Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 5, Evidence - March 24, 2003
OTTAWA, Monday, March 24, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 4:04 p.m. to study and report on the operation of the Official Languages Act, and of regulations and directives made thereunder, within those institutions subject to the Act, as well as upon the reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Before I let the Minister make his presentation, I would like to begin by thanking committee members for their excellent work, as well as their messages of encouragement.
[English]
I would express special thanks to Senator Keon. I read the materials diligently. You are a good supply teacher, I am told. Of course, you had good students.
[Translation]
Minister, we are very pleased that you agreed to meet with the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages for the first time. I see that you are accompanied today by Mr. Asselin and Mr. Montpetit.
Committee members were very anxious for this meeting to occur. Following your presentation, I have no doubt we will have a very interesting discussion.
[English]
The Honourable Stéphane Dion, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs: Thank you for inviting me to this important meeting of this Senate committee.
[Translation]
Allow me to introduce the people accompanying me today: Mr. Robert Asselin, my Special Advisor on Official Languages. Most of you already know him. Mr. Geoffroi Montpetit, my Chief of Staff, and Anne Scotton, Director General, Official Languages, who is with the Privy Council Office. Behind me is Ms. José Laverdière, Senior Analyst, with the Privy Council Office, and Mr. Michel Charette, my Legislative Assistant.
[English]
I am happy to discuss with you the publication entitled: "The Next Act: New Momentum for Canada's Linguistic Duality.'' I believe everyone has a copy of that document. The title is a fair reflection of what it is — an outline of the new momentum that we want to give.
[Translation]
The 1969 Official Languages Act was amended in 1988. In the meantime, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was passed in 1982. There have been important milestones. At the suggestion of a number of people around this table, including Members of Parliament and communities, as we moved into a new century, the government considered what might be done to give new momentum to the official languages policy.
As the Official Languages Commissioner has noted, in the past two years — in other words, since the appointment of a minister responsible for coordinating this action — the pace of activity has picked up. There have been a number of new official languages initiatives. And as the pace was picking up, there was a need to prepare a new plan of action.
In that regard, we received a great many suggestions and proposals. Indeed, I would like to thank all my colleagues for their contribution. We also received a great many briefs up until last fall. It seems one association would have liked to table its brief earlier, so that it could be considered. But at one point, we had to finalize the Action Plan, and that is what we did.
[English]
Most of you are familiar with the content of this document. The first item deals with an accountability and coordination framework for the government — something that the communities have requested for a long time. It was felt that we needed to strengthen our coordination between departments. Each department was performing a good job, but there was a lack of coordination between them. The Prime Minister asked me to work with my colleagues as a team and, as a result, we have vastly improved our capacity to work together. The accountability framework, which is described in chapter 2 of the action plan, is dealt with in annex A.
[Translation]
This accountability framework does two things. First of all, it codifies current responsibilities. For the first time, we have a document that clearly sets out the main responsibilities of every institution under the Official Languages Act. Thus every institution now has a public document developed by the government to remind them of their responsibilities in this area. It is what you might call a check list. This is very important, and something that people had been requesting for a long time.
But in addition to that, the accountability framework adds five new responsibilities that did not previously exist. The first is set out in article VII of the accountability framework, which now requires that every federal institution analyze the impact of its actions before sending a memorandum to cabinet. As a result, no proposal will come before cabinet without the official languages dimension having been considered and reviewed.
There will even be a minister responsible for coordinating official languages, who will ensure that that takes place. Similarly, that minister, as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, will be responsible for ensuring that every initiative submitted to Cabinet fully respects the social union agreement concluded with the provinces several years ago.
Now, in addition to that first added responsibility, we have article 17. If you look at it, you will see that article 17 describes the specific steps that each institution must follow in the general execution of its official language mandate. Every institution will be required to have a strategic framework and carry out strategic planning. Part of that planning will include a process intended to ensure that the official languages dimension is considered and that the communities are consulted. Consultation with the communities is a central component of article 17.
In addition, articles 31 to 44 codify the horizontal coordination which will take place. There will be a minister responsible for official languages. In cooperation with three key departments — the Treasury Board, Canadian Heritage and the Department of Justice — the minister responsible and these colleagues will form a committee in which other ministers may also be included when their responsibilities are directly affected, for the purposes of ensuring proper coordination of the overall official languages policy.
A committee of deputy ministers, which is already in place, will see its role strengthened and will be responsible for supporting the ministers. The Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, which is responsible for official languages, will now no longer be funded on a ad hoc basis; its ongoing funding is now officially recognized and is in place for the next five years. So, we are talking about a five-year plan. This intergovernmental coordination goes hand in hand with strengthened consultations with the communities.
Article 44 adds a fourth component which expands the role of the Department of Justice. From now on, the Department of Justice will no longer assess laws after the fact to determine whether they are consistent with our legal obligations. It will be required to do that right from the outset and identify the legal implications of all new Canadian government initiatives as regards our responsibilities for official languages. Finally, there will be coordinated assessment of the official languages policy.
[English]
We need to assess what we are doing. Each department will maintain its existing responsibility. In addition to evaluation assessments, we will coordinate the activities of the departments to ensure that the action plan will have a mid-term evaluation, as well as one at the end of five years.
[Translation]
Mr. Arès, President of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne (FCFA), always says that:
... the accountability framework is the most important piece of the Action Plan.
However, I should say that it was not the most difficult piece of the accountability framework that we had to negotiate with the Department of Finance, since it was not the most costly. And yet it is what will create the greatest synergy, in terms of the additional financing that we have included.
The funding is based on three major thrusts: education, community development, and bilingualism in the public service.
First of all, in the area of education —
[English]
In the next five years, for the education of minority languages — both English speakers in Quebec and French speakers outside of Quebec — we will spend $929 million. That is what we would have spent without the action plan. The action plan will add to that figure, $381.5 million. For the last year of the plan, that means an increase of 48 per cent. This increase is a substantial one.
[Translation]
This additional funding is basically divided between two separate funds: a fund of $209 million for minority language education both for anglophones in Quebec and francophones in other provinces and territories, and a fund of $137 million for second-language training, in English for Canadian francophones, and in French, for Canadian anglophones.
The goal is to negotiate with the provinces specific objectives based on the value of the different projects, in order to leverage the benefits achieved with this funding.
There will also be a fairly substantial increase in the funding of two programs that are working well, but were underfunded: the Summer Language Bursary Program and the Official Languages Monitor Program. Thus the number of monitors assisting with official languages training will increase annually from 889 to more than a thousand.
As regards bursary recipients — people studying in the other language in a total immersion environment — the number of recipients will rise from the current number of 8,000 to 10,000 per year. That is a significant improvement. There is a great deal of demand for this program. It was time to give young Canadians an opportunity to do this.
One key objective is to increase the number of students eligible to attend French school from 68 per cent in provinces and territories other than Quebec to 80 per cent within ten years.
[English]
Another objective is to double the percentage of fully bilingual students graduating from high schools from 24 per cent, which it is now, to about 50 per cent in 10 years time.
That is what we hope to achieve with the cooperation of the communities, our constitutional partners, that is, the provinces and the territories, as well as with the cooperation of the private sector and others.
[Translation]
I have talked to you about targeted objectives. In order to achieve these, there are a number of actions that need to be taken — for example, improving the quality of instruction. Parents have often told us, particularly in provinces where there is an anglophone majority, that they want the quality of instruction to be equivalent to that received by the majority. In Quebec, that is the case. Tests show that young anglophones are just as successful as young francophones. In the other provinces and territories, that is not sufficiently the case, and very often, francophone schools and colleges have more trouble providing instruction of equivalent quality. When I talk about instruction, I am not only referring to reading, writing and mathematics; that also includes extracurricular activities.
Another goal is to help parents place their children in programs in their language right from the outset, not only at the beginning of primary school, but when they actually start daycare or kindergarden, and we will be considering what can be done to help schools provide these services. If parents send their children directly to daycare, afterwards it may be more difficult to bring them back into the French system if they have started in English.
Another important goal relates to school community and cultural centres. We know that these are working well. It is important not to view education as being separate from cultural activities. This has been done in the past, through our agreements with the provinces in the area of education, and that is where we want to place most of the emphasis.
[English]
In the action plan we deal with the English community in Quebec. We believe that that model will work well in other provinces, that is, to have community centres included in the school system We want to see this model being implemented in Quebec to address English-speaking communities in Quebec. That is dealt with in the plan.
[Translation]
We also have to look at teachers, recruitment, training and professional development. We want to enhance development at the post-secondary level. There has to be real continuity in the system, that extends from daycare all the way up to post-secondary level. The problem is that very often, young people switch to the English education system halfway through high school because they say there are few opportunities to pursue their studies in French at the university level.
