Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 9 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, November 21, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 4:33 p.m. to study, and to report from time to time, on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the act, and to consider a draft report.
Senator Eymard G. Corbin (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We are pleased, once again this afternoon, to welcome Ms. Dyane Adam, Official Languages Commissioner, and the members of her team. I would kindly ask you to introduce them, Ms. Adam. I know several of them; however, there are some new faces with you today.
I would then ask you to proceed with a summarized version of your brief, of which we all have a complete copy. I would ask for it to be printed as read Please go ahead.
Dyane Adam, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Of course, there are some long- standing staff at the table. I will start on my right, with the most senior of my directors general, Michel Robichaud, Director of Investigations; Johane Tremblay, Director of Legal Services and on my left, a former director who has now changed hats and has become Director General of Policies and Communications, previously at Corporate Services, and Ms. Carol White, our new Acting Director General for Corporate Services.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide the highlights of my sixth annual report tabled May 31. I am aware that we do not have much time. As your chair said, you have been given a fairly brief version and of course, you also have a copy of the far more extensive speech. Please feel free to refer to the longer speech for more information, even for today's question period.
I should point out that we have devoted volume I of the report to a review of the 35 years of progress towards linguistic duality, while volume II is devoted to an assessment of the Government of Canada's performance in 2004- 2005 and highlights the activities related to OCOL's mandate.
[English]
I will review the two volumes of the annual report and then conclude with a brief look at this year's work, which is well underway. A review of the past 35 years reminds us that the history of linguistic duality in Canada has been marked by stops and starts; epic battles; spectacular breakthroughs, which we might experience this week; and small steps forward. The end result is one of real progress in all sectors. This situation can be likened to a half-full glass that was almost empty at the outset. As the years passed, the glass filled slowly but surely. The first volume of the report shows that 35 years of effort have made it possible to improve daily life in our society in a multitude of ways.
Some of you sitting at this table have participated throughout this period of time. For example, you have heard witnesses testify to increased billingualism, especially among youth; development of minority official language communities; progress within the federal government with regard to language of work and language of service; progress regarding the language used in the courts; and integration of new commerce into the two-official-languages communities. This progress has made a major contribution to the recognition of Canada as a leader in respect of minorities and human rights on the international level.
Of course, every coin has two sides. Despite progress toward true equality of the two linguistic communities, a number of challenges remains on the horizon. There needs to be more support for second language learning across the country. The culture of the federal public service must genuinely integrate the use of both official languages in day-to- day work. As well, more partnerships between governments and minority official language communities must be established in matters that affect the vitality of these communities.
[Translation]
In my previous reports, I noted that the implementation of the official languages policy appears to have plateau over the last decade, especially in terms of services to the public. Our federal institution report card, released for the very first time during the launch of the 2004-05 annual report, confirms this finding. Where it is required, service is provided in both languages only three times out of four, a rate similar to that observed by various studies conducted by my office and the Treasury Board over the last several years. It is no exaggeration to speak of stagnation. In addition, the active offer of bilingual service is still made by staff only one time out of four.
These national statistics conceal a very unequal reality; while the federal agencies generally succeed very well in offering quality service in both official languages in Quebec and in the National Capital Region, our data indicate that, in some regions, service is almost non-existent.
In addition to services, one of the concerns of Canadians is of course the accountability and transparency of public institutions. In this context, the mid-term assessment of the Action Plan for Official Languages is, in my view, a very important exercise. I am glad to see that the Minister responsible for Official Languages, the Honourable Mauril Bélanger, will be meeting you, later, to discuss this.
I hope to have the opportunity to discuss the mid-term assessment with you at a later date, once we have had the opportunity to complete the study.
I have also emphasized, in my annual report, the importance of clarifying the scope of part VII of the act. I think that it is the fifth report which points to the importance of this, as provided for in Bill S-3, tabled by your esteemed colleague, Jean-Robert Gauthier, before he retired.
As you know, Bill S-3 was adopted by the House of Commons during third reading last Thursday. I am confident that you will proceed rapidly with this bill when it comes back to Senate so that it may be submitted for royal assent as soon as possible.
Moreover, I am happy to report that the government has responded quickly to most of the recommendations of my previous report, including the review of official languages policies by the Treasury Board. Of the 11 recommendations made in my previous annual report, more than two-thirds have been implemented at least partially or are in the process of being implemented. This includes, of course, recommendations relating to Bill S-3.
