LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 3, 1999

• 1537

[English]

The Joint Chair (Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): I see a quorum. It's the pleasure of the official languages joint standing committee to welcome Minister of Heritage Sheila Copps, and Mr. Norman Moyer, whom we had the pleasure of exchanging with in depth at the last round.

Madam Minister, have you some opening remarks to make?

I think I would like to start out by saying, Madam Minister, that yesterday at our meeting we expressed our appreciation for the increase of $70 million to the official languages budget. We had with us the Commissioner of Official Languages, and we did examine his report and the report of Donald Savoie and Mr. Fontaine.

There was a series of questions asked by the members in this room, and I think they may well want some clarification from you, particularly with regard to the news release you put out. We look forward to having that exchange with you.

Madam Minister.

[Translation]

Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The third person here with us at the witness table is Hilaire Lemoine, who is the director general for official languages programming in the department.

[Translation]

I would like to begin with a brief presentation and then have an opportunity to answer questions. What we tried to do with the announcement....

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Just a moment, please. The microphones are not working.

All right. Please proceed.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the committee members for this invitation to appear before you and to speak about choices. With the announcement we made yesterday of the continuing reinvestment in official language support across this country, minority language support, I think we are making a choice for the future.

So I'd like to just walk you through our presentation and then we'll have time for questions.

[Translation]

With yesterday's announcement of $70 million a year in new funds, we have begun to close the gap that existed in the funding of minority language programs in Canada. At last, this steers us in the right direction.

[English]

We're preparing for the future by building on solid foundations in areas such as minority and second language education.

• 1540

[Translation]

To renew the vision, we must concentrate on four points: investing in minority-language communities, $10 million a year; reinforcing the contribution of all federal institutions to community development and linguistic duality, $6 million a year—we can elaborate on that if anyone wishes to do so—; working with provinces to enhance access to minority-language services, $4 million a year; support for minority-and second-language education, $50 million in new money per year.

What is the status of minority communities in Canada? Vital minority communities are at the heart of Canada's linguistic duality. Nearly 2 million Canadians live in minority official- language communities.

[English]

That's almost a million francophones outside Quebec and a million anglophones in Quebec.

[Translation]

Nine hundred and seventy thousand people in Francophone and Acadian communities indicate that their mother tongue and first official language spoken is French, whereas 926,000 people in Quebec indicate that their mother tongue and first official language spoken is English.

The objective of the community network.

[English]

What's the objective of the community network? First of all, it's to work to enhance the well-being of minority communities. There is a network of 350 community groups across the country, and we've established and built upon the principle of Canada community agreements where we are in a position to sign multi-year agreements to finance minority language groups in setting an envelope where they determine their priorities. So it's not the government choosing the priorities for the communities; it's the communities choosing their own priorities, and there are new funds in that area.

The objectives for federal institutions....

[Translation]

The objective is to strengthen our commitment to minority-language communities. In 1988, sections 41 and 42 of the OLA set out the commitment of federal institutions to contribute to minority- language community development. Following discussion with the community, in 1994, we already had a renewed commitment by the Prime Minister and action plans from 27 key federal institutions.

I think that after today's meeting, you will also have an opportunity to talk to other government departments to assess the extent of compliance with the policy put forward through sections 41 and 42. I believe that Mr. Massé will be coming here on March 9 to discuss these sections. As you know, we came to an agreement with Treasury Board to make that department responsible for compliance with these sections. Indeed, a minister responsible at the centre is always in a better position to encourage others to comply with legislation.

The 1997 Memorandum of Understanding that I signed with Mr. Massé provides for greater accountability by the departments. In 1999, with the funding earmarked to facilitate implementation of sections 41 and 42 of the Act, joint initiatives will be undertaken in priority areas of the government and the community.

[English]

In terms of second language spending of the $70 million envelope, what's the objective? The objective is to provide an opportunity to learn a second official language. Between 1951 and 1996 the number of bilingual Canadians more than doubled, from 1.7 million to 4.8 million. This is a substantial increase when you consider that it's 42% of the proportion of bilingual Canadians, an increase of 42% in the number of people who are bilingual. I think it's safe to say that the greatest increase that we've seen is in this generation. It's partly due to the constitutional guarantees for minority language education that came about as a result of the Constitution of 1982.

• 1545

Bilingualism is increasing in almost every province, territory and census metropolitan region across the country. It's highest in Quebec, at 38%, and second in New Brunswick, at 33%. Currently there are 2.7 million children who are studying either English or French as a second official language. That's 52% of the young student population.

In a recent survey of public opinion outside the province of Quebec, three parents in four said it was important that Canada's schools teach children to speak both English and French fluently. In Quebec, 85% of Quebeckers feel that it's important for the federal government to do more to promote bilingualism.

Let's look at the success of French immersion. French immersion started in this country, and it's now being used as a model in countries around the world, from Israel to Ireland, from Finland to New Zealand. Presently, 317,000 students across Canada are enrolled in French immersion programs, and it's estimated that 20% of the children currently in our English-language primary and secondary schools in Canada will experience French immersion.

For anglophones outside Quebec, I think immersion programs are the motor driving bilingualism among young people. Bilingualism among anglophones in the teenage age group is 2.5 times higher than the overall rate among anglophones, so I think now is the time to build on the track record of this success.

[Translation]

A second statistic regarding the degree of success is minority-language education. The objective is to provide the official-language minority communities access to education in their mother tongue.

There are currently 261,000 students in second-language primary and secondary schools, including 100,000 in nearly French- language schools outside Quebec and 101,000 in the English-language schools in Quebec.

Access to minority-language education is both a right under section 23 and a necessity.

