuals, those groups are organized into community groups. We work extensively with community groups in the minority communities. We work with provincial governments. We work with them particularly in the field of education, but also in the general provision of services to minority populations.

We work, as well, with groups in the majority. We've worked extensively like Canadian Parents for French, who have been in the vanguard of involving Canadian parents in educating their children in French.

We work with other federal institutions. We have a particular responsibility to coordinate other federal institutions in the way that they apply sections 41 and 42 of the law.

[Translation]

I'll now introduce the main part of my comments and talk about the tools we use, namely our federal-provincial agreements, agreements involving special initiatives, and agreements on other services. These are all part of our relationship with our partners, the provinces.

I will also be talking about the tools we have to work directly with the communities. This is a series of measures for minority official language communities.

• 1545

Finally, I will discuss the way we promote linguistic duality in Canadian society.

Federal-provincial agreements have existed for 25 years. For the current year, their total budget is $170 million, which is distributed among the various federal-provincial agreements. These agreements are set up for a five-year period, and expired at the end of March of this year. We are currently negotiating a protocol for agreements with the Council of Ministers of Education for the next five years.

We also have programs under these agreements for minority official language communities, namely education in the language of the minority in the province, and education in the second language for the majority, which is an important part of our programs. We provide $2.2 million in support for anglophones studying French as a second language. We also provide assistance for 600,000 young Quebec francophones who have chosen to study English as a second language.

We also have federal-provincial agreements on the services provided by the provinces to their minority communities. Sometimes, these services cover the whole range of services provided by a province. In other cases, the agreements apply to certain services only, such as health care, for example. The role of the federal government is to help provincial governments who are starting to offer certain services to their minority, so that there is equality of services in all provinces. We have a budget of close to $8 million for these agreements every year.

I will now discuss school governance and post-secondary education. Since the introduction of the Charter, which gave minority communities the right to manage their own schools, we have helped provinces in Easter and Western Canada set up their own school governance systems. This is being done in the six provinces mentioned on this page, and we are currently negotiating with the province of Ontario.

Last year, Ontario announced that it would be setting up a school governance system for francophones, and the negotiations should produce an agreement very soon.

Under the same program, we have helped establish post- secondary institutions at the University of Moncton, the Collège universitaire in Saint-Boniface and a number of other such institutions in Ontario and elsewhere.

Let us now look at the assistance provided directly to communities. Community participation is essential to their vitality, to helping us work with their members to define and promote their identity. We have 13 agreements which amount to about $22 million a year. There are more than 350 organizations, which you often hear about in your work and with which you must be quite familiar. These agreements help the communities to plan and set up their own programs to enhance their vitality. We provide financial support for these groups.

The agreements with communities will be expiring in about 10 months, and we are already discussing their renewal, which will occur in April of next year.

Under the Official Languages Act, all institutions or federal departments or agencies must provide specific assistance to minority communities. Sections 41 and 42 of Part VII of the Act require this of all departments and agencies.

• 1550

At the moment, 27 institutions are responsible for coordinating, planning and reporting on these responsibilities. The institutions in question are designated in the Act and have a special responsibility for planning and reporting specifically on what they have done for these developing communities.

The priority areas this year under sections 41 and 42 are: culture, an important aspect in the life of these communities; human resources, an area in which there are already a number of important structures in place between a number of federal departments and the communities; and economic development.

In this context, I would like to mention an agreement that was signed last year between the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, which describes how the plans drawn up by the various departments will be incorporated into their annual planning process.

Treasury Board is now a partner with us in reviewing these strategic plans drawn up each year in accordance with sections 41 and 42.

Finally, some of our programs are directly designed to promote duality. We are involved in exchange programs. We have assistance in classrooms and grant recipients who travel in the summer to live in the other linguistic community. We help the voluntary sector hold its meetings in both languages. We also work with the commercial language sector.

This year, we began the process of renewing our programs.

[English]

We started with an announcement on March 18 that announced the new funding of $75 million for school governance in Ontario. We announced the extension for another five years of the exchange programs in place in the context of these programs. We also announced the renewal of the Official Languages in Education program for another five years, at the reduced budget levels that had been put in place as a result of program review.

The Court Challenges program was not part of this budget. The program was maintained at its funding level. The minister has announced that it will be maintained at that level for another five years.

The table figures on page 14 show you a bit of what has happened to funding, in the principal areas I've talked to you about, over the last four years. Those of you in contact with our communities know they have felt the impact of program review, as have Canadians in every area. The impacts they've felt are clearly illustrated by the types of reductions that have been necessary as part of what we have done, but when they say that they have less money available to them to do things, they're absolutely right. We're working with them on strategies to get other sources of revenue, but it's very difficult in small communities, and often very rural communities, to develop secondary sources of revenue to replace the revenues that were there when governments provided more.

Page 15 puts in percentage terms an idea of the types of cuts people have had to absorb in the system. We tried to limit the cuts to community associations, and there they were cut overall only by 15%. On the other hand, the assistance that flows through the provincial agreements has been reduced by as much as 26%. In the end, those reduction numbers show up in real capacities, in classrooms and in other opportunities. These are moneys that matter to these communities.

[Translation]

I will close by telling you about the next steps. We are in the process of negotiating a school governance agreement with Ontario. We are negotiating with the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada to extend our agreements. Next year, we will be renewing the Canada Community agreements, and we are negotiating agreements on other services provided by the provinces. Thank you.

• 1555

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest (Stadacona, PC): Unfortunately, I will have to leave soon. I have just one question to ask our witness.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Fine, please proceed.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Thank you.

You described Heritage Canada's programs and I'm sure my colleagues will be exploring the various components of them, as we always do. You listed them, gave us some background, talked about agreements in the area of education, all as though nothing ever happened. However, the most recent statistics show that francophones outside Quebec are being assimilated at a greater rate every year.

I assume the department is aware of that. Is there anything being done to counter this phenomenon which has existed since the introduction of the Official Languages Act, in fact since the time of the Constitution, and which is getting worse? Is there particular concern about the assimilation of francophones outside Quebec? Or are you just going along on your merry way, complying with what was required by law in 1988 and 1982?

I see no sense of urgency in your presentation, and yet, because of these figures, francophone communities outside Quebec are trying to make the department aware of the problem. I think you are proceeding with your regular programs as though nothing were happening. Is my perception incorrect?

Mr. Norman Moyer: First of all, there's an ongoing follow-up in terms of research and understanding. We track the situation of minority communities in Canada as we receive data from Statistics Canada or elsewhere. We can see the very difficult, yet very positive, development of some of these communities.