We cannot establish French-language universities across all the provinces other than Quebec, and even in Quebec, that is not within our jurisdiction. However, we can provide assistance to existing institutions, such as the Faculté Saint-Jean and the Collège Saint-Boniface, and look at expanding skills in that area in anglophone institutions, in partnership with French-language institutions.
[English]
For instance, people at Simon Fraser University are working with the provincial government and with us on a project that would provide facilities in French, within the university, to francophones and francophiles from British Columbia. We are working on projects of that sort.
[Translation]
I could talk about other projects that the Department of Heritage will be developing. There is distance education for communities where there are few students and very little possibility of establishing a school, because the students are scattered over too wide an area. So, what can be done to help them develop distance education? That is an ongoing objective.
[English]
This is how we would like to address the area of education. That is how we would spend this additional money.
I would also mention that I have met with representatives of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council who expressed a keen interest in developing research on language learning. Canada was, and I hope is still, a champion of language learning internationally.
The official language policies that we have today were started with the Laurendeau-Dunton Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Research will be key. We must work towards ensuring that we will have a new generation of researchers who will help us to find good policies for learning and teaching our two official languages.
[Translation]
A lot is being done in the area of community development; we are not starting from scratch. But we felt there was a need to develop certain key sectors, to continue to work in those areas where we are already quite strong and see what could be done to develop the others. Both the departments and the communities made suggestions in that regard. Indeed, this was noted by community representatives, including the FCFA. They told us that our Action Plan quite closely reflected what they had been suggesting. We wanted to develop early childhood education — not only through education agreements, but the Department of Human Resources Development will be in a position to develop early childhood education initiatives. And we have just negotiated an agreement on daycare services with the provinces. Ms. Stewart insisted that part of the funding go to daycare services for minority official language communities.
In order to set an example, we offered $22 million for literacy, for the training of between 150 and 180 specialists, for daycare pilot projects, and to assist national organizations working in that area with minority language communities.
[English]
It is important to start early.
[Translation]
Another area that we have developed considerably, and where the federal government played practically no role, is health. This was a major priority for the communities.
Language is not only important in relation to education and culture. It has to be present in everyday services, especially in the health sector, since health services are extremely important to an aging population.
Based on a plan developed with the communities, we will be providing $119 million over five years for health care services. Mr. Gauthier from Saint-Boniface played a key role in this regard. The initial projects that came forward scared off governments, rather than encouraging them. We put a lot of effort into this and eventually came up with a plan that I consider to be extremely solid, and which will allow us to build a sound partnership with the provinces.
Seventy-five million of the $119 million will go toward labour training and recruitment. The pan-Canadian consortium for the training of francophone professionals will be assisting us in this area. This consortium is an outgrowth of the current Centre national de formation en santé du Canada and it will be on much more solid footing than previously, as a result of this funding. It will bring together ten or so university institutions and its goal will be to train over 1,000 new health professionals by the year 2008. Imagine how beneficial this will be for communities.
[English]
For the English-speaking communities in Quebec, we will develop a set of initiatives that will help to keep English- speaking professionals in the most remote areas. If you are close to Montreal and the University of McGill, you do not have this problem, but, if you are in Gaspésie, or even in the townships, you may have these kinds of difficulties, so we will work with the communities.
[Translation]
We also have $14 million for networking among francophones across the nine provinces and three territories. Such tools as teleinformation and telemedicine will be used to that end.
[English]
For the English-speaking community in Quebec, we will help to create the equivalent of la société santé en français. This does not exist for the English-speaking community in Quebec, and I think something may be learned from the experience of the French-speaking community. We will help to develop that.
[Translation]
Ms. McClellan worked hard and was able, within her own budget — this is not new funding, since it was already in place but was not being used for official languages — to find some $30 million for primary care in official languages communities.
Let's move on to the Justice Department now. Forty-five million dollars will be invested in this area. Twenty-seven million dollars will go towards meeting the government's legal obligations. As a result of certain court rulings, we must take action to comply with specific legislative instruments. We will therefore be investing $27 million in justice-related measures and $19 million in targeted measures.
There will also be funding involving our partners, whether it be the provinces, the communities or legal associations, in a number of valuable projects — for example, stable funding will be provided to associations of francophone jurists, who are very much in need of such funds, and there will be funding for consultations with communities on all legal issues.
Initiatives in the area of immigration did not cost a penny. The new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act now places a greater emphasis on knowledge of one or the other official language. If more immigrants speak one or the other of the official languages, it is important that they know about official language communities. For example, immigrants with a knowledge of French should know that there are francophone communities outside the Province of Quebec. Thus $9 million will be spent on developing information essentially to help new immigrants take courses to improve their French, where necessary. The money will also be used to support information centre projects for French- speaking immigrants.
We are introducing four new economic development initiatives. Thirteen million dollars in new money will go to the Franco-communautés virtuelles program. This program helps French-language communities access the Internet. The plan is to fund some 200 new projects in this area. Eight hundred new business internships will also be available using $7 million; and $10 million will be provided for pilot projects relating to technological infrastructure — for example, access to libraries. Eight million dollars will be available for the services of advisers whose role will be to help businesses access programs designed for the majority; although this is not a large amount of money, it can make a big difference.
In provinces with an English-speaking majority, francophone business people are often told that they have their own programs. Although there is a risk of ghettoization, everything will be done to avoid such a result. Advisors will work closely with business people in need and help them to access programs. Advisors will also be in a position to tell federal departments to change their attitude, if required.
We also need to strengthen our partnership with the provinces. We already have a program in this area, but additional funding of $14.5 million will allow us to look at priority areas such as early childhood education, health care, cultural outreach, and so on. Canadian Heritage is keeping $19 million to strengthen certain aspects of community life that may not be covered in the Action Plan. This Action Plan focusses on community and cultural centres, cultural programming and outreach, and community radio stations. The goal of the Action Plan is to foster community development, and this builds on what is currently being done in that area. There is also everything I have already mentioned in the Action Plan.
Sixty-five million dollars will be spent over a five-year period to strengthen bilingualism in the public service. Ms. Robillard has had lots of ideas in that regard for some time, but she had access to less funding, compared to the Commissioner of Official Languages. The Commissioner of Official Languages therefore had a higher level of funding than the organization she is responsible for monitoring.
The Treasury Board will thus have increased funding to take whatever action it deems necessary to strengthen bilingualism in the public service. Fourteen million dollars will be divided between two funds for innovation: a $7 million fund to encourage innovation projects relating to learning, training, and the continuation of the bilingualism program in the public service. Seven million dollars will be spent in the regions and $7 million in the National Capital.
A $12 million centre of excellence will also be established within Treasury Board to help other departments strengthen their bilingual capacity. The Public Service Commission will have an additional almost $40 million to spend on eliminating waiting lists for training programs, improving training, maintaining competency levels in public servants, and improving our ability to recruit public servants who are already bilingual, wherever possible.
As regards the language industries, none of the things I have just talked about would be possible without interpreters and translators. We have one of the best language industries in the world, but enough is not known about it. If we do not support this industry, it will be impossible to replace those leaving the industry. Five million dollars has therefore been set aside to assist this highly fragmented industry to form a representative association for the purposes of better coordination. Five million dollars will be available to enhance its visibility — in other words, to ensure that cegeps and universities are making young people aware of training opportunities in this field, increase awareness of the industry abroad, and open up new translation market opportunities for our industry overseas. Ten million dollars will be dedicated to creating a language technology research centre at the Université de Hull, which is one of the best. This $10 million will allow us to take important action in this area.
[English]
This action plan now exists only on paper, and it must exist in reality. In that, I am sure your committee will be a great help, which is why I am very pleased to have this opportunity to have an exchange with you on this action plan today. It will be most important for me.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I believe you know most of the senators around the table, and I am sure you are aware of the commitment of each and every one of them to their region or specific field of interest. Our discussion will certainly address such areas as health, culture, justice and education, because we all have experience in these areas.
Senator Beaudoin: I would like to begin by conveying my congratulations. This initiative will create new momentum in a very important area.
One thing struck me in your presentation, and it relates to immigration. You said that $9 million will go towards placing greater emphasis on French. That is quite impressive because it is, indeed, important that new immigrants realize that ours is a bilingual country.
Having spent my life studying the division of powers, I have to say I was particularly impressed by what you said about partnership with the provinces. Modern federations have no choice but to ensure there is greater cooperation between the two levels of government. I like the word "partnership'' in provincial areas of responsibility, especially education and health.
I have only one question, but it is an important one. Section 41 of the Official Languages Act sets out a solemn commitment on the part of the government to advance the quality of status and use of English and French in Canadian society, and to enhance the vitality of minority official language communities. Although this is a political commitment, the Act is binding on federal institutions. I would be the first to admit that this section of the Act is extremely important politically. I would even go so far as to say that it represents a legal obligation. That very issue has been debated in this committee, in particular with Senator Gauthier. We have said that we see this as not just a good initiative, but an actual obligation. I will not reopen that debate. This has already been presented as something that will provide new momentum and as a very important issue — it has even been referred to as a solemn commitment. I hope that one day, the word "legal'' will be added.