You have here a map of Canada which shows to what extent we're starting to have a real secondary and post-secondary education system throughout Canada. Through the implementation of section 23, we have been able to develop a college and university network of 19 institutions outside Quebec, and we are seeing the beginning of second language school governance even in Newfoundland. The only province that has not yet complied with francophone school governance is British Columbia, and we're working on that. You will note, for instance, that we have expanded facilities at the Faculté Saint-Jean in Edmonton, at the Collège universitaire de Saint- Boniface in Winnipeg, at the Cité collégiale, the Collège des Grands Lacs and others.

Investing in education pays.

[English]

In 1971, 31% of francophones living in a minority situation between the ages of 25 and 34 had less than nine years of schooling. In 1996 that number dropped to 3%. That's an incredible statistic in a period of 25 years, and it's a very positive statistic.

[Translation]

The percentage of francophone youths between the ages of 15 and 34 with a university degree went from 3.9% in 1971 to 13.5% in 1996, which shows that education pays.

With regard to the percentage of francophone university graduates outside Quebec, the best educated group, in which we find the largest number of university graduates in Canada, is currently francophones outside Quebec. Francophone graduates outside Quebec represent 13.5% of the population; non-francophone outside Quebec, 13.2%; francophones in Quebec, 11.7%; and in Canada for all language groups, the average is 13.1% of the population.

[English]

I just want to repeat that, because I think it's an important statistic for the work we have to undertake. Going from a situation in which most francophones living outside Quebec were among the least educated in 1971, we have completely reversed that in a period of 25 years, to the point at which francophones outside Quebec are the most highly educated of any language grouping in Canada right now.

• 1550

[Translation]

The priorities for the future are: access to post-secondary education; investing in new technologies to improve access to post- secondary education for smaller communities; quality minority- language education; reinforcing the federal contribution to community development. Here again is a renewed commitment.

Everything indicates that our programs do make a difference. Significant progress has been achieved to give minority official language communities the tools they need to participate and contribute fully to Canadian society. Young Canadians want to be able to use both official languages; now is the time to build on a solid foundation.

Madam Chair, I would also like to thank all the people around this table who have fought to obtain this recognition in the budget. Seventy million dollars do not appear overnight. It's because of your work and that of many members of the committee who managed to convince the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. When investments have to be made, be it in education, youth and especially in respecting a country that values both official languages, these are major investments. Some may say that behind the scenes, this was sometimes difficult, but in the final analysis we were successful and we're very pleased about that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

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

I would ask for a clarification of your slide “Building better futures”. You were talking about francophone school governance, which we're very delighted to see. In your briefing note that you sent out with respect to what has been done, your news release is entitled “The Government of Canada invests additional funding in the official-languages support programs”. I'm curious about the fact that you've outlined—and it's very important to have done so—about the nineteen French-language colleges and universities outside of Quebec, but there is absolutely nothing about the eight English-language public colleges and universities inside Quebec, which you note are recipients of part of that $50 million that you put aside. I wonder what happened to that graphic.

Ms. Sheila Copps: This graphic was intended to, in particular, deal with the difficulty we have at the moment in building new foundations. Because the post-secondary language college system in Quebec has been fairly well developed in the English language, this was intended to show the new development, not the full panoply of all the schools. That can certainly be done in another map. What we were trying to show was where we've gone with the establishment of new institutions since the application of the Constitution and since the recognition of official minority language status. In certain provinces it has only happened in the last few years.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much for that clarification. I think the committee would appreciate knowing what's going into the English-language public colleges and universities in Quebec. The circumstances there have changed dramatically.

Ms. Sheila Copps: We can certainly put together a similar map for those institutions, but most of those institutions predate the Constitution. What I was trying to show on this map is what we've introduced in the last few years. I think the challenge we face is that the minority English-language community in Quebec is losing established institutions, as opposed to starting new ones. They're two sides of the same coin.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I would just suggest to you that we take a good look at all those communities off-island that would need services.

Ladies and gentlemen, I understand that Angela Vautour has to leave, so she will be following Mr. Mark.

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

First, Minister, let me welcome you and thank you for appearing before the committee today. Perhaps to your surprise, I will be very positive. Enhancing the language programs for our children is always good news, no matter what day of the week we announce them. As the member of Parliament for Dauphin—Swan River, I certainly know this is good news for the language programs in two French communities, St-Lazare and Ste. Rose du Lac, as well as the public school system that has immersion French as a second-language program.

• 1555

For my question, I will continue along the same vein as Madam Chair. Yesterday we heard from the commissioner, and it was a very interesting meeting. I wanted to ask the minister if she can assure us that equal funding per capita will exist for anglophones in Quebec as compared to francophones outside of Quebec.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I think if you analyse the fact that equal funding doesn't necessarily mean per capita funding, the answer is yes. Obviously, when you're dealing with a situation in some provinces.... For example, I saw a statistic in the paper this morning that dealt with the disproportionate amount of money that is given to Newfoundland. Newfoundland only started to recognize the rights of francophone communities this year. They're starting from ground zero, obviously. Therefore they need a bigger investment.

[Translation]

An Hon. Member: This is to catch up?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Yes, this is to catch up.

[English]

And it's also fair to say that when it comes to education, some of the materials that are available in the French language are, on average, about 20% more expensive, so there are some issues strictly around cost.

What we're hoping to do with the additional funds is as much as we can to target the need where it's most needed. I know I've heard from my colleagues, particularly those in rural areas of the country, who say they need more support than some of the more urban areas. In particular, I think that's true for the anglophone minority in Quebec, who in certain parts of Quebec feel very isolated. They sometimes need more support than they might require in Montreal.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You heard, and I'm glad you listened.

Mr. Inky Mark: I'll just ask another brief question.

