Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 31 - Evidence, April 18, 2002
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 18, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-32, to amend the Official Languages Act (fostering of English and French), met this day at 10:55 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Today, we will be hearing from the Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage. With her are Judith LaRocque, Associate Deputy Minister, and Mr. Hilaire Lemoine, Director General of Official Languages Support Programs.
I would ask you to please proceed.
[Translation]
The Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage: Madam Chair, I have prepared a table illustrating what we are presently doing in the area of official languages. In order to delve more deeply into the bill tabled by senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, it would be useful to review what has been accomplished over the last five or six years. I will begin by looking at the broader strategy to then deal more specifically with the bill itself.
We began by analyzing the funding allocated since the coming to power of the Liberal Party. On page 5, you will note that official languages support programs were reduced by 33.2 percent in five years. Following the revisions made to the budgets, this funding fell from $309 million in 1992-93 to $206.8 million in 1999-2000.
Over this period, contributions to the provinces and territories under official languages and education assumed their largest reductions. Their budget decreased by 43 percent. Support to community organizations were they too reduced, by 23.2 per cent, falling from $28.4 million to $21.8 million per year.
Since 1999, with the help of members of Parliament and senators, I have tried to increase funding in the area of official languages. I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to underscore the efforts of Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier, MP Mauril Bélanger as well as of the Quebec caucus and of several other people who played a role in the accomplishment of this task. We have succeeded in obtaining additional funding of $70 million to be invested in the official languages program. Of this amount, $50 million will be used for minority-language teaching and second- language education.
We have also succeeded in obtaining an injection of $10 million per year for direct community support. This component of the program has therefore been brought from $21.8 million to $32 million. This investment will also serve to ensure the francization of the communities.
[English]
We got the new funding levels and were then nearly back to 1992 levels. In the last 10 years, we have had considerable slippage. We still need an additional investment of $38 million per year to get back to the levels we were at in 1992, 10 years ago, or $89 million in constant dollars, merely to replace what we lost over the last decade.
[Translation]
A good many young people now have access to education in their language. This was not the case previously. Governance in French is now in place across the entire country.
[English]
That is a fairly new phenomenon. The idea that francophone school governance is enraciné in all parts of Canada is a very new phenomenon. Millions of Canadians are learning or perfecting a second language, and 74 per cent of young Canadians think that bilingualism is important for Canada. We were proud to sign a memorandum of understanding this morning with the City of Ottawa to deliver bilingual services in the nation's capital. That was done because there is a feeling across the country that bilingualism is an asset. I have also underscored major investments we have made to support French language and culture.
[Translation]
Normally, the committee would study those investments we make for official languages. However, investments in other areas, such as multimedia activities and film-making also contribute to the vitality of both official languages throughout Canada. Cultural investment is very important because it encourages language of work choices.
[English]
The film and television business is a $6-billion business, and when people are able to express themselves in their language of choice that helps to create jobs and capacity.
[Translation]
Networks of local, regional and national community organizations in all activity areas ensure community vitality. There are 18 school and community centres. We began with community centres so as to give families living in a minority situation the opportunity to use their mother tongue not only at school, but also in daycare centres, in theatres, in cinemas, et cetera. This is why these 18 school and community centres are linked together throughout Canada under various cultural projects.
The media also play an important role. This is why we established a network of community radio stations, newspapers and weeklies. We encourage French-language television programming: Radio-Enfants, Radio-Ados, Société Radio-Canada. We have increased the number of French-language productions so as to combat the wave of anglicization coming from the United States. We must emphasize French-language cultural contribution.
For the first time, we are involving economic activities. Canadian Heritage launched the first forum for businesspeople in the Beauce region. I launched this forum with the idea that if people living outside of the major francophone cities, such as Quebec and Montreal, learned something about economic development, then residents of Saint-Boniface, Moncton or elsewhere might be able to obtain similar results.
There exists in Canada a network of businesspeople. They get together every year. Trade agreements are reached. It is a way of ensuring that at the end of their studies, people are able to work in the language of their choice.
At present, 252,000 primary and secondary-level and minority language students are studying in their mother tongue. In Quebec, 102,000 anglophone students study in English. Outside Quebec, 150,000 francophones study in French. Nationally, 1,039 primary and secondary level schools support minority-language education.
The challenge comes from the fact that most of these schools only recently came into existence. At the transition from primary to secondary school, if new funding is not injected, youngsters aged 11 to 13 years will continue to desert these new institutions to the benefit of older ones. The challenge is just as great at the post-secondary level. Students prefer post-secondary institutions whose reputation is solid.
[English]
Alumni support and parental support is important. The idea that you will attend a school that has a long history is, unfortunately, one of the things that pulls people away from francophone schools at that key age in high school. We have started to look at making supplementary investments for the support that is needed in activities like gymnasium activities, book collections, looking at the fact that purchasing and offering a school in French language costs 20 per cent more than the English language. These are issues we look at in deciding how to target funding for the 1,039 schools that are operating in the French and English languages in minority situations.
[Translation]
With regard to school management, the establishment of francophone school management structures in Newfoundland, for example, only goes back two years. As for British Columbia, the first agreement came slightly before the exit of the last government. We signed an agreement with the then Minister, Ian Waddell. As a former MP, Mr. Waddell had acquired some knowledge of francophone school management in the province.
There are challenges wherever the school management system has only been in place for a year. Are feasibility studies doable if there is no ability to plan for the long term? An interesting result is that since the establishment of education programs for minority language groups, the number of francophones outside Quebec having graduated from university has undergone a stunning revolution compared with the situation 20 years ago. Indeed, today there are more francophone university graduates outside Quebec then in Quebec. They represent 13.5 percent of the entire population. This is the highest percentage for all groups.
It is roughly the opposite of what we saw when we first launched official language education, which has been entrenched in the law for some years now.
[English]
In Canada, the average number of university graduates in all linguistic groups is 13.1 per cent. The statistic for francophones outside Quebec shows that they are the highest educated group of Canadians. That is a statistic that turned around in the last 20 years, because when Jean Robert started his work with Penetanguishene and some of the great battles in Ontario in the early 1970s the statistics for francophones were the opposite. Francophones outside Quebec were amongst the least educated.
[Translation]
They had a very high drop-out rate, beginning right after primary school. In summary, we are going in the right direction. We must nevertheless not rest on our laurels. In 1996, only 3.3 per cent of francophones in a minority situation had fewer then nine years of education, compared to 31.6 percent in 1971.