Mr. Dion: But what about the division of powers? How can we make something binding that is within the jurisdiction of the provinces?
Senator Beaudoin: I respect the division of powers. We are talking about the federal areas of responsibility.
Mr. Dion: Section 41 does not really relate to federal areas of responsibility.
Senator Beaudoin: But it does deal with areas where the federal government also has jurisdiction. Education, health and the administration of justice are primarily provincial areas of jurisdiction. However, section 41 is not restricted to those areas.
Mr. Dion: This is related to Part VII of the Act. I do not see what the federal government could do, under Part VII of the Act, without the provinces.
Senator Beaudoin: The federal government could make a stronger commitment, by declaring that this goal is not only desirable, but mandatory. Your views are probably different from mine in this regard, but the Official Languages Act as a whole, and particularly Part VII, have the character of a legal obligation. This does not mean that the federal government should assume the role of the provinces, but rather that it should act with them, where necessary. Where Part VII applies to federal areas of responsibility, it is a federal obligation.
Mr. Dion: Well, you have just added an important qualification to your statement. There is no longer any possibility of making all of Part VII mandatory. We would have to identify what the federal government could do without having to negotiate what are often complicated agreements with the provinces. In that case, the scope of what you were referring to would automatically be limited.
I do not think that is possible. On the other hand, the Canadian government does have a political obligation and must take action. Our accountability framework forces us to face up to our own obligations and decide whether to comply with them or not. We now have a clearer obligation to consult with the communities and ensure that everyone of our initiatives reflects that reality. That does not mean, however, that we will always go along with what the communities are asking, because our obligations can be complicated at times. However, the process will respect our obligations to the communities.
Senator Beaudoin: I am making a distinction here. If this is a purely political issue, then there is no problem. But in my view, it goes further than that. I have always interpreted Part VII as being mandatory. Legislators do not legislate for no reason — and the terms used are quite clear. This will continue to be a matter for debate, of course. But the fact remains that parts of section 41 are mandatory.
The Chairman: Are you saying that the accountability framework would make Part VII binding?
Mr. Dion: No. As a good federalist, I would not want to make anything binding that was not within my jurisdiction. The accountability framework sets out the government's legal obligations under the Official Languages Act and adds new responsibilities at the executive level that the executive is assuming in order to ensure that its actions meet those obligations.
Senator Beaudoin: That completes my questioning, but I will continue to debate this issue.
The Chairman: Senator Gauthier will now address the matter of whether or not this is binding.
Senator Gauthier: I am well aware of the scope and comprehensiveness of your plan. I have read it, re-read it, underlined certain passages and annotated it. I have even discussed it with friends. It is a good plan, and it is an ambitious plan. However, it relies to a large extent on the good will of the provinces — and you yourself referred to this when you said that we want to remain within our own areas of jurisdiction and not interfere in matters that do not concern us.
I could speak at some length of the battles we have won over the years, and especially of those we have lost on occasion. I cannot remember any cases where we exercised our right to go before the courts without there having been consequences.
Things are never easy for minority groups. You may remember that in 1976, Georges Forest in Manitoba spent $75,000 of his own money to defend his right to be served in both official languages. The subsequent court ruling had serious consequences. The court challenges program was established — before the 1982 Charter — and that helped us exercise our right to access to the courts.
In 1982, I was asked to trust our judicial system, because by creating a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we were transferring a large portion of our political responsibilities to the judicial system. I hesitated for quite sometime because I was not convinced that was the thing to do. Clauses were included in the Charter guaranteeing rights to education and related services. Language rights were granted, others were added, and they were generally clarified.
In the area of education, the Mahé case cost a great deal of money but we won. The Montfort Hospital case also cost a lot of money, but again, we won. And there was also the Arsenault-Cameron case in Prince Edward Island, which had to do with children's rights to attend French schools, which we also won. All of these court cases were extremely costly in terms of human resources. And I should also mention the Beaulac ruling which deals with the right to go before the courts. This important Supreme Court ruling guaranteed that we would be able to be heard by a judge who could speak our language.
I will not go through the complete history of official languages, because the Minister is as well versed in this area as I am. Senator Beaudoin and myself agree on section 41. You repeated today what Lucien Bouchard said back in 1988, when he was Secretary of State. Mr. Bouchard said that section 41 created obligations for the government, and I believed him. We continued to want to see a plan of action or something tangible that would give us an opportunity to identify ourselves and set out milestones and parameters. Today you have come forward with a plan of action, and I want to commend you on that.
We have been waiting for a plan of action for a very long time, and the one you have presented relies to a large extent on the willingness of the provinces to take action. Some journalists have said that Ministers of Education were not consulted and that you did not secure their prior approval. You stated in the House that you had letters you could show us to that effect. There will be quite a battle to wage on that front, and it will not be easy. As I understand your plan, the federal government will make its contribution, and the provinces will have to do the same.
Second, much of what you are presenting focusses on accountability. It is not easy to know where we're going without a road map, but now we will have one. This is something that will guide our actions.
Minister, did you receive additional funding for human resources for the purposes of coordinating this activity? Because we need people like you to help us. Today I contacted the Treasury Board to find out where the funds were coming from and was told that from now on, each department will have to submit a funding request to the coordinating minister. Is that true? Could you briefly explain to me how that will work?
Mr. Dion: One of the greatest compliments one can receive — and accordingly, it means that much more to me — is the one you just paid me when you said that I had presented a good plan. We all know how demanding you are of legislators and the government in the area of official languages. I have passed the test and I am delighted. However no plan is perfect, and I am relying on you to keep my feet to the fire, as I know you will.
You referred to some tremendous victories. I was not here at the time of either the Mahé or Arsenault-Cameron rulings, but I was around when the Montfort Hospital case came forward, and I want you to know how proud I am of the action the federal government was able to take to help the community win that case.
As regard the provinces, I believe the culture is starting to change, not only because they are tired of fighting it out in the courts, or because they are obliged to make adjustments that reflect the rights of their communities, but also because there is a new generation of men and women in politics in the anglophone dominated provinces. Some of these men and women may have taken immersion courses themselves, have a spouse who works in the field, or have children who have been enrolled in these programs.
I meet them all across the country, and some members of this new generation hold key positions, such as Minister of Finance, for example. When I meet with the ministers responsible for the Francophonie, I find myself in the company of two Ministers of Finance.
So, things are gradually changing. This change is fairly recent, but we have to build on it in order not to be forced to fight exhausting battles in court. I have made similar comments in the past, but they were misinterpreted. I was accused of recommending that people no longer have recourse to the courts.
My view is that we have to get the system to work so that it is less and less necessary to ask the courts to intervene, because it is a demanding and stressful process. Even when the end result is victory, one ends up feeling totally drained and having to confront legislators who are unhappy at having to comply with a court ruling which they don't believe in because they were not involved in the decision, but rather, were forced to take action.
We don't want to be forcing people to do things. What we want is to take effective action with the communities, and I think we are in a better position to do that now with the provinces than we were before. We say in this plan of action that we want to negotiate more effective targets in education with the provinces, and what I tell my provincial counterparts is that this will be a lot easier to agree on than what they propose.
Since we are in your area of jurisdiction, we have to go along with what the communities want. If it comes from the communities, there is less likelihood that the federal government will be taken aback by a proposal that comes forward. It will probably believe that what is being suggested is the only course of action. If the provinces propose plans that are not consistent with what the communities and school boards want, the federal government will look at them much more closely.
Through this partnership, we will be able to build something that works much better than before and reflects the spirit of the Action Plan. But all of that will have to be assessed on the basis of the accountability framework. What the Treasury Board told you is true, but incomplete.
It is true that every department that has received funding will have to ensure that the funds are used and managed appropriately. Also, a number of funds with a strategic thrust will support the accountability framework. On page 75 of the Action Plan, you can see that Justice Canada will receive $2.5 million to hire more legal experts to advise the government. As regards implementation of the Action Plan, including the accountability and coordination framework, Intergovernmental Affairs at the Privy Council Office will receive some $13.5 million over a five-year period. This money will go to Ms. Scotton's team to ensure that the Action Plan is carried out.
The accountability framework is not only a piece of paper; it is a commitment that is supported by actual funding.
Senator Gauthier: Have you been given additional funds or human resources? Will you have the staff you need to carry out this work?
Mr. Dion: I did not have that funding. I did not have that $13.4 million. We have been receiving ad hoc funding, negotiated year after year, over the last two years. Now we are assured of that funding.
Senator Gauthier: So, the ad hoc funding no longer exists; you have dismantled it and you will now be coordinating the entire process, is that right?
