Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 3 - Evidence - Meeting of November 29, 2004
OTTAWA, Monday November 29, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:05 p.m. to study and to report from time to time on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act.
Senator Eymard G. Corbin (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Welcome to all members of the committee and a special welcome to Ms. Liza Frulla, Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is accompanied tonight by Ms. Judith Larocque, Deputy Minister as well as Ms. Eileen Sarkar, Assistant Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Before proceeding, I would like to make a few brief announcements. We are going to try to adjourn tonight's meeting at around 6:30 p.m., in order to accommodate the minister who, as you can imagine, has quite a full workload.
I would also like to welcome Senator Murray to the committee, who I believe will become a full fledged member of this committee starting tomorrow. Senator Murray is an old hand at official languages. The two of us had co-chaired the first Joint Committee on Official Languages, quite some time ago.
I would also like to welcome Ms. Andrée Tremblay. She will replace, for a period of about 12 months, our researcher who must take leave for very well-known reasons. Welcome, Ms. Tremblay! You will see that members of this committee are very kind.
That being said, I have exceptionally scheduled a meeting for next Monday in order to hear Mr. Georges Arès, president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. The last meeting before the holidays will take place on Monday, December 13. The witness will be the Honorable Mr. Cotler, the minister of Justice. Following that, we will be off for the holidays. We will reconvene at the beginning of February and undertake a study project on teaching.
Ms. Frulla, you have the floor.
Ms. Liza Frulla, P.C., Minister of Canadian Heritage: I am delighted to meet with you today and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Chair, on your appointment. It is a pleasure.
I would like to introduce to you Mr. Lussier, who is responsible for official languages in the Department of Canadian Heritage as well as negotiations with the provinces on education agreements. He is also responsible for consultations we are holding with different communities.
From our standpoint, the Senate has always acted as an advocate for minorities played the role of defender of minority rights. Your committee is an important ally of all official-language minority communities. In fact, in your ranks you had a leading champion of minority communities, Senator Gauthier. I wish to thank him for his excellent work, his devotion and his commitment to the communities he continues to support.
This year marks the 400th anniversary of the founding of Acadie and of the French presence in America. It is a fitting occasion to re-affirm our commitment to promoting the development of French Canada and strengthening our linguistic duality. According to a survey conducted by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada two out of three citizens believe that living in a country with two official languages is one of the defining criteria of Canadian citizenship. This is a statistic clearly showing how deeply our linguistic duality is rooted in our country's soul. This is good news, but we must remain vigilant.
Not so long ago, that lesson was forcefully impressed on us with the saga of the Montfort Hospital in Ontario. clearly reminded us of this, and I would even say haunted us. On this continent with its huge English-speaking majority, we must make ever greater efforts and show greater perseverance, determination, even boldness, to ensure for coming generations a still better future in French.
For my part, I have set four objectives for myself for the short term: I want to increase our efforts in teaching; I want to renew our structures for cooperation with communities by April 2005; I want to expand my coordinating role, in cooperation with my colleague, Mr. Mauril Bélanger; last, I want to continue to promote the cultural vitality of minority communities.
The first objective: to increase our efforts in teaching.
[English]
Education is essential to the future of official language minority communities. In this case we are working in cooperation with the provinces and territories, which are responsible for education. We are on the verge of signing agreements with the provinces and territories concerning earmarked funds, enabling us to invest an additional $346 million in teaching over a five-year period. Our budget now is $900 million. Moreover, we are negotiating with the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, to renew our multi-year memorandum of understanding. This means that by 2008, our government will invest $1.3 billion in minority language teaching and second language instruction.
The Commissioner of Official Languages is calling on us to move more quickly. She is with us today, and we took this point very seriously. I agree with her that the time is short. Of course, we could take the easy way and invest for the sake of investing, without asking ourselves whether we could do better and do more. For us, the objective is to obtain the best possible results.
This is why it is important to work closely with the provinces and territories to set common objectives that are realistic and reflect community needs. During this process, I want to be sure that the groups and associations that are mainstays of the education system are consulted by education ministries.
Accountability will also be a vital aspect of these agreements. It is important to measure the effectiveness of our efforts and demonstrate transparency. In addition, we must never forget that education is an area of provincial and territorial jurisdiction.
I want to bring together all the stakeholders so that, in concert, we work to achieve two of the most ambitious objectives of the Action Plan for Official Languages, namely, to ensure that the proportion of francophone children enrolled in French language schools rises from 68 per cent to 80 per cent and, by 2013, to double the number of young Canadians who have some knowledge of their second official language.
[Translation]
What are the keys to our success? Access and quality. The more that young people living in minority communities have access to teaching in their first language, the more of them will study in that language. The higher the quality of teaching in the minority language, the fewer parents will hesitate to register their children in a minority-language school. Each young anglophone and francophone living in a minority community in Canada must have access to high- quality teaching in his or her first language, from preschool through to the post-secondary level.
In the case of second-language instruction, it is the same situation. More than 2.5 million of our youth are learning their second official language in the classroom. That is one out of every two young people. I believe that we must increase this number. Because in today's world, proficiency in our two official languages is a guarantee of prosperity and success. Turning our youth into bilingual citizens means giving them a gift from which they will benefit for the rest of their lives.
We must also help the provinces to upgrade the quality of second-language instruction, especially by enabling them to have all the teaching tools required.
For this purpose, we will invest around $330 million in total over five years in second language instruction, an increase of more than $137 million.
[English]
We have just modernized our scholarship and exchange programs that each year enable close to 8,000 young people to discover other regions of our country and improve their second language skills. We wanted to make the programs more attractive to youth. In addition, we are continuing to work closely with dozens of organizations, such as French for the Future and Canadian Parents for French, which play a major role in English Canada in promoting the importance of learning French.
Education is the future of our communities, but they must still be able to develop in all sectors of activities.
Over the past decade, Canadian community agreements have allowed us to make considerable progress. Many community organizations have taken root within the communities and institutional networks are stronger. For example, recent years have seen the start-up of 18 French language community radio stations, 7 English-language community radio stations and 20 community centres. As a result of the concerted efforts of community leaders, new priority sectors have emerged, such as health and early childhood. We have also supported hundreds of projects yielding social, cultural and economic benefits within official language minority communities.
[Translation]
The end of the last five-year cycle of Canada-community agreements gives us the opportunity to check whether existing cooperation methods are still the best way of working together. In this regard, last August, I announced that consultations would be held to better understand the ideas of the communities.