What is your opinion of the multicultural policy as related to language, and what relationship do you believe it has with the official languages program?

Ms. Sheila Copps: Frankly, I believe the basis for the policy of multiculturalism in this country is consistent with the historic position that we took when we started a country respecting cultural diversity. We're the only country in the world that started off by bringing two peoples together. We didn't always do it very well, and we still don't always do it as well as we might like to, but we started with the basic constitutional principle that you can speak different languages, be members of different cultural groups, different religions, and build a country. To me, that is extremely consistent with a policy of multiculturalism that says that when you are part of a new country, as we are, we're building our cultures together, in a pluralistic way—and I say “cultures” in plural as well.

I grew up in a community where eight out of ten people in my riding have a different language. This may not be an actual statistic, but when you're out knocking on doors, probably eight out of ten people whose door you knock on have neither French nor English as a mother language. They contribute and create a wonderful synergy. I think the establishment of the multicultural vision for the country was really based on two founding peoples, so they're actually synergistic and not opposed.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Madam Vautour.

[Translation]

Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Peticodiac, NDP): Thank you for your presentation, Madam Minister. I want to thank you on behalf of minority language communities; there's no doubt that this will help them. On the anglophone side, the immersion programs certainly need help in New Brunswick. As an Acadian from that province, I think there's still a great deal of room for improvement, especially when we think of the SAANB that closed its doors last year; that was unacceptable.

Of course, money is good news; however, we have to look at the overall situation. Everyone knows, as Donald Savoie has pointed out in his research, that Francophone minorities outside Quebec often exist in regions that are experiencing regional development problems; there's a lack of jobs and these francophones leave to settle in anglophone regions and end up assimilating. We see a great deal of that in New Brunswick. As I often say, I think half of Alberta is populated with people from New Brunswick.

Section 41 of the Official Languages Act states that the federal government is committed to supporting community development. We all know that there's not always compliance with this provision. We're certainly in favour of an increase of $16 million in the amount earmarked for community support.

• 1600

However, one must understand that this is nothing to cheer about. The $16 million will be divided amongst all the provinces, if my understanding is correct.

When you reduce by $40 million the ACOA's budget, an organization that looks after regional development in the Atlantic provinces, where many francophones outside Quebec live, how can you rejoice in an injection of $16 million for the entire country? Aren't the francophones in the Atlantic provinces the losers here?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I cannot talk about ACOA. If you want to invite the minister responsible for that Agency, you are welcome to do so.

The investment that we are making today is not just $16 million, but rather $70 million a year, for a total of nearly $250 million. That money is for support.

I assume, to give you an example, that in education this money will be used not only to enable young people to go to school in their own language, but also for the hiring of teachers. That will create a foundation.

Where there are challenges, whether in New Brunswick, Northern Ontario.... My father was born in Haileybury and raised in Timmins. He learned to speak French in the street, when he was young. He was anglophone but he learned the language of the street because nearly 90% of the population was francophone. One just has to go to Timmins to see how much things have changed. The wave of American culture also has to be taken into account.

Investing in education is starting to bear fruit. We were just talking about the number of college and university graduates who are leaving school and who know how to organize themselves and create networks. The very first virtual French-language network outside Quebec will soon be accredited. People are moving forward, but they do not have access to daycare and jobs. In the second step we are trying to take, we want to promote appreciation of the value of having two official languages.

What I find most impressive,

[English]

—and I'm actually thrilled that Inky made the statement that he did today—is that people are starting to understand that there is a value added from being able to speak two languages. If you see the level of education

[Translation]

and if it is attracting jobs, we have to begin talking about economic value.

In New Brunswick yesterday, I talked about this very issue, and it is something I try to emphasize in other sectors of the Heritage Department. For example, it is in the cultural sector that job growth is the greatest right now, but labour force organizations are not always available to help cultural groups. In their opinion, if culture is involved, it has to do with official languages and grants. But it can be an investment. One just has to look at what we have done, for example, with the East Coast Music Awards, which are really making artists known, selling records, etc....

In every area of the Department of Canadian Heritage, I am trying to make sure that there is equal language treatment, whether in English.... Why do we ask francophones to use the official languages envelope for cultural investments? In Quebec, for example, why do we ask anglophone groups to use official languages money to do theatre?

These inconsistencies must be corrected, but it also takes education and team work. We have to think about this: if we had not had these programs, where would we be with francization at this point and vice versa?

[English]

So I guess I'm looking at it more as an optimist. I think we've made progress, but you don't create an education system that respects two official languages in ten or twenty years. We're now starting to see the fruits, such as the kids who come here to work on the Hill, the pages from British Columbia who speak an absolutely fantastic French.

• 1605

When I was a kid, I would have died to have had a teacher like the teachers who are going out in the school system now. I had a Grey Nun. She was terrific. She taught me how to speak French, but conversation was not part of our education. We studied Molière and grammar and they weren't interested in whether or not we could speak French.

Twenty years later that has completely turned around and we actually have a consensus, even with the Reform Party, that there's value in.... I say that as a positive thing. Do you remember the fights over cornflakes boxes in this country? They were huge fights. So I think we've made progress, but it's never far enough and never fast enough for any of us. We'd like to make it more and faster.

[Translation]

Ms. Angela Vautour: I have to agree with the Minister that the Reform Party... It should be said that maybe some progress has been made in the party. It is true that, where immersion is concerned, I receive complaints from anglophone families who want to be sure they can put their children in immersion, since there is an added value to being able to speak both languages. I certainly understand the situation of anglophones who have no opportunity to learn a second language and who find themselves in situations where the second language could be useful.

In addition to the additional monies being injected, it was mentioned that sections 41 and 42 were not being enforced. Concretely, what can be done to ensure that these two sections are put into effect?