[English]
You can see the statistics there. Only 3.3 per cent of francophones living in a minority situation were without nine years of school in 1996. That compared with 31 per cent in 1971. There has been incredible increase in the number of francophones outside Quebec that are seeking, achieving and educating themselves.
[Translation]
They understand the importance of education in improving their economic status. Each year, close to 15,000 young Canadians participate in the programs we offer in order to ensure and foster linguistic duality. Allow me to put this in context.
Young Canada Works is a bilingual exchange program. There is a lot of funding for human resource programs, but very little for exchange programs. I am proud to have submitted this program to Treasury Board. More than 900 young people participated in the program last year, and more than half of them were francophones. This program is administered by the Association des jeunes francophones du Canada. Its purpose is to help young people get to know other parts of Canada, in both official languages.
We also have a second-language summer bursary program under which we have sponsored close to 7,000 participants. We have also invested in an Official-Language Monitor Program. This program involved more than 900 participants. We have furthermore encouraged reciprocal bilingual exchanges involving some 4,800 youth last year, including 2,663 francophones from Quebec.
We have encouraged the use of French for the future. The Youth Forum, the Rendez-vous de la Francophonie, et cetera, are all programs aimed at promoting the value of second-language learning. As Minister of the Francophonie, in 1999, I launched the first Canadian Year of the Francophonie, even before the hosting of the Sommet de la Francophonie, in Moncton. This measure encouraged all francophone communities to get involved in raising awareness of the French fact in Canada.
[English]
Two million students are studying their second language at school. That is on a course basis, not an immersion basis. Three hundred and eighteen thousand students are studying French immersion, and more than 2,000 schools across the country offer French immersion programs. In the province of Québec, 558,000 students study English, and 40,000 students are in French immersion.
The figures show that Canadians across the country are very supportive of French language availability and instruction. In fact, there has been a tremendous increase in bilingualism amongst the 15- to 19-year-old target age group, which is the group that we are trying to support.
I remember that when I studied French in high school and university I was a lone soul. A sister from the Grey Nuns was teaching me, but very few studied French. We studied Molière.
[Translation]
Thanks to the programs that are available, the proportion of graduates able to work in both official languages is now one out of five.
[English]
Looking at the athletes who did us so proud at the Olympic games, I was amazed at the number who were not only capable of speaking the two languages but were extremely proficient in both languages. A kid from Vancouver who speaks fluent French is a student that would have been unheard of 20 years ago. There are some great challenges.
[Translation]
The government of Canada is a major player with regard to official languages. Its support extends well beyond official languages, as it also feeds important investments in related fields, cultural and other.
[English]
I will give you a bit of a list of where we target specific funding for support for francophones living in minority situations. I am proud to say that I started this. I began several years ago ensuring that our national institutions and the Governor in Council appointments represented the true duality of Canada. We have representatives on Radio- Canada, CBC, Telefilm and other places that are able to start interconnecting Canadians.
We spent $2.1 million, from a budget of $4.6 million, under the Cultural Initiative Program for festivals and special artistic events in the francophone milieu. We created a national training program in the art sector that did not exist before 1999.
[Translation]
For example, we fund the Cirque du Soleil School, the Théâtre national, and the film-making industry.
[English]
We support the international commission of francophone theatre.
In book publishing, not only do we have specific targeted programs, but also we provide $12.4 million in annual support for books and book publishing. That is also an important way of insuring that you have capacity of expression. In magazine publishing, we spend $9.1 million on publications and $5.7 million on French magazines. We also target French sound recording to the amount of $3.9 million.
[Translation]
When the Prime Minister announced a $560 million investment for next year, some people thought this money targeted only the performing arts. However, most of the money was used to digitize in both official languages the content of all Canadian museums on the Internet. At the present time, a minimum of 50 percent of Internet content must be in French. This is a $75 million program spread out over three years.
You have most probably heard talk of the launching of the virtual museum in Canada. Our challenge for the next two years is to establish an Internet link between all of the museums in Canada. During its first eight weeks, the virtual museum welcomed 20 million visitors from more than 100 countries. This museum is an excellent source of information for young people.
[English]
The Chairman: Minister, I hesitate to interrupt a cabinet minister but I have been told that you must leave around 11:30 a.m. I know senators are eager to ask you questions and to get your response to Senator Gauthier's bill.
Ms Copps: I would prefer to complete my presentation and miss my vote. I hope the government is not going to fall on my vote. I think this is important information. If you going to look at a piece of legislation, you must contextualize it.
The Chairman: If you willing to stay longer, then that is wonderful.
Ms Copps: I will stay.
The Canadian Digital Cultural Content Initiative also involves specific targets that we made to minority communities to digitize. Once we finished making SchoolNet available to all schools in Canada, we went to minority communities. We thought it was important to be able to link to each other. We have actually made specific content provisions. We made a $10-million investment in Cultural Content On-Line from the National Library, the CBC, et cetera.
[Translation]
The Francophonie Games, held in this region, required a sizeable contribution. However, it is interesting to note that beyond the financial contribution, this event, through sports, contributed to an increased awareness of francophone communities. Two years ago, we held the first Canadian Francophonie Games. All of the young francophone athletes were brought together in New-Brunswick. This event showed francophones that they were not isolated and allowed them to establish links between each other.
We are responsible for managing the TV-5 network for the Americas. We have also invested in the acquisition of Canadian productions. With regard to the Société Radio-Canada, operating costs for francophone television amounted to close to $285 million, whereas they reached $93.6 million for French radio.
In the case of the Canada Council for the Arts, the list you have before you is not comprehensive, because it does not include all of our investments, for example in the Montreal Symphony Orchestra or other cultural venues. This list only includes the programs of the Canada Council for the Arts targeting specifically francophone organizations.
We offer a program for francophone theatre artists and organizations as well as a program aimed at encouraging francophone writers and editors. We have a $2.8 million fund for media arts artists and organizations. All of this totals $16.5 million aimed at fostering francophone cultural development outside of the Canada Council for the Arts' regular programs.
[English]
The National Arts Centre has become a booming form of expression. In fact, a few of you might have been there the other night to see Charles Aznavour.