Mr. Dion: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: Previously the Act stated that the Minister of Canadian Heritage was responsible for coordination. When I wrote to her, on a number of occasions, to find out what had happened to the annual reports of the 29 so-called federal institutions that were supposed to be submitted to them every year — I felt this had to be put in the hands of a more central and better equipped authority; she did not have the staff to assess the plans — this is the answer I was given by the Minister:
At this time, we have no authority to force a department or agency to implement any recommendations we may make. In order to take the process one step further, a central agency with the appropriate authority will have to produce that analysis and pass it on to stakeholders.
In other words, she agreed with me.
Mr. Dion: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: You are the minister responsible for coordinating official languages across all departments. What I want to know is whether your funding and human resources have been increased in order to allow you to fulfill that responsibility? The Department of Canadian Heritage was obviously unable to do that because there is no follow up. For a politician or a parliamentarian, it is very difficult to work effectively in an environment where there is no program evaluation or follow-up.
Mr. Dion: There are three points to be made in answer to your question. First of all, the accountability framework does not take away any of the departments' responsibilities. The Department of Canadian Heritage has the same responsibilities as previously. As a Committee, you will have to hold them accountable for their actions. Do not be tempted to discharge them of those responsibilities, thinking that everything falls to the coordinating Minister. That is what we want to avoid. Every department retains its responsibilities, and that is very important.
The second point is that there are additional responsibilities I will be taking on as coordinating Minister. My job is to ensure that all of this can happen. Remember that the Department of Canadian Heritage only has responsibilities under Part VII of the Official Languages Act. The Treasury Board has specific responsibilities, and so on. My job is to ensure that everyone is working as a team, and that makes a big difference.
With respect to the third point, I would like to ask Ms. Scotton to describe the resources available to her to ensure appropriate follow-up of the Action Plan implementation process.
Ms. Anne Scotton, Director General, Official Languages, Privy Council Office: As mentioned earlier by Minister Dion, we previously were receiving ad hoc funding through a special project in our Department. However, with the adoption of the Action Plan and the guaranteed funding to support it, we will now have a small team in place. But we will have the staff we need to work with our colleagues from other government departments and in the regions, through regional and other councils. That will ensure there is coordination and support among all of us working together, as well as support for the efforts of federal departments and institutions involved in the Action Plan.
Senator Gauthier: So, you did receive an additional budget compared to what you had before?
Mr. Dion: That is correct.
Senator Gauthier: Will that be clearly set out in the Estimates for 2003-04? I have not been able to identify your funding.
Mr. Dion: Do you mean in this year's budget? Well, you are right; this year's budget did not present that detailed information. But it is all laid out in the Action Plan.
Senator Gauthier: And that is upcoming?
Mr. Dion: No, the Action Plan identifies an amount of $13.5 million to be used to implement the Action Plan.
Senator Gauthier: Then this Action Plan will be voted on, is that correct?
Mr. Dion: No.
Senator Gauthier: Even the funding?
Mr. Dion: Yes, yes.
Senator Gauthier: Someone will be giving us the funding?
Mr. Dion: I can assure you that not one cent of the funding amounts listed on pages 73 to 75 could have been identified in that document without the agreement of the Minister of Finance. They kept a very close eye on me. And rightly so. Otherwise, I might have put in a lot more.
Senator Gauthier: You say we need to monitor this. While I agree with you, if a parliamentarian wants to monitor something these days, but he does not have the necessary information, it doesn't really amount to much. The Official Language Community Assistance Program, OLCAP, has never been evaluated since 1971. The same applies to IPOLC, or the Interdepartmental Partnership with the Official Language Communities. I'm told that that will be done in June of this year.
The health agreement between the University of Ottawa and Montfort Hospital has not been assessed either. I asked whether it would be renewed, but no one seems to know. You practically have to be a magician around here to follow what is going on, because as soon as you try and get some information, poof! There has been a change of department. Have Official Languages Programs in the Northwest Territories been evaluated? No. Parliamentarians have to rely on available information. We do not have special assistants, you know. It can be pretty tough at times.
Mr. Dion: One of my responsibilities will be to ensure proper coordination of that overall evaluation effort. This is something new; although it was not done previously, now we have been given the responsibility of coordinating the evaluation process and ensuring that the Action Plan itself is evaluated.
Senator Gauthier: Starting in the year 2000, the Treasury Board introduced a change. Now all institutions are required to carry out an evaluation of their programs. That is a step in the right direction.
Senator Comeau: Thank you for providing us with that explanation of the Action Plan. You have put a lot of time and effort into it. Like others, we hope that all will go according to plan. My main interest is the most remote, marginalized communities here in Canada. They are the true minority communities, as opposed to those with a large number of francophones. I am talking about the most distant communities, like the ones in Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and several western provinces as well. These communities are becoming Anglicized.
Very often there is little federal presence in these communities, other than the RCMP. In some cases, police officers speak French, as do Canada Post employees. People in these communities often make their living from natural resources, such as fishing, forestry, and so on. They are also experiencing problems with those natural resources, some of which are disappearing.
An example of this would be the community of Baie Sainte-Marie in Nova Scotia. The cable company there is refusing to provide RDI in French. It is refusing to provide House of Commons programming in French. Subscribers are forced to listen to the proceedings of the House of Commons in English, even though they live in a French- speaking community. This sends the message that French is not necessary — indeed, that its use is discouraged.
Yes, it is true that we now have our own schools. That was a big step forward and we are making progress in terms of the school system, but it is not enough to have French schools and a French school board. People have to be able to live their lives in French, and very often, that is not possible. Our francophone communities in Nova Scotia do not have access to high-speed Internet services. In the neighbouring anglophone community, they have that access, but not in the small French-speaking communities.
Your Action Plan talks about a program aimed at those kinds of communities. I encourage you to ensure that the most remote communities are given priority, so that they will not end up being forgotten or marginalized.
These communities are very quickly becoming anglicized, almost as quickly as virtual Franco-communities. That is the first message I wanted to convey to you.
There is also the matter of how reliable the provinces are. You will have to be extremely cautious. There is some good will among the provinces. Politically, it was more difficult for the small provinces to provide services in French to the small communities. I believe you will need to show some indulgence towards these small communities. But the will is there.
Mr. Dion: You are right to mention the difficulties facing certain communities. Even communities in those regions where there is a majority of francophones have trouble keeping their young people in the communities, creating interesting jobs and maintaining basic public services, because the bulk of the population is no longer the same, and is aging. Imagine how tough it must be for these minority French-language communities in some areas of Nova Scotia; you are absolutely right about that. We cannot make miracles, because there are problems even in majority French- language communities, but we can certainly provide them with the essential support they need.
Distance education will be expanding, general education services will be better funded, and the Université Sainte- Anne may well be able to obtain additional funding through programs we are developing. Health care, health services and networking will all be very useful, as will economic development assistance for business people, who otherwise would be receiving much less support. We will be there to assist even in the regions facing the most difficult circumstances.
Senator Comeau: I am proud to hear you mention the Université Sainte-Anne, which is a real jewel in Nova Scotia and even for all of Atlantic Canada, particularly since the amalgamation of the Université Sainte-Anne and the Collège de l'Acadie. There is a very special area of opportunity opening up for all minority francophone communities in the Atlantic region. They will need high-speed communication systems there. Could we look at that?
Mr. Dion: The program we have put in place to enhance computer-based communications will also be of assistance in that regard.
[English]
Senator Keon: I would commend you, Minister Dion, on a truly excellent report.
I would like to come back to the matter of the provision of health services. I fully appreciate that this is a provincial responsibility but, having spent my life as a health administrator, among other things, I found that in our institution we had to fund our French education centre and interactive learning centre through our global budget.
While there was always willingness — indeed, it was fun for the Anglo nurses doctors and others — to participate in these educational programs, it was a financial drain. I appreciate the awkwardness of the federal government sending money directly for French-language education when it is a provincial jurisdiction. However, this is an area that I think has not been appropriately explored.
The federal government funds most of the health research in Canada. There is a tremendous opportunity for research to determine how these educational programs could be made more effective and how people could participate better. In particular, there is a tremendous opportunity for accountability as is relates to the quality of the programs, and so forth. That knowledge could be of tremendous value to Canada.
Although this is not covered in your action plan, and Health Canada would not have the revenues to do this with what is outlined here, should you not give this some thought, and, perhaps, work with the Canadian institutions of health research as well as with Health Canada and make some funding directly available? For example, the directors of French language education Ottawa, in the Heart Institute in Ottawa, could make a major contribution.
Mr. Dion: Thank you so much for the excellent suggestion, senator. In education, we are not telling the provinces: "We will take these populations on our shoulders; it is no longer your responsibility.'' On the contrary, under section 23 of the Charter of Rights, the provinces must ensure that there is access to education in either English or French where numbers warrant.
However, the federal government is saying to the provinces, "We will help you pay the extra costs.'' It is always more costly to provide that education to minorities. For instance, providing school textbooks for minority language speakers is more costly, so we will help the provinces to pay the extra cost. Otherwise, it is a provincial jurisdiction. It is their responsibility.
