Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 2 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, May 29, 2006
[Translation]
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 4:02 p.m. to study and to report from time to time on the application of the Official Languages Act and the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chairman) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Fellow members of the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages, good afternoon and welcome to the committee.
We have representatives from Canadian Heritage today, but before introducing these witnesses, I would first like to briefly recap the situation, as discussed at the last meeting, and explain why these witnesses are appearing before the committee today. On November 22, 2005, senator Gauthier's bill was enacted, receiving Royal Assent on November 25. The purpose of the bill was to give teeth to the Official Languages Act. When discussing the committee's future business, members felt the need to meet with representatives from the main departments responsible for implementing the legislation in order to get a better understanding of the effects of the strengthening of the act.
That is why we have before us today officials from Canadian Heritage who, at our request, have come to give us an overview of the way Bill S-3 is expected to affect the institution of government. I would like to introduce the two witnesses who have agreed to appear today. I am referring to Ms. Sheila McDonald, Associate Director, Interdepartmental Coordination Directorate, Official Languages Support Programs, Canadian Heritage, and Mr. Hubert Lussier, Director General, Official Languages Support Programs. I would like to welcome you to our committee.
We will start by listening to the two witnesses' presentation and then ask questions. I think that in total, this part of the meeting should last about fifty minutes, at which point we will move in camera to discuss the committee's future business.
Hubert Lussier, Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, Canadian Heritage: On behalf of myself and my colleague, Sheila MacDonald, I will start by describing the duties we assume at Canadian Heritage to make federal institutions aware of the effects of these changes. I will then move on to the issue that interests us here, namely the amendments made to Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
I have here with me today Ms. Sheila MacDonald, who is the key person responsible for the presentations made to federal institutions and it is in this capacity that you have invited her. Sheila is the Associate Director of the ``Interdepartmental Coordination'' team, and also for the past ten years she has been responsible for helping federal institutions to meet their ``41'' responsibilities, as we usually call them, based on section 41 which henceforth requires these institutions to play a supporting role in ensuring the development and vitality of minority official languages communities and linguistic duality.
[English]
I am in charge of the team to which Ms. MacDonald's directorate belongs. We also exercise specific activities pursuant to sections 41 and 43 of the act. These sections are distinct from those that will be the object of today's discussion; nevertheless, they support the development of linguistic communities.
[Translation]
So that is who we are. I would like to thank you for your invitation. Today's presentation is the same one we give to federal institutions which, from now on, must have an understanding of their statutory obligations.
I should point out at the outset that the job of educating and coordinating federal institutions in fulfilling their responsibilities is by no means new. Section 42, which was not amended by the recent changes made in November, gave the minister of Canadian Heritage the mandate of overseeing the coordination of all federal institutions' responsibilities.
[English]
With respect to the job of explaining, accompanying and sensitizing other institutions, Ms. MacDonald has been there to do it for awhile. The changes that created this function were introduced in 1988. It is not that recent a job.
Bill S-3, which was adopted by Parliament last November, changed three things of which I am sure committee members are well aware. What was a declaratory requirement on the part of federal institutions has now been reinforced. You have heard the expression ``the act has been given teeth.'' There is now a requirement for each federal institution to take positive measures.
[Translation]
A new regulatory authority was also introduced, which the government may use to ensure federal institutions fulfil that responsibility. That is the second change made by Bill S-3.
Finally, there was a change which would make the responsibilities outlined under section 41 justiciable.
[English]
Because these were significant changes and because the way in which section 41 is written has changed, last December or January we officially started a campaign of sensitization. The then Clerk of the Privy Council sent a letter to all deputies and heads of agencies informing them of the changes passed by Parliament to Part VII of the act. This memo then trickled down — we hope — through federal institutions.
One thing we keep insisting on is that the changes made to the act apply to all federal institutions. The way section 41 is written applies to all federal institutions. That is important because of the job that Ms. MacDonald does, but I will let her explain more about that later.
Since 1994, there has been a particular club, if I can use that word, of federal institutions for which specific requirements have been made. They include, for instance, the duty to make formal plans, which must be included in an annual report to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The report must detail how they will exercise their section 41 responsibilities.
[Translation]
Ms. MacDonald and her team work closely with about 30 institutions. They are mostly departments, however there are also agencies and Crown corporations. We are used to working very closely with these institutions, but I should point out that all federal institutions, and not only these 30 or so, are subject to the new system developed as a result of the changes made to Part VII.