[English]
To conclude, when you get to the age of 35, you look at the lessons to be learned from your experience so far. In the case of official languages, I see two main lessons: First, political leadership from the highest level is vital. The experience of the past 35 years shows that big steps forward in official languages were made at times of strong federal political leadership. Leadership that is energetic, but also sustained, is necessary if we are to achieve the equality of treatment of both official language groups.
The second lesson is that cooperation between the levels of government has yielded remarkable results, especially when the minority official language communities were involved as partners. One of the best ways of moving these communities forward is to equip them in such a way that they can generate their own development and contribute fully to Canadian society.
If a societal project of this scope is to move ahead, if the glass is to be finally full, we must take a fresh look at the results of our official language policy and update federal government practices in order to break through the ceiling that exists at present and better meet the challenging needs of our society. To start with, we must immediately take a look at the impact of changes in government on service delivery in both official languages. I am thinking of Service Canada and the relocation of institutions in the regions.
I was interested to learn about Senator Tardif's initiatives to review the issue of relocating institutions; and, in fact, of your decision as the Senate to have this committee address this important question in the coming months.
[Translation]
Like you, we are working to provide food for thought, and to stimulate further action in the area of official languages. This is why this fall we held pre-discussion forums on issues that are key to Canadian linguistic duality. We addressed issues dealing with the regulatory framework of official languages, joint governance mechanisms between governments and the communities, the various factors and mechanisms that foster the vitality and development of the official language communities, and, of course, the links between linguistic duality and Canadian diversity.
These issues will be addressed in my last annual report, which I hope to have the opportunity to present to you next spring.
Thank you. My colleagues and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Comeau: Welcome, Ms. Adam. We have not had the opportunity of having you here for some time. We are always grateful that you are so readily available.
I do not have many questions, but I would however like clarification on a number of matters.
From what I understand, you strongly support the proposed amendments made in the House of Commons to Bill S- 3?
Ms. Adam: Are you being facetious, senator? Of course. You know that my team and I have worked hard to ensure that this infamous bill, which you have all supported, sees the light of day.
Therefore, we testified before the parliamentary committee, after all the witnesses had already appeared, to listen to objections, concerns and worries. My team and I were successful in tabling amendments which were adopted by the government and the government stood by them. There were also a number of minor amendments from another party. We supported the proposed amendments.
Senator Comeau: If I have understood you correctly, you are currently carrying out an assessment of the government's action plan?
Ms. Adam: We are currently conducting a review of the government's mid-term assessment of the official languages action plan. We are playing our role as arm's length assessors of the government in order to provide an objective opinion of this assessment.
Senator Comeau: If I recall correctly, the government listed a number of objectives and developed self-assessment methods. You are currently determining whether the assessment was realistic, and if it made sense, with a view to drafting a report. Is the process whereby the government assesses its own performance realistic?
Ms. Adam: When we tabled the annual report last spring, we more or less carried out an assessment of the first two years of the action plan's implementation. We are now starting the third year. We were critical of how slow the process was and of the fact that the accountability framework, performance indicators or assessment indicators were still not defined.
The government tabled its assessment just three months ago. Therefore, it would be a little premature of me to cast judgment without first carrying out a comprehensive analysis. This is exactly what we will do later in the year, and this will be part of my annual report.
Senator Comeau: It would be very useful for us to know a little about your report as it will save us a lot of reading time.
Who is responsible for what in the official languages area as far as the recent years' changes are concerned? Given that we are not always following this file, it is hard for some of us to know if the Honourable Mauril Bélanger or Canadian Heritage is responsible for official languages.
To date, has your analysis given you a good idea of who is responsible for what, or, like us, are you a little concerned about what the role of each of the stakeholders actually is?
Ms. Adam: To answer that question, one thing needs to be made clear. The official languages file is transversal, when in fact you often hear about horizontal files. Each and every department and institution has some level of responsibility as far as official languages are concerned. So, overseeing and coordinating such a file is, in and of itself, complex. This is why it is important, as you said, to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each and every stakeholder, particularly those from central agencies or those who play a particular role.
The accountability framework developed when the official languages action plan was tabled a few years ago was supposed to be an instrument to clarify roles and responsibilities. It was an opportunity, in the form of a document, to specify expectations concerning various institutions and the coordination process.
Is the accountability framework and the level of governance in the area of official languages sufficient? Is it adequate? I think that this question relates to the question you asked before. As you clearly want me to ``go out on a limb,'' I will repeat, as I said earlier, at the end of my presentation, that my team and I are grappling with an issue in the area of linguistic governance, and that we have carried out a study on this. I think that we will have more tools at our disposal to be better able to answer your question and to assist the government in bringing improvements, in the area of official languages, to governance and accountability.