With regard to the provision of health services, there is no constitutional obligation on the federal government to provide that. The communities came to us and told us of their needs. As with other Canadians, health is becoming the most important priority for many people. The communities asked us for help and we built this plan with them. It is a $19-million plan over the next five years.
However, we are not telling the provinces that health is now our responsibility, not at all. In every agreement that we have negotiated with them, we have reminded them that they are responsible for the provision of health services for every Canadian, excepting Aboriginal Canadians. There is a different pattern there.
You are telling me that health research must be more involved. What does it mean to be a minority requesting services? The communities and Health Canada have worked together to determine what it means to a patient to receive health care in a language other than the language he or she speaks. The evidence is that a person's capacity to speak the other language may diminish when the person is unwell. This is well substantiated by the research, and this is why the federal government has now undertaken an important new initiative in this area. This demonstrates that research is key. We need more research to ensure that we do good things.
You are correct when you say that we need to provide the same facilities for health as we do for education. Thank you for pointing out this aspect. We will work very hard with Health Canada and I know that Ms. McLellan is willing to do more to determine how we can do more health research on the language services provided to language minorities.
[Translation]
The Chairman: And especially children.
Mr. Dion: Yes, but also to seniors. They are often bilingual, but when people are sick, they are not so bilingual.
The Chairman: When people are sick, they are nothing.
Mr. Dion: One day I met an English-speaking lady in Montreal who said to me, quite frankly: I have a right to die in my own language.
The Chairman: Mr. Gauthier from Manitoba said the same thing to us at the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee: he wanted to be able to die in his own language.
Senator Léger: I would like to thank you for your Act II, the plan for Canada's linguistic duality. I must say, though, that I prefer "Act II'' to "The Next Act.''
Mr. Dion: There may be an Act III; you never know.
Senator Léger: I want to talk about the arts and culture. I read some material from the FCCF suggesting there be a fourth thrust. You already have three thrusts. Do you believe your plan is now completed or would you like to add something to what is intended for Act II?
Mr. Dion: The plan has already been drafted, and we do not intend to rewrite it. However, this is not the end of the story; it is the beginning. A plan is not supposed to be a straight jacket, and if we realize, when we are going through the next budget exercise, that certain things need to be consolidated or that there are gaps to be filled, we will not just sit back and say that all of this is carved in stone. A plan sets out a direction. We are building on our foundation and adding to that foundation as it becomes possible to do so.
Senator Léger: Your Act II states that people speak the language of the air they breathe. But what happens if the air is totally English in the media, the school yard and their reading material? It takes two lines for there to be real communication. And between those two lines are arts and culture. In other words, you have chosen three areas out of nine. Arts and culture are in second place. I believe arts and culture absolutely have to be part of education and community development. If there is no mention of the words "artist'' and "culture'' in your plan, then there is a big gap there. You referred to "cultural centres'' which are certainly very beneficial, but that relates more to the community.
But artists are still out there, and now they have access to symphonies and operas. We were a minority before, but now the Constitution says that French and English have equal status in Canada. That seems to be totally absent from the plan; it should at least be mentioned. The word "culture'' appears here and there, but is used in a fairly general way.
Will that only be discussed next year, at a much later date? Artists came forward and proposed projects and are very disappointed to see that culture is missing from Act II. And yet that is what will ensure the success of Act II. Could you add culture as an afterthought?
Mr. Dion: I would never add culture as an afterthought, but it is there, in fact, and I will prove it. You will readily admit that a number of communities have commended us on this: the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, school boards, the Commission nationale des parents francophones, and the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires.
As well, your colleagues have just extended their congratulations. Do you really believe they would have done that if culture had not been part of this plan? To say that it is not there is ridiculous. As you say, a language without culture is a language that cannot breathe. So, I would ask those who claim that culture is missing from this plan to explain why everyone is so happy with it. Are they saying that nobody cares about culture? Let me explain where culture is included in this plan. The Action Plan has been well received, and that would not have been the case had culture been forgotten.
Of the $381 million being invested in the area of education, a substantial sum will be available for cultural programming and activities and for artistic development programs. Much of what we have been able to do has been through education agreements that have a cultural component to them. If we want to expand daycare services, we will not achieve that without cultural programming, and the same applies to activities at the post-secondary level.
As regards educational institutions, we want to make them places where linkages can be formed, and that won't be possible without culture. Much of what is in place in Caraquet or elsewhere has been made possible through education agreements, but this time, we are not leaving anything up to chance. On page 28 of the English version of the Action Plan, we talk about the need to develop community and cultural centres.
On page 29, we talk about second language programs and it is specifically stated that we want to develop new teaching methods, such as teaching the arts in English to francophones, and in French, to anglophones.
With respect to immigration, we will have to ensure that we are identifying artists able to speak French or English among new Canadians. I believe the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française has a lot of things to work with. We mustn't let anything fall through the cracks; we have to be everywhere.
That association did not meet with me on January 17. People in the health care sector have been working with us for two years now. They submitted a lot of projects, but I did not say yes to the first ones. I did not discourage them either, or close the door, but I made it clear that what was being suggested was not going to work. But in the end, we achieved our goal.
The first time this was presented to the provinces — I was present — they were livid. The second time, in St. John's, they reacted favourably. These things are never easy, and if we want to move forward, we have to keep going back to the drawing board and making changes. So, it is important not to get discouraged. This is not the end of the story, we can take another stab at it at a future time; people should not expect the first version to necessarily be the right one. I still have not received the first draft of their project, but this is what they said in a letter written to me last October 3:
We are working to develop a strategy aimed at implementing a National Cultural Action Program.
I have yet to receive the initial outline of that national program. There are effective ways of working, and I know we will achieve something together. But in the meantime, you must not believe that while we are waiting for that next version to be completed, we are sitting around twiddling our thumbs. There are many things going on in the cultural domain — probably not enough — but a lot is being done.
In that connection, I would like to commend Ms. Copps for all the work she has done and will continue to do because of her dedication. There is also the work being carried out by the Canada Council of the Arts, in addition to what Canadian Heritage is doing. On January 20, we met with representatives of the Fédération culturelle canadienne- française and asked whether it would be possible to strengthen the partnership with francophone artists living in a minority environment. The Canada Council for the Arts is well aware of this issue. It is already doing a lot and will look at what else can be done. Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board also make a significant contribution. These institutions have to understand that it is just as easy to develop culture in Acadia as it is in Montreal, provided that new efforts are devoted to this.
There are some programs at Canadian Heritage that work very well. The Forum sur l'espace culturel francophone au Canada has been very successful with francophone communities and their artists. The program known as Arts Presentation Canada has also been very successful. A five-year agreement between the Government of Canada and the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française was reached on March 18, 2002 for the development of French-Canadian arts and culture.
Senator Gauthier says that we have to evaluate our programs. That agreement was renewed on March 18, 2002, because we felt it was working well. We renew programs when we see they are yielding positive results.
And we must not forget that a lot of activities are going ahead concurrently. In forging this Action Plan, we considered a variety of projects and initiatives for the theatre, media arts, visual arts, song, music, and all the positive spin-offs they bring. For a long time, people have been asking us to establish a promotional office in Montreal. Quebecers do not always know what is going on in francophone communities outside Quebec — and sometimes even outside Montreal. Now that promotional office will really help to broaden people horizons.
The Canada-community agreements were strengthened in the 1999 Budget. An additional $40 million was earmarked for cultural activities under these agreements. That amount will be renewed in 2004. We will have to work hard in 2004 in that area to ensure that an equivalent or larger amount is set aside, because efforts in other sectors are also important. The Canada-community agreements will be renewed in 2004.
Finally, Canadian Heritage and the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française are working together to collect data from organizations such as Telefilm Canada, the National Film Board and the Canada Council for the Arts, with a view to identifying what is being done now and how to fill in the gaps.
The Fédération culturelle canadienne-française has submitted a project to Canadian Heritage which involves doing an inventory of current partnership projects between schools and the cultural sector. This project is intended to find ways of strengthening that partnership. Ms. Copps will be announcing whether the project is to go forward.
So, those are some of the current activities. Working in partnership with the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, we can accomplish a great many things. The Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones supports this Action Plan and the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française should do the same, in order to have opportunities to work with educators. The latter are more than willing to build up the cultural side of their educational programs. They are good educators and they know that culture is an essential component. There is also the possibility of pilot projects with the Centre scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique.
So, a number of things are happening. The Action Plan will provide additional momentum to current cultural activity.
Senator Léger: In other words, what we have to do is continue to build together. I am aware of all the progress that has been made.
At one time, the arts and culture in Canada were controlled by the church. Priests and nuns organized theatrical activities — as a number of us can attest to. For almost 50 years now, that has been a government responsibility. The government now understands that culture really is the breath of life. In that respect, we are far behind the Europeans, who are several hundred years ahead of us.