I launched this process because I want to be sure that we are on the same wavelength. I want us to head all together not only in the same direction but in the right direction.
As I have said repeatedly, I want all the players in official language communities now and in future to make their voices heard and to work in close cooperation. Representatives of my department are now visiting all parts of Canada for these consultations, which will run until early December. Afterwards, we will determine with the communities the shape for our cooperation in coming years.
For the year 2004-2005, we have put in place transitional measures that will enable us to ensure continuity in the funding provided to community networks.
Linguistic duality also requires partnership and cooperation. The Department of Canadian Heritage does not bear sole responsibility for this issue. I intend to fully perform the coordinating role conferred on me by sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act.
Under section 42, I am responsible for encouraging all departments and agencies of the Government of Canada to enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities. To do this, we are working with a network of coordinators who look after implementation of this commitment within the 30 departments and agencies that are specifically targeted.
During the past year, the department has undertaken development of a tool for assessing the implementation of section 41 of the Official Languages Act. Under this section, federal institutions have a responsibility to support official-language minority communities. This tool will enable each department and agency to more easily prepare an evaluation of its activities in support of official languages and to better target its actions.
[English]
We are also carrying on our efforts under the interdepartmental partnership with the official language communities. The partnership encourages government organizations to work more closely with official language communities. Already, 15 memorandums of understanding are in place dealing with critical sectors such as health, economic development, skills development, agriculture and, of course, culture.
Three new memorandums of understanding will soon be signed with key players: Status of Women Canada, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and the National Arts Centre. Since 2000, $38 million has been invested in specific projects, including $20 million from federal partners and other stakeholders. This indicates that the leverage effect that we wanted to create is making itself felt more and more.
This is where we are in our coordination efforts. Little by little, a new synergy is emerging that will enable us to multiply the impacts of our activities, ensure that we avoid duplication, and achieve still greater effectiveness.
[Translation]
In a minority community, culture has an important social function. It ensures the vitality of the community and its language. When we speak of the growth and development of official-language minority communities, it is impossible to overlook the importance of the arts and cultural sector.
Some people have said that culture was the big omission from the Action Plan for Official Languages. This is not really an accurate picture: just think of the activities of my department and of the Government of Canada as a whole. According to an analysis of funding trends during the last four years under agreements to support official-language minority communities, 20 per cent of the funds went to organizations in the arts and cultural sector.
We must also take into account many programs of the Canadian Heritage portfolio having a primary objective of promoting the growth and expanded presence of arts and culture. I am thinking in particular of the French-language CBC. Its television and radio broadcasts reach all Francophones throughout Canada; I am thinking of the Canadian Television Fund. One third of its support is reserved for French-language productions, and since 1999-2000, it has invested close to $40 million in the production of French programs; I am thinking of the Canada Music Fund, which devotes 40 per cent of its budget to promoting the creation of Francophone content. I am thinking of the Canada Council for the Arts, which directly funds the work of artists and organizations in these communities. And I am thinking of other programs such as Cultural Spaces Canada and Arts Presentation Canada, which help to upgrade cultural and heritage infrastructure and to enrich programming throughout the country.
I believe that you have understood that our cultural programs greatly help to increase the impact of our activities in the sector of official languages.
[English]
Each time that I meet with representatives from the cultural sector, they ask me the same question: Are you planning to renew the funding for the Tomorrow Starts Today initiative? This happened in October at my most recent meeting with provincial and territorial counterparts, who all agreed on the benefits of the initiative. This happened last week when I appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages. I was asked a number of questions on this matter by members of the opposition as well as by my Liberal colleagues. In addition, last week, the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française sent a letter to the newspaper highlighting the importance of the Tomorrow Starts Today initiative for Canada's francophone community. Each time, I answer that I do not hold our country's purse strings, but that I am working unceasingly to make my cabinet colleagues aware of this issue. One thing is certain: The more we take a position in support of these programs, the more our voices will ring out loudly and clearly. In short, this is where we are. Much work remains to be done, but our commitment is strong and we are making progress.
As Minister of Canadian Heritage, I want to help give our francophone and anglophone youth living in minority communities the opportunity to grow, study, work, be creative and to fulfill their potential in their first language.
[Translation]
Wherever they live in Canada, anglophones and francophones must be able to take part in all the great challenges of our time. I intend to make use of the responsibility entrusted to me in order to work closely with all those who, like me, are committed to promoting the cause of French-speaking Canadians and strengthening our linguistic duality. I invite you at any time to share with me your vision and your ideas.
Senator Chaput: I would like to welcome you, Minister, as well as those accompanying you.
I greatly enjoyed your presentation. I believe there is a lot of hope in what you have just said. You said that you were going to work very hard on certain files, but that in the end, you are not giving us empty promises; you gave a portrait of the situation and the goals that you have set for yourself.
I have a few questions to ask you. The first is with respect to the Canada-community agreements. Today, several of my colleagues spoke with me. When I asked them how the consultations were going, they told me they were satisfied and that the consultations were going well. They are satisfied with the consultations that you have undertaken, they are comfortable and they are hopeful. Nonetheless, they did reiterate the urgent need to strengthen these Canada- community agreements.
The Canada-community agreements have been in effect throughout Canada for 11 years, there has been no increase in the funds allocated under them. Community groups and organizations which are fighting assimilation and are trying to continue to live in French find themselves in an increasingly vulnerable position. Our gains are very fragile. The strengthening of these agreements is very important for francophone minority communities throughout Canada. They are comfortable with the process that you have initiated, they are comfortable with the accountability. They are comfortable with being held to account for the money they will receive.
They have told me that they have taken a stand and that they are ready to develop a game plan which will justify their argument for increases. I think this is good news. I was very pleased to hear my colleagues' comments because, for some time, there was a lot of insecurity. I am sending you the message. My question with respect to the agreements is the following: Can we hope to see these agreements signed by April 2005?
Ms. Frulla: Thank you, Senator Chaput, that is very encouraging for us. I am going to be very honest and candid with you: in the beginning, when Ms. Sarkar, Ms. Judith Larocque and Mr. Hubert Lussier first mentioned the consultation to me, I replied "Oh no, no consultations." They convinced me with these two arguments: the first being that we have to take advantage of the consultations to see if what we've been doing is being done well, and if we remain very focused on our goal.
Second, there are organizations and associations which do a very good job but are excluded because they do not belong to the "club," figuratively speaking. Now we have to determine if we want to include them, and if so, how. This is what the dynamic looks like. The goal was also to start a dialogue in order to impress upon communities that not only Heritage Canada is responsible for official languages, but the government is as well. All departments are responsible. We must build a wider network, a stronger network rather than having just one stakeholder. That was the goal.
