Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 3 - Evidence - Meeting of November 15, 2004
OTTAWA, Monday, November 15, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:03 p.m. to consider the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages 2003-04, tabled in the Senate October 19, 2004.
Senator Eymard G. Corbin (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, thank you for attending this evening's meeting. Unfortunately, because of a pretty furious early winter storm, at least one member of our committee will not be able to make it in time, although he may arrive a little later. I am speaking about Senator Comeau. Credit is due to Senator Buchanan for being here, but of course, he lives in Halifax.
Before inviting the minister to give us a presentation on his duties and responsibilities, I will say that he will have to leave for deferred votes in the House of Commons and we will not be able to keep him here beyond 6:15, even though it is just a short walk down the hall.
I would ask members of the committee to remain after the hearing with the minister so that we can consider, in camera, draft budgets for the remainder of this fiscal year and the coming fiscal year, as well as a draft budget for special studies, which are all requirements under Senate administration rules.
[Translation]
Colleagues, I am pleased to introduce the Honourable Mauril Bélanger, Member of the Privy Council, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages, Minister responsible for Democratic Reform, and Associate Minister of National Defense. He is accompanied by Ms. Marie Fortier, Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Thank you for coming, Mr. Bélanger. Please introduce yourself.
The Honourable Mauril Bélanger, Minister responsible for Official Languages: I would like to confirm that I am appearing before you today as Minister responsible for Official Languages, to share my vision of my role and responsibilities.
As you pointed out, I am accompanied by Ms. Marie Fortier, Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs at the Privy Council Office, and person responsible for the official languages secretariat at the Privy Council Office.
Last July, I was pleased to accept the responsibilities that the Prime Minister offered me. I am honoured by the confidence he has shown in me. He can rest assured that I will fulfill my duties as minister as ardently as I accomplished my work as member and as chair of the Official Languages Committee, be it the joint committee or the standing committee of the House of Commons. My convictions have not changed. I am proud of my roots and of belonging to the francophone community in Canada.
I have not forgotten that our partners in anglophone communities in Quebec are experiencing their own situation. They are also aware of some difficulties and some advantages; we cannot ignore their reality. It is not the same in all of their territories, as the francophone reality can be different outside Quebec.
Allow me to remind you of the Government of Canada's renewed commitment toward linguistic duality. In the Throne Speech of October 5, 2004, the government reiterated this commitment:
...It is implementing the Official Languages Action Plan and will continue to promote the vitality of official language minority communities.
The mandate and responsibilities of the Minister responsible for Official Languages are set out in the accountability and coordination framework of the Official Languages Action Plan, the famous "Action Plan.'' If people want a copy of it, we would be pleased to provide them with one.
The minister has a coordination role that enables the government to maintain a comprehensive approach to official languages. He is supported by a group of ministers — in this case, the ministers of Canadian Heritage, Justice, the President of Treasury Board, and President of the Privy Council — who are mandated under the Official Languages Act, and who have a role to play in implementing the action plan. In this case, in addition to the ministers mentioned above, this means the following departments: the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Industry, Human Resources and Skills Development, Social Development, and Health.
All of these departments have a role to play and this role is clearly identified in the action plan. With his colleagues, the lead minister facilitates communication between the government and communities, between the government and the Commissioner of Official Languages, and between the government and Parliamentary committees as regards their priorities. The minister insures that official languages issues are drawn to the attention of the government, namely when new initiatives, such as the creation of a child care system, are presented to Cabinet.
The minister outlines the government's position on current issues where official languages are at stake. He brings together his colleagues and consults representatives of the communities and other stakeholders at least once a year, as we did recently. He will report to the government on the implementation of the action plan the following fall, and at the end of the five-year period, in 2008.
The minister is also responsible for supporting colleagues who have official languages responsibilities, for coordinating the government's responses to the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages and committees in the House and Senate, and for coordinating the implementation of the action plan in terms of research and evaluation tools.
That leads me to the Official Languages Action Plan with which you are undoubtedly familiar. Many of you have followed its development since it was announced on March 12, 2003. At that time, the Government of Canada unveiled its Official Languages Action Plan, which aims to revitalize linguistic duality in Canada. This plan calls for more than $750 million in investments over five years in four priority areas: education, the development of communities, the Canadian public service, and language industries.
The implementation of the plan is at the heart of my activities as Minister responsible for Official Languages. This plan could not succeed without the participation of a number of stakeholders. We count on the federal government, of course, but also on the provincial and territorial governments, and, in some cases, on the municipal governments. It will also require the involvement of institutions working in the fields of education, health, justice, immigration, social development, economic and community development, and above all, the official language communities throughout the country, both anglophone and francophone. I intend to work very closely with all of these partners to implement the ambitious official languages program the Government of Canada has set up.
Almost a year and a half after the announcement of the plan, on March 12, 2003, solid foundations have been laid in each of the departments responsible for part of the plan. The work is well under way and will intensify in the months to come.
The plan also includes an accountability and coordination framework. In consultation with the official languages and minority language communities, an accountability and coordination framework was developed. This framework stipulates that the official language minority communities will be consulted at least once a year on the implementation of the Official Languages Action Plan. In order to follow up on this commitment, the Official Languages Branch at the Privy Council Office has developed a consultation cycle that calls for two annual consultations with official language minority communities.
I know how much the term "minority community'' displeases some people. For that reason, I will use the term "official language community.''
One of these two consultations will take place each year in the spring. It will involve senior officials from the departments participating in the implementation of the action plan and representatives of these communities. A second consultation will be held in the fall with the ministers of the same institutions.
Four consultations have already taken place. Two were held with senior officials, in May 2003, shortly after the announcement of the action plan, and in March 2004. Two others were held with the ministers, in October 2003 and in October 2004. The second ministerial consultations with the official languages communities were held in Centre Block on October 27.