Ms. Sheila Copps: First of all, let us go back to the first agreement signed with Treasury Board. Why was it important and was it widely supported by minority communities? The Heritage Minister asks her colleagues to adhere to the Official Languages Act, but when this message comes from those who hold the purse strings, the approach tends to change. So the administration of sections 41 and 42 could be led by Treasury Board. That is a much more effective mechanism.

Mr. Massé will be here on the 9th to explain how we proceeded with each department's plans. We must also remain vigilant. We began asking for specific plans last year because, without a clear timetable and a responsible minister at the centre, words are sometimes more difficult to put into application.

Ms. Angela Vautour: There is a bit of an unfortunate situation in New Brunswick, where employees of the Human Resources Development Department have been transferred to the province and have lost the right to work in their language. Meetings are held in the language chosen by the director. Service is offered in both languages but employees have lost the right to work in their own language. Especially in New Brunswick, which is a bilingual province, I would never have thought that we could lose ground to that extent. That issue should not even come up at this table. We have too many problems and we do not need any more.

I hope that steps will be taken to restore this right to federal employees transferred to the province. The Act no longer applied; this is a shortcoming that will have to be rectified at some point, since devolution to agencies is continuing and the problem will persist. Someone needs to step in and resolve the problem before it gets out of hand.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Mr. Massé has already commented not only on the Savoie report but also on Mr. Goldbloom's comments, to the effect that further analysis must be undertaken of the instruments available for ensuring that respect for official languages will henceforth be part of any transfer agreement and that the situation will be monitored. I think that he will be able to give you more details when he comes next week.

Ms. Angela Vautour: Thank you.

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

[English]

Senator Robichaud.

• 1610

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

Welcome to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We are always delighted to see you. Believe it—it comes from me. You never talk too much, although you just said so—I don't believe that portion of your statement.

[Translation]

Like those who already spoke, I would like to thank the Minister for increasing funding for official languages in Canada. This increase will perhaps meet the needs of our minority groups. I do not yet know if this amount compensates for all the cuts of the last three or four years and brings us up to the former levels, but it is certainly welcome.

I noted, Madam Minister, that you said in your comments that bilingualism had increased significantly in Canada because of measures taken by the government. I wonder if you have any statistics. Is this increase due to anglophones becoming bilingual or francophones becoming bilingual?

Ms. Sheila Copps: What should come out in the statistics is that there are obviously more francophones learning English, given that Quebec is the most bilingual province and the one with the most francophones, and that the second most bilingual province is New Brunswick. There is no doubt that interest in learning French is quite high among anglophones.

Ms. Vautour raised the point that there are children whose parents line up until midnight to get them into immersion schools. The investment we are making will also make it possible to revive programs that had been cut back a bit.

Senator Louis Robichaud: I was away for the past few weeks, the past few months. I see that the Savoie report recommends that a number of departments—27, I believe—share responsibility for compliance with official languages policies. I know that, over the years, there have been those who thought that the whole responsibility should be placed with one department. According to the Savoie report, responsibility should remain shared among a number of departments. Would it be possible to have the Minister of Canadian Heritage give us her opinion on this?

Ms. Sheila Copps: The Heritage Department is responsible for the administration of the Official Languages Act. At least two years ago, we signed an agreement with Treasury Board specifically relating to application of sections 41 and 42.

You talk about 27 departments, but all the departments are of course responsible for complying with the Official Languages Act. However, in the application of the Act, Heritage Canada is responsible towards the communities, and the Treasury Board, towards the government. That is why Mr. Massé will be coming here to discuss the issues raised by Mr. Savoie concerning ways of guaranteeing official languages compliance when there is a transfer of jurisdiction, etc..

• 1615

It's a fairly precise description, but the 27 departments are required under the Act to submit a plan for their own sectors.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I wonder, Madam Minister, if you would just clarify, because of the question, the role of Michael O'Keefe at Heritage Canada, who has a committee that's looking at bringing together representatives of Stats Canada, the Privy Council Office, Treasury Board Secretariat, Human Resources Development, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and the Department of Justice. What is the role, and how will they oversee the responsibility in their relationship with Treasury Board?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I will ask Hilaire Lemoine to specifically speak to this committee, because it's part of the process of the application of sections 41 and 42 we've engaged with the Treasury Board.

[Translation]

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine (Director General, Official Languages Support Program, Heritage Canada): Thank you, Madam Minister.

[English]

The committee that has been put in place is a committee of bureaucrats who want to make sure the research being done across departments on issues related to official languages and services is well coordinated. Stats Can, Human Resources, Industry and Patrimoine are all studying this. We've constituted this working group of people involved in research to make sure it is just better coordinated within government. It's one of the administrative measures the department is taking in its role in the area of coordination of sections 41 and 42.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): So it's a research role; it's not an application of policy and principle.

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: No, it's a research role.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much. I'll come back to that at another time.

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Madam Minister, I would like to make a few comments before getting to my question.

In your document, on page 4, concerning the francophone and Acadian community, you mentioned the figure of 970,000 persons whose mother tongue was French, but you neglect to say that it is the language used by only 618,000 of them. Quebec has 622,000 persons whose mother tongue is English, and 926,000 for whom English is the language used. You indicate the difference for English, but you do not do so for French, on page 4. This difference clearly shows that the vitality of Quebec's anglophone minority is far greater than that of the francophone minority in the rest of Canada. That was just an observation concerning page 4.

Getting back to your $70 million, I would like to quote a few figures. When you came to power in 1993, the budget allocation for official languages was $310 million. But in the Main Estimates for that year, the amount actually spent on official languages was $232 million, a net loss of $78 million. Budgets were then set at $240 million for 1994-95, a loss of $70 million from 1993, and to $210 million for 1995-96, down again by $100 million from 1993.