Where possible, we have pushed as far as possible the implementation programs, despite the budgets cuts. That is why there's a slight difference in the protection provided to the various communities. Some community receive fewer cuts than others. We thought that by maintaining the vitality of community groups, we would maintain a significant core to which communities could turn to continue their fight to survive.

We focused our efforts on our most dynamic programs, which are those that implement sections 41 and 42. In the last few years, we have adopted some more concrete, significant strategies in the area of human resources development. We were able to do this because of community leadership and because of the awareness of the department which prepared to work in this area with partners such as Western Economic Diversification and ACOA in Eastern Canada.

We have achieved certain things in this area and we are trying to do more, as I mentioned, in the areas of culture, tourism, and economic development generally.

I would say this is where we have focused our efforts and where we can see the most progress coming despite the reduction in resources. There is certainly no evidence of an attitude of "business as usual" in our sector. However, we have to deliver the goods, and I came here to tell you about what we are doing at the moment.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): I know you have to leave to vote. That is why the other Joint Chair left as well. Do you have to take part in the vote? No. Fine. Then you may continue.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: I have a more understanding whip.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): There you are. You are lucky.

Ms. Meredith.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a couple of comments to make, and I would ask you to react to them. I would question the comparison, perhaps, of the reality of Ottawa and perhaps Montreal, where you have bilingual areas and people live and work in both official languages, or the language of their choice, with the reality I experience in Vancouver, with a population of over 1.5 million people in the Greater Vancouver area.

• 1600

When you mentioned that people are living and working in French outside of Quebec, do you mean in isolated pockets, do you mean in isolated communities, or are you implying that this is a reality outside of the Ottawa-Montreal area?

Mr. Norman Moyer: I guess it goes in kind of a gradient as you move away from the strong base that exists in Quebec and eastern Ontario, but certainly there are a lot of communities in New Brunswick, as you know quite well, where the whole range of social-economic activities take place in French. That's true in important communities in northern Ontario, and there are communities in Manitoba that are still strongly francophone and where people do work and educate and lead their lives in French. The same thing is true in smaller communities farther west in Canada.

I admit that while there are families who, if they try really hard, can live and bring up their children in French in Vancouver, it's going to be very difficult to have an economic life in which you can live and work and do your business in French.

The most signal characteristic of people who live in minority communities is an immense personal social determination to carry on living in the language of their culture, and it's through that determination, actually, that this carries on. It would be very easy to be attracted away from it.

Ms. Val Meredith: But what I'm referring to is when people talk about assimilation, it would be very, very difficult for a French family in Vancouver to work in that language, unless you are a teacher in an immersion school or in the French school system. It's almost suggesting a reality that isn't there. I just don't think it's possible. You may refer to it as assimilation, but it's just the reality. They can maintain their language within their home and within their social community, but in the workplace it's virtually impossible.

The other issue I want to raise, because it is the reality of the Vancouver area, mainly, and not only the Vancouver area but I understand perhaps in other areas as well, is when you talk about minority languages in the Greater Vancouver area, over 50% of the students who have enrolled in the Vancouver school board are using English as a second language. We're seeing perhaps not as great a threat to the English language in that community, but there doesn't seem to be any commitment at all by the federal government to assist the local school boards in helping to finance the protection of the English language in their communities.

So I would like to ask you, is the official languages program specifically designated to protect anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside of Quebec, or does it look at the changing dynamics of the communities where anglophones may find themselves in minority situations outside of Quebec?

Mr. Norman Moyer: The Official Languages Act is specifically designed to promote the maintenance of French and English as valid, viable languages across the country.

The programs that are set up under that act and the intention of the act are, as you described, to basically help people in three categories, or four categories, if you want. The groups that are targeted by this are people who are in the minority anglophone population in Quebec, to be able to maintain their anglophone culture; people who are in the minority francophone culture who wish to maintain their culture outside of Quebec; people in the majority in either Quebec or in the provinces other than Quebec who wish to acquire the second official language.

The Official Languages Act does not target the problem you pointed to, the preservation of the majority language in provinces where that is the prime preoccupation of the provincial educational system.

Ms. Val Meredith: The flip side of that would be if there is a threat to the French language in Quebec, that the Official Languages Act per se would not see that they had any role in preserving the French language within the province of Quebec.

• 1605

Mr. Norman Moyer: The Official Languages Act, as it's currently structured, would not provide us with any role for participating in that issue.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Federal institutions only.

[Translation]

Please proceed.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): I am going to be talking about certain expenditures in which you were involved, Mr. Moyer. I will take a couple of minutes to give some background. This is a very sensitive matter.

In 1995, Treasury Board earmarked some additional funding for the Official Languages Program so as to provide funding for Option Canada, a token body set up by the Council for Canadian Unity, which was used as a secret fund by the federalists during the referendum campaign.

Right in the middle of the referendum campaign, Heritage Canada gave this organization $4.8 million, even though the Quebec's Referendum Act provided that each umbrella committee, the Yes committee and the No committee, should have a maximum of $5 million. The Auditor General wrote to the Department twice to get clarification about how the money had been spent.

The second letter from the Auditor General, dated April 20, was not forwarded to us, because we had asked for it through Heritage Canada. When we asked for it, Heritage Canada told us to request it under the Access to Information Act, rather than simply giving us the Auditor General's letter. We made such a request to the Access to Information authorities on May 5, and we have not yet received an answer.

The other people involved in this matter included Ms. d'Auray, who was appointed to a senior position at the National Film Board. There was also Claude Dauphin, the person who applied for the grant, who is now a senior political advisor to the Minister of Finance. Howard Balloch, who admitted spending the money, is now Canada's Ambassador to China. You too were involved in this matter. On August 22, 1997, you received a report from Ms. Scotton, the Director of Departmental Review. You acknowledged receipt of the report on September 3, 1997.

In January 1998, you told the media that the Auditor General was asking for additional information and that, for you part, you were satisfied with the fact that an additional directive, which you issued, stated that in future the Department should follow the rules in such cases. So you admitted that it had not followed them in the past. You also added that given that the Department had provided a grant, not a contribution, you could not ask for any further explanations from Option Canada, given that accountability does not apply to grants.

My question is brief: do you think, today, that your Department must apply all moral and political pressure necessary on Option Canada in order to meet the requirements of the Auditor General of Canada, who wants to know what you did with the money, which you are still trying to hide? You are involved in this matter, Mr. Moyer, and you are very familiar with it. I want to know the truth.

Mr. Norman Moyer: You've raised an important issue and described the background to it in detail. I would like to reply in the same way.