Senator Comeau: I have another question, but I can wait for the second round, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Chaput: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome you, Ms. Adam, along with your team. I have a question concerning the Treasury Board, which has just carried out a review of official languages policies. I read the Treasury Board's report. I find these policies to be very general; now, I do not have much experience in this area, but you have made several recommendations, some of which are currently being implemented.
Here is my question: based on your experience as official languages commissioner, are there gaps as far as the official languages policies are concerned? Are there some things that are not covered, which if they were, would help us to make progress in certain areas? For example, Senator Tardif's initiative struck me in particular. She brought it forward in the Senate at about the same time or shortly after the review of Treasury Board policies. I reread these policies and thought to myself that there was no policy which dealt with this particular issue. This is a gap, and I am sure there are others. I would like you to comment on this.
Ms. Adam: There is no doubt that there are no policies, even in the act, nor regulations to cover that kind of government transformation or relocation, and the consequences it has on language rights. People talk mostly about employees, but it may also have consequences on employees' language rights.
Bear in mind that the situation is evolving. There have been many government transformations — my colleague Mr. Robichaud could talk about them — and the federal government has used different ways to deliver services. Responsibilities have been devolved to other entities, be it the provinces, the private sector, and so on. My predecessor and I have both noted that there were huge losses. At the time, the government's response — Ms. Robillard was President of Treasury Board at the time — was to adopt a policy that, if federal institutions so requested, would enable them to assess the impact of a change, like a relocation, that could have an effect on a decision to proceed with an initiative or not.
That policy came into force in 2002. Again, does the government, the agency responsible or the Treasury Board, ensure that these policies are respected? Establishing these policies is good, but if managers are not aware that they exist or do not enforce them, we are no further ahead.
Senator Chaput: If I understand correctly, it is not the role of Treasury Board to do follow up or be a watchdog? It develops the policies but then, who is the watchdog for these policies?
Ms. Adam: That is its role.
Senator Chaput: I was unsure.
Ms. Adam: It is the employer. Imagine Treasury Board as being in a corporation that establishes policies — and the government is a large corporation acting in the common good. Treasury Board is the employer, so it must ensure compliance with the policies of this large human corporation.
Senator Chaput: Does it do that and, if so, how?
Mr. Robichaud: We have analyzed the way that the human resources management agency carries out its oversight role, now that it has that responsibility. We have discovered that there are some shortcomings in terms of the follow-up that it does in the departments in implementing government policies. They have fewer links with crown corporations, a sector that is not as close to them as the departments that report directly to Treasury Board as the employer.
So there are some shortcomings in terms of the follow-up they do and the data that they have on the implementation of some aspects of the act in Crown corporations.
Ms. Adam: I will give you an example to clearly illustrate that. Let us look at Treasury Board, as it is the human resources agency; for example, it has an internal auditing role for the application of official languages policies, in the same way that the commissioner's office is the external auditor. We can draw a parallel with the Auditor General and the Treasury, with the comptroller who is responsible internally. There are only about two or three auditors at the agency. If you look at the Public Service Commission, it too has an audit role, and there are probably about 40 auditors to oversee the application of the Public Service Act. As for finance, Treasury Board talks about 800 auditors.
So, there are talk of three auditors for the agency, for the Public Service Commission, there are about 40 — but they are somewhat unique, because they have a sort of external mandate as well — and for the Financial Administration Act, there are now 800 internal auditors. That gives you an idea of the lack of oversight or the inability to oversee application.
Senator Chaput: One final question to help me clarify the situation. Since the human resources agency now has an internal audit function, if I understand correctly, at some point, will the agency that now has this responsibility produce reports that could be read by a committee like ours, as we do with yours?
Ms. Adam: They are required to produce a performance report, just like all other federal institutions. Normally, that information should be in their report.
Senator Tardif: Good evening, Madam Commissioner; I want to congratulate you and all of the members of your team for the excellent annual report, the report on the past 35 years, and this year's report. It was a wonderful initiative, especially the historic part on the past 35 years. Congratulations on this major initiative.
I wanted to talk a little bit about Service Canada. I saw your reaction in a press release given what was going to happen in Vancouver with the setting up of a Service Canada office that was to provide services in Mandarin, Punjabi, and possibly other languages. You were very concerned with what that would mean for respecting linguistic duality as such.
Can you share your concerns with us? How do you see this trend that is starting and in your view, what are the consequences on the health and well-being of linguistic duality here in Canada?