I must acknowledge that the format for these consultations needs to be fine-tuned. Nevertheless, these consultations show an unprecedented commitment on the part of these federal institutions towards the development and vitality of these official language communities.
I will now say a few words about the horizontal results-based-management and accountability framework. This tool will become very important.
The Privy Council Office is currently developing this horizontal results-based-management and accountability framework for the official languages program. Representatives from the communities, the provinces and territories, as well as federal institutions, recently participated in workshops where they discussed objectives. This framework will be an essential tool for reporting to Canadians. It will establish everyone's role, the way this role is to be fulfilled, and will serve as a basis for the report that will be published in the fall of 2005.
The Canadian Government commitment to linguistic duality is unequivocal. The Speech from the Throne, delivered on the October 5, reaffirmed the government commitment to implementing the Action Plan for Official Languages and promoting the vitality of official language minority communities.
As the Minister responsible for Official Languages, I have the privilege of being given the mandate of coordinating the contribution of the various departments to this important exercise. There is no doubt, in my opinion, that we are on the right track. In answering your questions, I hope to have the opportunity to speak some more about the links that I intend to establish with the various departments which have a specific mandate under the action plan, with Parliamentary committees and, of course, with the official languages communities themselves. Furthermore, since my appointment, I have had the opportunity to visit official languages communities in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. I plan to meet with official languages communities from the other provinces in the near future.
In August, I went to Acadia for the Congrès mondial Acadien. During the congress, I was able to meet with representatives from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes. I made a commitment to them to be present at the grassroots level in order to be able to better communicate their message to my colleagues.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I get the feeling that you could say a lot more and explain to us the intricacies of bureaucracy in all its glory. The whole issue of official languages as regards federal government services has become so complicated that mere mortals are sometimes a little overwhelmed.
With your permission, I would like to open the debate by asking you what seems to be a rather crass question. Are you the super minister for official languages?
Mr. Bélanger: No, and the concept of a super minister does not exist as such. The idea is more one of a minister who has a coordination role. Let's take the example of the Department of Canadian Heritage. There is a whole range of programs within the department which offer support to official language communities or provinces in the fields of education, arts and culture, be it through bilateral or multilateral agreements. Such programs also support community organizations. There are the famous Canada-Community agreements and several other initiatives such as the IPOLC and support for municipalities.
The Department of Immigration is in the process of developing a new role in relation to the communities. This is being done through to national advisory panels which were set up; one for the English-speaking communities and the other for the French-speaking communities. This initiative looks very promising.
Two advisory panels were also established with the communities for health. Since then, various programs have been initiated.
[English]
We have a $119-million envelope set aside for health. We now have programs that are working to create or to retain health officials in the communities that need them, linguistically speaking.
The same thing is happening in Industry Canada with economic development of these communities.
[Translation]
It is the same thing for the Department of Justice, and so on.
My role, first and foremost, is to ensure all those who have a specific role to play in the action plan respect the implementation of the plan. Several departments have a specific role; in some cases things are going very well, in others there is room for improvement. Where things are not going so well, it is up to me to encourage them. If encouragement proves not to be enough, I have to turn to other methods. We will see what happens if and when the situation arises.
I am also responsible for ensuring that the Official Languages Act be respected. Over and above the action plan, all agencies and departments are subject to the Official Languages Act, as are all federal institutions. There are a multitude of mechanisms to ensure compliance with the act. You probably know as well as I do that some 30 of them are expected to present to us an action plan that they have drawn up and on which they have closely consulted with the communities.
By receiving both annual and periodical reports from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Parliament ensures that any shortcomings are drawn to its and the government's attention. It is up to me to ensure that where shortcomings are identified necessary measures are taken. It is a coordination role rather than being a so-called super minister. I do not know if there are any super ministers, but I do know that is not what I am.
The Chairman: I was wondering why the government decided to choose this approach rather than setting up a department of official languages.
Mr. Bélanger: The decision was made sometime ago now. If I remember correctly, and I was not involved at that time, the decision was made following consultations with the communities. The communities were divided as to whether we ought to have a stand-alone department for official languages or whether specific obligations ought to be set down in each department depending on its role and responsibilities in terms of the communities. It was the latter option that the government chose. Since then, I have to recognize that a lot of work has been done in terms of health.
The same thing could be said for economic development and labor force training. As regards immigration, we are starting to see things happen. Furthermore, advisory panels have been set up in other fields.
I hope that, in the not-too-distant future, we will be able to see and feel change in each and every department that is important to official languages communities. We put our money on this approach and, thus far, it seems to be paying off.
Senator Chaput: Mr. Minister, it is always a pleasure to hear you speak and to listen to your sage counsel. I must say that I found what you said at the beginning of your presentation to be very reassuring. You said that: "Personally, I have no doubt that...'' On hearing that, I said to myself that if the minister has no doubt about it, then it should work.
That being said, things have become very complicated for official languages communities. They have to deal with various stakeholders and departments. I remember that, many years ago now, it was decided that the Department of Canadian Heritage would get official languages minority communities their due from the other departments. As official language communities, the possibility of doing it ourselves was not open to us because the other federal departments had their own responsibilities.
It was not easy then, and it is still not easy now. The Action Plan for Official Languages falls under your purview and you are responsible for ensuring coordination of and compliance with the Official Languages Act. The Department of Canadian Heritage is also responsible for sections 41 and 42 of Part VII, in other words encouraging federal departments to meet their responsibilities.
If they do not fulfill their obligations and if they do not want to, aside from encouraging them to do so, is there anyone who wields the proverbial stick? The Commissioner of Official Languages produces excellent reports, but should the departments choose not to listen to her and to ignore her recommendations, do you have the power to do something about it? Or do we need the Official Languages Act, or a binding piece of legislation such as that produced by Senator Gauthier? That is our concern.