We are hearing that the consultations are going well and that there are going to be some wonderful recommendations. We are waiting for the recommendations, on the one hand in order to make decisions, and on the other hand because up until now $35 million were assigned to the communities, and another $19 million has been added on to this $35 million over a period of five years, under the government action plan. So there will be a top up.
It is certain that when we have more, we do more. However, before telling you how we will invest this money, we are waiting for the outcome of these consultations.
Senator Comeau: I am happy to hear that everything is going well with the Canada-community agreements. We can perhaps ask the question to these groups next week; if I understand correctly they will appear to determine if other improvements are possible.
I have a set of unrelated questions. My first question is with respect to the comments made by the Official Languages Commissioner in her report, that states that some departments are still reticent to provide an evaluation of their achievements. I am referring to CIDA, which was specifically mentioned, the department refused to provide an evaluation of its achievements for 2003-2004.
Were you able to convince CIDA to submit an achievement plan? Are there any other agencies or departments which are refusing to provide a record of achievement?
Ms. Frulla: I will answer your question on departments, and Mr. Hubert Lussier will answer your question on CIDA. We have an agreement with 15 departments, and more departments are added on as we go along. There are two ways of proceeding: either through coercion or through persuasion. With the government's action plan, and the $750 million tabled, voted, and approved two years ago, we have been able to do both. In other words, we had to coerce a bit in the interest of transparency, and accountability, obviously, when we receive money. Therefore, it is a matter of accountability for each and every department.
On the other hand, we want French to be contagious. We want departments to perceive the obligation to apply the official languages policy as an asset and not as a punishment. This is what we were getting at. But are we succeeding everywhere, every time, completely? There is still progress to be made. We held a meeting with francophone groups, a month and a half ago, alongside with Mr. Mauril Bélanger and the Minister of Justice, Mr. Irwin Cotler. It was quite impressive to see 15 ministers sitting around the table, coming together, and separately, to talk to francophone communities. With respect to CIDA, I will let Mr. Lussier answer the question.
Mr. Hubert Lussier, Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, Department of Canadian Heritage: I am afraid I do not have a definite reply to your question on CIDA's commitment. Discussions on how CIDA will give their report are now underway. It is true, as the minister said, that for some federal institutions, the task was easier and more natural than it was for others. There's still a lot to be done in this regard.
To add on to what the minister said, we recently developed mechanisms through a network of public servants within federal institutions, to make sure that the message on their responsibility is conveyed even better. We are in contact with the Official Languages Commission, which also supports this action. There are a lot of internal mechanisms, which are not always very visible, which still need to be improved, but which are already bearing fruit.
Senator Comeau: Let's just say we will get back to the question. After all these years, I find it difficult to believe that there are still federal agencies which refuse to report and that we must try to encourage them, educate them, inform them, particularly at this time in the evolution of our country. We will get back to this question.
Ms. Frulla: These measures were established and we will be more specific in our next report on the Official Languages Act. We will bring to the forefront departments which have been participating well from the beginning and those who have not been participating so well.
Senator Comeau: Of course, there are going to be consequences or spin-offs if certain agencies are reluctant to meet the requirements; I am talking about part VII of the act.
My second question is with respect to Air Canada, a file that has started off some rumblings. I do not know if your department has anything to do with it; if not, then I will move to my third question. I was away last week and I only read about the news in the papers today. I see here that Air Canada is making some noise. I will read the quote. It is in English; I do not recall which newspaper the excerpt comes from:
[English]
Air Canada agrees with the need to provide bilingual services in the National Capital Region, Quebec, New Brunswick and regions where demand for French services is sufficiently high.
[Translation]
I suppose that Air Canada will determine where the needs are.
[English]
"It is just good customer service, driven by market demand," Ms. Cook said.
[Translation]
In other words, where there is a significant number of francophones, they will provide services in both languages, but in regions which need these services the most, they will simply shut down the services. In my opinion, in the regions listed here, these regions are considered important for official languages, but they want to start cutting back on services in regions, which, as I have said, really need them.
Are you involved in this file? And if not, who is involved?
Ms. Frulla: It is the Minister of Transport, Mr. LaPierre, and I have heard him answer this question several times. For him, it is a priority commitment. You can invite the Minister of Transport to appear, he will be very pleased to answer your question and discuss with you.
Senator Comeau: Therefore you, as Minister of Canadian Heritage, you are not dealing with this issue.
Ms. Frulla: We deal with education agreements, and community agreements. That is our role, it is a cultural one, we also deal with coordination with the departments. That is the sum of our responsibilities under the act.
Senator Comeau: From time to time, I still find it difficult to determine where the line is.
Ms. Frulla: It is not always obvious.
Senator Comeau: No, because there are ministers responsible for official languages, ministers responsible for programs which support official languages and other departments, like the Department of Transport, which deals with an act that obliges Air Canada to provide services in both languages. Therefore it is sometimes difficult for us to distinguish where are the lines of responsibility.
In your comments, you referred to French television, which is trying to serve all parts of the country. A few years ago, I tried myself to see whether there were some way of improving Radio-Canada's services, so that it would target not only Quebec, but Canada as a whole. I was not very successful at that time. I made a second attempt, to try to find out what the budget was for the most remote regions, and the president of the Corporation categorically refused to give me a regional breakdown of the figures for Canada. He said that as parliamentarians, we did not have a knowledge of these matters to properly assess the budget breakdown. It was like saying that we did not have the intellectual capacity required to question the president.
Have you, Minister, had an opportunity to review the services of this type provided by Radio-Canada?
Ms. Frulla: With respect to the Corporation's budgets, if there is one corporation that is close to the government, it is CBC Radio-Canada, together with the CRTC. They have internal auditors to ensure that the Corporation runs smoothly, but we do not control Radio-Canada's budgets, because this would be seen as interfering. That said, I do understand your point. As we know, a few years ago, when the government really needed to improve its financial situation, in 1995, when we were told that our economy was almost like that of a Third World country, the budget of CBC Radio-Canada was reduced by some $400 million.
Management decided to cut regional services, because of this situation. The reason was that the listeners in the regions were being well served by private broadcasters. The Corporation therefore decided to concentrate on what it does well — namely national and international productions.