Let's talk about artists. I want to thank you for using the word "artist'' earlier. That term is rarely used. We seem to have trouble saying it. Artists have a lot to learn about active responsibility. Now this is something that falls within the jurisdiction of the government, rather than the church.
At the time, artists worked for practically nothing. And when I say artists, I am talking about human beings. Building theatres means infrastructure. But first and foremost, human beings need food on their plates. And to take that one step further, when it comes to more technical things, talent and art dominate. Not everybody calls himself an artist. Only the public can judge.
The government has to help the best of them, even though what they are doing seems less tangible. And I do not mean to ignore the tangible things. In the summer, we make a living from tourism, obviously, but the whole gamut has to be considered. In my view, we have to look at both sides of the coin.
Mr. Dion: You are absolutely right. We have to learn to work together better and adapt to different cultures. When you get involved with official languages, you make contact with people working in different areas. Every area has its own culture. We all have to learn to work together. And we work better together when we are able to look at the first version of a plan before it is reported on in the newspapers, when in fact it has yet to be submitted.
The Chairman: So the clergy and religious communities could be replaced by the Department of Culture.
Mr. Dion: I certainly hope not. Artists have to remain free. We should not be replacing the institution of the church with another institution.
Senator Gauthier: In light of the comments made by Senator Léger, would you be prepared to make an amendment dealing with culture to your Action Plan? You said that it is not carved in stone. Would you be prepared to discuss that with the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française?
Mr. Dion: This document cannot be amended. I do not want to renegotiate it, for fear of losing parts of it. It is a done deal and we have committed ourselves to it with everyone. However, this is not the end of the story; this is the beginning. A number of things will be done outside of the plan. I talked about all kinds of culture-related activities, projects that will be evaluated, and others that will be submitted and probably adopted. In Winnipeg, we are talking about the Centre Molière. I will not say it is not in the plan. The plan is a lever, a means of achieving things, including in the cultural sector.
The next budget exercise will probably bring with it new activities in an area that is not currently part of the plan. If the project is well presented, I will support the Minister of Canadian Heritage in lobbying the Minister of Finance to provide funding. But in order to do that, I need something that is very solid. The health care sector would never have received $119 million for the first project outline they presented. But this project has the strong support of the entire Canadian medical community. Initially, the Minister of Finance was extremely reluctant. However, Mr. Manley said he would be prepared to fund this project.
But this sort of thing is never easy. If we help one another, we will succeed. Success was achieved in the health care sector. We have proven in the past that we can do this for culture, and we will do it again.
Senator Chaput: I was going to commend you on your excellent plan and add that I would have liked to see some more concrete proposals dealing with the arts and culture.
However, having heard the answer you gave Senator Léger, what I will say is that you have a very good plan. One may see the cultural sector as being somewhat outside the plan, which then becomes a lever or a means of providing support to that sector. I do want to commend you, because it is a very good plan with very good content. It could be quite a solid plan.
However, I have some concerns in two areas. The success of our plan — because the Dion Plan will become our plan — rests to a large extent on the good will of the provinces. I am a francophone from Western Canada. I must say that when I am told the success of a plan rests on the good will of a province, it gives me great cause for concern. I am also concerned about some of the things you have said. You say you cannot make something binding that is not within your jurisdiction.
When funds for official languages are being transferred from the federal government to the provinces, is it not appropriate, when you are negotiating with the provinces, to get some commitment in writing from them to ensure that those funds are expended to meet our needs?
The examples I have in mind are the Departments of Health and Education. In the past, we have received funds from the federal government. But those funds were not used to meet the goals set by francophone community; rather, they were used to meet the province's goals, which were not the same as the ones we had as an official language minority. That worries me, and I hope that in your negotiations with the provinces, you will have some lever, or some way of forcing them to spend the money based on our needs and priorities.
My second concern has to do with the accountability framework and the federal institutions subject to that framework; my concern is based on past experience. How will you force these institutions to consider the official languages dimension? What action can you take if the institutions do not do so? What can be done to force them to comply?
Mr. Dion: I am going to tackle your second question. Ministers and senior officials are committed to this.
The Prime Minister sent a very clear message in that regard. They are all Liberals and they believe in this. Mr. Manley believes in this. If he agreed to the funding I was able to secure with the support of my colleagues, it is because we worked hard to get it. And he believes in this, otherwise he would have invested the money elsewhere.
It is not a bad thing to provide for coordination and to have an accountability framework that forces people to believe in this not only some of the time, but all of the time, and to apply it to every initiative. That is the purpose of the accountability framework. A lot of senior officials believe in this, but we are going to ensure that the culture of bilingualism is strengthened. And this framework gives us the means to do that. The Council of Deputy Ministers of Official Languages now has increased responsibilities and will be able to exercise greater leadership. As well, Ms. Scotton's team will be assisting these colleagues, and the Department of Justice will also have additional means of carrying out its responsibilities. The accountability framework sets out the rules to be followed in this regard.
Incidentally, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Himelfarb, has a very good understanding of French. He could speak it if he were not so shy. The interpreters would have no trouble following him because he speaks very slowly. Mr. Himelfarb is a great believer in bilingualism —
[English]
— one of the four management priorities of the government.
[Translation]
That means that deputy ministers are appraised to determine whether they are entitled to bonuses and promotions partly on the basis of their ability to ensure that bilingualism is respected in their institutions and that it continues to be expanded.
Now, the provinces! I almost forget. We are aiming to change the culture. Historically, there have been a thousand and one reasons why the communities mistrusted the provinces. Except in New Brunswick, there is little electoral advantage in taking good care of linguistic minorities. People may think they are easily forgotten.
If the only solution is take them to court, then they turn into sullen, reluctant legislators, without ever really becoming partners. We have to build a partnership. It is important to remember that the anglophone community has changed its attitude towards the French language. Young people in Canada see bilingualism as being part of their culture. A lot of young people who don't speak our language say to us: When I come back from overseas and land at the airport, if I do not hear the rest of the message in French, even though I do not really understand what is being said, I feel homesick. And it is quite true that that is very much a part of our culture, and that we are building on that. Let us not forget that two francophone children out of three outside Quebec have parents who are not francophone. They are exogamous couples.
We have to build on that new reality by working cooperatively with the provinces. Education is a provincial responsibility. Under our $119 million initiative, health care will be provided directly to the communities. In the future, we will continue to build on these initiatives with the provinces.
In the area of education, we have more targeted objectives. If we try and impose them on the provinces, it just will not work. The provinces and ourselves have to build something with the communities, the parents and the school boards, and identify on that basis what needs to be done, both with respect to the minority language and the second language.
That does not mean we should be naive; it just means we have to keep an open mind and work with our partners.
Senator Chaput: But would it not be possible to reflect common goals in these partnership initiatives?
Mr. Dion: That is the idea. That is why there are two new funds, and both funds will operate on the basis of projects which everyone has agreed on. Each partner will invest money in these projects.
Senator Chaput: In our case, it is not a matter of being naive; it's simply a question of survival. The longer we wait, the less money we receive. The more we postpone things in time, the more chance there is that we will not reach our target. That is very important to francophones in Western Canada.
Mr. Dion: I completely understand, and your committee will be very helpful in that regard. Sometimes, groundless accusations are levelled at the provinces. People say that the money goes up in smoke. So, I ask for evidence, but it never comes.
My view is that we have to be more specific about what we want. If you believe a province is not using federal government funds appropriately, or is using them for other purposes, please inform us.
Senator Chaput: I would just like to give you an example. From 1984 to 1986, I was the Director of the Franco- Manitoban Cultural Centre. We found out that funds had been provided to purchase French books for libraries in our French schools. Everyone was happy to hear that, but when we did some research, we discovered that although the funds had been provided to purchase books in French, decisions about how to use the money were ultimately being made by managers.
In many small schools in rural areas, no French books were purchased for our libraries. This initiative had been left to the discretion of the person in charge, and ultimately our schools did not receive any additional resources in French. This happened a long time ago, but it is an example of what can happen. The other example has to do with health care.
Mr. Dion: If the example you just gave had been current, our first move would have been to phone the province and hold them accountable for this action. That is not the agreement. If we sign an agreement, people have to abide by it.
Senator Chaput: But if it is not clearly laid out in the agreement, people cannot complain. If there are no common goals, people cannot come back and tell you that the money was not spent appropriately.
Mr. Dion: We will ensure that this kind of thing can be retraced.
The Chairman: You talked about the culture of young Canadians and about bilingualism. That is very important. We should not be telling young people they have to be bilingual because it will help them get a good job. The reason for deciding they want to be bilingual at 15 or 16 years of age has to do with their culture of being "cool,'' rather than being a "nerd.''