[Translation]
We have also for the very first time negotiated agreements between the National Arts Centre and other centres so as to ensure a faithful reflection of the national capital. We have even specifically targeted the development of French theatre. None of this existed before we launched the process: variety shows, et cetera.
The National Film Board plays an important role with 45 percent of its productions and co-productions being in French. In the field of co-production, which for Canada represents an investment of more than $6 billion in audiovisual endeavours, 50 percent of co-productions are in the two official languages.
Take for example the film entitled The Red Violin, a Canada-Great Britain co-production. The movie was filmed in French, in English, in Chinese and in German, quite an amazing feat in film-making. Last year, we supported the production of 66 independent films in French.
We also have $8.9 million earmarked for programming. Furthermore, at Téléfilm Canada, 34 percent of multi- media and television projects are in French, so as to support the French fact in Canada. With regard to Canada's feature film policy, 30 percent of commitments must go to French language projects.
Last week I had a conversation with Richard Gaudreau who had the thrill of producing films Les Boys I, II and III. He is hoping to produce a major international production in Canada with the participation, among others, of Gérard Depardieu. He plans on doing a few tapings in Louisbourg.
These are just a few more initiatives aimed at improving the situation for Canadian media and television.
[English]
We get to the crux of the matter — and this is the part of which I am quite proud, but we need more work. In 1994, we developed an accountability framework to support official language minority communities in the implementation of sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act. As you know, each year I receive action plans and achievements by 29 federal departments and agencies. The francophone community was pretty smart in recognizing that, when you are not a line agency — that is, when you are a department that provides programs — sometimes you are not in the best position to encourage change at the centre and to encourage assurance of recognition of official languages at the centre. I do report to Parliament on an annual basis. In 1997 — and this started as a result of work by Jean Robert and others — we signed a protocol of intent. That happened when Marcel Masse, then president of the Treasury Board, and myself got together and decided that this would be important for the government.
[Translation]
It is now up to not only Canadian Heritage but also Treasury Board to ensure that federal departments and institutions recognize the official languages policy in our programs. This new protocol allows Treasury Board to question any federal department policy that could be detrimental to the development of French in Canada. It sensitizes departments and civil servants to their responsibilities.
Treasury Board has become the champion of departmental accountability. We have created the advisory committee on departments and Crown corporations. It is presided over by the Honourable Stéphane Dion. We are for the very first time undertaking an operational analysis of all of the briefs to Cabinet so as to ensure that we go beyond nice words and ensure the enforcement of the official languages policy. We have attempted to do this in two ways: we have a stick and we also have a carrot. In politics, these types of changes are sometimes difficult and one must offer carrots once in a while.
We have also established the IPOLC program, the purpose of which is to involve other departments in a broader official languages policy by granting them financial incentives. We have an annual budget of $5.5 million. We are accepting the projects of other departments to see if we might work on them together.
As an example, just last week, the Minister of Immigration signed an agreement aimed at fostering immigration in regions where francophones are in a minority situation. We for example know that in Saint-Boniface, in the Whelan region and in other areas of Canada, it is possible to live and work in French, but there is no renewal coming from the young people. There is a ``relève'' in the larger cities, but without there being recognition given to official languages. We have signed an agreement with the Honourable Denis Coderre in view of promoting a policy of immigration in regions that need this type of renewal. We have noted a decrease in the birth-rate of Canadians. It is not up to the government to change that, but it certainly could, through immigration programs, ensure that there are francophones everywhere in the country.
We have to date, under the IPOLC program, signed 13 framework agreements. Thanks to the $5.5 million, we have received from other departments investments totalling $11 million. We are striving to encourage them to invest. There are several areas of intervention, for example culture, the economy and others still.
We are certainly facing several challenges and we need additional funding. We must ensure that official languages are not the sole responsibility of one department. The Act must be applied in all sectors of the government. We have already spoken amply of the matter of community support.
I believe that the main idea of Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier's bill is to ensure that those francophones or anglophones who find themselves neglected by the government are able to ensure the respect of their rights. When various departments did an in-depth study of the bill together, we had certain questions to ask as to possible amendments. One thing we wish to avoid, for example, is to take on the responsibility of other governments. As to the text of the bill, the Justice Department was wondering if it would have any effect on the area of education and thus create certain responsibilities for which we do not have the necessary legislative tools.
The idea put forward by the Honourable Jean-Robert Gauthier is the possibility of having legal recourse in cases where the government of Canada does not respect its commitments. I would propose that the amendments the committee has discussed be part of an analysis that we might append to the bill for the Joint Committee on Official Languages so as to have an more in-depth study aimed at ensuring that the changes made to the act not affect those responsibilities which do not come under the government of Canada.
Senator Gauthier: Madame Minister, I am very pleased to see you appear before us along with Ms Larocque and Mr. Lemoyne.
The adoption of the Charter in 1982, of the Official Languages Act in 1988 and of the new act passed by Parliament have granted fundamental rights to linguistic minority groups living in a minority situation. These were mentioned yesterday: the right to freedom, the right to justice and especially the right to equality. I would like to dwell a little on this because my bill, Bill S-32 aims at ensuring equality.
Usually, the majority ensures that its rights are respected. In a democracy, there is usually plurality. In a democracy, minorities must be treated fairly and equally. This is another problem.
This is why there is so much respect in Canada for our justice system. Bill S-32, that I have put forward, aims at clarifying the scope of section 41 of the Official Languages Act, making it executory rather than declaratory, as some people in the Justice Department purport it to be.
I recognize that this position has been developed here by the witnesses. We have to date held seven meetings and heard more than 15 witnesses, the great majority of whom represented official language communities. Some of them were legal and constitutional experts. All of them supported the purpose of the bill at the outset with the exception of Justice Canada, that skated around the question of whether or not this should be declaratory or executory.
I was somewhat surprised by the statements made by the representatives of Justice Canada. I had thought that we had moved beyond this position whereby it is up to the majority to decide and to the minorities to follow. Part VII of section 41 of the Act is not subject to a right of recourse. If it is removed, our rights are restricted. As I said in my statement, no recourse, no right, it is as simple as that.
Yesterday, we heard Mr. Tyler, from Alliance Québec, talk about Part VI of the Act. We heard representatives from the Quebec Community Group Network, which is the umbrella association of Anglophones in Quebec. The president of the group, Mr. Maynard, appeared before us. Few support the Bill S-32 initiative.