I have heard the question you have raised in almost every committee. Mr. Rabinovich is supposed to be putting forward a plan setting out his vision for regional services. We have to be careful here, however, we cannot ask CBC Radio-Canada to reinstitute regional services. The Corporation no longer has a regional presence, since the other broadcasters, including CTV, have taken their place in this regard. It would be very difficult to ask the Corporation to redeploy. That would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. However, that does not stop the Corporation from putting forward a plan to increase its presence in the regions, by offering information and having more regional production teams, involving local talents. It is already doing this, as we saw at the Gemini Awards Gala yesterday evening. We are waiting for this vision, and Mr. Rabinovich is working on it at the moment.
We asked him to do an administrative clean up, and he has been doing that for five years. Recently his mandate was renewed for three years, not five; so that he can complete the task he has begun and focus more on the television component of the Corporation. We are waiting to see what the crown Corporation's response will be.
Senator Comeau: I can understand that you cannot give Mr. Rabinovich orders, and we would not want you to do so. However, when the president of a Canadian institution has a role to reach out to Francophones of the country, we would like him to have this feeling of belonging apply to all parts of the country. However, when the mandate amounts to serving Francophones where the population density is the greatest, I am not sure whether Canadians are well served. It is much easier to be a Francophone in Quebec city or Shipagan than in Baie-Sainte-Marie, Nova Scotia. If, like some Air Canada representatives, Mr. Rabinovich thinks that Radio-Canada does not need to serve the regions because there are not enough Francophones living there, why would we ask Canadians living in the regions to have some of their income tax dollars go to this Crown Corporation if its productions are not for them? If, in Mr. Rabinovich's opinion, members or senators do not have the intellectual capacity required to read a budget, what are we doing here? Perhaps you could tell us about this plan so that we can determine what should be done.
Ms. Frulla: I think that it would be a good idea to invite Mr. Rabinovich to appear before your committee so that you can put these questions to him directly. I am not denying that Radio-Canada has suffered some significant cutbacks, nor am I denying that there is a need for reinvestment. That being said, we must ensure that any investment which is made be carried out with a view of better serving the regions and, above all, in the spirit of respecting official languages and minority language communities.
I myself have a broadcasting background. It is often said that Radio-Canada cannot compete effectively at a local level because it has to maintain a national presence. This is explained by the fact that Radio-Canada has limited financial resources and a broader mandate than private television companies such as CTV or other broadcasters who are more successful on a regional level. Personally, I think that this argument is only applicable when we are talking about serving majority language community groups.
When the time comes to providing service to French-speaking minority communities, private television companies do not step up to the table. They have no obligation to do so. Their responsibility is to be financially successful. Although Radio-Canada has to stay within its budget, it does not have to meet the same criteria in terms of financial performance that private companies do. The mentality is very different.
Mr. Rabinovich definitely envisages a regional plan, so it would be really worth your while to put that question to him.
Senator Comeau: I do not want you to think that I was suggesting that supplementary funding is required.
Ms. Frulla: I did not get that impression at all.
Senator Comeau: I want Mr. Rabinovich to get his supplementary funding, but I am not convinced that he would use any extra money in the best interests of those communities which are most in need. We should certainly invite him to our committee, but I remain unconvinced that he had the interests of our communities at heart when he made decisions in the past, and I am not sure that the situation will change in the future.
Senator Léger: I am delighted to see you. You said that your background is in broadcasting, mine is culture. Thirty years after the enactment of the Official Languages Act, a great deal of progress has been made. English and French are on an equal footing and constitute the two founding pillars of our culture. Personally, I think that it encapsulates what it is to be Canadian.
You said that 20 per cent of the funds are allocated to culture. I believe that, in Canada, the influence of culture touches almost 80 per cent of our daily life. Across the country, culture is multifaceted: the ambassadors who promote our culture across the world, the Gemini Awards Gala which was on television last night. Culture reaches us through radio and television. Culture takes precedence over basics such as bread and butter. Even people who are extremely poor have a television. Culture is omnipresent. Do you therefore consider a 20 per cent share of the pie to be significant?
Ms. Frulla: It is more than that. Twenty per cent of the available funding is earmarked specifically for communities, but when we talk about the French fact, we are talking about the whole network, wherever we broadcast across Canada, be it with Radio-Canada or the Canadian Television Fund. That brings it up to around 45 per cent.
Mr. Lussier: Yes, it is a lot more than that. The 20 per cent applies to the $35 million envelope to which you referred, the one which provides direct support to communities.
Ms. Frulla: It is difficult to say exactly what percentage of the overall funds are attributed to culture. Around 40 to 45 per cent of the Canadian Television Fund funding is reserved for French language. For the Canada Music Fund, it is 40 per cent; for the Canada Council for the Arts, which provides community level funding, the figure is about the same. Overall, I would say that it is between 45 and 50 per cent.
Senator Léger: Fine, but we also know that the influence is much more than that. On the national scene, as Canadians, that is where it happens.
Let us hope that Canadians realize more and more that in Canada, both languages are equal. Children are now learning about culture in our schools. So it is normal for us to allocate even more money to it. Do you agree that it is normal to increase funding allocations?
Ms. Frulla: It is normal except that with the government action plan, we are talking about $750 million. That is a major commitment. For years, we did a lot, but now we must do more. If we want to double the number of young bilingual people, yes, we must invest money. If we say that we must absolutely help, support and have agreements in education and community centers, yes we must provide money. Having an action plan means that these needs have been identified. These are not wishes for the future. We are currently working with what was announced. I agree that it has been difficult to reach agreements with the provinces on education and that we are moving too slowly. You must also bear in mind that education is a provincial jurisdiction and that the agreements we have do not leave communities hanging. We continue to provide funding prior to having entered into the real action plan for education, but it is delicate. In other words, we are not trying to hide our intentions from the provinces and to dictate what we are going to do in terms of education. It does not work that way. It is not good to go against the provinces. Hubert Lussier is working with each province to reach a bilateral agreement. We must try to gain acceptance for transparent mechanisms that will make provinces accountable to their people and enable us to reach a memorandum of understanding, in other words, guiding principles for everyone, excluding Quebec. Quebec is in a specific situation, because its minority language is English. The context is very different.
Senator Léger: Are the provinces, the territories, and Aboriginals convinced that both languages are equal?
Ms. Frulla: I would say yes. It is always stronger in some provinces than in others. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia and Manitoba are bilingual provinces. Quebec is a francophone province, and when you are francophone, you know that you need English. It is easier for some, but I would say that all in all, the answer is yes.
Senator Léger: Would you say that the federal government speaks this way to the provinces?
Ms. Frulla: It is in the Constitution.