As you know, French-speakers in the west of Canada are in a fragile, precarious situation. The progress that we have made is fragile. We resist, and we want to continue on, like those living at the other end of the country, but we need something with more teeth, we need the proverbial stick. We do not need cuts in our funding. It seems that cutbacks are part of everyday reality for government departments. I would urge them to find funding, and I truly hope and pray that, official language programs will not be cut.
In addition to your responsibilities, do you have power? Do you have a say regarding funding to ensure that the communities get what they are asking for?
Mr. Bélanger: With respect to funding, the wish expressed by the Commissioner of Official Languages has been noted. The government's response is that nothing is excluded from the current expenditure review exercise itself. The decisions have not yet been made and have therefore not been announced. That said, it is reasonable to assume that a government that says in its throne speech that official languages and the vitality of these communities is a priority, even a key priority, will make the necessary resources available.
Moreover, this review is not a budget-cutting exercise as such. Resources are being reallocated to areas that may have been given lower priority at this time and to areas considered to be a higher priority. That gives me confidence. I am fully aware of the aspirations of the commissioner and the communities.
As for the hammer, the Prime Minister decided to appoint a Minister responsible for Official Languages and the government decided to develop an action plan that has been received positively by virtually everyone. It therefore goes without saying that whatever is necessary will be done to implement this plan.
My primary responsibility, as I have said and will emphasize again now, is the implementation of the action plan. I have had this mandate since July. By next year, we will have to give a mid-term report, and I hope that I have enough time left to make sure that the report is positive and well received.
I have learned that the carrot is more effective than the stick, so I am not sure if the hammer is necessary. But there is a hammer, which is the will of the government. The act as well must be complied with. The commissioner does have recourse, although not for all sections, I grant you, but she does have a hammer, in that she can go to court to ensure compliance with the act. And that has worked in certain cases.
The communities have a hammer as well, since they can go to court for various reasons. I understand that people do not like having to launch court cases all the time. When it is necessary, the communities do not shy away from doing that. They have often received help for these initiatives.
Senator Chaput: I understand that communities currently have only one hammer, which is to take court action, since they have no other recourse.
Mr. Bélanger: The action plan did not come as a result of court action. It was political will, which may have been based on the identified needs and pressure from the communities and certainly from the commissioner.
Senator Chaput: You are absolutely right, Minister. It is the implementation of the action plan that is still to come, and you will see to that. What the communities across Canada are worried about is that the federal government may come in and play one off against the other. For example, the official languages plan includes education, immigration and health; other departments are targeted by various measures. Then there are the Canada-Community agreements negotiated with Canadian Heritage and the communities, which deal with community development where the real world is trying to make progress so that communities can resist. Mixed in with all that, we have education, child care, the Health Department and federal-provincial agreements.
There are a number of concerns, one being that when the federal government negotiates with provincial governments and provides funding, there is no clause in the agreements to protect us. For example, is any portion of the funds earmarked for services in French, for the official languages community? Will there be a clause for child care? It is that whole aspect, the official languages plan, the Canada-Community agreements, that worries the communities. We hear about moneys being reallocated, taken from one area and used in another. The communities are concerned. This was not meant as a criticism, but you know all this.
Mr. Bélanger: I understand your position. With respect to health, I met with the Minister of Health, Mr. Dosanjh. For the federal-provincial-territorial meeting of health ministers in October, he agreed to put on the agenda, for the first time, to my knowledge, the issue of official language communities. It will be on the table again in January, since he presented the issue and asked for their input and thoughts on it. The same is true for daycare. I believe that both ministers have answered questions in the House and indicated that these questions should be included in negotiations and talks with the provinces.
I believe — I hope that my colleague will pardon me — that there is another federal-provincial-territorial meeting today on immigration, and the same thing will apply. It is starting to become a habit. As these files are becoming less centralized in Canadian Heritage and each department begins assuming its responsibilities in health, immigration, community development and human resources development, there will be benefits in this regard in the long run.
But nothing excludes the Senate Committee or the House of Commons Committee on Official Languages from meeting with these departments one by one to encourage them. It might be an invitation to do so!
Senator Chaput: Minister, I would like to ask you to continue pushing that idea, and I will tell you why. It is important that these various agreements negotiated with the provinces contain a clause to protect the official language minority communities. When I spoke to the Minister of Health a few weeks ago, he did tell me that French services were on the agenda. When I asked him if he would go so far as to ask the provincial government to be accountable — in other words, if Manitoba is given funding for health services in French, will the province have to report to you what they did with the money — the Minister of Health told me very nicely:
[English]
"I do not believe we have gone that far.''
[Translation]
Mr. Bélanger: I am glad that you raised that question. I would like to ask Ms. Fortier, Deputy Minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs, to make a few comments on the status of negotiations with the provinces on a number of issues of concern to the official language communities. That does seem to be the direction in which we are inevitably going, if each department has to assume responsibility for its particular area.
Ms. Marie-E. Fortier, Deputy Minister, Intergovernmental Affairs, Privy Council Office: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that this discussion shows the advantage of having responsibilities remain with the sectoral departments. That way, they can integrate these responsibilities into the various sectors, such as immigration, health and justice, around various tables. Otherwise, it would be hard to have a single federal-provincial table for discussing official language issues. We would not be plugged in.
I would add that there are groups of community representatives in each of these areas, as you know, who have a particular interest in that area. They call the attention of the provincial and federal ministers to the interest of their members.