Yesterday, Mr. Tyler spoke at length about Part VI of the Act, but I would today like us to concentrate on Part VII, section 41. Francophone communities living in a minority situation also appeared before the committee and supported the proposal. The Commissioner of Official Languages supported it as well, but with certain amendments that she suggested.
Nearly all of the witnesses, with the exception of Justice Canada, have supported the bill. Madam Minister, I do not know if this is a fair question, but what is your present position with regard to Bill S-32?
You must be aware that I have made two proposals. Bill S-32 will have to move through various stages before being adopted; it is not easy. I went through a bill, that of the Auditor general of Canada. I succeeded in getting it adopted, and this bill indeed changed the usual behaviour of the Auditor general of Canada.
The federal government, of which you are a part, will have to look at this proposal. The communities have given their support and the experts have given their advice. Overall, they say that it is a good thing. In our opinion, section 41 is executory. What is your position as minister responsible for Canadian Heritage?
You talked at length about this issue and about the way in which you see section 43. What is the position of the government with regard to Bill S-32?
Ms Copps: First of all, since I am not a lawyer, I am unable to say very much about matters of legal, challengeable and declaratory policy. In 1981, I suggested for Ontario the status of bilingual province. The proposal was not a very popular one. Based on my experience, as a longtime francophile, the advancement of the francophone minorities in the country has been brought about more by the courts than by Parliament. This is why there needs to be a right to recourse, as was provided in the cases of school management and the Montfort Hospital. Governments do not easily grant rights to minorities. In this context, I support your initiative aimed at ensuring that this oversight right remain in place for francophones.
According to what you heard from the Department of Justice, the purpose of the bill, as drafted, is to give the government of Canada responsibility over the activities of provincial governments. But legally, we cannot do that. This is why I suggested the undertaking of a broader initiative with the proposed amendments. We could submit the matter to a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Official Languages precisely in order for it to do an in-depth study of the issue and to examine other possibilities.
Do you believe we could, as we did in the case of the framework agreement reached with Treasury Board, reinforce these measures? It is not a secret, but when we signed the agreement with the provinces with regard to labour legislation, we were assured that the linguistic rights recognized in law would be respected. In reality, this was not necessarily the case. If Treasury Board's responsibility were more strongly delineated, we would be better able to make adjustments as situations arise.
When the first Human Resources initiative came up, I withdrew the bill in order to ensure that the linguistic rights of both official language communities would be respected. It was the only guarantee I had. But since I had not been there to read the document in its context, what happened afterward was not necessarily what we had been told during the course of the discussion. I believe you have already studied the effects that had for francophones in minority situations when they were unable to be served by Human Resources in their language. It is a waste of energy.
Senator Gauthier: One of the arguments Justice Canada used is that the bill would increase court action, create expectations on the part of communities and multiply the number of referrals to the courts. When we adopted the Charter in 1982 and the new Official Languages Act in 1988, I put the question to Mr. Bouchard, who was the minister responsible at the time. He had told me in committee that section 41 of the act created obligations for the government. I remember having responded by saying: ``Very good.'' But later on, the minister of Justice had retorted that it created no obligations whatsoever.
I did some research. Under clause 15, proclaimed in 1997, 15 years after its passage in 1982, there were 733 cases placed before the Supreme Court of Canada. There were five cases regarding sections 16.1 and 16.2, in the same constitution. There were 31 cases relating to section 23(1) on education.
To state that that will increase court action is to my mind not justifiable on the basis of what happened with sections 16 and 23. There is no proof that such a move will increase court actions.
I have always maintained that if I could not go before the court to defend my rights, it is because I had no rights. Part VII of section 41 is excluded from legal recourse. The Official Languages Act is a federal act. I am therefore speaking strictly here of the obligations of the federal government. I would like to give it more teeth, that is all. Are you in agreement?
Ms Copps: The vitality of minorities must not be dependent upon a checkbook. Even if it should cost more! Why are we here? We spend millions of dollars on other programs. Should we not enforce minority rights even if it costs more? Would it be less costly to turn Canada into a one language only country? I do not know, but is that Canada? I do not think so. Your proposal has merit.
The Montfort Hospital case would never have been settled had there not been court action. We can work on countering the fears of those who believe that we will be trampling on the territory of other governments. We can go forward with the possibility of an in-depth study.
In the case of Human Resources, when the transfer was made, I was told that the Official Languages Act had been respected. Passage of the act had been delayed in order to ensure that such was the case. A year later, it was discovered that it was only respected in part. Official languages are respected, but it is possible for a province to have legislation that takes precedence over them. Those who signed this agreement most probably had no intention of weakening these rights. Nevertheless, such is the result. Those who work in the Human Resources area in various parts of the country receive fewer services in French than previously. What are we doing to address that? We cannot say that we are in favour of the official languages policy while at the same time handing the responsibility over to other governments.
If it is possible to have a policy aimed directly at a responsibility of the government of Canada, I believe that your bill will receive broader support.
Senator Nolin: We are engaging in this very promising debate. I have not seen the proposed amendments, but after having read your presentation and listened to your statement, I have come to the conclusion that you are going well beyond the legal obligation not only of section 43 but also of section 41. The effort made by the government must be recognized. The president of Treasury Board is not the champion of this cause: you are its champion. You have definitely pushed the limits of the government of Canada's responsibilities in official languages further.
You are minister and I am not. You will perhaps not agree with me, but it seems to me that you are in favour of senator Gauthier's bill. You are taking the necessary measures to ensure the vitality and development Senator Gauthier's amendment is aimed at accomplishing. However, your fear comes from the lawyers of the government. It is the normal role of a lawyer to put to you the worst-case scenario and to encourage you to protect yourself against the worst that could happen. I honestly believe that this is a false alarm.
No court would allow the federal government to stomp on an area coming under another jurisdiction because a bill appears to give it that responsibility. Senator Beaudoin will be able to elaborate further on this matter. I do not believe that by amending section 41 we are imposing on the government of Canada responsibilities that are beyond its constitutional jurisdiction.
Senator Gauthier — he is certainly more of an expert than me in this area — is not asking for changes to section 77 of the act that provides for legal recourse by the official languages commissioner. Part VII is not at all included in section 77. The aim of Senator Gauthier's amendment is precisely what you are already doing.