Senator Léger: In other words, we are farther than we were in the beginning. I am against the word "minority." We should change the wording of statistics. There are no more borders. People travel by plane. If we have reached that point, it is thanks to the work that has been done for the past 30 years. It is normal to go farther now.
Ms. Frulla: We do, however, have legislation entrenched in the Constitution. We have this guideline which ensures that people who are less convinced must still subject themselves to it, but it is always better to be more and more convinced. Having said that, we have made excellent progress in terms of education, in the West and in the area of services as well.
Ms. Eileen Sarkar, Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Heritage, Department of Canadian Heritage: We are very encouraged with the participation of the provinces and the municipalities in reaching agreements to provide services to francophone communities. British Columbia signed an agreement with us for the first time three years ago. It is not a huge amount of money, but it shows a will on the part of the provinces and municipalities.
Senator Léger: The CBC is a national crown corporation. It is like the National Arts Centre.
Ms. Frulla: The National Arts Centre signed a protocol.
Senator Léger: Yes, I know. They come to see us to know what is national. They are all worked up that our taxes go there, so how do we make it national. I know it is not that simple.
French-language CBC cut the budgets to the regions right away, because they had to do so. So the belief that Canada has two equal pillars, French and English, is not founded. I would like to draw a comparison with radio. Let's look at CJSE in Shediac. Ten years ago, the community radio station started broadcasting, and people at French- language CBC were all worked up, because they thought they would lose their listening audience. That was not the case. CJSE did so well that all of a sudden, francophones outside the Moncton region found that the music suited them, that the station met their needs, and anglophone radio stations are the ones that lost listeners. Not everyone is a die-hard French-language CBC listener like me. So the other francophone television stations like TV5...
Ms. Frulla: RDI, Art TV, Télé-Québec and TFO.
Senator Léger: Yes, but not everyone has access to those stations. They must be cable subscribers. In New Brunswick, with basic cable, we get French-language CBC and TV5. The federal government must be aware that all of these openings are important.
Ms. Frulla: Federal government involvement at the community level is limited to starting up and supporting projects throughout Canada. The provinces also have a role to play. When I was Quebec Minister of Culture, I funded the community sector. We cannot say that some provinces need a bit more support than others, but some could easily share the responsibilities. I am not saying that they do not do so, but the community sector is important for all of us. It must also be important for other levels of government, because it is also under their purview. It is a shared responsibility. We can accomplish a lot more if we work together. We do the start-up, we are there for the projects, but we cannot support all community television and radio stations throughout Canada, that is impossible. It is too heavy a burden to bear.
Senator Léger: I am very happy to hear that. Quebec has a kind of European attitude. We know that Europe invests heavily in culture; it is very important. We know that this attitude has put Quebec in the lead to some extent. If you are saying that other provinces could do better, that's great, we will push in that direction.
[English]
Senator Murray: I think we will give our staff an opportunity to work in English.
I was reading this morning the transcripts of previous meetings of this committee that I did not attend, as I am just joining the committee now. In particular, I was reading the testimony of the Commissioner of Official Languages when she was here on November 1.
She expressed the view, backed up by her legal advisers, that the Governor in Council has the authority to make regulations to, let us say, put some meat on the bones of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
What is your view? What is the view of the government on that matter?
Ms. Frulla: I have to admit that I am not a legal expert. Mr. Cotler would be in a better position to give you an official answer.
However, I have to tell you that article 93 reads:
The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) prescribing anything that the Governor in Council considers necessary to effect compliance...
I would say, Senator Murray, that I would be more comfortable if Mr. Cotler answered this.
We think yes.
Senator Murray: If you think yes, that is enough for me. I do not have a right to ask him what legal advice he is giving you. That is advice he gives to his colleague. However, if you think yes, and if your department thinks yes, my next question is: Are you giving any thought to regulations that you might bring in to give effect to Part VII?
Would you like some help from this committee?
The Chairman: Can I intervene? I appreciate this is your first round of questioning. You are raising a matter that this committee debated for some time. It came out of Senator Gauthier's bill, Bill S-3, which is now before the House of Commons. I am not sure if it is a good thing to have a debate at this stage on a matter that is out of our hands. However, I want to caution you that we sent it to the House of Commons and they have to make up their minds. I do not mind you picking the minister's brain. However, I do not think we should make that a habit.
Senator Murray: As I understood the commissioner's testimony at this committee, even without the bill, the government could make regulations. However, you do not want to give them any slack over there; is that what you are telling me? It is tactical advice.
Ms. Frulla: There are two ways of seeing things. The bill is now with the House of Commons. We are looking at it extremely carefully. We are for the philosophy behind the bill. We are now just analyzing the financial consequences of that bill; to what extent we can apply it in order to be responsible financially.
However, we do agree with the nature of the bill and its fundamentals. It is only that now there is the issue of the capacity to pay, and to what extent, the obligations and so forth. Since we do have the bill in the House of Commons, we will have to respond to it — and we want to. That will answer your first question, because we are not saying that we will only use regulation. We have a bill in front of us. Why not take this opportunity to study it deeply and see how we can manage it? As I said, what are the financial obligations, the restrictions and the opportunities? This is how we tackle the bill.
Senator Murray: I will leave it there, Minister.
With regard to this objective of increasing from, I think it was 68 per cent to 80 per cent the number of francophone students who go to French-language school, what is the problem? Am I correct in assuming from what you said about the need for quality education for francophone students the problem is that a significant number of those students do not attend the schools that are at their disposal?
Ms. Frulla: There are two problems. One problem is exactly what you have mentioned. We do have to promote the value of being bilingual, the value of learning French, even if your milieu is totally anglophone. Once we promote it, we need teachers of good quality. That is why we want to increase the training of those teachers. In milieux that are very anglophone, it is harder to get really qualified teachers. The training is important to us, and promoting the access to and the learning of French is one of the keys.
Ms. Sarkar is saying that we are investing $250 million to $300 million to promote access to and integration of minority language education. We invested in program quality and cultural enrichment of school environments; teachers and education support services; access to post-secondary education and promotion of research on minority language education; and dissemination of knowledge.
Much of it is about providing the tools, improving the teaching, and also promotion.
Senator Murray: You are not suggesting that the provinces are not respecting article 23 of the Charter?
Ms. Frulla: I am not suggesting that. We are only there to help them out, mostly, in a difficult task. We have the responsibility to provide support. The action plan is there for us to do so. That is why we are negotiating with the provinces now. Our negotiations are conducted bilaterally because the provinces do not all have the same needs. The objectives are doubling the numbers in French as a second language or supporting it in minority milieux, and we have different objectives that everyone can agree on; but after that, you have to deal with the provinces on a one-to-one basis.