I learned that Option Canada had been given some funding a little over a year ago, in March, when some comments in The Gazette questioned the merits of this contribution. After reading a comment in La Presse, I decided to have an internal audit done on the way in which this contribution was administered.

• 1610

The report you mentioned, which I received in August, summarized a number of procedures that should have been in place when this application was analyzed, and which were not followed.

In January, when I said that we had taken steps to ensure that in the future we would not respond so quickly without having the necessary information, the reason was that I acknowledged that in this case we had not received all the information we should have received according to the procedures in place at the time. We spoke to all the program officers in our sector, and we reminded them how important this is. I must say that most of them were already aware of that and this is not a problem that occurs very often, in very many programs.

Since that time, we have gone to Option Canada twice. I should add that this organization is no longer functioning. It does not have a director. It exists on paper, but does not have any officers. There's only a legal firm acting for Option Canada, but its activities are very limited.

We received two other reports and we made them public. The reports state that Option Canada had used the funds provided by the federal government for the purposes set out in the application form.

In our view, it is impossible to go back a third time. We believe Option Canada gave us everything it could.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Your answer tells me that the $5 million taken from Heritage Canada, were given to people who set up a secret fund, and that these people spent the money without following the usual procedures. All this was done right in the middle of the referendum campaign in contravention of the Quebec Referendum, which provides a maximum sum for each side.

I therefore ask you—

An Hon. Member: —

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]—

Mr. Louis Plamondon: That is exactly what he said.

Mr. Norman Moyer: Excuse me, I never spoke about a fund. You've made many accusations, which I certainly do not have to—

Mr. Louis Plamondon: But you did say that the usual procedure—

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Order. Hello. Hello!

[Translation]

Mr. Norman Moyer: That is all I said.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Excuse me.

I will allow you to continue your questions for another five minutes. You have already gone ten minutes. Please recall that there are other people here who have some questions to ask, and there is a vote.

So you have another five minutes to complete your question, if you wish.

[Translation]

Have you finished?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I would just like to complete my question. If you want me to wait, I don't mind, Madame Chair.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Go ahead. Finish your question.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: You told me that the usual procedures were not followed in granting this $5 million. Do you agree with that?

Since there is a possible scandal, are you prepared to table with the committee all the relevant documents of which you are aware, since you were the person who ordered the inquiry? I'm referring to the documents from Ms. Scotton, who gave you a report in her capacity as Director of departmental reviews, the letters from the Auditor General, making specific requests about expenditures, and the answers you got from Option Canada through its lawyers.

Mr. Norman Moyer: We have already made all these documents public.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Not the letter from the Auditor General.

Mr. Norman Moyer: As far as the last letter goes—

Mr. Louis Plamondon: The letter of April 20.

Mr. Norman Moyer: —you were asked to submit an official request.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Why are you not providing it? Why are you asking me to go through the Access to Information procedure?

Mr. Norman Moyer: Because the letter is from the Auditor General. He is entitled to decide what is—

Mr. Louis Plamondon: He agrees.

Mr. Norman Moyer: That is what we are checking at the moment. If he agrees, we will be sending the letter.

• 1615

The Auditor General has the right to do that. That is why we asked for an official request. If the Auditor General agrees, the letter will be made public. All the other documents are already in the public domain. They have been—

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

Mr. Paradis, please.

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Moyer, I would like to come back to your presentation and to the table you gave us. There are two aspects to Heritage Canada's mandate: first of all, the federal government agrees to promote the vitality and support the development of official language minority communities, and second, to promote the full recognition and use of both languages in Canadian society.

I'm quite convinced that on the first point, the protection of minority groups in this country, you are playing a tremendous role. I'm referring to anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec.

Today, I would rather focus on the second point, and I would like to talk more about promoting full recognition of the two official languages in Canadian society. Further on, on page 4 of your presentation, you suggest ways of promoting equality, such as supporting language learning and fostering an appreciation of the two languages.

I would like to focus more on the idea of full recognition and use of the two official languages, rather than the protection of minority language groups in the country. This part of your mandate, which may perhaps be more representative of what Canada should be, is designed to encourage most people to speak English and French.

In that context, I would like to tell you something that happened to me in the last two years involving the student exchange program. Last summer, we were involved in a student exchange pilot project. We dealt with your department, which asked who could manage the exchange program. This was our answer. I just wanted to give you an idea of the attitude that exists in your department. The answer was that in provinces outside Quebec, the program could be managed by the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne française, while in Quebec, it could be the Quebec Young Farmers' Association.

So the answer was that the Quebec Young Farmers' Association could look after an official languages exchange and immersion program. I said that was ridiculous. It made no sense for the Quebec Young Farmers' Association to place anglophone students from elsewhere in the country in French-speaking families in Quebec. People would protest because the idea is so illogical.

In other words, senior department officials seem to want to protect minority groups. That was my impression based on my dealings with your department.

That is why I wanted to focus more today on Canada's linguistic duality. How can we ensure that people in our country are bilingual? I refer you to page 6, where you talk about the tools you use. The first you mention is inter-governmental co- operation. The second is community development and the Canada Community and inter-departmental agreements. The third is the promotion of linguistic duality. These are the three tools you identify.

The first tool seems to me to have a lot of structural aspect. Under "Intergovernmental Cooperation" there are instructional agreements with area of education agreements under the special initiative for school governance and agreements for other services. When I read that, I get the impression that Heritage Canada is a department that signs agreements. What are they doing to promote what I am trying to promote, that is linguistic duality, besides signing agreements?

Secondly, these are agreements with communities and groups. I imagine that the agreements with communities are mainly with minority communities.

My third point is that promoting linguistic duality seems to me to be the most important objective in terms of our discussion today.

• 1620

In the overall activities of Heritage Canada, I do not feel that linguistic duality is emphasized as much as it should be.

I will now move on to my specific questions. For example, on page 7, you say that 2.2 million children, in provinces other than Quebec, I suppose, are studying French as a second language and that 600,000 children in Quebec are studying English as a second language. How does that work? Who is doing that? This is a technical question.

My second question deals with one of the aspects of promoting linguistic duality. You talk about a national exchange program, which involves 7,000 young people; that does not seem a lot for a country like ours. If we want to promote linguistic duality, maybe more young people should be going back and forth between French and English environments.

Mr. Norman Moyer: I will try to address various aspects of that question, but I will first talk about the situation as a whole. It is true that we direct considerable efforts toward minority communities. They are a priority target for us.

To fulfil the vision of a Canada at ease in both languages, it is essential to preserve those communities. For us, this is a special target group that we will continue to treat as such. But that is not all that we do.