Various types of agreements are negotiated. There are special agreements with targeted funding identified in the action plan. In those cases, it is quite clear: the objectives are quite specific and they are even very easy to quantify in some areas. Because of our work on the accountability framework, we will be able to measure progress and hold everyone accountable, both those receiving the funding and those providing it. There are two sides to this coin: how well the agreements reflect the plan's intentions and how well they are implemented by those receiving the funding.
In some cases, the agreements are tripartite and the communities are part and parcel of the agreements, especially in health, which gives us good guarantees concerning the fact that everyone will see to it that it is done the way it was supposed to be.
In the more general agreements, and that is probably what concerns you most — for example, the agreement on health that was arrived at in September between the premiers where the health training aspect was more particularly identified in the agreement itself — will the accountability framework of that agreement be precise enough to allow us to document whether that aspect was attained? That is not clear. That is where the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs can help its colleagues in the other departments to think about how to structure the ongoing negotiations with the provinces. That is the advantage of making official languages part of our department.
This whole matter of conditionality and accountability between governments and to the public is particularly current in all sectors. The model evolving establishes that the governments must be accountable to the public, and the proof of the pudding will be whether or not everyone is held responsible and accountable for their decisions and acts.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Minister, first, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment to cabinet and thank you for being here today. On behalf of British Columbians, I very much welcome you. We have a vibrant community and we look forward to you coming to British Columbia.
The debate today has been on official languages and minority communities. As refugees, I was brought up in a British colony and my cousins were brought up in a Belgian colony. In the Belgian colony they were taught French, English, Spanish and Flemish from grade 2. We were only taught English. We have all ended up in Canada. They are from Rwanda and we are from Uganda. Imagine the advantages they have with languages!
I believe that both languages should be taught to all the children in our country. I hope that one day French and English will be taught in all our schools and we will not have these issues. It should not be a minority issue, but rather all communities should be taught both languages, and my questions will come from that point of view.
I believe that people like me, who do not speak either official language as our mother tongue, also want to participate in the official languages. The action plan for official languages noted in 2003 that the mother tongue of 28 per cent of students in Montreal's English schools is neither English nor French. We can safely assume that these sorts of numbers reflect Canada's cultural diversity in Quebec and elsewhere. We can see the increased role of ethnic and cultural minorities in our society.
I compliment you and the government for promoting bilingualism, and I think it is very important to do so throughout our population. In addition to existing requirements of the government to promote a culturally diverse public service under the Multiculturalism Act, can you tell me what is being done to promote both French and English education within third language communities?
When the act was being debated, in the West, in all parts of Canada, many people wrote to me to say, "You should not support this because it will mean that third language communities can never be part of the public service because they will not know French.'' My response to that was, "Well, learn French.'' However, we need to have a learning society where third language communities can learn French. I want to know what you are doing to promote French and English among people who do not speak either of the official languages.
Mr. Bélanger: That is a complex question. There are three different areas where the government is trying to address the situation of learning a second official language for everyone, including, therefore, the ethnic or immigrant communities.
The first area is immigration. My impression of that department is that as early as five years ago, very little attention was being paid to this question. There is now a tremendous amount of attention being paid to this question. Two advisory committees have been created, and they have been at work now for about a year and a half. They are now getting into a secondary level of planning and are talking about planning on the ground in terms of integration of communities, linguistic training of these communities and equipping the absorption communities, if you will, with the capacity to teach both official languages. We realize that immigrants who come here, by and large, would want to learn both official languages and want to ensure that they have the opportunity to do that. These committees have not finished their work, so their report has not been tabled yet, but as soon as it is, it would be easily obtainable, and one would expect that the government would follow suit and provide the resources.
In the official action plan, there is a start. There was never any money in the immigration department attributed to official languages. Now there is. There is a $9-million envelope. It is a small envelope, but it is a start. We are also getting the same kind of attention being paid to the transfers to the provinces for integration. That is the immigration side. There is a greater sensitivity and, therefore, a greater attention to providing that service.
The second area is a major part of this plan. About $380 million of the $750 million is directed to the provinces for education. There are two envelopes. The first is education, so that the percentage of the people who are entitled to education — in the minority in this case, the francophones outside of Quebec — would be brought up from 68 per cent to about 80 per cent. I will have to check my percentages, but it is a substantial increase. The second is directed at those for whom French would be a second language. That includes immigrants who do not speak French. The reality in this country is that about 90 per cent of our immigrants learn English. In 10 years, we want to double the number of young Canadians who speak both official languages, and that would, ipso facto, be offered to the immigrant population.
As an aside, the information that I have in terms of immersion courses is that there has been an increase everywhere but in New Brunswick in the last year, and a substantial increase in young people going into French immersion. That, in the West, in particular, is taken up mostly by the children of immigrants. That would give me cause to be hopeful.
Senator Jaffer: Minister, being a parent, I know how difficult it is to put your children in French immersion because there are few programs. Where I come from, just as the immigration department provides funds for English as a second language, part of those funds should also be for French.
I recommend my colleagues not talk about minorities, but about language. I would appreciate if we would talk about teaching the language, because if we try to deal with English and French, the third community is completely left out. Knowing your background, I would like to see you take some leadership. That is why my colleagues are saying it is not an issue of minorities but rather of teaching the language. You may not have the answer, but in the package in which we send money for English as a second language, what money are we sending for children across the country to learn French?
Mr. Bélanger: Honourable senator, you are absolutely correct. One of the committees I sat on looked at that. We were given the statistics from Immigration and Citizenship Canada. Next to none was being spent in most provinces, except Quebec, for the teaching of French as a second language to immigrants — next to none. Even in this community, I remember looking at it and it was not very encouraging. The advisory committee for the anglophone population in Quebec and the francophone populations in the other provinces and territories is looking at that issue to increase the envelopes that are being set aside for French as a second language from a level that was virtually non- existent a few years ago.