Senator Murray: I understand that. Are those the negotiations with regard to the earmarked funds? Is that what we are talking about here?
Ms. Frulla: Yes, exactly.
Senator Murray: Are they supplementary to the agreements that exist now for minority language education?
Ms. Frulla: Absolutely, and that brings us to $1.3 billion.
Senator Murray: Now that the constitutional obligation of Quebec is to schools based on language rather than religion, what is the view with regard to the status quo there — the availability of education in the second language?
Ms. Frulla: As you know, there is a court case on this in which parents are asking the Supreme Court to pronounce on the availability of English schools for children who did not have their basic education in English.
Senator Murray: It is a Charter issue.
Ms. Frulla: Yes, it puts in question the language act in Quebec and their whole approach. If you are asking me about the broad question, I will tell you, coming from Quebec and having served in the Quebec government with Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Ryan, I think we got linguistic peace. Personally, I think we should leave it at that, having lived through all the turmoil of those nine years.
Senator Murray: Am I to gather from that that the anglophones generally are satisfied with the educational facilities they have for their students?
Ms. Frulla: Yes.
Senator Buchanan: There is an old saying that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. Let me put it this way: First of all, I am not a dog. Second, I am not old and therefore, with the help of this committee, I will learn French.
Ms. Frulla: Perfect.
Senator Buchanan: Second, I want to welcome you to the committee. I met you a few weeks ago, not for the first time, on the plane when you were going to Halifax, and I mentioned to you then that not that many years ago, I would have been in a position to extend the welcome of Nova Scotia to you.
I know that during your term of office with the Government of Quebec under the able leadership of my dear and late friend, Robert Bourassa, you were in Nova Scotia; and when I was the premier of, I will say, the second greatest province in Canada — because in your presence I will say Quebec is probably the greatest — should I say that, chair? No?
I always take my cue from Senator Comeau.
You have that kind of rare experience as a minister in the federal government of having been a provincial minister, and you bring that knowledge of federal-provincial situations to your ministry in Ottawa. I have that, too; as a premier of a province for 13 years, I can bring that kind of experience to Ottawa in my present position, so you and I have much in common.
Ms. Frulla: A lot of history in common, too.
Senator Buchanan: A lot of history. That is right.
I do want to say that among all the Canadian premiers I met from 1978 to 1991, Robert Bourassa was one of the finest men I have ever known. He was such a gentleman.
I remember, in one of the first meetings I had with him, that the page brought over a glass of milk and put it in front of him. I am a milk drinker also, and so I walked over and I told him, "You know, I am so pleased to see that you drink milk because I do also." Immediately, he summoned the page and told him to bring me a glass of milk. From then on, as Senator Murray may recall, at federal-provincial conferences, Premier Bourassa and I always had a glass of milk in front of us. That is just a little aside that I thought I would throw in — a nice commercial.
I should also tell you that in Nova Scotia, we celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Acadian flag at Port Royal — that would be from 1882, I believe, to 1982. I was there in 1982 with the Prime Minister at that time, Mr. Trudeau. In addition to that, as you are well aware, the Acadians came to Nova Scotia and founded Acadia 400 years ago this year, in 1604. I was not there then, but I certainly was in 2004. Nova Scotia has a storied history as far as the Acadians are concerned, and as far as francophones are concerned in this country.
Now, another little editorial; I am not egotistical, but I was the first premier of Nova Scotia to recognize the vital importance of French in that province. As Senator Comeau and Senator Murray would know, during my terms, we commenced the first francophone school boards in Nova Scotia. We also started the first full French-language schools in the Acadian districts, and other things were brought about during that time. For that, the University of St. Anne awarded me an honorary doctorate of political science.
It is interesting that from the time I left in 1991 to the present, not much has progressed. However, it is happening now. We have a very dynamic, young, new MLA, new minister in Nova Scotia, by the name of the Honourable Chris d'Entremont. You have probably met him. He has introduced a bill in the Nova Scotia legislature to ensure that French language service is available to francophones in Nova Scotia in many government departments, and it will escalate to all government departments. That bill was introduced just a few months ago. He is continuing this important work, even though, in Nova Scotia, the percentage of francophones is about 2 to 3 per cent. Is that right, Senator Comeau?
Senator Comeau: It is 4.5 per cent.
Senator Buchanan: I was close. We are moving in the right direction. You were in Halifax a few weeks ago in your capacity as Minister of Heritage, and I think you noticed that we are moving in the right direction in Nova Scotia.
Ms. Frulla: Yes.
Senator Buchanan: That is why I am pleased that I was asked to become the Deputy Chair of the Official Languages Committee.
After that total editorial on my part, I want to ask you a question.
What do you mean — Senator Murray has already mentioned this, but I still do not understand — when you talk about increasing from 68 per cent to 80 per cent the proportion of francophone children enrolled in French-language schools? I find it difficult to understand. Are you saying that 68 per cent to 80 per cent of children are francophones, or will be francophones, in French-language schools?
Ms. Frulla: There are francophones out there who do not avail themselves of their rights. They have rights to French education, but they do not avail themselves of those.
Senator Buchanan: Why do they not?
Ms. Judith Larocque, Deputy Minister, Canadian Heritage: There are several reasons. Sometimes the parents do not appreciate the quality of the teaching; or, for young people who would like to continue in a post-secondary institution in the French language, sometimes those options are not available.
These measures are trying to create at climate in which parents will want their kids to go where the quality of the education is such that it is attractive to parents and young people to continue their studies in the French language.
Senator Buchanan: When you say "the proportion of francophone children," is that children of francophone parents or children of one francophone parent? How does this work today?
Mr. Lussier: One parent entitles you to the right to education in the minority language, in this case, French.
Senator Buchanan: That is what we are talking about here. You are saying that the government aims to increase that percentage from 68 per cent to 80 per cent? All right. Again, welcome.
[Translation]
The Chair: I know that Senator Chaput has another question. I do not know if it deals with Air Canada, but allow me to raise a specific point. As you know, Minister, we have a minority government. An election was held recently and there could be another one any day. God or the majority will decide. After each election, portfolios change. What has always bothered me, and please do not take this personally, is that when there are upheavals and changes of this nature, the programs and their beneficiaries are the ones that suffer. I may be right or I may be wrong, but I would like you to give me some guarantees in this regard.