In conclusion, after 1994, there was an important step taken in 2003, namely the Official Languages Action Plan. The important thing to note here is that the action plan was accompanied by an accountability and coordination framework for official languages. This framework outlined the various coordination responsibilities, including our very own, in the area of official languages within government.
There was already a number of key instruments we had implemented in federal institutions. As the responsibilities of these institutions grew, so did the scope of our presentations in cooperation with our colleagues from the Department of Justice always accompany us when delivering these presentations to ensure people get a solid grasp of these new responsibilities.
Sheila MacDonald, Associate Director, Interdepartmental Coordination, Official Languages, Canadian Heritage: Madam Chairman, when the clerk wrote to the deputy minister and to agency chairs last December, he reminded them of the action plan and its horizontal management framework. He particularly stressed section 17, which gave a list of the federal organizations' responsibilities. These institutions were therefore supposed to adhere to that list before the adoption of Bill S-3, because the accountability framework dates back to the adoption of the federal government's Action Plan on Official Languages. The clerk reminded them of this list. He also reminded them of Canadian Heritage's role, which is one of support to designated federal organizations, which would be selected following community-based consultations. They are now 33 such federal institutions after the Social Development and Human Resources merged into one department.
He also mentioned that agencies would continue to be supported. And this is what led to our presentations. We developed tools for the designated departments which we now will share with other departments via our website, for example — which by the way is very interesting. We have also developed a section 41 implementation guide — which is also in our website. We developed this guide according to section 17 of the accountability framework. We are trying to remain consistent with the action plan.
I gave you a copy of the presentations I use to educate and inform the departments. We will not go through the entire presentation — unless you think that it is necessary —, but I am going to explain to you how we use it with the federal departments.
The presentation starts with the federal government's historic decisions in relation to the Official Languages Act and the way that it has been strengthened over the years. We want the federal institutions to understand that these changes did not just come out of nowhere, but are part of a logical progression and an ongoing strengthening of the Official Languages Act and mainly an effort to support communities and linguistic duality.
We also want them to understand that there is something for everybody in this act and we want to help them to understand it. We also refer to the implementation of the action plan, we go from the big picture to the fine detail, and cover the accountability framework — including section 17, which I talked about earlier. We mention the guide and go in greater detail in the sections of the guide which were developed to be somewhat more operational than section 17; these sections include awareness building, consultation, communication, coordination, funding and benefit plans and accountability. We go through the guide's activities including those which focus on strengthening linguistic duality. It is not exactly clear to some federal institutions what they can actually do at the community level, but we all have a role to play in promoting French and English in Canadian society and supporting linguistic duality. This is a first step for everybody.
[English]
We suggest that every federal institution look at its program structure to see where they can have an impact on the official language minority communities and what they can put in place to ensure that they do not miss anything. We say to them, ``Look at your program structure.''
For every department a couple of very important branches are human resources and communications. Every federal department has a public face in that they represent the face of Canada to Canadians, to other countries and strangers from abroad. We must ensure that the official language minority communities are visible in these departments so that Canadians and others abroad can see the importance of these minorities to us as Canadians.
We also tell the departments that we want copies of any complaints they receive so that we at Canadian Heritage can do an inventory of where the complaints fall in order to help the departments develop best practices and, by doing the right thing, avoid these complaints in the future.
I would be happy to answer questions, Madam Chairman.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Do you receive complaints? Are people telling you that it does not work in some institutions?
Ms. MacDonald: We have just received one or two complaints. So it is a start. We have not been able to compile an inventory, but it is our intention to look at them and to see exactly where they are coming from.
Senator Robichaud: Once you have examined the complaint, do you go back to the institutions and suggest corrective measures?
Ms. MacDonald: It is not up to us to tell them how to manage the situation. At Canadian Heritage, our role is one of encouragement and dialogue, we gather information and we look at what we might suggest to the departments. Organizations have their own legal advisors to tell them how to respond to complaints.
Senator Robichaud: Are there places where there is some reluctance to put in place programs for advancement and promotion?
Ms. MacDonald: I would not say there is reluctance. Some departments are really wondering what they can do. For example, I attended a meeting of the Crown Corporations Advisory Committee on Official Languages, in Nova Scotia, and sitting around the table were representatives from the House of Commons, the Royal Canadian Mint, Atomic Energy of Canada, and CSIS, and so on. Those people were unclear about what they could do to help support communities, but the appetite for learning is there.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for your presentation. I know that as part of the Official Languages Action Plan, the federal government set up several horizontal governance mechanisms, including the group of ministers on official languages, as well as a committee of deputy ministers that examines the issue and the consultation process with the communities. Will these mechanisms be preserved once Bill S-3 is implemented?