We are very concerned about promoting linguistic duality as a concept and we do so through various practical means. You mentioned our agreements with the provinces, which may seem administrative and trivial, but you went on to talk about the issue of second language learning.

We feel that the best way to promote bilingualism is a program that helps 2.2 million young anglophones learn French and 600,000 young francophones in Quebec learn English. There is nothing better to promote duality than practical programs.

Mr. Denis Paradis: In concrete terms, who is the money given to and who gives the courses?

Mr. Norman Moyer: The money is given to the provinces under our agreement on official languages in education. Part of the money given to a province goes to instruction of the minority language group in its first language and part of it goes to teaching the second language to the majority language group.

The assistance given to the anglophone majority to help them learn French is divided into two parts. There is a whole system of immersion education, which was created in English Canada to teach French to young anglophones. Immersion is supported through this funding to each province. There are also more traditional courses in French as a second language given in elementary and secondary schools in Ontario.

The money is given through agreements with the provinces, but it goes to the classrooms.

Mr. Denis Paradis: For example, my daughter is nine and goes to school in Bedford. She would like to take English immersion courses in Bedford. Where could she find that? Where can she find my federal dollars in the system?

Mr. Norman Moyer: I do not know enough about the Bedford School Board. The immersion system for people who want to study English in Quebec is very recent. There are a few pilot projects going on right now.

In the traditional English as a second language courses, I could trace your dollar more easily. It is part of a contribution. Finally, we do not know what is the percentage of the cost of English as a second language teaching because we do not have sufficiently detailed data with the provinces to say that a given dollar went to a given institution with a given number of provincial dollars.

• 1625

Mr. Denis Paradis: So the money is given to the Ministry of Education, which spends it under the overall auspices of the federal-provincial agreement in that area. You have no data showing how many students in a given school board have taken English as a second language courses or, French as a second language courses. Does your accounting system show that the federal dollars were spent on second-language teaching?

Mr. Norman Moyer: We can tell what proportion of the money was invested in courses for English as a second language, but we do not know how much money went to a given institution. We have never tried to get that information and I believe that it would be very difficult to find out.

What is important for us, at our level, is to know that a proportion of that money is invested in providing instruction in English as a second language or in French as a second language elsewhere in Canada. We have those figures.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Do you have data that show that in Quebec, for example, there are so many francophone students taking courses in English as a second language and that, in Ontario, there are so many English students taking courses in French as a second language?

Mr. Norman Moyer: We have that data and we know how much of our money has been invested in second-language teaching. That is about all.

Mr. Denis Paradis: All right.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Have you finished?

Mr. Denis Paradis: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): May we also address questions to Mr. Parker?

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

Mr. Denis Coderre: I would like to come back to the question of the 27 designated institutions that come under sections 41 and 42 and the institutions that are not subject to those sections.

The problem is as follows. At a meeting with the CRTC last week, we found out that the CRTC is not covered by the Official Languages Act.

Mr. Norman Moyer: May I say something right away?

Mr. Denis Coderre: Yes.

Mr. Norman Moyer: It is not correct to say that the CRTC is not covered by the act. The act says that any federal government institution, department or agency is subject to the act, but there is one thing that the CRTC is not required to do. If it was designated in sections 41 and 42, it would be required to prepare a detailed plan and reports and be a little more transparent in its actions. But that does not change its obligations in any way. The act requires all institutions to promote minority language communities.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Where I do not agree with your interpretation is that we have found out that, for so-called economic reasons, the CRTC has its own regulations. We were told, for example, that in Timmins the population is 51% anglophone and 39% francophone. Even though francophones account for 39% of the market, they do not have the right to adequate services in terms of French broadcast channels. Ironically, even Ottawa is considered to be an anglophone market.

We realize that new agencies are being created, perhaps because this is one way of redefining the role of the State. A meat inspection agency has been created, there is thought of making Revenue Canada and Parks Canada into agencies. The reality is that you are talking to us about transparency, reporting requirements, etc.

I see this as somewhat of a paradox. If these agencies were subject to sections 41 and 42, like the 27 designated institutions, do you not think that we could protect linguistic duality better, that is French outside Quebec and English in Quebec? Would people in Saint-Boniface and Batoche not be better protected if these institutions were covered by sections 41 and 42?

People are always apologizing because programs are not bilingual. The best example is the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program. At the Agriculture Committee, of which I am a member, their answer was: "Yes, yes, we are subject to the Official Languages Act, but we apologize; we are going to develop another program that will be only in French".

• 1630

In my view, that is not what Canada is about. Instead, there should be access to both languages. If that is all there is to it, why would we not make the new agencies that are being created subject to sections 41 and 42 like the 27 departments, agencies and Crown corporations that are already covered?

Mr. Norman Moyer: We favoured the idea of designating key institutions that should be subject to sections 41 and 42. We believe that adding responsibility for planning and reporting is a useful safeguard. We have already undertaken discussions with the CRTC on this. I have no hesitation in saying that Parks Canada should be designated, and it will be. That is quite normal. It is not special.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I would like to see the new act indicate that the new Parks Canada Agency will be considered a Crown corporation and will be subject to sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act. My problem relates to accountability as such.

Mr. Norman Moyer: There is a problem and I am not really the best person to give you an answer on that. You are asking me if it would be good to indicate in the new legislation that an existing act must apply to a given agency. If I understand correctly, people are concerned that, if we start to designate agencies in new legislation, the agencies that are not designated will say: "That does not affect me because there is no special legislation requiring me to do this". This could weaken an act that is very important to us, that is the Official Languages Act. Section 41 applies to all institutions now. Any institution, whether it is designated or not, can be approached and asked what it is doing.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I agree with you on the importance of the act's application. However, Mr. Moyer, why do we hear that 27 institutions are subject to these sections and that the others are not, when they are covered in any case? You are basically telling me that the act applies anyway.

Mr. Norman Moyer: The difference lies in the obligation to prepare plans and reports and to make them public. That is an important difference in our opinion. That is why we are in favour of adding institutions.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Do you believe that if you require an institution to prepare reports and plans that this gives you more teeth in enforcing official languages policies?

Mr. Norman Moyer: It is one way of making them more accessible to communities. The communities can read the plans and see if their interests are reflected. They can contact the institutions, using a written document as the basis. It is a big help to them in that way.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Excuse me. To clarify, please, what Monsieur Coderre is asking—and it's very important—Mr. Parker, you're with Treasury Board?