For example, you are currently negotiating agreements with the communities or with the provinces. If two or three months down the road, we are plunged into another election, who would be running the shop? I know that you keep the title of minister until you are replaced.
Ms. Frulla: That is not the intention, we agree on that.
The Chair: I am talking about a hypothetical situation. Suppose you are replaced, your successor will have to familiarize himself or herself with the portfolio, the content of the programs, et cetera. Can you guarantee that in a similar context, that does occur from time to time, program recipients will not have to suffer and that we will deliver the goods on time, so that they can plan in a reasonable way? What have you put in place to ensure continuity?
Ms. Frulla: First of all, we work on the long term and the short term. In the short term, we want to sign agreements in education, that is crucial. In the meantime, current agreements will continue to operate. No one will be deprived of what they are entitled to.
However, we want to sign these agreements before March 2005. I doubt — now I may be wrong — that there will be an election in March 2005. So these agreements will be completed.
To answer your question specifically, once the agreements are signed, the funding will flow; that is automatic. It is the same thing for the communities: consultations will wrap up in January 2005, and based on these consultations, decisions will be made by March 2005, in other words, in parallel. Once the agreements are signed with the communities, funding mechanisms fall into place automatically.
The philosophy behind these agreements flows from the government plan. This plan is well explained and well established. You have the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages to maintain order. We have mechanisms to ensure that communities are not deprived of anything because of elections that we more or less want to hold.
The system is put in place, not only for official languages, but also for culture, and the status of women. A minister will always give direction, but that is always with respect to follow-up. If not, in some cases, if it is a major policy direction, we ensure first of all that we have allies, partners in other places.
Second, we always ensure that it is feasible. In short: long-term vision, but short-term action. That is the way to work in a minority government.
Senator Murray: That is why we have a permanent public service.
[English]
Senator Murray: Ministers come and ministers go, but the civil service goes on forever.
Senator Buchanan: Who is minding the shop?
Senator Murray: They are.
Ms. Frulla: Thank God — and you have lived it, Senator Murray — we have this continuity and protection. There is an orientation, depending on who is there, but I have the firm intention of being here and staying for a while. For four months, we have been going through all those briefings in committees and whatever. Trust me. I have the intention of staying for a while.
Senator Buchanan: You learned that positive attitude from people like Robert Bourassa.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: I will try to be brief. To follow up on what Senator Comeau was saying, Air Canada is the responsibility of the Department of Transport. I am surprised to see that section 41 and section 42 in Part VII do not confer a responsibility upon Canadian Heritage to ensure that Air Canada fulfills its obligations. That might mean that either the department is not on the list of organizations or institutions, or it found a way out.
Second comment: in your presentation, you mentioned protocols that are in place. Fifteen protocols are already in place in very important sectors. Are there any clauses in these protocols that protect the rights of the official language minority and that require provinces to account for how they use the funds they receive for services in French? If the 15 protocols in place do not contain such a clause, can you, Minister, ensure us that new protocols will contain a clause that will protect the rights of francophones and that will require the provinces to be accountable?
In particular, I am thinking about the example of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I was talking today with a francophone from the North who told me that the NWT, the Yukon and Nunavut have agreed to provide health care services in French and have developed a plan that they have submitted. They are now waiting to be part of the funding allocated to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, based on services, and they are hoping that a clause will protect their rights.
Ms. Frulla: Firstly, as regards Air Canada, Part VII applies to Crown corporations. Air Canada is a private company.
Senator Chaput: But do they not receive funding from the federal government?
Ms. Frulla: Yes, as does, among others, Bombardier. Air Canada is a private company these days. However, its contractual obligations include a bilingualism clause.
To get back to your question, Part VII does not apply. That is why the matter falls under the purview of the Department of Transport. As a private airline, everything that relates to the management of Air Canada, in terms of other companies and competition, comes under the Department of Transport.
Second, we have to be careful not to mix apples and oranges. We have entered into agreements with the provinces regarding education. Those agreements are different from the 15 memoranda of understanding. We have memoranda of understanding with the different departments which require them to provide services in French. We ask the departments to provide us with reports. Our annual report will provide you with more detailed information on this. More emphasis will be placed on some departments than on others. Generally speaking, we have the full participation of 15 departments.
The agreements with the provinces on education are an entirely separate issue. We sent out a letter stating the following:
In compliance with its own action plan and the stated education objectives of the Canadian action plan, your government has the responsibility to submit a final report on investments and the results achieved for 2004-2005.
We are asking the provinces to submit a report. That is part of the negotiations which should conclude with the signing of the agreements in March 2005.
Senator Chaput: Does that also apply to health accords?
Ms. Frulla: No. We are involved in the education agreements in terms of French and second-language teaching. Health Canada looks after its own negotiations.
Senator Chaput: As the Minister for Canadian Heritage, do you have an interdepartmental responsibility to encourage the Department of Health to provide a protection clause?
Ms. Frulla: Yes, we have a coordination role to play. We have the responsibility of ensuring that the Department of Health provides services in French.
I am not working alone. Mauril Bélanger is responsible for the government's action plan. Our programs go beyond the confines of government walls. Legislatively speaking, we are responsible for Part VII and community programs. We have that responsibility. Mauril Bélanger is responsible for the government action plan, all $750 million of it.
The Chair: I know that Senator Comeau wishes to speak. Minister, I know that we had agreed to let you go around 6:30. Could you grant us a few more minutes?
Ms. Frulla: Of course.
Senator Comeau: I would like to come back to the discussion that you had with Senator Chaput regarding Air Canada's commitment to official languages. I am going to quote from a bill which dates back to 1989 under which the government decided to sell its shares in Air Canada. The piece of legislation to which I am referring is the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The government mandated Air Canada to buy its shares. I would now like to quote to you from an article which appeared in the National Post on the 29th:
— the airline have operations in Winnipeg, Montreal and Mississauga, and that it be held to the requirements of the Official Languages Act as if it were a federal institution.
That completely contradicts what you said to Senator Chaput. You said that Air Canada, as a private company, was not subject to the Official Languages Act.
The Chair: I do not believe that that was what Ms. Frulla said. She did say that Air Canada was a private company, but she did not go as far as to say what is said in the article that you are quoting.
Senator Comeau: I am just quoting the article. Perhaps I should ask whether the journalist is mistaken?
Ms. Frulla: I said that, according to their own rules they have to respect bilingualism. But, they are a private company. We cannot make them respect bilingualism in the way that we would be able to, were they a crown corporation.