Mr. Lussier: You are right, there have been changes. Among others, ministerial responsibilities for official languages were reconfigured with the arrival of Ms. Verner. Moreover, one of the support roles previously carried out by the Privy Council now falls to Canadian Heritage. So there have been structural changes.
As for the organization at the ministerial and deputy ministerial level for these horizontal networks, I would prefer not answering, as some aspects remain to be defined. That is perhaps a question to put to a minister.
Senator Tardif: Can you tell me if the deputy ministers' committee has met since February?
Mr. Lussier: To the best of my knowledge, there has not been a meeting of the committee of deputy ministers on official languages.
Senator Comeau: I would like to take this opportunity to tell you about a specific case and to ask you if Bill S-3 will provide support. I am talking about the Acadian Youth Camp in Nova Scotia which was set up almost 50 years ago. I myself participated in the camp when I was young. The camp was founded by the ladies' auxiliary to encourage young Acadian boys and girls to develop an interest in their language. As you know, in Nova Scotia, we do not have the critical mass that we would like to have. We are a minority and we are surrounded by anglophone media. I do not think that I need to describe the situation, you are quite familiar with it. The camp is run by volunteers; there were no funds from the federal government, and there was no program as such, but over the years, the camp had trouble with the matter of insurance, inspections, and it became less active.
Recently, and over the past few years, a group of men and women have expressed an interest in reactivating the camp, because they saw that our Acadian young people did not have an opportunity to participate in activities like canoeing, singing, history, and so on. If young people have fun participating in an activity, they will want to continue to do so in French.
The group applied to the Canada Revenue Agency for a tax number, and I am going to quote a few lines from the letter of rejection that they received last week, which states that the courts have not recognized that maintaining a cultural heritage or a specific language, or fighting the assimilation of a culture or a language has a charitable purpose, even though it is a very laudable objective that could be beneficial to many people in the community, in other words, those who identify with that culture.
In other words, assimilation is not important according to them. I am going to read an excerpt from another letter: ``An organization must offer its services to a clientele with specific needs.''
The bottom line is that the specific needs of Acadian young people in Nova Scotia does not appear to be important to the Canada Revenue Agency.
The ladies' auxiliary approached me, and they know that I fully support their work. We need volunteers, whom I call community leaders, who take an interest in the community and who are not involved to make money. If there are groups that have taken an interest in Acadian young people in Nova Scotia, we should certainly support them, and I do that. What can we do in a case like this one, where they are told that assimilation is not a federal objective?
Mr. Lussier: Your question is one of interpretation. It is fascinating, as it concerns the interpretation of the Revenue Act and the Official Languages Act at the same time. Ms. MacDonald and I are not able to provide you with a legal interpretation — moreover, we state that clearly during our sessions. And believe me, we are driven by the same desire for advancement and concrete results. Sometimes we have to resist the temptation to provide an interpretation that might seem favourable to us, but we are not legal experts. That is the situation I am in.
Senator Comeau: What can we do with a situation like that? We know that the objective is laudable. We want our Acadian young people in Nova Scotia to continue to exist, so that they can continue to speak French and like speaking French despite the sea of anglophones surrounding them. Could we submit the letter to you, or to someone else within government, so that the case be examined in another way? In light of Bill S-3, perhaps this decision could be examined from a different angle. The federal government has made a commitment, through its departments, not only to support, but to promote and advance official languages. If there is a way of helping young people advance in communities where they are facing a very high likelihood of assimilation.
My second question is this: Has Bill S-3 been enacted? Has everything been finalized?
Mr. Lussier: Yes, everything has been adopted, and it is now part of the Statutes of Canada. So the obligation exists.
Senator Comeau: Over the years, foundations have been set up and they are not subject to the Official Languages Act. Will that change with Bill S-3? Will foundations be subject to the act?