So when you come to us with an increase of $70 million, you are only patching up the mistakes made at the time of the decision to reduce the budgets devoted to Canada's linguistic duality.

At the same time, when you were responsible for the Canada Information Office, you unhesitantly devoted $60 million to propaganda, including $15 million for the flags which gave you the nickname of Lady Flag in the newspapers. I said it with humour, because I read it in the newspapers.

You also spent $5 million on Option Canada, and you have always refused to submit the invoices, even though the Auditor General of Canada has asked you to do so more than once. You spent $5 million, and no one knows where it went. It was spent by a fake committee whose chair said that he had never held a meeting or knew anything about how the money was spent. You have increased the Canada Day budget by 500 percent, and of this 500 percent, 60 percent is going to Quebec.

• 1620

When I look at all of this, on the one hand the decline from 1993, and on the other hand today's increase of $70 million, I do not feel much like celebrating with my friend Mr. Robichaud in the other party. It is better than nothing, but it is far from what it used to be. That is my first comment, Madam Minister.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I would like to thank the Member for reminding me that when he was me a member of the Conservative Party, we did indeed have a plan for investing more in official languages. Unfortunately, when we came to power, we found ourselves with a deficit of $42 billion par year, which caused us a good deal of problems. The interesting this about this week's investment is that as soon as the Conservative rule ended, the investments started again.

The other interesting thing is that the Member is endorsing a policy of respecting both languages. I hope that it is his real purpose. There are various governments involved. The Conservative government and Mr. Bouchard, who was Secretary of State at the time, said in various speeches how important it was to ensure respect for both official languages and to encourage bilingualism in Canada.

If the Member wishes, Madam Chair, I can table the text of an excellent speech given by Mr. Bouchard when he was Secretary of State, when he was in the Conservative Party, in support of this policy.

We are happy that the Bloc, with the other parties, is finally undertaking—

Senator Jean-Marie Simard (Edmundston, PC): This is partisanship.

Ms. Sheila Copps: —to respect this policy with the other Canadian parties.

When you talk about partisanship, you have to look at the Bloc. This week another faulty historical claim was made.

Senator Jean-Marie Simard: Liberal partisanship.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Senator Simard, please.

I would appreciate, Madam Minister if you would be good enough to deposit that speech with us.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Sure.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I think the Minister has tabled this speech a number of times.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Louis Plamondon: You have not answered my comments on the cuts made in the 1993 budget, except to say that there was a deficit attributable to the Conservative Party when your party came to power. The fact remains that you had the choice of cutting wherever you wished in your department's budget, and you failed to protect the interests of minority groups. You made some very large cuts.

Ms. Sheila Copps: Mr. Plamondon, you have to recognize that since I have been Minister of Canadian Heritage, when programs are reviewed, I have chosen—and I made this promise last year—to give priority to restoring funds for the official languages.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: After cutting them.

Ms. Sheila Copps: No, no. You are talking about Option Canada; I was not even there. You are blaming me for actions taken when I was not even there. I was with the Department of Environment. So if you would like to address other people who are coming here—

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Are you prepared to table all the documents of Option Canada? Are you prepared to table all the invoices requested by the Auditor General of Canada? You are concealing them. You refuse to answer the Auditor General because he has found something suspicious. You have constantly refused to do so in the House, and you refuse to do so here and now.

My second question, Madam Minister, has to do with some of your statements in the House concerning the Week of the Francophonie, which is coming up soon. You will recall that your department illegally appropriated the name Week of the Francophonie, which was the property of the ACELF. This association had the rights to the name. You will recall that it was very surprised to learn that you appropriated the education aspect by way of a consulting company hired to organize the event. The Week includes a public aspect and an educational aspect.

• 1625

In the House, in your answer to one of my questions, you said that my suggestions weren't true, that there never had been any trickery in relation to a grant of $125,000 during the negotiations with the ACELF. The latter was criticizing you for having appropriated this name without its authorization. You always maintained that the name was appropriated through the firm Laroux et associés, which is now organizing the Week of the Francophonie.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Order, please.

Mr. Plamondon, we are here to look at the new moneys that have been put into the official languages program. We're here to ensure that the children and the young people who are looking for job skills...and that health services are delivered to minority language communities.

I'm sorry, Mr. Plamondon, you're out of order in your questions. Please go to the issues we want to discuss, which relate to the budget of this past year.

Thank you. You may continue.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Madam Chair, what I am saying directly concerns the department's expenses as well as what is about to happen with the Francophonie. They are directly concerned with everything that is happening today since an increase in funding for bilingualism was announced. Thus, I think that my question is quite relevant at least as much as the congratulations addressed to the Minister by Mr. Robichaud a few moments ago. I don't think that had anything to do with it, or did it?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Carry on and ask a specific question.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I was about to finish when you cut me off.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I hope and think that the Week of the Francophonie concerns all francophones in Canada.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes, it is meant for all francophones, but the name Semaine de la francophonie belonged to the ACELF and you appreciated that name. Further, its chairman, Mr. Bordeleau, had complained to you about this. But then you put pressure on them to accept your appropriation of that name. Despite this, you always said that your agreement with the ACELF was unconditional.

Ms. Sheila Copps: How do you know about all this—

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I have a letter signed by Mr. Lemoine, who is present here and who is responsible for the official languages assistance program. In the letter he makes the following serious statements which practically amount to blackmail: "This letter is in response to your letter of the 12th..."

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Would you cut his mike, please?

Mr. Plamondon, you have been speaking for 10 minutes and 40 seconds. If you wish to ask the question I will allow an answer, but you are well over your time. I'm sorry, you're embroidering your question. Please ask a straight question.