Senator Comeau: Were you saying earlier that the journalist was mistaken?
The Chairman: I apologize for interrupting, but the Commissioner of Official Languages, who attends these meetings, has just confirmed that Air Canada is indeed subject to the Official Languages Act in its entirety, including Part VII.
Ms. Frulla: They do currently have an obligation under Part VII, but negotiations are underway. This really is a matter for the transport minister because, and I am sure the Commissioner of Official Languages will agree with me, these negotiations are somewhat particular. We are talking about a company which was a crown corporation, which was subject to legislation governing crown corporations, and which has now become a private company. As a private company, it was on the verge of bankruptcy. This means that, in addition to other obligations, employment, market and economic factors have to be taken into consideration. If you want me to tell how it is, yes, the government wants Air Canada to apply the Official Languages Act or to be bilingual.
However, in spite of our desire for Air Canada to remain bilingual and meet its responsibilities, there is negotiating to be done. How far these negotiations might go is a question for the transport minister. I have no control over it. The financial negotiations are out of my hands. It could well be decided that Air Canada is to remain a fully bilingual company across Canada. However, at the moment, this is being challenged. I have, however, heard the Minister of Transport vehemently defend the government's position that Air Canada should not become only partially bilingual.
Senator Comeau: I understand all of that. However, if you are the minister responsible for enforcing the Official Languages Act, you cannot tell us that, because Air Canada is a private company, it is the Minister of Transport, rather than yourself, who has the responsibility for official languages. You are the Minister responsible for Official Languages, not the Minister of Transport.
Ms. Frulla: I should perhaps mention Mauril Bélanger who has a role to play regarding the exception that is Air Canada. Some areas are not at all clear. In other words, my colleague who is responsible for transport has responsibilities regarding the sector's financial well-being and providing service to Canadians. Mauril Bélanger, the Minister responsible for Official Languages, is responsible for enforcing Part VII. Air Canada is an exception, and has to be treated as such. The Commissioner of Official Languages is not responsible here. She cannot treat it in the same way.
Senator Comeau: Mr. Chairman, if there is ambiguity surrounding who is responsible for official languages, I believe that it is incumbent upon us to clear up the situation. We do not want a situation whereby the Minister responsible for Official Languages, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Canadian Heritage are telling us that such and such a minister has such and such a responsibility, et cetera.
We require more precise information about these responsibilities. This brings me back to what we were saying to the Commissioner of Official Languages, in other words, there are problems which have to be resolved.
Ms. Frulla: Let me explain where I have a slightly different opinion. We have the $750-million government action plan. In general, it is rolling out very well. There is an exception, and that is Air Canada. I sat on the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I was able to appreciate the responsibilities and difficulties which the company faces. It is not easy. Everybody will complain if there is no longer transport in the regions. Air Canada is an exceptional case and has to be treated as such. However, the government's position has not changed. We want Air Canada to remain bilingual. That is the government's position, and that is the law.
Senator Murray: We privatized Air Canada. In doing so, we bound them to respect the Official Languages Act. Bankruptcy does not change anything.
Ms. Frulla: I never said that the act would no longer apply. Never! Negotiations are underway on other points, people have their own agenda in business negotiations. The government's position has not changed. The law is the law. It was a condition of Air Canada's privatization. We are not getting involved in financial negotiations. Our position has not changed. Air Canada has to remain bilingual. Both the Minister of Transport and Mauril Bélanger, the Minister responsible for Official Languages, have said so loud and clear.
Senator Comeau: If there is a lack of responsibility and accountability regarding Air Canada, the same is perhaps also true of Minister Brison's proposed sale of all federal buildings in Canada. I think that the committee ought to turn its attention to that issue.
The Chairman: There are many problems and a huge range of opinions regarding the implementation of the Official Languages Act. This evening, we are here to study the Minister of Canadian Heritage's portfolio. I understand that there is a degree of overlap. I am not criticizing you, Senator Comeau, but I want to remind you that there is also the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages. I do not want our committee to spread itself too thinly or to cover the same ground that is being covered by the House of Commons. That being said, we can ignore the House of Commons. The Senate can choose to do as it sees fit.
I was a member of the transport committee which studied the privatization of Air Canada. I clearly remember that, at that time, the minister assured us that the Official Languages Act would continue to apply to Air Canada. That has not changed. However, from time to time, as Canada changes and evolves, we encounter problems which we must endeavour to resolve. Let us try to concentrate on the questions which we had agreed to discuss at the beginning of this exercise. If Senator Comeau wants us to call upon the Minister of Transport, so be it.
Senator Comeau: Did I mention that we ought to look at the issue of accountability? That should perhaps be a priority for the committee. However, we cannot fulfill our responsibilities when the minister says: Yes, but that is an exception.
The Chairman: It would perhaps have been smarter of me not to raise the problem of Air Canada this evening.
Senator Comeau: I was the one who raised the issue.
The Chairman: Yes, but it does not fall under the direct remit of Ms. Frulla.
Senator Comeau: She is not responsible for the Official Languages Act? That is news to me!
The Chairman: It is a responsibility which is shared amongst several departments.
Ms. Frulla: Two hours into this debate, you are surely not accusing us of shirking our responsibilities. I cannot accept that! As I have attempted to explain, we are responsible for the Official Languages Act in those instances where the Official Languages Act applies. In the case of Air Canada, the Official Languages Act does apply. There is a bilingualism clause in the piece of legislation pertaining to Air Canada. The government's stance has not changed on Air Canada. Not in the slightest! The law exists, and is applicable. We are not responsible for economic wheeling and dealing or the wishful thinking of some buyers who would like to be able to shirk their responsibilities. At the moment, there is no problem with Air Canada. The law exists and Air Canada has to respect it. We have nothing to do with wishful thinking on the part of buyers.
Senator Comeau: We will come back to this another time.
Senator Léger: Minister, can you envisage the day when there will be no more borders and the skies will be open? What do you think about that?
Ms. Frulla: I am here in my capacity as Minister for Canadian Heritage. That is difficult enough. Have you any idea of the enormous responsibilities incumbent upon the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the minister responsible for the status of women? To be frank, it would be rather difficult for me to give you a personal opinion because I am not familiar with the subject. I want the same as you do. I want an efficient and safe service to be provided in my language. That is what I am asking for as a citizen.
The Chair: Ms. Frulla, on behalf of the senators, I would like to thank you for your candor and honesty which have been extremely helpful to our committee.
Ms. Frulla: The pleasure is all mine.
The committee adjourned.