Mr. Lussier: You are raising another interesting legal question. If I fully understand the purpose of your question, it is one of the areas that we are constantly called upon to explore: how far does the federal government want to go in exercising the obligation to take positive measures with respect, namely, to the entities through which its action will be carried out. I know that a similar situation is currently before the courts, it is the Caldech case — I would not want to comment on it, because that is what is at issue. When an institution or a federal agency is fulfilling its mandate, there is no question: it is an obligation. From the moment there is a partnership, or a third party, the questions —
Senator Comeau: We as parliamentarians were the ones who authorized the creation of the foundations through legislation and budgets, et cetera. If governments want to create this kind of foundations, the plans have to be presented to parliamentarians. Our committee should take an interest the next time a new foundation is created. Perhaps we should ask the Senate to look at the bill to see if it meets its needs.
Mr. Lussier: That is what we are saying could be done in any case. Every time a new policy is developed, a new initiative is in the works, no matter how it will be carried out, we are telling our federal colleagues that they should be asking the questions mentioned by Ms. MacDonald: what will the impact be on official languages communities? Who will they be able to consult? What data can be used to measure the positive or negative impact? What positive contribution can be made with this initiative? Even before the instrument is chosen, the reflex that we are trying to develop is to ask these kinds of questions and to do our homework.
Senator Comeau: I want to quote you something one of the comments prepared by the Library of Parliament:
It should be borne in mind that since February 6, 2006, it is the Minister for Official Languages, the Honourable Josée Verner, who specifically exercises the Canadian Heritage responsibilities for implementation of Part VII of the OLA.
Is that true?
Mr. Lussier: Yes.
Senator Comeau: In fact, was it not the Minister of Canadian Heritage who initially had that responsibility? Does there need to be a change when departments are created?
Mr. Lussier: There has not been any change, and the powers are being exercised. The answer reflects the way in which this responsibility is assumed by the current minister. There are no changes in the offing.
Senator Comeau: This can be done under the 2003 plan?
Mr. Lussier: Yes.
Senator Comeau: Very well.
Senator Losier-Cool: In answer to Senator Comeau's question concerning implementation of Bill S-3, you said that it had been. Does the Department of Canadian Heritage have extra human resources? Are you hiring?
Ms. MacDonald: If only! We would really like to, but we have not had any additional resources.
Senator Losier-Cool: But you would need more resources?
Mr. Lussier: We have put in additional energy, but we have not had any additional resources. However, we have devoted an enormous amount of our time to this.
Senator Losier-Cool: In your document Implementation of Sections 41 and 42, you emphasize support for linguistic duality. You give your staff ways to support linguistic duality. Part VII of the act states that the government must be committed to promoting linguistic duality. I see a bit of a nuance between promotion and support. Providing support is fine; it is motherhood and apple pie. Perhaps you are doing promotion with the resources that you are using to provide support? Is it possible to do more? Part VII of the act tells us that the government is not doing enough to promote linguistic duality. That is exactly what the Commissioner of Official Languages blames the government for in all her reports.
Mr. Lussier: You are talking to people who would always like to see more being done. That is part of our mandate. Yes, there may be a nuance indicating that more needs to be done in terms of promotion. A number of federal institutions would use the same language I do: There is always room for improvement. Perhaps Ms. MacDonald can give examples of promotional activities. It is interesting that you are highlighting one of the two aspects dealt with in Part VII, whereas most of our discussion deals with the other aspect. Most of the questions and pressure come from the community side. The two are not entirely separate since by supporting minority official language communities, we are also supporting linguistic duality. It is not just by supporting communities that this can be done. There are a host of ways that can be used to do more promotion: putting a bilingual face on things, support for activities taking place in both languages, et cetera.
Ms. MacDonald: I took care to use the word ``promotion'' on my briefing notes. Our aim, when we talk to federal representatives, is to make sure that they do as much as possible to promote French and English. In the suggestions by the various departments that we met with, we found that there are some interesting things being done. On page 22 of my deck — where it will now say ``will promote linguistic duality'' — you have all sorts of big things and small things being done by federal institutions that can be replicated by the huge number of government offices across the country to have a major and positive impact. Ways are indicated to help federal employees retain their second language. I have encouraged them to buy theatre tickets, since the cultural infrastructure is trying to get the critical mass it needs to help theatres and actors survive. I would have liked to buy them tickets, but I think it would be difficult to do so with the Accountability Act. When I was in Vancouver, however, I learned that a contract had been awarded to a firm to help employees keep up their French. Part of the contract involved having the employees attend five cultural events. This presumably means that tickets would be bought for a number of cultural events, which would support the cultural organizations as well as help the federal employees with their second language. Information seminars are provided to Canadians in both languages. We also encourage them to be given in the minority communities' infrastructures, in order to give them visibility. If departments give courses to their employees outside Quebec and if they have difficulty finding people to provide a good course, they are encouraged to invite people from the minority community to attend the course, whether it is on leadership or how to make presentations. There is a suggestion on how to do results-based reports, since this is what the government is asking for. It is a way of strengthening the capacity of minority communities and it will give the federal institutions better results. Those are just a few examples from the presentation.