The third element is something that the Government of Canada itself can do through its public service. I know that by mentioning the public service, I might be creating all kinds of headaches for myself, but it is nonetheless true that unilingual Canadians can access a number of positions that are designated bilingual and then access training. That is a figure I would be interested in knowing: What percentage of the linguistic training money spent by the federal government is dedicated to learning French rather than English? I think the bulk of it is spent on learning French. As a government, we are, therefore, offering an opportunity for anglophones, whether they are immigrants or not, to learn French. Again, I will find out what the statistics are, because I do not know what percentage of that group of people are born outside Canada, immigrants, who are accessing French teaching through the public service.
Senator Jaffer: Minister, I agree with Senator Chaput when she says that we need to use a hammer. British Columbians who are working in the public service say that the first thing that has been cut is their French program. I know many young civil servants who say they will never make it in Ottawa because all of their French programs are cut. I can give you specific examples, but I do not want to put them on the record. It may at one time have been possible, but when there are cutbacks, it is the first thing that goes, especially in my province.
Senator Buchanan: Unfortunately for me, I do not have the French language, but you never know. Exposure to this committee may change that.
I come from a part of this country, Nova Scotia, where, if the figures are right, maybe 4 per cent of the people are francophone. Out of that 4 per cent, 3 per cent are Acadian.
One of the problems in Nova Scotia is the distance between the Acadian communities. As the chairman knows, and, Mr. Bélanger, you probably know as well, there is an approximately 400-mile distance between the Acadian communities of Nova Scotia in the western part of the province and in Cape Breton on the western shore and the eastern shore. That is quite a long distance. The interesting thing is that those communities are one community, even though they are separated by many miles. They are the Acadian francophone communities of Nova Scotia.
I think this question has already been asked by the chairman and by Senator Chaput: Why would the federal government have so many ministers responsible for official languages? Do you not think that it would be more efficient to have one minister responsible for all official languages and institutions that have responsibilities for official languages?
I know from my experience in government in Nova Scotia, 13 years as premier, one of the problems that we had was ensuring that various government departments did not overlap responsibilities. We would find one department with a responsibility and then two other departments having the same kind of responsibilities, and there was a great deal of waste in time and money.
Do you not believe that there is probably an overlapping of responsibilities for official languages between government departments, namely, the Department of Justice, the Commissioner of Official Languages, you as the Minister responsible for Official Languages, the department of heritage and culture? There must be an overlap that could be eliminated if there was one minister.
Mr. Bélanger: If I may, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Government of Nova Scotia through Chris d'Entremont, the minister responsible for Acadian affairs, for having passed legislation vis-à-vis French services. It was a welcome act of the assembly in Nova Scotia that puts a framework on the offer of French services for its minority. I was at a federal-provincial meeting of ministers responsible for francophone affairs, and when this was announced, it was met with great enthusiasm. Congratulations to whomever you may know still in the government.
Senator Buchanan: If I may interject, I already mentioned that legislation to members of this committee. Minister d'Entremont is starting his political career as an MLA in the Acadian district of Argyle, and Premier Hamm, to his credit, has appointed him to responsibilities in addition to those of official languages, the same as you. Minister d'Entremont's responsibilities now include minister responsible for Acadian affairs, and he worked very quickly at introducing a bill to make provincial government departments more accessible for the francophone communities throughout Nova Scotia. That is commendable on his part and on that of my successor in office, Premier John Hamm.
However, let me also suggest to you, sir, that there was another premier, for a period of 13 years, who was the first Premier of Nova Scotia to introduce francophone school boards in the Acadian districts of Nova Scotia and who also started the 100-per-cent francophone schools throughout Western Nova Scotia and throughout Eastern and Western Cape Breton, in Cheticamp and Arichat. He was also the first premier to introduce bilingual signs in all of the francophone communities of Nova Scotia over that 13-year period. Not being full of a lot of ego myself, it was me.
Mr. Bélanger: Hear, hear!
The Chairman: We all wondered.
Mr. Bélanger: Let me draw a parallel with what Mr. d'Entremont and the legislature have done. They have decreed by law that the department must offer certain services. The same applies here. The Official Languages Act applies here. That is the key. Every single government department and agency, about 200 of them, has the obligation imposed upon them by the Official Languages Act.
Let me draw another parallel to try to understand. It is a complicated system, just as the Financial Administration Act is. The Financial Administration Act and the Official Languages Act apply across the board to every single department and agency. Every single department has and must have the ability to ensure that the Financial Administration Act is respected, to plan accordingly and put the resources into it.
The same thing applies to the Official Languages Act. All departments have that responsibility wherever they offer services, namely, health, veterans affairs, justice, fisheries and oceans. Wherever they have a responsibility, they also have the same responsibility to the linguistic minority communities. They must consult them, and that is an obligation imposed on them by the law.
You have this throughout every single department and agency under the Official Languages Act. It is the same as the Financial Administration Act. Yet, we still have a Treasury Board and we still have a finance department, central agencies that make sure that the other agencies live up to their obligations. I have that role under the Official Languages Act, with the secretariat in the Privy Council, to ensure that the Minister of Heritage and her department live up to their responsibilities and obligations under the act. The same thing applies to every other department and agency, whether it is the CRTC, the Canada Council for the Arts, Western Economic Diversification or ACOA. All of these agencies and departments have that responsibility. That flows from the very nature of the communities. They are all made up of people who have all kinds of interests and needs. Therefore, unless you were to have one government department running everything, which is near impossible, you would have to have the same obligations to official language communities flowing into all the departments where all the responsibilities rest. That is the nature of the system, I believe. The decision has been made not to centralize but to ensure that they each live up to their obligations.