Mr. Jeff Parker (Acting Assistant Secretary, Social and Cultural Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Yes, I am.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Your obligation, in the context of the mandate that was given you and the joint signature that was undertaken between you and Heritage Canada, is for you to apply for a work program that will ensure that the official languages, both English and French, will be properly administered. That's your responsibility. The philosophy and the vision are in Heritage, and your job is to see that the work plans are presented.

Could you please answer Mr. Coderre with respect to the difference between the work plan obligation under the 27 organizations and the general responsibility for any organization that is para-governmental?

Mr. Jeff Parker: To the best of my ability I will.

As Mr. Moyer indicated, the Official Languages Act covers all government ministries and organizations. The requirement to report is basically specified in terms of the major organizations. I can't give you more specifics than that, because that's not an area I'm responsible for. I would have to provide you with information and bring it back to you.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Parker, what are your responsibilities exactly?

• 1635

[English]

Mr. Jeff Parker: I'm responsible for the social and cultural program sectors within Treasury Board.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: So we are also talking about the memorandum of understanding.

[English]

Mr. Jeff Parker: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: You have come to talk to us about the memorandum of understanding or cultural program at Treasury Board, is that right?

[English]

Mr. Jeff Parker: No. That particular memorandum is the responsibility of a different section of Treasury Board. We were identified to be here because we thought there might be questions concerning the budget and the program expenditures of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: So you are not the person who can answer my questions about the memorandum of understanding?

Mr. Jeff Parker: No.

Mr. Denis Coderre: We are pleased to see you here.

Mr. Moyer, I agree concerning the memorandum of understanding and I hope that it will be abided by, but according to what I heard last week about the CRTC, linguistic duality, often for economic reasons, is unfortunately not respected; I will explain.

Even though the CBC, the great CBC, submits a work plan stating that it will ensure X, Y and Z cultural programming over the next five years for francophones outside Quebec, it will not be able to implement that plan if budgets are cut. Even where there is a plan, how can we ensure that linguistic duality is upheld?

Mr. Norman Moyer: The Act requires everyone to uphold linguistic duality. You mentioned the CBC. The CBC is a designated organization. It is one of the 27. It is therefore covered by the Act not only generally but specifically, and is required to prepare a report and a detailed work plan of what it will do. That plan is open and available to communities. Communities can use the plan to ask questions and to exercise pressure on the CBC.

These are instruments that exist, but there is nothing to ensure that, in a context where the CBC or any other organization suffers budget cuts, there will not be an impact on majority language or minority language communities. That is no doubt what happened.

Being designated makes the plans and reports more transparent but does not change the organization's obligations.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Moyer, we are in agreement. I am not asking my questions to be critical. I am trying to find the best tools possible, as a legislator, to ensure that the Act is enforced. But I am realizing that there are some paradoxes.

First, I am very pleased to see that our expenditures have been brought under control, but on the other hand, I want to ensure that official languages and linguistic duality are upheld. Even when there is a memorandum of understanding, it is impossible, very often for economic reasons, to guarantee that the needs of francophone community outside Quebec will be met because, for economic reasons, there may be program cuts. I raised the example of the CBC on purpose, because it is one of the 27 designated organizations. Just imagine an organization that is not on that list.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Thank you, Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Moyer.

[English]

in your wrap-up, you could address the general issue.

There are three questions of five minutes coming up, Madame Losier-Cool has a question and I have a question, and at 5.05 p.m. we have a motion.

Five minutes, and I mean five minutes, okay? Thank you.

Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do want to clarify some of the budget information we've been given. There are two areas I want clarification on. You have table 2, which is grants to organizations, with an explanation of where those grants go to; and then you have table 3, which is contributions to organizations, with the same definition. What's the difference? Why are you duplicating this money going out to organizations?

Mr. Norman Moyer: I can't quite grasp your question, because I don't have in front of me the right piece of paper.

• 1640

Ms. Val Meredith: Okay, I'm sorry. It's something that was prepared for us by the legislative researchers here.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): We'll give him a copy.

Ms. Val Meredith: Okay.

Then my other question, while you're getting that information, seeing as I'm on a timeframe, is on the court challenges program. I am curious as to why there would be any reference to court challenges in your budget when that should come under, I would think, the Department of Justice. Why is there any reference to expenditures in the court challenges program? And if you can justify it, why the difference between one year and the other to the extent of about 60%?

Mr. Norman Moyer: I'll start with the easy part of the answer to your question and maybe my colleague, Hilaire Lemoine, will be able to help me struggle through the second part.

The reason the court challenges program is discussed in the documentation of the Department of Canadian Heritage is that we are responsible for the financing of the court challenges program. It has been part of our budget since the program was created.

Ms. Val Meredith: What part of the court challenges program?

Mr. Norman Moyer: We finance the groups that are applying for assistance in the court challenges program. All of that money is voted to the Department of Canadian Heritage, and we administer that program on behalf of the government. That's why it's covered here.

It is not, however, part of the official languages programming that we were primarily talking about here today. It is one of my responsibilities in the Canadian identity branch, for which I'm also responsible.

Specifically on the tables, could you tell me exactly where you were looking?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): It's page 2, table 2, Mr. Moyer.

Mr. Norman Moyer: This is grants to organizations.

Ms. Val Meredith: And then if you look under table 3, which is contributions, the second part of that is contributions to organizations, and the reference is exactly the same. To me, grants and contributions are exactly the same thing, and I'm wondering why you feel it necessary to put it in two different tables, two different functions.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Perhaps our researcher could answer that.

Ms. Françoise Coulombe (Committee Researcher): It's taken from the blue book. It reproduces the wording of the blue book.

Mr. Norman Moyer: I'm just trying to understand the question, because there are two different categories of financial assistance that we give: grants and contributions.

Ms. Val Meredith: What is the difference between a grant and a contribution?

Mr. Norman Moyer: A grant is generally given for the broad purpose of sustaining an organization. It does not require a specific project plan or specific project reports. A contribution is made generally in respect of a specific idea or project that is presented to us that we want to support because we think that project is valid. It requires much more detailed planning and reporting. In a broad sense, that's the distinction between a grant and a contribution.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You have one minute.

Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you.

I'm going to use my one minute to deal with a question that was asked about linguistic duality. I have real difficulty with the concept of expecting every Canadian, from coast to coast to coast, to be fluent in both English and French.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Point of order.

Ms. Val Meredith: In my riding, fewer than 20 individuals have identified themselves as unilingual francophone, and hundreds of individuals have identified themselves as unilingual—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): The point of order has precedence.

Ms. Val Meredith: It wasn't recognized.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Linguistic duality does not mean that everyone has to speak both languages. It means that, even in Jurassic Park, people can have access to things in French.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Okay. Your minute is up. Thank you very much.