[Translation]

Ask a straight question. Mr. Plamondon, table your letter and let the Minister respond to all the comments you have just made. Please, table your letter.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: [Editor's note: Inaudible]... in return for the appropriation of the name. And it is written: "undertakes to provide the contents of the tabloid page", and finally: "We are ready to recommend an amount of $125,000 to the Minister of Canadian Heritage."

This letter was signed by Mr. Lemoine, on the condition that they accept to give up the name. You have always denied that Mr. Bordeleau was blackmailed in any way. Therefore I am tabling this letter and I hope that it will be made public.

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

Madam Minister, do you want to respond?

Ms. Sheila Copps: If you want to have the true version of the facts, when I became the Minister of Canadian Heritage, it seemed rather strange to me that a Week of the Francophonie week was to be held here, in this room. No one had mentioned it and no one knew anything about it anywhere in Canada. I have set myself the objective not only of celebrating the Francophonie, with a capital F, but also Canadian francophonie. Why not? No one holds a monopoly over Canadian francophonie.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: [Editor's note: Inaudible]

Ms. Sheila Copps: Excuse me, but—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Ms. Fraser, please.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'd simply like to clarify a point, Madam Chair. Here is why I'm interested in Week of the Francophonie: everyone living in this country must respect and value the possibility of living in both languages. Last year, we were able to celebrate the Acadians with an Acadian festival. We are organizing a Canadian francophone festival open to everyone.

When the Games of the Francophonie were organized, everyone was invited to participate. The last one to win a medal was Donovan Bailey. Must we really have a festival that is reserved to a single group?

• 1630

[English]

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

Senator Joan Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): I would like to add my voice to those who congratulate you on extracting the extra funding for official-language minorities. We all know how fierce the competition was for every one of those dollars. There were many worthwhile programs, many precious programs that needed rattrapage, and it was not easy to get the money for the language communities. I congratulate you on a solid political achievement that will be very good for the country.

I'm interested in a couple of areas. The first is the Canada community agreements, which are, I gather, being renegotiated as we speak. Without unveiling them when they haven't been renegotiated yet, could you give us an idea of areas where experience has shown those agreements to work particularly well, and other areas where experience has shown that some improvement may be necessary? In particular, can you tell us where you stand on the whole question of core funding versus project funding?

Ms. Sheila Copps: One of the things that certainly has come out loud and clear in the discussions I've had with minority language communities, and in particular the anglophone community in Quebec, is how the needs are greater the farther you move from the cosmopolitan centre of Montreal. So the farther away you are, the tougher it is to really live, go to school and have access to institutions. I think we have to focus on redressing that issue.

The other thing we're hoping—and I know it's hard for Mr. Plamandon to look at it—which I think has the potential to become a very good news story for Canada, is if we succeed in building a network of support, for example, for minority language communities across the country, we can build a stronger country. Obviously, his objective is not to build a stronger country.

One of the things I hope will emerge out of the agreements as well is encouragement for more interconnections, and not necessarily simply what you would call, in the government vernacular, silo funding. I know Mauril Bélanger has done some work in this area as a member of Parliament, but I'm hoping to encourage stronger interconnections between the francophone minorities outside Quebec and the anglophone minorities in Quebec, who historically have not collaborated on a lot of projects.

There is a ten-day

[Translation]

a Canadian Summit of the Francophonie in Moncton, in August.

[English]

We're hoping that out of that will come a network of artistic endeavours we can share among cultural communities.

I was at the ADISQ in Montreal, and met Noir Silence. I asked them if they'd ever travelled outside of Quebec for music, because they're a very exciting young band, and for young people music is something qui dépasse un peu le monde de la politique. They said they had gone once to Kirkland Lake and drove up with all their equipment, but it actually cost them money to do the gig.

So there is a whole réseau artistique in Quebec for French-speaking artists, and there is a réseau artistique for English-speaking artists in other parts of the country. Why can't we help build some of those linkages? That's what I'm hoping to do with the communities.

The second part of the message I would give to the communities themselves is we should probably be giving them more envelope funding, so they can make the decisions about where they're going to spend it, rather than sitting there using a lot of person-years to decide who gets $10,000 or $20,000 grants. It's not a great use of the limited amounts of funds that are there, and I think it also encourages interconnection and inter-responsibility.

So those are a couple of the ideas we'll be working on.

The third idea is in the area of education. For those of you who have French-language schools at the college and university levels and English-language schools at the college and university levels, there is a danger we face in our action plans with the provinces that they will assume that if it's a minority language community we must assume all the financial responsibility, whereas if they were going to school in the majority language, they'd be building the schools, etc.

• 1635

So we're planning to negotiate action plans that will require them to give us an idea of what it is they intend to do. At the same time, in particular with the network of francophone schools outside of Quebec, I'm very interested in creating more formal structures so we can have a relationship that's based on a roundtable discussion of their needs.

In a sense, what happens at the moment is that the Department of Canadian Heritage becomes a little bit like a mini ministry of education, but with ten provinces, three territories, and many different demands it seems to me it would make a lot more sense if we said to the language communities, “Okay, create a network. There's a certain amount of money available, and you should be making some of the decisions about how you want to spend it.” I know in my neck of the woods, for example, Collège des Grands Lacs is proposing the establishment of a new college sector in southern Ontario. I know there are feelings in some other parts.... There is discussion around that, and I think it's important for the community. The community's mature enough now to sort some of those problems out among themselves and then give us the solutions, as opposed to saying to us, “Here's our problem. You fix it.”