Senator Buchanan: I just wish to comment on something Senator Chaput said and was also mentioned by Senator Jaffer — the hammer. I do not disagree completely, but I do disagree partially. Dropping a hammer sometimes works, but it does not work that well. It offends and irritates people when that happens.
In our own situation in Nova Scotia, when we implemented the full francophone school boards and the full francophone schools in the Acadian districts, it brought those districts close together even though they were separated by 400 miles. Some people would say that the government of the day did it for political reasons. That is partially true, but we did it because it was the right thing to do and it has worked out well, and it is the right thing for Premier Hamm to do now and for Chris d'Entremont to do.
I always look at it and figure you can catch more bees with honey than you can with vinegar, and it worked for us because we won all the Acadian seats.
[Translation]
Senator Léger: I would like to congratulate you. I am very happy you are heading that department. There is no question about your commitment. On the other hand, I am a bit concerned by all your other hats: Associate Minister of National Defense, Minister in charge of Democratic Reform, Deputy Government House Leader in the House of Commons. How will you manage to do all that? That was just an aside, you do not have to answer.
To speak, to communicate, one needs words in French or English, but the spirit of it all is to be found between the lines. You understand what I am saying through my breathing because you are trying to understand. I find that in every department and agency, there is not enough emphasis put on the spirit of being a Canadian. Canadian identity, if I have understood things correctly, is English and French, it is the country. That note should be sounded in all departments. For example, in the Department of Health, a whole lot of emphasis should be put on obtaining a cure or even dying in one's own language. I would like to come back to what Senator Jaffer was saying about being forced to say "The first, the second and the third language.'' I do not think there is any first, second or third language. One has one's individual language but when you are a Canadian, they both are. I think that none of the departments or none of the agencies has understood that message.
As far as immigration goes, it should be automatic: Being a Canadian is the definition of being in Canada. In education, we started with a dictionary. We started with the word as though communication was what defines identity. No, language is not what defines identity; the spirit is the soul of the country.
Whether you have an Irish community or a community in Nunavut, it is marvelous! I find that Canada should enter into that dimension of culture and not assume that culture is something "para Canadian.'' Culture is not just going to see a show on a Sunday night. That is part of it, yes, and we need that. You went to the Congrès mondial acadien last summer. That's going to raise pride. We forget about Aboriginal people as though they did not exist. My God, they have been there for 12,000 years! We celebrated a 400th anniversary.
I would like to examine teaching methods used in the public service. Apparently, they are all depressed.
Here is my question: Would it be possible to write in that spirit or that identity in all documents in phase two? It was called "act two,'' but I prefer "phase two.'' That is not important. In our committee, we have atmosphere, lighting, a good meal waiting for us; all that is culture, it is life and it should be part of all that is said and done.
Mr. Bélanger: I think answering that question is beyond me, but I will still try.
The title that was given to the next act, if I have understood things properly, was supposed to be the fourth act, the first one having been the conclusion of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission and thus the establishment of the Official Languages Act in 1969; the second one happened in 1982 with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the entrenchment therein of certain linguistic rights; the third came along in 1988 with certain major amendments to the Official Languages Act. As for the fourth, will we have a play in five acts here? I do not know, but many individuals in this country and many communities, and young people especially, have this vision of an ideal. I can see it expressed under another name. The will to set up a pluralistic society where we would have pluralism of languages, cultures, faiths, ethnic groups and so on. But to achieve this ideal of pluralism, we must go through linguistic duality. If we do not manage to anchor linguistic duality deep in our collective soul, as it is supposed to be, as a cornerstone of our identity, we will not manage to build what we are trying to achieve as a pluralistic society. You are perfectly right: We must achieve that. The question is: How? When?
Senator Léger: Immediately. I agree, the young represent hope because that is where cultural diversity is to be found. We should not forget that this started in 1969, over 30 years ago. In those days, we were the young. And there are people our age who still have a lot of problems. We would not want them to stop.
Mr. Bélanger: Our generation cannot stop where it is, the young must replace the generation that follows and so on. I am encouraged by the fact that the most bilingual generation in the country is the 15 to 24-year-old group. That is the generation targeted by the action plan. We have to double the number of our bilingual youth in this country.
I will give you another example. Senator Jaffer mentioned something before.
I am very encouraged by the fact that Alberta decreed that as of 2006, all young children going to school will have to learn a second language. They did not specify French, but all the youngsters must learn a second language. One may hope that the most popular second language will be French. However, there are other options like Spanish and Japanese. It is encouraging to see that the Government of Alberta has accepted to impose this new rule. It testifies to its awareness that in this era of globalization, it is useful to know two or three languages.
Senator Léger: We do what we can in the federal public service.
The Chairman: Before going to the second round of questioning, I would like to say a few brief words about the development of the action plans for some 30 agencies and departments. The Official Languages Commissioner, on that point, disagrees and considers that everyone should submit an action plan. What are your comments in that regard?
Mr. Bélanger: The matter of action plans goes back to 1994. In 1998, the Canadian Parliament amended the Official Languages Act and added a few provisions, clauses 41 and 42, more particularly, to give increased responsibilities to departments and agencies to support the development of communities. It does not seem that things progressed very much in those days.
In 1994, cabinet determined that a certain number of agencies and departments would constitute a priority for the communities. Those 26 or 27 agencies and departments were required to come up with a three-year action plan to examine how they intended to follow up on the legislation. Since then, two or three additional provisions have been added.
My answer to that question is as follows. All agencies and departments are subject to the Official Languages Act and have the same obligation. Should we increase the number of groups? I do not think that is necessarily a bad idea. But we have to determine how quickly to move forward. Are we going to establish an agency — be it under Canadian Heritage or Treasury Board — to assess these action plans and to ensure necessary follow-up? An action plan is no use whatsoever if it is not followed up to ensure its implementation. That additional process is necessary. I have given you my views, and expressed them publicly as well. From now on, we will have to do what it takes to ensure implementation.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: I first have a technical question, minister. Have all the funds from all the various departments simply been given to you under your ministry on top of the funds that you have for implementation of the action plan? Each department will need funds. Do they come to you and ask for part of the $750 million?