That is what we saw with smoking. When we told young people not to smoke because they might get cancer at the age of 50, they would say they could not care less what happened to them at 50. It's the here-and-now that counts for them, so we have to impress upon them that if they smoke, they will not be as good at sports. This culture of bilingualism is our challenge. I taught second languages for more than 25 years. At the age of 14 and 15, kids were afraid of not being "cool'' if they were bilingual. At this stage, we are losing them. I hope that your plan will promote that kind of development.
Mr. Dion: It is not a question of money, but of culture.
Senator Morin: I will not repeat what my colleagues have already said about how excellent this report is, but I want you to know I fully share their views. I would like to pursue Senator Keon's line of questioning with respect to health care, which is a priority for minority language communities.
In Quebec, for example, 85 per cent of anglophones say that a critical need for them is the ability to receive health care in their language. You have set out three specific goals: networking among primary care providers, training, and the Société Santé en français. However, it is important that these three objectives be met after consultation with, and with the agreement of, representatives of the minority linguistic communities.
You talked about francophones hors Québec and the Société Santé en français, chaired by Mr. Hubert Gauthier. You paid tribute to him, and rightly so. If some things have been clearly identified as priorities in the health care sector, it is in large part due to his efforts over the last few years. I, too, would like to pay tribute to the exceptional human being we have in Mr. Gauthier, Director of the Saint-Boniface Hospital.
On the anglophone side, the Community Health and Social Service Network is the anglophone group acting as spokesperson in Quebec and it hopes to fulfill that same role. I do hope that on a statutory and regular basis, health department authorities will meet with these two organizations to ensure that the goals that have been identified are indeed achieved.
Networking is important. Primary care is important because it is the focus of health care reform to which both our report and the Romanow report gave careful consideration. We are talking about accountability. It would be easy enough to determine how many multidisciplinary teams are providing comprehensive and continuous health care to minority populations in their region on an annual basis. But we have to ensure that that number can increase, because that is really one of the goals to be attained through the Action Plan.
I would like to talk about training for health care professionals. As regards francophones outside Quebec, we have made tremendous progress thanks to the University of Ottawa. More recently, the University of Moncton has made tremendous progress through the francophone consortium now in place which includes not only the universities, but the communities and the institutions.
On the anglophone side, there is a total vacuum. McGill University is not fulfilling its role in Quebec vis-à-vis the anglophone community. McGill University is renowned across the world for the quality of its research. It is a major university in terms of its research capacity. Just as the University of Ottawa and the University of Moncton have done so in relation to their minority communities, McGill University must fulfill that same responsibility vis-à-vis the English-speaking colleges that train professionals.
We have to ensure that the professionals they train take responsibility for the anglophone minority communities outside Montreal. I am thinking in particular of the Gaspé, the Eastern Townships, and so on. Those are my comments.
Mr. Dion: And I find them extremely helpful, Senator Morin. Your views on McGill University are your own, but the possibility of enhancing our relations with McGill University for this very worthy cause is certainly something I support. I believe that Mr. Carter, the Coordinator of the Community Health and Social Services Network would probably agree with your analysis in that regard. He wrote me saying that the Action Plan would provide critical assistance to his organization.
[English]
He said that the network would congratulate us on our action plan, which accommodates the vulnerable situation of many communities. He also said that they would support the measures defined, which constitute the government's commitment to the vitality of our communities.
[Translation]
And we will build something on that that meets the needs not only of the people living in the shadow of McGill University, but of those living in the Gaspé or in any other anglophone community that needs better access to services in English.
Senator Maheu: I would like to begin by commending you on the tremendous contribution you have made to official languages. I know how much it means to you and that, without you, there would have been little or no progress. It is high time that the Government of Canada took concrete action to deal with official languages issues and that it made the commitment to invest the kind of funding you have referred to. I am also pleased to hear Senator Morin talk a little bit about English in Quebec.
In your Action Plan, you focus a great deal on minority language communities in relation to such areas as health care, justice, and early childhood development. In the coming weeks, I have no doubt you will again be consulting with the various groups and representatives of official language minority communities.
In Quebec, which groups are you intending to consult with a view to promoting minority anglophone communities? Senator Morin made the point that there is still much to be done. Sometimes people get upset when I raise this point, but this is absolutely true.
Mr. Dion: That work has already begun. We met with representatives of the FCFA on Friday. We had a good discussion. They had come together for the presidents' meeting. But it would not be a bad idea for me to try and do the same, fairly soon, with representatives of the QCGM, so that we can talk about how to tackle this issue. It is possible that there has already been some initial contact through my officials.
Ms. Scotton: Mr. Asselin and myself have already met with representatives of the QCGM. We are expecting to hold more formal meetings, with a view to engaging in real consultations over the coming months. We have already set dates with some of these associations.
Mr. Dion: I will discuss this with my team and we will see what arrangements can be made. We fought hard for this Action Plan and now we have to strike while the iron is hot and react fairly quickly. At the same time, the communities should not give up on direct contacts with my colleagues. We have never wanted to ghettoize anyone. There is more than one entry point.
It is important to have good access to Canadian Heritage, and whenever there are concerns about the public service or potential solutions to bring forward, Ms. Robillard is always available. Ms. McLellan is looking after health care issues. That is a very important message.
For example, I was not in favour of creating a special fund for francophone business people living in a minority environment, but I did ask that Industry Canada — and Mr. Rock agreed — provide advice to them to facilitate their access to programs that they and the majority are entitled to use. We should never ghettoize the communities. Instead, we should be trying to provide access to anything and everything that is available.
[English]
Senator Maheu: The action plan proposes a number of investments that will require consultation with the provinces, and possibly "agreements,'' whether we like the word or not. I am thinking of education and health, where you may have to try to renegotiate and put strings on the money we are investing. So far, how have the provinces and territories reacted to your action plan? Do you see openness on the part of the provinces to negotiate funding again, or are they finished with negotiating?
Mr. Dion: The reaction has been positive. Paul Robichaud, Minister responsible for La Francophonie in New Brunswick, said it is good news. Stan Frey, director of the French Curriculum Unit with the Saskatchewan Education Official Minority Language Office, told us that he thinks it is a positive move, a good initiative, and well thought out. My counterpart in Manitoba, Mr. Selinger, and he wrote that he is willing to work with us. It is the same with my counterpart Richard Stewart in British Columbia, the minister responsible for la francophonie in that province. They are willing to work with us. I have had no negative reaction.
The Minister of Education in Alberta complained that he was not aware of what had been done but, at the same time, he said that he wanted to be part of it. His complaint was not that he did not want to hear about it but that he wanted to be a part of it. I was in close touch with my counterpart, the MLA responsible for la francophonie in Alberta, so now the connection between this person and his Minister of Education has been made. I am not negotiating directly with the Minister of Education — Ms. Copps will do that — but I am in close touch with the ministers responsible for la francophonie in each of these provinces and with the intergovernmental affairs ministers as well as the premiers. The premiers are very willing to work on this.
Senator Maheu: I was thinking specifically of Quebec, my home province.
[Translation]
Senator Maheu: As an anglophone, I have often heard it said that if francophones were treated as well as anglophones in Quebec when they are outside the province of Quebec, they would all be better off. But that is not really true, and I think that has been stated a number of times.
Senator Lapointe: It is not completely untrue either.
Senator Maheu: No, you are right. In terms of the status of minority communities in Quebec, in other areas of the province and outside of Montreal, there are practically none.
[English]
The action plan gives a good analysis of all this. It is true that the capacity for English speakers in Quebec to keep their language is much higher than outside Quebec, for obvious reasons. It is the language of the continent, the language of the Internet, the language of business, and so forth. That being said, if you are in an English-speaking community in Gaspésie, you can say, "I am a majority on the continent, and a majority in Canada,'' but in daily life you are living in a francophone area and you need some help; and you deserve it. I think everyone will accept that.
I have never been one to give exactly the same to everyone. We should address the needs of each area, and we will address the needs of the English-speaking community in Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Dion: Mr. Charbonneau, my current counterpart, wrote to me on September 25, 2002, before I brought the Action Plan forward. His letter said that he was delighted to see that my initiative would be beneficial in terms of providing additional tools to enhance the vitality and influence of the French language and culture in Canada. He also said in his letter that he wanted to work with me, insofar as we respect his jurisdiction. On April 15 or 16, when the new Cabinet of the next Premier of Quebec is appointed, we will work with our counterparts there to support the francophone community in Quebec.
Senator Lapointe: Excellent. This is a great Action Plan.
Like Senators Beaudoin and Gauthier, I sometimes refer to the past. In 1938 — the exact date escapes me — my father, who was the Liberal Member of Parliament for Matapédia-Matane, stated, in a speech to the House of Commons, that an employee had refused to speak to him in his mother tongue when he was on the train.
He made a big deal about this in his speech. He received both praise and insults, which was perfectly normal for the time and which only goes to show that this country has evolved a great deal when it comes to official languages.