I think the five-year experience with the envelope of Entente Canada-communauté is showing that when you give the communities the responsibility to make the decisions, they do deliver, and by and large they do it in a pretty effective, efficient, and affordable fashion, which is want you want to do—maximize the dollars so you're not spending on bureaucracy. I mean no disrespect to the bureaucracy.

Senator Joan Fraser: On a second point, your backgrounder material that we were given notes that an agreement was signed with Quebec sometime in the last ten years—I'm not sure when—for the provision of social and health services in English. As you know, that's a fairly hot topic in English Quebec these days. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that agreement. Could you tell us what it's doing, what's happening, and what progress, if any, is being made?

Ms. Sheila Copps: That agreement was signed actually in support of provision of minority-language services under the old system of CAP. It was intended to provide supplementary support for provision of services, but with unconditional transfers. One of the things we've looked at with the action plans that will be negotiated for the next five-year plan for education is precisely the need to have an action plan as well. This is because if you do a block transfer with absolutely no conditions, there's no guarantee the transfers will be used for the areas that were designated.

I don't know if Hilaire may want to speak more directly to the social envelope.

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: The agreement is in fact meant to provide additional services in English in the area of health care in Quebec. It is something we are doing in response to requests made for this kind of assistance. Obviously, with the action plan approach it will be a lot simpler for us to better monitor—if I may use that word—the actual flow of these funds.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Excuse me for one minute. I believe that was to provide a person to sit on the regional health and social services boards in the 16 regions of Quebec, and it is up for signature at the end of this month.

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: Yes, that's correct. It's one of the measures used. There could be other initiatives proposed as well, but that is basically what is happening now with this agreement.

Senator Joan Fraser: Can we be sure this money will be treated as additional money, not replacement money for provincial funds that would have been spent anyway?

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: Yes, absolutely.

Senator Joan Fraser: Thank you.

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

Senator Simard, do you want to ask a question? No? Well, I'm going to fill in here.

• 1640

I know you have met with the representatives of the 925,000 minority anglophones who are scattered throughout isolated areas, as well as concentrated in Montreal. As you mentioned earlier, you heard me speak on the issue of the isolation of these communities. It's very important that they don't spend all their time trying to draw up project plans without having some kind of core funding. I think you're well aware of that, and I appreciate that fact.

I know they worked very hard to develop an action plan and define the role of the arts and cultural groups—the farmers groups, the community newspapers—all of which are equally important, in a sense, as the community-based groups.

In regard to the distribution of the funds, I don't know if you can give me an answer, but they had been receiving $2.2 million over the last four years, and they would like to increase that amount to $5.8 million per year. And that goes for 15 or 16 major sectors, within which there are many other diversified groups. Are you considering this request? How do you intend to move ahead with that particular issue?

Ms. Sheila Copps: We chatted about this earlier, and I think one of the challenges we will face in doing the homework on where the moneys go is that we've got to respect the real challenges of living in rural areas. But the envelope you're suggesting is about 30% of the total envelope, and I'd have to say there are certain challenges in other communities that will probably also be looking for that amount, so we're going to have to negotiate it all.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): We did speak about it, and I think it's important for you to be on record with respect to French-language skills as a job tool. You said in your news release that you would be involved with research, communications, and the delivery of services in the region, and you went on to amplify that further.

What is going to happen with the French language as a training tool for work for anglophones in Quebec? If they want jobs, they have to be able to work in French.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I'd suggest, and maybe this is a good jumping-off point.... When you look at manpower training and other issues, what we are trying to provide in the Department of Canadian Heritage is the basic building blocks in education. This new funding is going to be able to assist us also in providing community supports. So we're hoping to get some networks.

It seems to me that it would make eminent sense to have a music tour, for example, that would go to community centres across the country in an organized fashion, that would expose francophones and anglophones to young artists who are emerging in both languages.

I can't speak for the envelopes of manpower training and who gets into language teaching outside of the formal education system, because even with the envelope that we have, as was pointed out, the challenges are great. Even with the $70 million annual increase, that is going to turn the page on some of the challenges that have been faced, but we can't expand beyond that in that financial envelope.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Madam Minister, I thank you for your answers.

I know you are pressed for time. There are two people who would like to ask you a question. Would you take them, please?

Inky, please.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Madam Chair.

If I may make a comment, I've heard more English spoken today at this committee than I have since I came here. Perhaps this committee should exercise or practise duality of language so we have a good balance.

In fact that's what my question is. Are you happy with the duality of language exercised on the Hill in terms of politicians?

Ms. Sheila Copps: I feel very lucky, because even though I started learning a second language at a late age—I was in my teens—I have a facility for it. How I try to discipline myself in my own offices is that I get all my material in French for my francophone employees and in English for my anglophone employees. It makes it simpler. But everybody doesn't have that capacity.

• 1645

If you took the Hill as a microcosm of what the country could be, I think it's a very positive experience in terms of getting a chance to learn a second language. Claude Drouin, who is the member from Beauce, came to this place not speaking any English, but he's really enjoying picking up on his English. It's vice versa for others who came in not knowing any French but who are now getting to learn it. We're blessed in this place, because most Canadians don't have the opportunity to go off on language training through a government program.

I consider myself doubly blessed, because I also must say that when I learned to speak a second language it also gave me an openness to my own way of looking at things. I sort of looked at how narrow I was in my own thinking sometimes in the other language. It actually helped open my mind to things I never really understood. That may also have been puberty, I don't know. They coincided, right?

Mr. Inky Mark: I certainly believe in the multilingual approach. I grew up with two languages as well. Like you, I came through that generation where the French teacher couldn't speak French very well, but they taught us how to read and write.

What is the current status in terms of the percentage of MPs on the Hill who function in a dual capacity? Does anyone know?