A number of institutions, such as the St. Lawrence Seaway and Atomic Energy, provide very good public presentations in both languages. A francophone from our work area who attended French school in Ottawa saw one of those presentations when he was a young student. We are suggesting that they be proactive in dealing with minority community schools, so that young people have an opportunity to live in their language outside the classroom, and also with immersion schools when they offer these presentations so that these students can do activities in their second language outside the classroom. There is no limit.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Is this problem found in other regions? The problem exists in south-eastern New Brunswick in a correctional institution. The staff of this institution are very concerned because they feel that there are too few spots available for second-language training.
As a result, only the staff at higher levels are able to become bilingual.
I was also told that some staff members want more time to be able to complete the training and qualify for the new requirements of their job. They say that the rules are too strict and lack flexibility. I wonder if you have heard similar comments in other provinces or in other institutions in Canada?
Mr. Lussier: Although I am not a specialist in this area, the question that you have asked seems to me to come under Part V of the act. It deals with language of work in the public service. Ms. MacDonald and I are not in a good position to answer your question in that case. That is all I will say.
[English]
Part V, which deals with language of work issues; Part IV, which deals with language of communication and services; and Part VII, which deals with what we are talking about, that is, support of community development and linguistic duality, are a whole. Without going too far, progress in how institutions exercise their Part IV or Part V responsibilities can also translate into progress in their Part VII responsibilities. In other words, if the services you offer and if the language of work in which you function reflect the objectives of the act, chances are that linguistic duality will be enhanced.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: I would like to get back to the issue of horizontal governance that is referred to in the accountability and coordination framework for official languages as well as in Bill S-3, and which is coordinated by the Department of Canadian Heritage. You told me that there had not yet been a meeting of ministers of official languages or of the subcommittee of ministers during the course of this session.
Could you tell me whether the annual consultative process with the communities has started? That is the other important aspect of horizontal governance. Has the process started?
Mr. Lussier: That is an excellent question. As you mentioned, senator, there was a change in which this horizontal coordination exercise was carried out. Officials, who are responsible for coordinating consultations, will be pleased to appear before the committee if it so desires.
The ministers' consultations you were referring to were held annually. And then, six months after these consultations, there were other consultations amongst officials. They took place a few weeks ago, in the anglophone community in Quebec as well as in the Acadian and francophone communities outside Quebec. It was part of the regular process.
Senator Tardif: So the process has begun amongst officials. Has it begun on the communities' side?
Mr. Lussier: I am referring to consultations between officials and communities. At the officials' level, we generally speak with executive directors of community associations, whereas ministers would tend to speak to presidents.
When referring to consultations at the officials' level, I meant to say within communities at the executive director level.
Senator Tardif: You refer to positive measures. From now on, Bill S-3 would require federal institutions and the federal government to take positive measures. How would you define the terms ``positive measures''?
Ms. MacDonald: Actually, we have to say that we still do not have a definition as of yet. We put the question to the lawyers who are with us. They say that it is up to them to define the term ``positive measures'' according to their mandate.
Senator Tardif: You are saying that it is up to lawyers to define those terms?
Ms. MacDonald: No. Federal institutions must identify what they can do under their mandate.
Senator Tardif: Would a useful criterion be what communities consider to be positive measures?
Ms. MacDonald: That could certainly help. That is why we recommend that all federal institutions consult with the communities.
Senator Tardif: We know full well that communities and governments may have different priorities. Positive measures do not mean the same thing on both sides.
Mr. Lussier: You are right, senator.
Senator Comeau: Senator Tardif referred to horizontal coordination. You mention it on page 6 of the document you tabled before our committee. Could you explain to me what horizontal coordination or governance means?
Mr. Lussier: It is true that those words may tend to be a bit intimidating. The Official Languages Act creates responsibilities and obligations for a host of federal institutions. Horizontal coordination refers to the obligation for those federal institutions, which are subject to it, to make sure that they exercise their responsibilities and that there is a sharing of information and consistency in the way in which we support development and duality, a predetermined way of reporting on progress, results and initiatives to parliamentarians such as yourselves, and to some extent, to proceed with consultations. There is, at some level, coordination in the way in which the government approaches communities to speak with them.