I do have one concern about the people of Northern Ontario. I made a trip out there and had agreed with pleasure to visit a number of places. Among the places I visited were Chapleau — for people who are familiar with it, it is very far — Hearst, and Kapuskasing, and I had a very moving experience there, because the young girl responsible for organizing shows had a budget of $1,500 a year. When I asked her how many people usually attended the shows, she told me that there was generally an audience of about 40 people. When the 110th person arrived for the show, the young girl started to cry, and told me that the funds would mean she could invite an additional known artist.
I do not have the training my colleagues opposite do, but I am here to serve my country. And I want to give credit to those people who have made it possible to improve the situation in Quebec.
At the time, I had a big car, and when buying gas people would often just say give me the "yellow'' or the "red.'' He had filled my tank with the "yellow.'' So, I said to the attendant: If you could understand French, you would have realized that my car does not take the "yellow'' stuff. The young man's answer was: Why should I? I told him he would eventually figure out, what with the rise of nationalism in Quebec and the Parti québécois coming to power, that he had no choice but to learn French.
The Parti québécois has made a big difference in that regard. As the saying goes, we must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Trudeau's ideal of bilingualism is fantastic, but things did not move very quickly in Quebec. There has been a big improvement. Nowadays, a great many anglophones speak French, and vice versa.
Small children represent the future of this country when it comes to official languages, and I attach a great deal of importance to this area. I would like you to confirm that the people who will be guiding our young children as they make their first steps in life, in whatever language that may be, have the appropriate skills. Nowadays there are a lot of people teaching French to young children who are incapable of writing even half a letter without making 30 mistakes. And although I am not really sure, I imagine it is the same in English.
Mr. Dion: I just want to reassure you that I am not a lawyer either.
Senator Lapointe: No, but you are more competent than I am and have a higher IQ.
Mr. Dion: I agree with you that if we are going to be investing money in this area, we have to ensure that people have the necessary skills. At the same time, a lot of skills that were previously untapped will be put to better use, and we will have to focus more on finding qualified people.
Senator Lapointe: That is exactly what I wanted to hear.
Senator Gauthier: Senator Lapointe referred to Northern Ontario. I found nothing in your plan that related specifically to Eastern, Western or Southern Ontario. However, you do refer to the agencies in the Atlantic and Western Canada. Barely 25 per cent of Franco-Ontarians live in the North; the rest of the population lives in the eastern, southern and western parts of the province. Why did you exclude them?
Mr. Dion: That is a debate that applies not only to official languages, but to everything. There is something for the Atlantic, Quebec, Northern Ontario, Western Canada, and the territories have their agreements as well. So, what are we doing for the people of Southern Ontario? Well, first of all they represent about 35 per cent of the population — one third of the country. This area is also the industrial heartland of Canada, yet Canada has not felt the need to set up an agency there. Why? Because the Department of Industry plays a very prominent role there. There is no need to do anything extra for that segment of the Canadian population, because the Department of Industry has its strongholds. The Department of Industry will be directly managing that part of the plan that relates to this region of the country.
Senator Gauthier: I noted that there are no regulations in your Action Plan relating to section 41 in Part VII of the Act. I had been hoping there would be. I have been waiting for regulations for 15 years; without regulations to support an act, there can be no rights. I think you know what I mean. At the present time, there are no regulations for Part VII and section 41. Why is that?
Mr. Dion: Well, because we would have made something subject to judicial control that we do not want to become subject to judicial control. If you adopt regulations, that is pretty much the same as adopting legislation. It brings the matter into the realm of the courts. We see this as a political commitment. Mr. Chrétien has proven that he is intent on keeping his political commitment, notably through this Action Plan.
Senator Gauthier: The Northwest Territories have directives, not regulations. Administrative directives do not flow from a statute, whereas regulations do. There are no regulations under this Act. We do not have the right to refer matters to the courts. Section 41 is not subject to judicial control, which means that there are no regulations and there is no recourse to the courts. It is difficult to understand this resistance. Perhaps I could just give you some figures.
You talked about "judicial control.'' You made the same comment about ticket offences some time ago. There have been 730 cases brought under section 15, the equality section of the Constitution, 30 cases under section 23, relating to education rights for minorities, and five cases under section 16, since the Charter was adopted in 1982.
I have trouble rationalizing these facts. You yourselves have created opportunities to refer matters to the courts. There will be no more referrals if we go that route than there have been before. You are taking away people's right to use the courts, yet not providing any regulations. In so doing, you are drastically reducing the ability of minorities to pressure governments.
Mr. Dion: Some rights are subject to judicial control. The Charter exists. You mustn't believe that because Part VII is not drafted in such a way as to be binding that people have no rights. Part VII was not drafted with that purpose in mind; otherwise, it would have been drafted differently. At the time, Mr. Hnatyshyn said that this part of the Act would not be binding. But that should not lead you to conclude that it is meaningless. And the proof that it is not meaningless is the fact that it flows from a political commitment that we have codified more rigourously than ever in the Action Plan.
Senator Gauthier: I guess we could go on and on discussing this for hours, but I will refrain from doing that. I do not understand your attitude with respect to culture. You stated in the House of Commons last week that you had given $500 million to Ms. Copps two years ago to use in the area of culture. Ms. Copps' program will end in March of 2004. I just have trouble imagining that a government would give $500 million for a program dealing with culture and not at the same time announce the implementation plan that will ensure those cultural activities actually take place. This is important to us. Will that program be renewed?
Mr. Dion: As regards the $500 million, I do not know. That goes beyond the strict domain of official languages. It is a program aimed at all Canadians. We felt the need to strengthen the cultural initiative with an injection of $500 million. But it will be up to the government to determiner whether that will be recurrent funding or not. Those funds have benefited all Canadians, including official language communities and their artists. Earlier I listed a whole series of initiatives that are either already in place or under consideration, in addition to the Action Plan.
I explained how the Action Plan would serve to provide a boost and thereby strengthen activity in this area, as in all the others. Of course, you and everyone else who said this was a good Action Plan did so because you know full well that we could never have come up with a good Action Plan had we ignored culture.
Senator Beaudoin: I was happy to hear what you said a sentence or two ago. Even though section 41 is not binding or imperative, the fact remains that we have the Charter.
Mr. Dion: Yes.
Senator Beaudoin: And the Charter is part of the Constitution.
Mr. Dion: Exactly.
Senator Beaudoin: It is not just an ordinary act of Parliament.
Mr. Dion: No.
Senator Beaudoin: It is the Constitution. We have already debated the meaning of section 16; both languages are official.
Second, and even more important, both languages have equal status. That is fantastic. On that basis, we convinced Radio-Canada executives to broadcast Hockey Night in Canada in French. My position was that both networks had to be equal.
If it is true that both languages are official and have equal status — and I believe any jurist worthy of the name would agree with that — then we are protected. That satisfies me. The Constitution determines the basis for our fundamental law. We are protected, and that satisfies me.
I would like section 41 to be binding, but I also know how to be a good loser. If they are right, at least the Constitution is clear on that.
Senator Léger: With respect to immigration, did I understand you to say that a new immigrant can express preference for one of the two official languages?
Mr. Dion: No. The government is not about to develop a hierarchy of choices for its citizens. However, it will make them aware of our rich linguistic duality in Canada. A new Canadian will know right away that in British Columbia, there is an active francophone community.
Senator Léger: So, new Canadians will be told that both official languages are equal? I guess they will be pleased to know up to three languages.
Mr. Dion: There is no contradiction between the bilingual and multicultural dimensions of our country.
[English]
In an immersion school in British Columbia, you will meet many people of Asian origin who speak wonderful French. Their parents send them there. They believe that it is good for their kids to learn two international languages in addition to their language of origin.
Senator Léger: This is Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Léger: Did you say it was different for the Aboriginal people?
Mr. Dion: No, except legally. Through Health Canada, the Government of Canada has constitutional responsibilities towards the Aboriginal people that we do not have in relation to other Canadians, because they have specific rights that are laid out in the Canadian Constitution.
Senator Léger: And yet they are Canadians.
Mr. Dion: Yes, of course. They are Aboriginal Canadians. We have no constitutional responsibility towards Aboriginal Americans, for example. All Aboriginal Canadians have certain rights that are recognized in the Constitution, and which mean that the Canadian government has responsibilities towards them in the area of health care that are different from its responsibilities towards other Canadians.
Senator Léger: In Manitoba, for example, who has responsibility for Aboriginal education?
Mr. Dion: Education is an area of provincial jurisdiction, but the Canadian government does have some responsibilities in that area with respect to on-reserve Aboriginal Canadians.
The Chairman: Minister, I want to thank you for making yourself available. I wish you the best of luck and hope that your cabinet colleagues will approve this new momentum for Canada's linguistic duality.
I also hope that all Canadians who adhere to this plan will realize that they are lucky to live in Canada and that it offers them a better quality of life.
Thank you for making yourself available to us, and for your time. Good luck.
The committee is adjourned.