Some will say that, since you are already doing that, there is no need for an amendment to a legal text, much the contrary. I live in a province where I belong to the majority. Such is not the case of Senator Gauthier nor of a good many of my French-speaking colleagues who live in a minority situation in other provinces. Legal protection such as that provided in Senator Gauthier's amendment is an easily attainable minimum since it is something you are already doing.
My intervention is perhaps more of a statement than a question. I believe that you are in agreement with me. I will nevertheless invite you to comment on my question.
Ms Copps: When we suggested that the framework agreement be signed by Treasury Board five years ago, it was because Canadian Heritage is not in a position to enforce this in all areas. We can only do so in those areas for which we are responsible.
Canadian Heritage has the advantage of possessing various other tools. For example, we are in a position to establish links with the various governments in the area of sports. These are important elements for our young people. I am thinking here of the way in which we are able to encourage young people to fulfil their potential in their own language.
It is inconceivable that the Canadian Heritage Department revise all government agreements in all departments and all institutions. That is what is missing in section 41. In the case of section 41, we are asking the department of Canadian Heritage to ensure that all government agreements respect both official languages. However, there is no central agency.
Senator Nolin: Section 43 comes under your responsibility. In section 41, it is the government as a whole.
Ms Copps: Our Department is responsible for section 41.
Senator Nolin: Indeed. You have succeeded in forcing the government, through a central agency such as Treasury Board, to respect section 41. In other words, you have used section 43 by saying that the government has much more than a commitment, that it has responsibilities. Since I have some, you have some as well. You have orchestrated a masterful coup.
I was saying earlier that you are already doing what Senator Gauthier is proposing. You are already doing this.
Ms Copps: Even if we had signed an agreement with Treasury Board, this responsibility would nevertheless fall to me, because the law has not changed. Senator Gauthier's proposal offers the possibility of bringing the government of Canada before the courts if it does not respect its responsibilities.
The support of the entire legal system is required. I am not in a position to tell you if we have this support or not. There has nevertheless been a commitment by Treasury Board and by others to continue to work on this file. This is why I am suggesting the addition of the amendments to Senator Gauthier's bill that have been proposed by various others. I am not a lawyer. These amendments could be submitted to a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Official Languages in order for the dialogue to continue.
Senator Nolin: It is a proposal, but Senator Gauthier is in the driver's seat. I am telling you that there are unfounded fears here. I understand your answer. You have gone beyond your mandate in accomplishing what you have succeeded in doing. Your effort and your success must be recognized.
[English]
The Chairman: Before we go to the other senators on the list, may I ask you, minister, if I am reading you correctly? If this committee and the Senate pass Senator Gauthier's bill and send it to the House of Commons, it will then enable you to amend it as you see fit in the House of Commons, and then to come back here then for another go-around. Would it give you ammunition?
Ms Copps: I would suggest that, instead of taking the bill as is, as a number of interveners have raised certain question about it, including the Department of Justice, we would withdraw the bill in its current form and refer the bill and the proposed amendments to a subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Official Languages, to continue the process, bearing in mind that we would have to ensure, through proper legal language, et cetera, that whatever engagements we undertake we do in the context of what is legally binding to the Government of Canada and not to others.
Machinery of government issues do not come out of a ministry; they come out of the Government of Canada. You might want to consider doing a more in-depth study of the relationship in the protocol d'entente and how it might be strengthened, not just in the capacity to be justiciable but also that there may be a place for the Privy Council to play a larger role there. I have some ideas in that area. I do not want to elaborate on them here; it is not my decision to get into the issues of machinery of government. However, I think the protocol has been a good start. After five years, we probably need to take a look at how it is being applied in different forums, and also how Senator Gauthier might achieve his objective of ensuring that if governments or departments do not respect minority rights there is a recourse that is not simply political but, rather, legal.
Most provincial governments for the last 25 years would have done nothing in terms of proposing and promoting minority rights had it not been for court judgments that helped them move their agendas forward. We are now at a situation where, in a positive way, even though governments may have been pushed into action, people are starting to see the benefits of having this policy. Had we fallen back 20 years ago, and if education rights, for example, had not been challengeable in the courts, we would not have them.
Therefore, I think we must take the history we have and apply it to ensuring that the operations of the Government of Canada are equally airtight in terms of respect for minorities. As to what legal format that might take, I am not a lawyer so I cannot speak to the law and the legal parts of it, but I do know the Department of Justice has had concerns about some of the specifics of that bill.
The Chairman: That is very interesting.
Senator Beaudoin: I must say, first, I am very impressed by what is done.
[Translation]
Coming back to Senator Nolin's question, you are acting as if section 41 were imperative. I say: Bravo! I agree. In my opinion, it is executory. There are still a lot of people who do not believe that such is the case. Sooner or later, the matter will have to be put before the courts. There is no other solution. When you say that we should refer this matter to the Joint Committee on Official Languages, I have no objections. My impression is that this is first and foremost a legal and constitutional matter. If there is one committee that is well equipped to delve into this matter, it is the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I have no objections whatsoever, much the contrary.
Senator Nolin brought up the issue of the rights of the provinces in the area of education. It is not necessary to meet the provinces in this regard, since the Constitution has preceded us. It is abundantly clear that anything involving education comes under provincial jurisdiction. We do not have the right to stomp on that area.
We are allowed to use our spending power. As a matter of fact, you are quite good at that! We cannot change the Constitution. We can try, but that is another matter.
Ms Copps: Good luck!
Senator Beaudoin: I would tend to think that this issue should come under the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs or one of its sub-committees. Sooner or later, we will no longer be able to avoid the issue of the amendment. We have Ms Adam's amendments. It is more and more complicated and this bothers me. It becomes very dangerous when there are too many amendments. It is at that stage that people do nothing. I have always believed that we could bring this matter before the courts.
My first reaction would be to study the amendments, to agree on one amendment that would encompass all the others. That amendment would lead to a truly executory and imperative obligation. I believe there is no other solution. I am in favour of the bill and I will vote in favour of its passage tomorrow morning. If the Department of Justice is not ready to move forward, then let us continue to push on with the amendment.
Ms Copps: It is rather in the hands of Senator Gauthier. I believe we could reach a consensus. If the amendment goes back to the House of Commons in its present form, there will probably not be consensus. We are seeking a consensus reflecting the responsibility of the government of Canada and the power of the people to see their rights respected by the government and by the courts.