Mr. Bélanger: No.
Senator Jaffer: Do they have to find the funds within their own department?
Mr. Bélanger: I have no funds. The $751 million is in the envelopes of the departments that have the responsibilities. It is theirs to administer, theirs to act on, theirs to report on. I have the role of coordinating that effort. For instance, next year we will table a mid-point evaluation on where the funds have gone.
The Privy Council does not administer programs and does not hold these funds. They are in the envelopes of each department.
Senator Jaffer: Are they earmarked?
Mr. Bélanger: They are indeed. All the numbers are in Annex B. For five years, through Heritage Canada, there was $381.5 million for four different objectives, although not necessarily all broken down evenly over five years. All of them were on an incremental, accelerating basis. However, they are in the annual envelopes of each department.
Senator Jaffer: I was planning to ask you how you are working with the Minister of Immigration, but you have answered that.
Mr. Bélanger: Very well.
Senator Jaffer: I am sure you are. I will do some more homework and then I may have other questions.
Under the Multiculturalism Act we have said that we must remove all barriers for people who come here or who have lived here for many years. You were talking about going to B.C., Alberta and Ontario, and I suggest that you ask the communities how they think they can become proficient in both languages.
In B.C., there is a great thirst for learning French, but there are not many places to learn. Although you are very happy that Alberta is insisting on a second language, I must say that I am not. I think that every province should say that French and English are a must. After that, in my province, would come Chinese and Punjabi.
If we are to have a Canadian identity, we cannot say that in B.C. it is good enough to learn Chinese and English. I believe that French and English are essential and I suggest that you should only be happy when that happens, after which we can teach other languages, as happens in Europe.
People here act as if it is a great imposition to ask people to learn two languages. My cousins in Europe had to learn four or five languages to survive, and in this world we will have to. My children know six languages, because that is how many languages they need to know in order to survive in our community.
Mr. Bélanger: Would you allow me to be happier then?
Senator Jaffer: As minister, your job is to make French and English a must.
Mr. Bélanger: I have to be careful. I have to differentiate between my personal preferences and what the Government of Canada may wish. There is no doubt that governments in Canada since the 1960s have put at the core of their public policy linguistic duality — French and English. The Constitution of Canada is quite clear. English and French are the two official languages of Canada and they are equal. There is no denying that.
I find it encouraging that a provincial government would expect all children to learn a second language. That is an indication of a greater awareness of the value of learning a second and, hopefully, a third language, and that is part and parcel of the society we are trying to build.
If I were a parent in Alberta, I would insist that my children learn English and then French, and then perhaps a third and a fourth language. However, at least now they are all being encouraged to broaden their scope by learning a second language, which is better than nothing. It is in that sense that I am happy about it. I would be happier if those languages were English and French, but that may come some day. Now that one province is doing that, the others may pick up on that as well.
Incidentally, the fastest-growing immersion population in B.C. is the immigrant population. They represent a very high percentage now of all the students in immersion.
In fact, a couple of weeks ago there were articles in B.C. papers reporting upon some grumblings about the effect that is having on the so-called mainstream courses. Some of the mainstream courses are actually losing too many of their clientele to immersion.
That shows us the reality. I am particularly happy about that in B.C. as it will be hosting the 2010 Olympics, which will provide a window on Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: I would like to come back to the honey and the hammer.
Mr. Bélanger: Normally, we talk about honey and vinegar.
Senator Chaput: My personal approach has always been to calm people down, calm departments down. When there is less confrontation, the atmosphere is healthier and we can achieve something.
However, based on my personal experience as a francophone in Manitoba, I can say that if we had not gone to the Supreme Court to keep what we had gained in the field of education, we would perhaps no longer have those gains. We had two hammers: The Supreme Court, and the option of filing complaints with the Official Languages Commissioner.
But regardless of the route we take — be at the Supreme Court or filing complaints — it is a very arduous process that takes money and energy. We are not interested in going in that direction. We no longer have the time or the energy. We are surviving, and we want to continue moving forward. I can still accept that we may achieve something with honey, but I will caution people here: We should not be naïve and think that we will catch all the bees with honey. Nowadays, we are seeing some pretty peculiar bees. I will tell you about something that happened in Manitoba, something that shows we should always be on guard.
Mr. Bélanger: I'll tell you where I agree with you, and where you need the hammer. There is one specific issue where I think we need to use the hammer — bilingual services in Manitoba. It is simply not working anymore, perhaps because the Government of Canada is postponing its funding from year to year, and we simply cannot get continuous funding for a multi-year period. I am probably breaking all the rules, but I am among those who believe that we can settle the issue for the longer term, not just for one year at a time.
Senator Chaput: I worked on that project before being called to the Senate, and I used to meet with federal department officials. People with the authority to do something tended to shut the door in my face, and did not wish to contribute along with Canadian Heritage. They said this was not within their area of responsibility. We are still seeing that in Manitoba with some federal departments. Provinces are committed, municipalities are committed, yet we are backing off.
Let me give you another example. The Canadian Television Fund has a rule that — this is an example, since I do not have the exact percentages with me — 10 per cent of production funding must be set aside for French-language producers outside Quebec. Once that was done, everyone relaxed because there was funding available for francophones outside Quebec. One of my former colleagues on the council asked how much would go to francophone producers outside Quebec. Not one penny — everything went to Quebec because that is where French-language productions were made. This was not done through any lack of good will, but it shows us we must always be on guard, always check and always be everywhere. That is why I remind everyone from time to time that we do need a hammer, and I would love for you to obtain that hammer.