Ms. Sheila Copps: You'll have to call the Speaker and ask him that question. I don't know. Actually, it's not

[Translation]

directly concerned with what is happening now. We're talking about youth.

Unfortunately, when we left school, we did not have such advantages. Louis, when I wanted to go to Laval University in 1972, I was told by the University of Western Ontario that I has to go to France to get an education in French. That is a fact. I wanted to go to Quebec and they denied me that right. The situation 25 years ago cannot be compared with what we have today.

When you see the students on the Hill.... My daughter's French is better than mine; she has a wide vocabulary. There have been changes; it is not enough, but

[English]

I think it's a hell of a lot better than it was when I was in school, that's all.

[Translation]

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

Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Thank you Madam Chair.

[English]

Mr. Mark, we have a rather interesting situation here today, if one looks at this as objectively as one possibly can. That's difficult for me, because this touches close to home. I thought we had a bit of le monde à l'envers, if I may call it that, and I want to congratulate you, sir, for having taken what seems to me to be a rather courageous stand in support of official languages and the efforts of the Government of Canada to promote such linguistic duality. I'm very grateful for that.

I am also grateful that whenever I stand up in the House and speak in French, I don't have heckling from members of your party that I should speak English. I can't say the same of the next party in opposition. When I stand and speak in English—I have a constituency that is 60% anglophone—I get heckled that I should only speak French. That is not the openness of mind that you seem to be showing here, and I want to thank you for that.

[Translation]

What frustrates me in these procedures, Madam Chair....

Mr. Louis Plamondon: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Do I have the floor or not?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... I am perfectly entitled to....

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You get sensitive when topics are raised that you do not like.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Just a little respect, please.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The other side of the coin is that our great friends, are so-called great friends of the Francophonie from the Bloc, whenever the government does something good and gives a new steering course to help minority communities, they adopt a sour-puss attitude and try to find what it will cost and to say that everything is going wrong, that it is all dark. They seem to be depressed because of us. It looks like those people would be happier to see us get assimilated, whereas what is happening is quite the contrary. They forget to mention the fact that....

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Excuse me, gentlemen. Hello!

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I am tired of having the finger pointed at me by people who... [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

• 1650

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Order, please. Excuse me, the both of you. I pointed out that the minister had to leave. Should I turn off your microphones again? I asked the minister if she would stay to take two extra questions. That was all that was indicated.

Ms. Sheila Copps: I would like to stay as long as I can, but I have another meeting to go to.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I realize that, so I'm afraid we're going to have to close this part of the meeting. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for being so open, cooperative, and responsive. Thank you very much.

Now, is there a question you would like to put on the paper, or would you like to give it to the official?

Mr. Moyer, will you take the question from Mr. Plamondon? Yes?

All right, Mr. Plamondon, would you pose your question, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: My question is about the agreements that Canada intends to implement with various communities and about the coming negotiations. I do not know whether you will be able to answer on behalf of the Minister, but I would like to ask what the department's position is vis-à-vis the people it will be negotiating with. I will table a document, which will surely be of interest to Madam Chair, and which the ACFO sent out to every organization that represents francophones in Ontario. The association calls upon the organizations to sign an agreement without which they will not be able to receive any subsidies. This is more or less what the document says. Many groups in Ontario are opposed to the idea of having to go through a single group in order to get the funds that will be provided according to the agreements. The document even says that any information about the negotiations is strictly confidential, both internally and externally.

Any organization that signs this agreement loses its freedom of speech; the chief negotiator or his representative are the only authorized spokespersons. Many Francophone organizations in Ontario have complained about this situation and the Minister seems to be more or less washing her hands of it.

The same thing seems to be happening in Quebec, where there is an interest group called Alliance Québec which anglophone farmers for instance or anglophones in the Sherbrooke region are not pleased with it. The funds are all funnelled through one place, whereas the organizations would prefer more direct dealings.

Has the department defined the policy regarding this? I will table this document with the committee so that you may have the statement made by the ACFO and according to which any new agreement must go through it.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): That's not accurate, Mr. Plamondon. There is a management committee that handles the distribution of the funds, and I would suggest to you that the observation you have just made is not an accurate observation of reality—and we're talking about organizations here, not personalities.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Madam Chair, I insist on tabling this document because it contradicts the statements you have just made. I recognize that you may be trying to do things in a different way. I hope that the committee will take this document in consideration and that the minister's representative will give us his point of view.

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

Mr. Moyer.

Mr. Norman Moyer (Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Identity, Department of Canadian Heritage): Yes, the department does have a policy, and we used it in our initial negotiations. We are very flexible in applying it. The policy provides that each community must identify a spokesperson to negotiate with us.

As the Chair mentioned, we have worked with the Quebec Community Groups Network, which represents all the groups in Quebec. We talked about how we could conduct the negotiations and divide up the grants provided by the Government of Canada.

We adapt our approach to take into account the unique situation of the communities in each province. In Ontario, there are definitely tensions within groups, and we work with them to identify a spokesperson who has the trust of the communities. We are confident that this can be done. It is to be expected that tensions crop up from time to time. In cases of that type, we take a little more time.

• 1655

[English]

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

Do you know the name of the man who was elected to the management team of that Quebec community group?

Mr. Norman Moyer: It's Hugh Maynard who is the—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Hugh Maynard, that's it. Thank you very much. I think we have to thank him, because he chaired a very good meeting. There was certainly great unanimity and collegiality. I was there at the request of the minister, and it went very well.

Mauril, you wanted to have a last question.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone) Does anybody else want to ask questions of the

[Translation]

the officials who are with us? No?

[English]

Do you have any closing remarks that you want to make, Mr. Moyer or Mr. Lemoine?

Mr. Norman Moyer: No, but thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you.

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

The meeting is adjourned.