Senator Beaudoin: When we talk about provincial jurisdiction, the provincial powers under sections 92 and 93, it is not with Quebec that we are going to have problems. Quebec will tell us to not touch sections 92 and 93, that it will take care of them. Will the English language majority provinces have the same latitude? Perhaps, but my first reaction would be to seek a solution that does not require consultation of the provinces. We know what the provinces can do.
Ms Copps: In order to move forward with the essence of the proposal, we must have assurances that the bill will not touch upon areas of provincial jurisdiction. Since the minister of Justice is saying that it does involve provincial jurisdiction, we must obtain legal explanations and guarantees. This is why a little bit more work is required here.
Senator Beaudoin: Would you say that Senator Gauthier's bill stomps on areas of provincial jurisdiction? I do not believe this is the case.
Ms Copps: The provinces are saying maybe. This is why they want a more in-depth study. I would not like to see the bill reach the House of Commons and then be defeated. I therefore am suggesting that there be a more in-depth discussion.
Senator Beaudoin: We can do that.
Ms Copps: It can take place here as well. How many among you are lawyers?
Senator Nolin: Several.
Senator Beaudoin: If necessary, we could have a section stating that the purpose is not to stomp on provincial powers. That is easy.
[English]
Senator Fraser: It has been fascinating listening to your suggestions, minister. As you probably know, a number of the people here are or have been faithful members of the Official Languages Committee. I would observe that that committee cannot handle legislation, so we are talking about a much longer and more burdensome process if we go back there. All they can do is produce a report in due course. You are familiar with the political dynamic within that committee, I am sure.
I suspect, if one were to do a comparative table of most of the amendments that have been proposed by the various witnesses, that one would find substantial convergence on where they are going, and certainly they are going in a direction that answers most of the difficulties that I have had with the actual formulation of this bill. I am sure we will have a good discussion about your presentation.
I do not usually throw compliments at ministers, but I will this time because I want to be very sure you understand where I am coming from. I think that your personal dedication to the cause of francophone rights and services and community development is not only admirable but is a shining example of what this country ought to be. You have been dragging us there. It is wonderful. You could not do it alone, of course — even you could not do it alone — but every single step that you have outlined is wonderful.
That said, I am an English Quebecer. Often, in the federal government discourse, and again today in your presentation, I get the sense that we are the forgotten people. The needs of the francophone minorities have been so obvious and so great that the different needs of the English Quebec communities just get postponed. You will get to them one day, perhaps. I am overstating the case, but I am sure you see what I am driving at.
Since this bill is about community development, I wonder if you could explain to me your sense of the priorities for the development of English Quebec communities and, indeed, what you are doing now and what you would like to do and how that fits into your broader picture.
Ms Copps: One challenge that francophones face when looking at the development of a community that has no history of institutions, no history of educational systems and no history of services is that they are starting from below zero. In the anglophone community in Quebec, you have a long history of institutions, and the question is how to keep them flourishing.
We have tried to, in the department, target particular investments that are made outside the large urban areas. I think about the people who are in the same minority situation without the institutional support you have in the large cities. Sometimes there is a misunderstanding.
When I spoke earlier about investment in education, McGill University has a great history, and many people want to go there because of alumni who have won awards and are world-renowned. The board of directors is like a Who's Who of Canada. You do not get the same support elsewhere. I mentioned Laurentian, but I could just as easily have mentioned the University of Moncton.
When we make our investments, our intention is to build up in those institutions that were previously either non- existent or really under-funded, and also to target in anglophone Quebec the areas outside of Montreal in particular that do not have the same kind of institutional supports that exist, as well as keeping those institutional supports that are there alive. For example, on the CBC, English radio is really important through the region. Those are key areas for development of the anglophone communities.
Remember that the institutional support that exists for anglophone communities over the history of the last 100 years is far greater than what existed for francophones outside Quebec. They had no schools. In the province of Newfoundland, they have only had a school board for two years. I think the comparisons are at a different stage.
Senator Fraser: That was my point. The needs are different but nonetheless real. For example, of your 18 school and community centres, are any of them in Quebec?
Ms Copps: Yes. As a matter of fact, this is where we are insufficient at telling our story. We actually are involved in the construction of every single anglophone school in Quebec. We fund them through our programs.
Senator Fraser: Have there been any built lately?
Ms Copps: Yes. One just opened about six months ago. I do not have the list, but I could get it. We try to assist in the additional costs that are associated in developing minority schools.
Certain costs that are difference are attached to developing francophone schools, because obviously if you are looking at the purchase of books and science materials those materials are primarily available in the English language.
We do communities centres. Mr. Lemoine can give you the list. Believe me, we are active in all parts of the country.
To go back to the actual legislation, as well as the legislation, you really need to look at the protocol that was signed with Treasury Board to determine if there is a way of strengthening that concurrently. I do not want to see this committee pass a bill that subsequently goes to the House of Commons and is not supported, and then you end up with a lot of work and very little outcome. I believe we have had some substantial integration of responsibility with the protocol d'entente, and that might be something that you want to put into a larger examination. I suggested looking at the Official Languages Committee because I am sure some of you probably were not even aware that we had this agreement and what it means in terms of development of policy and whether Privy Council should be a partner to that, for example. Instead of just having Treasury Board and Canadian Heritage sign an agreement, maybe we should bring Privy Council in, because they are also at forefront of the negotiations we do. There may be different ways of looking at how we achieve these ends.
Senator Gauthier has pointed out a limitation of rights that is expressed in the law, and we are trying to find a way of actually removing that limitation, which could be judiciary or administrative. I believe that what we did in the protocol agreement in 1995 helped move the benchmark forward.
I could not believe we now actually have a committee chaired by Stéphane Dion that is looking at the roles of all the ministries. That has been incredibly powerful in terms of people knowing that when they bring a policy forward it will get a horizontal review. That could never have happened if we had not signed that protocol of understanding. I think it needs a larger look.
Senator Fraser: I was aware of the protocol because of the Official Languages Committee. It is very useful to discuss it here.
Back to English Quebec, what proportion of your funding would go to English Quebec?
Ms Copps: Mr. Lemoine can tell you that. I do not know. I think in the school system it is pretty significant.
Senator Fraser: You have given us 32 pages with many dollar programs outlined globally. What proportion of all that goes to English Quebec?