Monsieur Plamondon.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Are you not going to answer?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I would like to come back to my question about Option Canada, which you seem to be very fond of. You talked earlier of contributions versus grants, with respect to Option Canada. It seems to me that you said that it was a grant.

Mr. Norman Moyer: Yes, a grant.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: In that case, you do less detailed follow-up than if it were a contribution.

Mr. Norman Moyer: That is correct.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: But you also said that, unfortunately, the grant was awarded too quickly and that in the future this would not happen. I would like to know if some officials were suspended or punished for having acted in that way and for turning over $5 million.

• 1645

Mr. Norman Moyer: No. We just reminded those involved in issues like these of their responsibilities. Let me just point out that I did not say the grant had been made too quickly. I said there had been no argument.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: You said that normal procedures were not followed. That's why I think we could have penalized those who did not follow standard procedures. Since those people were not penalized, I suppose their actions were in line with political directives.

But as for yourself, as a man, as a deputy minister and advisor to the various departments involved in this, don't you find it a little strange that, at the same time that significant cuts were being made in official languages at Heritage Canada, $5 million for Option Canada were still found? Don't you find it strange that no one knew exactly how the money was spent, who was involved, who was signing the cheques and who was actually spending the money? How is it possible that no one had the authority to check such things? I think it's very fishy! Don't you think it's fishy, in your capacity as deputy minister of such a great department? This sort of thing can't make you feel very comfortable.

Mr. Norman Moyer: When I was studying the file, I noticed that a group of Canadians had come to us with a reconciliation project, when everyone knew that Canada was going through a very difficult period. I wasn't there at the time, but looking back, I think it was a very commendable sentiment.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: The Auditor General has questioned you twice about where the money went, hasn't he?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Please let him answer. You don't have time to ask another question. Let's get on, please.

Mr. Norman Moyer: We come back to the fact that all the documentation required was not in the file at the outset. Generally, we don't ask about details on spending when a grant is made. In this case, the applications were very unusual.

In the final report by Option Canada on this issue, we were assured that the money had been well spent for the purposes indicated in the application.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: However, Option Canada did not include the details on expenditures in its report. Where did the money go? The report says that they spent it for the purposes set forth in its application. But we want to know exactly what they did with the money. What do you have to hide? This clearly contradicts the Quebec Referendum Act. This money was spent at the time of the Referendum, and was therefore illegal. Are you trying to protect someone? Why have the people involved in this case all been appointed to important positions?

[English]

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

[Translation]

Do you want to answer, or do you want to pass?

Mr. Norman Moyer: All I can do is reiterate that we received reports indicating the money had been spent for the purposes set forth in the application. Since we were talking about a grant, details on expenditure were normally not required.

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

Mr. Paradis.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Madam Chair, I will not begin by asking my colleague across the way how much the Quebec government gave to the Sovereignty group, nor whether they call their donation, a contribution or a grant.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Everything was published. Everything was published, my friend.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Plamondon, cool down.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: So was this a contribution or a grant? I'll come back to the official languages case, since we are talking about official languages here.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Forgive me for interrupting you, but I made a mistake. Senator Losier-Cool will now be speaking, and you will have a few minutes to think before putting your questions.

Please go ahead, Senator.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Moyer, what I am going to say is by way of a comment, not a question. Mr. Lemoine heard me during another meeting this week. As an Acadian senator, and particularly as someone who is extremely interested by all aspects of francophonie, particularly where French is in the minority, I would like to come back to page 4. This is what I seem to be hearing from the francophones I meet, from Acadians, and from francophones in British Columbia.

• 1650

These francophones want to know how we could promote full recognition of French. The federal government can indeed do this, but it is an aspect which is unclear in agreements with provincial governments. For example, you know full well that whenever francophones in British Columbia make official-language-related requests, they are told everytime that their numbers do not warrant full services.

The Premier of Newfoundland is somewhat more open. We must acknowledge that Brian Tobin has done a lot for francophones. But what do I tell the people when I meet with them? What answers can I give them? I always tell them that I have transmitted their requests to you, but then what? What will you do in your next memorandum of understanding, or in the stages that follow, to help these communities flourish?

I would also like to point out that the two official languages cannot be quantified simply by using numbers. True, the other day Mr. Castonguay pointed out that in some regions of Canada francophones were far from numerous, but it remains that we are recognized, and that there are two official languages, whether we represent just 2% of the population, or 50% in any given region.

So is there something I can tell these people? I will soon be meeting with francophones with the Yukon, and I would like to have an encouraging message to transmit. What can I tell them?

Mr. Norman Moyer: In the past 25 years, institutional support for minorities in many parts of Canada has increased enormously. I know that just telling them about the achievements will not necessarily encourage people much. But it is in fact astonishing that we have managed to make as much progress as we have, and institute as many changes as we have. However, this still seems inadequate to people who believe there is much much more to be done.

The last page of my brief provides an overview of what we plan to do. At present, we are establishing the groundwork for renewal of these essential programs. With community groups, we are negotiating a new series of agreements that will come into force on April 1st of next year.

At the same time, we are negotiating with the provinces to determine their involvement in the new generation of agreements governing official languages in education. We are continuing to offer support in this area. We already have a series of agreements with provinces on French-language services, and, as you said, there has been enormous progress in Newfoundland after many years of stagnation.

Our philosophy is to strike while the iron is hot. Right now, Newfoundland's government is open, so let's go as far as we can with them. In all areas where governments are not very open to minority interests, the situation is pretty much the same. Paradoxically, in Ontario it is the current government that has decided to go ahead with the school management issue, a very important measure for these Ontarian groups, and decided to increase funding by $75 million when the agreement was negotiated. To my mind, that represents enormous progress. In British Columbia, we are still pushing, but it's not easy.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Just a quick question. Do projects by the Department of Human Resources Development take into account small groups of francophones, and is something done for them?

Mr. Norman Moyer: At Human Resources Development Canada?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Do you remember the manpower agreements that were signed? New Brunswick signed one, Alberta signed one, Ontario signed one, Quebec—

Mr. Louis Plamondon: And anglophone minorities.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): And the francophone minority in New Brunswick, but how about elsewhere?

Mr. Norman Moyer: A series of agreements were negotiated last year. The official languages commissioner himself had problems with the community at the outset, and we worked with the department to remedy the problem.

• 1655

In all provinces with whom we have signed agreements to date, there are provisions covering these responsibilities. Communities monitor compliance carefully. Human Resources Development is one of the departments that meets these requirements most effectively. To my mind, they have established a framework that makes it possible for them to make very good progress in this area.