Senator Comeau: Is the person responsible for managing or coordinating this horizontal governance the Minister of Official Languages?
Mr. Lussier: Indeed.
Senator Comeau: Is there a departmental committee which can support her in that process?
Mr. Lussier: I would say, as I said to Senator Tardif a little earlier on, that I would prefer for the question to be put to a member of cabinet as far as how things will be coordinated at the department level is concerned.
Senator Robichaud: In the document you submitted to us, you refer to different ways for the various institutions to support linguistic duality.
People refer to communications and I think that would be an excellent tool. A year or two ago, I was approached by the director of a weekly publication. There are several weeklies in our small communities, in New Brunswick, in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and I am sure they also exist in the west. These weeklies serve as tools for communicating with the entire community. In our area, the Étoile de Kent enters into people's homes, is read from cover to cover and stays there for the entire week. For some people, that is the only way to have access to information.
After the meeting, the gentleman told me that he did not get many requests for advertising space which could greatly improve the company's profitability.
So, we contacted several companies which we believed could advertise or should take out advertisements, perhaps a dozen or so. We received some responses from people acknowledging receipt of the requests and saying they would do what they could.
At this point, unfortunately, nothing is being done. What can I do to raise their awareness? Should I file a complaint and send it to the Department of Canadian Heritage so you could communicate with these people, but you will not be in any position to force them to act. So it is a sort of pretend; we are doing things, but without any results.
Mr. Lussier: You are probably referring to federal institutions advertising in weekly publications which are coordinated by Public Works. We are in contact with Public Works. It is one of the ``select group'' of 30 targeted institutions. That is an issue which is the subject of a number of discussions and I think it has already been raised before parliamentary committees.
That is one of the ways in which we do believe that it is possible to help communities develop, through the media, through communications. It falls under Part IV, which is the responsibility to communicate with citizens and, as you say, Part VII. But from the outset, doing it in both official languages is an obligation. Doing it through minority community media is a positive way to help communities develop.
Senator Robichaud: It is even more positive to communicate with them in French. Often, these small companies, and community radio stations are another example, operate right at the profitability threshold and often beneath it. That is how we could help them offer a better service, serve more people and get some momentum. I think that that would be a way not only of informing them but also of helping them and making them profitable.
Ms. MacDonald: Precisely, we strongly encourage federal institutions to make use of them. We also say that it will help the federal government, in that they will reach out to more people, improve results and reach out to minority communities through the media. We are constantly striving to show that it is value added both for the federal government as well as for the community. That is a point that we raise every time we meet with departments.
Senator Robichaud: I would encourage you to enthusiastically pursue your work in the same vein because communities need it.
Senator Losier-Cool: I wish to add a comment on the promotion of linguistic duality. We like to say that Canada is officially a bilingual country; however, I am particularly proud to say that New Brunswick is officially a bilingual province. I agree with what you say about how the promotion of linguistic duality serves the federal government's organizations and departments well.
I would like to come back to the issue of marketing linguistic duality. It is an aspect that may have been neglected. Recently, following the announcement of the Liberal Party leadership race, newspapers profiled candidates' level of bilingualism, rating who is bilingual, who is not, who is able to order in a restaurant, who can get by, and so on.
Ms. MacDonald, what you said earlier gave me confidence; you are on the right track and I believe that we have to focus on awareness. I know that this is not your area of expertise, but it has more to do with awareness than instruction. It is beyond memorizing verbs. It is about enjoying music, sports, and the love of life. That is what learning is about. I have said this before: I believe that all Canadian university graduates must have knowledge of both official languages. Otherwise, they should not be allowed to graduate.
Ms. MacDonald: Thank you very much for your words of encouragement. When I was in high school in Ontario, we had to take French classes until Grade 12. I recently saw something very interesting happening in England. A council of some significance stated that the era of unilingualism is now over and if people do not know two languages — in Canada, French is the best choice — they are doomed. If England has recognized this, and is promoting linguistic duality, then we should be at the leading edge of that recognition and promotion.
The Chairman: On behalf of all members of the committee, I wish to thank you for meeting with us today. Thank you very much for your patience and your diligence in answering our questions.
Honourable senators, would someone like to move the tabling of these documents?
Senator Comeau: I so move.
The Chairman: Senator Comeau so moves, seconded by Senator Tardif.
Honourable senators, is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?
Some honourable senators: Yes.
The committee continued in camera.