Ms Copps: I am assuming that in the area of cultural development our focus has been on protecting the French language across the country. That is not a targeted program to a particular group. When you develop policies for feature film, for example, you ensure you have a certain percentage in French. The percentage in English is not a problem. When I became the minister, we were really focussing in on the product without looking at the official languages in a number of our program areas.
Senator Fraser: I am not suggesting the Toronto film industry is not getting along.
Ms Copps: We actually took Governor in Council appointees from the minority communities and put them on the board, because what happened before was that French filmmakers were working in Quebec and English filmmakers working outside Quebec. We changed that system. Does that help English Quebec filmmakers? Yes, it does. Is there a targeted program for them? No, there is not.
Senator Fraser: What are your results? On one level, there is your vision, and on another level, how it actually works out.
Ms Copps: On another level there are probably more Quebecers speaking English than at any time in the history of province. That is probably a good indicator.
Senator Fraser: Not mother tongue anglophones.
Mr. Hilaire Lemoine, Director General, Official Languages Support Program, Canadian Heritage: Of the funds that are spent by the department on official language programs, I would say that between 17 and 20 per cent of all of the funds go to Quebec, mainly for English minority language education or minority language services, or items related to that.
Ms Copps: That does not include many of the items I put in here.
Senator Fraser: It does not include budgets for CBC and things like that. This is the number that is most useful, and I thank you.
Ms Copps: If it were useful, we could provide you a list of where we have made investment, because we are actually building community centres in minority communities. For example, if you live in Montreal, generally speaking, you have access to go to the theatre or a restaurant and live in your language; if you live in Bas-du-Fleuve, that is not always the case, and that is where we are focussing.
In the same way, when we focus on community centres outside of Quebec, we go into communities that have no way of actually living in their language. What is the point of sending someone to school and encouraging them to speak their minority language if, when they finish, they cannot work or take their kids to child care?
When children reach high school in minority community areas, they switch from the French to English school, and they do that because there is such a history attached to the English schools that they want to go there. Those schools are associated with teams that won football games and big names — for example, where Wayne Gretzky went to school. Those are all draws in a school system that you have to take into consideration when you are building a new system.
The Chairman: Thank you, minister. I am coming up with ideas of what we can and cannot do with Senator Gauthier's bill.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Madam Minister, we are very pleased to welcome you here and in particular Ms LaRocque, with whom we have already had several joint projects, as well as Mr. Lemoine, at various other stages.
I would like to underline that the convictions expressed by the minister for Canadian Heritage have already been tested. I wish to thank you for your intervention with regard to the Montfort Hospital, in particular when the Canadian government decided to launch an appeal. Former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer appeared before our committee last Monday.
[English]
It has been mentioned how important it was for interveners to go to the court and explain a broader perspective. The decision you were part of in the cabinet is to be commended, and I want to mention to you that my personal experience with Secretary of State and with Canadian Heritage has been generally positive, much more so than with the Department of Justice. That department has taken not the spirit but the letter of the law, so I want to commend you in your capacity because it has given positive results.
Your presentation reinforces the position advocated by Senator Gauthier and many witnesses. If we read your presentation carefully, at page 5 the decrease in funding from 1992 is dramatic. It has taken a lot of political effort since 1997, and I remember you talking to many members of Parliament of both Houses to convince the government to prioritize the enrichment of the program.
It is a bit disturbing to see how the cuts have been inflicted on the basis of fundamental constitutional rights. We are not talking of building ports or airports, but about constitutional rights. On one hand, you illustrate how the enhancement of both linguistic communities is at the whim of the government of the day. I am not criticizing the government of the day; it had to face the problem and make some decisions. On the other hand, however, the last page of your presentation, page 31, shows a lack of structural framing of the federal government's responsibility in relation to the delivery of programs all through the government apparatus.
When I look at both sides of your presentation, I can only conclude that we need to strengthen the legislative base for the responsibilities of the government, and other departments, such as the Treasury Board who must be involved in this. Because the official commissioner criticized the federal government very harshly some years ago, Minister Dion has been appointed. Hence, if we have a government of the day that is sympathetic to official languages and a good Minister of Heritage, as you are, we will end up fighting and receiving the minimum amount of cutbacks that the government has to inflict. This leads to dramatic results, as you know from Statistics Canada, in terms of assimilation ratios, as was mentioned to our committee here.
We have to look into Senator Gauthier's bill with the perception that what you propose in respect of the jurisdiction as set out in the Constitution Act of 1867 is an easy amendment to make. We should say: ``In accordance with subsection 16, the Government of Canada shall take, in respect of the divisions of power as set out in the Constitution of 1867, all steps necessary.'' Thus, we will have answered your problem.
I gave you a quick formula. It could be fine-tuned, but that is the idea. It is possible to bring an amendment to the bill of Senator Gauthier, either in this committee or on third reading, to make it more acceptable generally. It does not change the spirit of Senator Gauthier's amendment to bring that amendment. It frames the responsibility of the federal government, and we can do that.
I want to support the suggestion and the comment made by the chair. You need support in the government apparatus to ensure that the government framework and structure is permanent to avoid what I call the myth of Sisyphus, of rolling the ball back to the top of the mountain and starting again every 10 years because different choices have been made, and we are back to square one.
I suggest that we can amend it here easily and have it debated in the Senate on third reading to help you to get the basis you need so that protocol is not just the expression of a political will but also a permanent instrument of government intervention in support of official languages.
Senator Moore: Thank you for being here, minister. It is always good to see you and hear about your efforts in support of the country and its many diversities.
Have you or your officials had a chance to look at the evidence we heard yesterday?
Ms Copps: No, someone from the Montreal Gazette just asked me about it. I just heard from her, but I do not know anything about it and we are looking into it.
Senator Moore: Mr. Brent Tyler was here and was giving evidence with respect to the application of his organization. He is the president of Alliance Quebec, as you may know. The organization in its application to your department for funding described what it does, and after hearing his evidence yesterday, I thought it appropriate to describe its activities. The phrase is:
Research and assess application of the Official Languages Act to ensure compliance with the regulations by federal government institutions.
His evidence was as follows:
Subsequent to the filing of our application for program funding, we were approached by employees of the Department of Canadian Heritage and directed to take that out of our funding application, which we did.