Mr. Bélanger: But a hammer should not be restricted to hitting the same nail all the time. With regard to the second issue you raised, I was on the House of Commons Official Languages Committee when we dealt with it, and got the government to agree to set aside 10 per cent of the overall French-language budget for French-language producers outside Quebec. But I confess that I have not since checked whether that condition was indeed implemented.
Senator Chaput: Yes, it has been implemented. But I am speaking before the fact.
Mr. Bélanger: You know, one of the fundamental characteristics of being a minority community — and this comes not from me but from John Ralston Saul — is that it requires effort every day. Unfortunately, he is right.
[English]
Senator Buchanan: Does the Commissioner of Official Languages report to you or to Parliament?
Mr. Bélanger: The Commissioner of Official Languages reports to Parliament. I am the interface of the government with the commissioner. I receive the reports. I ensure we prepare the responses, the follow-up, et cetera. She is an agent of Parliament, as is the Auditor General, to continue my parallel of a moment ago.
Senator Buchanan: I should have researched this myself. However, in general figures — and I know it is difficult to give an exact figure — how many francophones in Canada live outside Quebec?
Mr. Bélanger: There are roughly 1 million. Some 24.7 per cent of the population of Canada is francophone.
Senator Buchanan: I thought that about 25 per cent of the population of Quebec was francophone.
Mr. Bélanger: If you round off, it is 25 per cent in Canada. There are between 800,000 and 900,000 anglophones living in Quebec, and about 1 million francophones living in the provinces and territories outside Quebec.
Whenever I hear the expression "Quebec and English Canada,'' I react very negatively. That is an expression that, unfortunately, too many of us use. It negates the existence of every francophone outside Quebec, every anglophone in Quebec, every francophone and every anglophone in New Brunswick, which is an officially bilingual province, and everyone in the two territories, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, which also have as official languages English and French.
I beg all of us to be careful of our language when using the expression "Quebec and English Canada.'' That is not the reality of Canada.
Senator Buchanan: I guess I was right about Nova Scotia. I said it was 4.8 per cent. It is actually 3.8 per cent.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, senator.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We see some horror stories in the newspapers from time to time, unilingual people unable to qualify for a job with the federal government, for example.
On the other hand, we have the language training school which has special programs. This country is failing to fulfil its obligations when it pays a fortune to train professionals in all fields, but forgets one fundamental Canadian value — the ability to speak, communicate and work in both French and English. From time to time, journalists who like to be ultra-picky come up with this kind of story, and everyone starts moaning about persecution and all kinds of other things.
As it coordinates its efforts with provincial governments, could the federal government not convince universities that language training should be part of a young person's body of necessary knowledge in this country?
This would mean that right after graduation the young person would be able to join the federal public service without having to take a language course to meet the minimum requirements for his or her position. To my mind, there is a major failing in the system. Is there anything you can do?
Mr. Bélanger: Are you asking whether the government of Canada has the authority to impose this?
The Chairman: No, no. Together with the provinces, have you discussed this with the provinces?
Ms. Fortier: This is a complex issue. I think that the foundation — and you have all mentioned this — is language education in primary and secondary school. The more bilingual high-school graduates we have, the less serious the problem will be when they graduate from university.
The Chairman: They have that basic knowledge when they graduate from high school. Then, when they go to university, in all parts of Canada they are immersed in a primarily anglophone system, except in bilingual francophone institutions, and lose what they have learned.
Ms. Fortier: There are two ways of tackling this problem. In order to deliver appropriate services to Canadians, the government has chosen to invest in professional French-language or English-language training, as needed. This is what happened with the action plan in the health area. Should the government think about doing the same thing in the justice system, for example, or in other fields — that is the question. It is something that should be considered when the action plan is renewed.
A network of 13 or 14 French-language universities — a network in which the University of Ottawa is a major player because of its size — has French-training programs. The network is making efforts to increase the number of students in its programs. It is very active in trying to establish scholarship programs and putting forward other initiatives to increase the number of professionals in a whole series of fields. So you are absolutely correct. I believe that, even though there is significant ongoing investment at the primary — and secondary — school level, we will probably be focusing more on the needs of professionals in the coming years, not only for the federal public service, but also for public services. The focus will be on judges, lawyers in private practice, the whole system in every field, in other words. At the moment, the federal government has no initiative in that area.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Bélanger: There is no doubt that it would be better for people working in the Canadian public service to learn both official languages at university or college, rather than here, or even close to retirement. Should we be involving universities and colleges in this discussion? I think that it might be a useful move, Mr. Chairman. If your committee wants to involve them, I for one would congratulate you. The action plan will have been implemented in three years, and we have to think about its renewal and continuation well before that. This kind of discussion could very well be part of future avenues for reflexion.
The Chairman: Minister, the bells are calling you.
Mr. Bélanger: I am feeling my mouth water.
The Chairman: On behalf of all committee members, I would like to extend my thanks.
[English]
Your answers were forthright, candid and very informative. We wish you well in your new responsibilities.
[Translation]
You will have our support for any measures you take to make this country acceptable.
[English]
Mr. Bélanger: Let me thank you. I will never forget today, this having been the first time I have appeared before a committee of either the House or the Senate as a minister. Thank you for the opportunity.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I would like to make a proposal before you go to other commitments. While we have a quorum — and I would like to keep the quorum — we could proceed right away with the consideration of budget proposals, which are imposed on us by the administration of the House of Commons. I have to report the budget of this committee to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration next Monday. We can deal with it now. I do not think it should take too long.
We will sit in camera. I invite those people who are waiting outside not to go too far if they want to share our meal with us.
The committee continued in camera.