[English]

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

Denis, would you allow me to place one question on the order paper? Thank you very much.

I would like to put the following question to you. It relates to the application of the official languages contract with the official languages special project and the minority languages community.

As of 1997, minority language groups accounted for 904,305 people, or 16.4% of the total provincial population in Quebec. According to the OLSP figures, in a 1995 agreement, this group received an average per annum grant—and you can find it in your own papers—of $2.33 per capita over a four-year period. This figure, I would suggest to you, is disproportionately lower than the per capita minority-language funding received by every other province and territory.

For example, for Newfoundland, with 2,675 people from minority language groups, the per capita grant is $277.72. For Prince Edward Island, with 5,280 people, it is $116.43. For Nova Scotia, with 35,885 people, the amount per capita is $33.96. I'm sure you're keeping the $2.33 in mind as I go along. For New Brunswick, which has the next highest population in Canada of 242,630 people, the per capita grant is $6.40. In Ontario, with 509,650 people, the per capita grant is $6.28. In Manitoba, it is $42.76 per capita for 47,800 people. In Saskatchewan, with 19,805 people, it is $99.94. Alberta: 53,200 people; $42.61. British Columbia: 49,545 people; $30.51 per capita. In the Northwest Territories, where you have all of 390 people, it is $352.52; and the Yukon, where Madame told you she's having some problems, with 850 people, it is $342.36.

My question to you is, in the light of an initial question that was placed by Mr. Paradis, in the sense of community development and a sense of responsibility for the social, economic, and cultural links and the developments, the vital signs of a strong sense of belonging and a promotion of the vitality of a community—I would suggest to you that in the absence of this kind of underfunding, these services literally threaten the survival of the English-speaking communities across Quebec; that they are far from equitable resources for these communities to function, let alone grow; and that the community newspapers and the community radios are included in this factor is even more of a disgrace.

So could you explain to me why the two provinces that have the highest proportion of minority language groups relative to the total population—that is, Quebec and New Brunswick—receive the lowest per capita funding of all the provinces and territories? What is the reason for this disproportionate level of funding? What is the methodology used in making that decision?

I would not ask you to answer me now, because I would like Mr. Paradis and Mr. Coderre to put their questions on, but would you then answer all three, please? We will have the motion between 5:05 and 5:10.

[Translation]

So you do not have a question.

Mr. Paradis.

• 1700

Mr. Denis Paradis: I would like to come back to the issue of official languages as such.

If we attempt to determine who in Ottawa is primarily in charge of such issues, we find your department—Heritage Canada, the Treasury Board Secretariat, in some ways, the Official Languages Commissioner, Mr. Goldbloom, and Ms. Marleau, as minister responsible for francophonie. However, Ms. Marleau's department focuses on francophonie outside Canada.

I am beginning to wonder whether this is not too fragmented. I know that we are being presented with a memorandum of understanding between the Treasury Board Secretariat and Heritage Canada, and I'll come back to this. Take Ottawa Airport as an example—this is something Mr. Coderre and I have already raised; there are complaints that linguistic duality is not reflected there, even though this is the airport of our national capital.

Mr. Goldbloom, the Official Languages Commissioner, is investigating the issue right now. He is trying to determine what has happened, and why we seem unable to get to the bottom of the issue. But before we can determine whose responsibility it is to investigate— Didn't Heritage Canada have anything to say about this? Didn't the Treasury Board Secretariat have anything to say about this? Whose responsibility is it?

The investigation is currently underway. An investigation is prompted by a complaint. So it always happens after the fact. Who should have taken action so there wouldn't be any complaints? That is the first part of my question. Who should have ensured that Ottawa Airport was fully bilingual?

Now here is the second part of my question. In the light of the federal government's current efforts to privatize many aspects of its operations, be it airports or other services, who within the federal government is responsible for ensuring that such services are bilingual? I gave you the Ottawa Airport as an example. If some private group in the region became responsible for managing the airport, then Transport Canada would no longer have any direct say. I could have given you the airports in Montreal or Vancouver as an example. In the future, who will ensure that services will remain bilingual?

By services, I mean not only direct services but indirect services as well, such as selling sandwiches in the terminal, the newspaper stand, ticket sales, and other things. Who at Heritage Canada, at Official Language Commissioner's Office, and at the Treasury Board Secretariat ensures that services are fully bilingual? I'll leave it there.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): And I would add to that list, who determines when a language barrier for top professionals—such as the anaesthesiologist in Quebec—is a barrier that deprives Quebec citizens because he speaks only one language? Who decides that there shall be health deprivation for service in emergency because there are no bilingual signs? When do we speak up in that regard?

In the light of the fact that there is a total of 944,535 francophones outside of Quebec, with approximately 904,000 anglophones inside Quebec, how can you account for the kind of division of moneys when you've got almost equal divisions of people of both minority communities inside and outside right across this country?

Does anybody else have one question to add?

Thank you very much, Mr. Moyer. The floor is yours for five minutes, maybe seven.

Mr. Norman Moyer: If I've missed any of the questions you've asked, remind me. I'll try to cover them the best I can.

I'll start with your question about the per capita allocation of funds for community groups and answer in several ways. First, community assistance is only one of the forms of assistance that we give. And if you look at the distribution of funds, for instance, under the education agreement, you'll find a very different proportionality. So you have to look at it all as one picture, but it's still important to look at it the way you did. And there are some reasons why the numbers work out the way they do.

• 1705

When we try to help a basic minority community infrastructure, we're trying to help them put in place the fundamental services they have to have to help their community. So if we're helping the small community in Newfoundland or the large community in New Brunswick or Ontario or Quebec—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): There's a small community in the Gaspé.

Mr. Norman Moyer: Now you're subdividing into smaller sections and—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): That's all right, I just want you to make sure you subdivide as you're busy making your excuses.

Mr. Norman Moyer: Let me come back and see if we can do that. We try to permit communities in each province to have the basic services they need to support their communities and they tend to be approximately the same kind of services whether you're dealing with a community of 1,000 people or 100,000 people. Therefore, when you pay for those basic services and you average it out across the number of people who are there, it's clear you're going to have a much smaller number per capita in a large province than in a small province, or in a province with a small number of minority participants in the population.

Finally, there was some account taken in the original allocation of funding under the program for the existing community infrastructures that were in place in the various provinces in which we entered. And it was true that because of its historic presence the francophone population in New Brunswick had a better set of structured community instruments in place than the francophone population in Saskatchewan, Alberta, or Newfoundland. When the original allocations were made under the program, more money was allocated to the communities that had almost nothing they were starting with. And among the communities that were reasonably well structured and had a traditionally strong base was the anglophone community in Quebec.