I asked him some questions about that, and the clear implication was if they did not take that out, they would likely not be successful in their funding application. His evidence is that Beverley Caplan of the Montreal office of your department spoke to Lynn Roy, his organization's director of communications, and directed Ms Roy to remove that from the application.
I have a concern about that. It seems to me that that phrase aptly describes what the organization does as an activity, and he also said that any activities it does in that vein would be excluded from funding by your department. Are you aware of that, minister?
Ms Copps: I know nothing about it. I will say, however, that one of my challenges in the portfolio that I manage is to try to encourage all communities across the country to be involved in deciding who receives assistance. In every province, we have an envelope that is managed by the communities. Only in the province of Quebec have we been unsuccessful in getting the communities together. We have done some supplementary funding for Alliance Quebec to assist it with building bridges with the regions. I would hope that they could get together and speak with one voice in the near future. Those who are involved in the province of Quebec understand that in unity there is strength. In all the other provinces, we have one funding envelope. There may be more to this than meets the eye, but I do not know.
Senator Moore: I got the impression yesterday that there is a more going on. However, I would like you to look into that. I do not think that is an appropriate direction. Historically, that is what that organization did and continues to do, and I did not think that that was an appropriate direction from your department. I do not think it sets a tone. I think it hurts the efforts that you have been putting into this.
Ms Copps: Before I take a position on what hurts or does not, I should like to get the facts. He has made an allegation, and I have already undertaken to investigate it. I cannot speak on behalf of any employees without giving them the courtesy of speaking to them in advance of making an assessment. I shall certainly look into it.
Senator Moore: I should like you to do that, and maybe you and I can talk about this again.
Ms Copps: Certainly.
Senator Bryden: Welcome, minister. Unfortunately for this committee, I am a lawyer, and I tend to read the legislation carefully and perhaps dwell on it too much.
I have a fundamental concern — and it comes on the 20th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — with our government in a democracy and our Parliament either using or turning over to the courts the responsibilities that should be, in the minds of many people, including me, those of the government reporting to and through Parliament.
I do not take the same position in relation to Senator Gauthier's amendment as the other people here. I doubt that it accomplishes what Senator Gauthier hopes and believes it will accomplish.
Sections 41, 42 and 43 of the act, in my reading of it, encompass a significantly different set of rights, duties and responsibilities, including enforcement, than in the rest of the act. I raise that because you have shown today that, in relation to the protocol, the advancements have been made under the section as it currently is. They have been made to further the commitment of the Government of Canada to a policy. A policy is a political thing for which you and the government are responsible to Parliament and, therefore, to the people, and if you do not carry out commitments, they throw you out and get someone who will do it. You have done what I believe Part VII was designed to do. Section 43 reads, in part:
The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall take such measures as that Minister considers appropriate to advance the equality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may take measures to...
There follows a long list, including enhancing the two official languages, the two communities, and so on. I believe that is what this protocol agreement and its furtherance was all about.
Even if Senator Gauthier's bill does turn those policy commitments into enforceable rights against the Government of Canada by the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately — which is what I believe he is attempting to do — instead of having policies that should be committed to by the government, and referable and accountable to Parliament and therefore to the people, we create a new right that is really monitored by the Supreme Court of Canada.
I do not think it is fair to take a position that says if you have a constitutional right it is not something that should be affected by a general cutback in funding. Many of the constitutional rights here, whether it is the right to health or the right to security of the person, are affected by our trying to get our house in order.
My real point is that you have proven to me that in fact the system, as it is outlined in sections 41 to 43, Part VII, can work to further the policies of the government. I do not believe that we gain very much by turning over the responsibility for the enhancement of these two communities to be managed by the courts as against being managed by the government and responsible to Parliament.
I do not know if you want to respond to my statement, but it is a view, since it is here at this table and I have expressed before, about which you should be aware.
Ms Copps: I do not think that the intention of the amendments is to actually do that. The intention of the amendments is to ensure that minority rights are not subject to political currents. That is the difference. The definition of sections 41 and 42 can still be done through the system. That is one of the reasons I should like you to take a longer look at what we can do to strengthen the protocol to bring in some other players to the protocol. There is no doubt that the intention of the government has been to continue to strengthen in those areas but sometimes it does not happen. Why does it not happen? Sometimes it does not happen because the department with responsibility for the Official Languages Act in its entirety, which is the Department of Canadian Heritage, has more capacity to support épanouissement development and community support than it actually does in machinery of government. That is the nub of the matter.
In reference to the machinery of government issue, Senator Gauthier's bill in a sense takes it to the final arbiter, being the courts. I appreciate your argument about whether or not parliamentary rights should be tempered by the courts. That is an overall political discussion, but I think his intention is to strengthen the institutional capacity to ensure the respect.
I personally feel we should really be looking at the protocol in a deeper way as well. It would be perhaps premature to move on a legal amendment before we have actually looked at the structural issues that relate to machinery of government. One watches these things from afar, but I know that at the time we brought in the Treasury Board agreement I would have to say it was the politicians who actually got it. I managed to convince many people in the political system and it was not really that welcomed at the time by the system. However, since 1997 I think Treasury Board has come to see the benefit of having such a policy. Now it is policy, but we may want to expand it and look at bringing in the Privy Council.
The appointment of Mr. Dion as the representative to bring together these various aspects of the policies shifts a responsibility that was a departmental responsibility to the centre, which is a good thing. That will help us in moving forward on the issue of rights.
Are we ready to take it to the courts right now? Maybe we need some more work. That is why I suggested we do some more work. I would hate to see the bill put forward and defeated; I would not like to see all the work you have put into this wasted. I would like to work with you and see if there are others that can work towards moving it forward and looking at all those areas.
The Chairman: We welcome that very much. Senator Gauthier, do you have anything you would like to say?
I have something I would like to say. I think it would help this committee if we got copies of this protocol. I was unaware of it before. I am not on the Official Languages Committee.
Senator Gauthier: I want to say that I am very happy with the way things are going.
The Chairman: I thank you very much, Minister Copps, for attending before us today, for offering to attend before the committee and then staying long enough to have missed two votes.
Honourable senators, I have asked our staff to put together a list of all the amendments that have been proposed, who supported them, who did not support them and a brief summary of the reasons. There may be a few more who we will hear from.
We will not be making a quick decision on this; we have government business before the committee. We will get back to this issue as soon as we possibly can, and we will all have a lot of time to consider the matter.
The committee adjourned.