All of those factors have contributed. We don't do what you just asked us to do. We don't go down and negotiate subagreements with each of the regions. For instance, in Ontario with the francophone population we don't have separate agreements to try to cover the people in Welland or the people in Windsor. In Quebec we don't try, on an agreement-by-agreement basis, to help every region. In Quebec we've had to evolve with respect to the communities that were already there, and there isn't in Quebec a single umbrella structure that isn't contested by somebody else. We are still trying to work with the institutions in Quebec to redefine and re-understand the basis of how they work together.

That is all I have that I can say right now on the issue you raised with me in this regard.

On the questions Mr. Paradis raised about who is responsible in the case of a privatization or a devolution, the primary responsibility for that lies with the Treasury Board. My colleagues from the board may wish to comment on that. They did put in place rules and regulations. They got very active when there were concerns about the agreements being negotiated under Human Resources Development Canada last year, and Mr. Massé and his officials played a key role in helping to arbitrate the right kind of wording to get put in place in those agreements.

Is there an issue of coordination among all the federal institutions that play a role in this? There always is when there's more than one set of institutions responsible. But the government a long time ago decided that a diffuse set of responsibilities would be the best way to make sure all the institutions that should be involved are playing an active role.

Theoretically, somebody could have invented one single department where you put all the responsibilities for francophone issues in it, but that would have meant a lot of other departments could have ignored those responsibilities. Now we have five or six players; there are key institutions that draw those together. There's a senior committee of deputy ministers chaired by the Deputy Minister of Justice, which draws together all of the players you mentioned. They meet three or four times a year and review the agenda. They get presentations from the Commissioner of Official Languages; they keep track of the basic issues.

At lower levels there are coordinating structures that are in place. For instance, we have one related to the implementation of sections 41 and 42 that draws many departments, particularly those 27 designated departments, together. The Treasury Board has a structure for its activities in language of service and in careers that draws departments together. What we have are a series of rings that sometimes overlap but that serve the interests of the linguistic duality in Canada.

• 1710

Mr. Jeff Parker: Mr. Paradis, just to respond a bit to your question in terms of who has responsibility when the department privatizes or basically devolves an organization and sets it apart, that responsibility is the Treasury Board's. They're responsible for the official languages policy for the federal government and for its agencies. Therefore they're the body that makes certain, to the degree they determine appropriate, that there will be a level of official languages required in terms of the setting up of that new organization.

If you want to pursue that, I would suggest that there is a group within Treasury Board that does this and does it very well. You may want to have them come and talk to you about that.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Paradis: I am watching the clock, but I think that sooner or later, Madam Chair, we will have to come back to this, because it is an important topic, were it only to understand how things have evolved for instance at the Ottawa airport. I would like to know why it was handed over to the regional group while everything was working well, and why we are now hearing about problems. I would like to understand why there are problems, as we are told that Treasury Board should have seen to its proper functioning.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): I think, Mr. Paradis, that you are right.

[English]

I had thought that a Treasury Board sector was coming today with Heritage Canada, that which had signed the protocol of entente, and I would suggest to you that in regard to your question we will invite that sector of Treasury Board to make a presentation on the advancement of that protocol. We would invite Treasury Board to bring us a model plan that the 27 institutions are supposedly to follow in terms of vision, goals, and outcome. I'd like to see something that is a little bit different from the plan you were good enough to share with us called “Action Plan—Major Objectives”.

I would suggest to you that safeguarding, enriching, and strengthening the culture, the political, social, and economic fabric of Canada, that vision statement, if it's there, needs revision. I think a fairer evaluation of what's done regionally across this land, given the changing landscape, both in Quebec for anglophones and across the country for francophones, might well be undertaken in the revamping of the grants. If you really truly believe that the responsibility of Heritage Canada is the well-being of a bilingual country, and take into account as well the observations made by Val Meredith, that maybe bears some very much closer scrutiny, given the nature of the immigration into this country.

With that, I want to thank you very much.

[Translation]

Madam, would you like to add anything?

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

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Where is this time limit coming from? Nowhere on the agenda does it say that we have to finish by 5:05 p.m..

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Plamondon,

[English]

the vote is going to be called at 5:15, and we have to be in the House—

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Is there a vote this evening?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes. You were also at a meeting of the steering committee when you made the decision that at the end of this day the resolution of the official languages committee with respect to the CRTC was to be brought forward.

There was a second resolution by the Reform Party, which the Reform Party is not prepared to deposit today. So it was a decision of the steering committee that it be done at this hour. I would like to remind you, you were at that meeting.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I have a brief question.

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

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I only have one brief question.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Go ahead.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: You are selecting the francophone groups with which you negotiate your new agreements for April 1, next year. These negotiations will be over by the end of March, but in certain provinces, there are several francophone groups. By what criteria do you choose one group rather than another one?

I have also a question regarding legal challenges.

Mr. Denis Coderre: You requested one question, and now you are asking two questions.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes, two brief ones. That's what I said.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Hurry up.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): You will get the answer to this question next time.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes, all right: it can be sent to me in writing or they can phone me. But I wanted to ask you this question in public.

My question is about section 23, as it deals with the legal challenge program, and as it should have been but will not be cut, according to the minister. She even hinted that the program would be upgraded as it is in great demand among minority groups. Do you think that it will be widened, and how will the funds be distributed?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): As you see, sir, you will have to come back again to give Mr. Plamondon his answers. Thank you very much.

• 1715

Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Madam Chair, if Mr. Plamondon is invited, I want to be the witness, because I do not know what the outcome will be.

We wished to make a recommendation following the CRTC testimony, and we are all the more motivated to do so, ever since we raised the matter again with Mr. Moyer. Therefore, I move that the committee recommend to the government of Canada that the CRTC be added to the list of 27 federal institutions designated in the accountability scheme adopted in August 1994, for the purposes of implementing sections 41 and 42 of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

I am moving this motion, because having heard Mr. Moyer's answers, I believe that we need more than ever to give the CRTC some teeth by adding it to the list of 27 federal institutions. I think that this will provide us with a tool which will allow us to respect both official languages, and so that we will no longer have to listen to the economic arguments invoking things such as the anglophone marketplace, etc..

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Your motion is seconded by Mr. Denis Paradis.

Are there any questions regarding this motion? Is everyone in favour? Everyone says yea?

Some Hon. Members: Yea.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Do I hear any nays?

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: On division.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: I would like this to be a recorded vote, please.

(Motion carried: 8 yeas and 1 nay)

[English]

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

[Translation]

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

The meeting is adjourned.