Ms. Adam: Of course. First of all, I am not opposed to offering multilingual services to meet the needs of a group of people. You know, my first calling is perhaps still very active, even as a clinical psychologist. In some parts of Ontario, services are provided in many languages because the government recognizes that if you are unable to communicate in either French or English, the obligation is there to meet the needs of our people.
You're talking about a segment of the population, newcomers, who arrive in the country and who cannot express themselves or make themselves understood. It is in itself a good initiative. My concern as commissioner is when an announcement is made that such services will be offered without specifying the exact nature of these services. I have some concerns, because in terms of official languages, after 35 years of official bilingualism, and I mentioned this earlier, we are far from having succeeded in providing equivalent levels of service in both of our official languages in many areas of the country.
It is like a juggler who is learning to juggle and cannot juggle two balls. Should he try five balls? My concerns is highlighting the importance for the government of recognizing its legislative and constitutional obligations and ensuring that it fulfils them and puts in place the necessary resources for doing so. So for me, it is a message to the government to fulfil and recognize its obligations given the uniqueness of the services that are truly mandatory and a responsibility to put in place the necessary means to provide equivalent levels of services in both official languages, and to not forget that that is the priority.
Senator Tardif: Is there currently a French Service Canada in Vancouver?
Ms. Adam: I do not know. I understand that of the 320 existing Service Canada offices, just over one hundred of them will be designated bilingual. I have not yet read nor heard whether there will be French Service Canada offices. If there are any, they will undoubtedly be in Quebec.
Senator Tardif: What about the majority of the 100 centres designated bilingual, would they only be in the 100 regions designated bilingual for the application of the Official Languages Act?
Ms. Adam: I have no further details on the topic. I know that there will be 100 that are designated bilingual in regions in western Canada.
Senator Tardif: There will be some in the unilingual regions.
Ms. Adam: It is under way. We have no more information than you, except that representatives of the commissioner in the region keep us informed. I know that the Office of the Commissioner is planning an audit of Service Canada in 2006-07.
It is important to do an audit quite early on — while giving them time to get set up — and if there are corrections or improvements to be made, they can make them sooner rather than later. Our action will be more preventive than remedial.
The Chairman: Senator Murray was also one of the first who worked on this issue.
Senator Murray: From the earliest days, we co-chaired the Joint Commission on Official Languages, but that was already 25 years ago.
Ms. Adam: We are pioneers.
Senator Murray: I imagine, Madam Commissioner, that you have closely studied the language provisions in the daycare agreements signed between the federal government and the eight or nine provinces. These are agreements in principle, of course. Personally, I was pleasantly surprised by the seriousness of the commitment. In English we say that the devil is in the details. The agreements in principle will be followed by more detailed agreements. Although the commitments vary according to the provinces, there is nothing surprising about that. This is Canada after all, and the conditions are not the same from one province to another. I am wondering if you have any comments or criticisms to make. Given that we are talking about eight or nine largely anglophone provinces, you might respond with your criticism or comments in the language of Shakespeare this time.
[English]
Ms. Adam: If we were to say anything about these agreements, it would be that it has to complement, because it was not a given when the negotiations started that a linguistic clause would be included in those agreements. In this case, I believe you discussed that also at all levels of the federal imperative, and I know the parliamentarians were active in different parts of the country and also here. The discussions brought results, because in fact I think all the agreements have a linguistic clause.
There may be, as you say, some duplication. How it will be implemented is another thing. You may have experienced the same thing as a group or individually, but we were told when the first round came that this was not done before, it was hard, et cetera, but it was shown in this case to be possible. Definitely, now it is to be seen how it will be implemented and it will be for us to oversee and study in the long run.
Senator Murray: It will take some money, but I have read them all; I have looked at them all. While they differ from one province to the other, the commitments are good. They are solid. I do not think I am telling tales out of school, but I had occasion on quite another matter to meet the people in the government of Manitoba the other day. The Minister of Finance was proud of the fact that he and his government insisted on the particular commitments that were made there. The glass is more than half full.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I would like to come back to the issue of bilingualism and our airlines, particularly Air Canada, now ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. I remember very well, because I was in the room when the questions were asked of the minister at the time; following its privatisation, Air Canada would maintain the language standards and would comply with the provisions, the spirit and letter of the Official Languages Act.
I made the following comment this summer: on August 2nd — which is my birthday — the day flight 548 crashed in Toronto, with all of the passengers, personnel and crew on board happily safe and sound. What language do you think the crew members were speaking on board the Air France flight? And why can we not have this from coast to coast in Canada?
In my opinion, bilingualism on these flights is not only an issue of respect as a Canadian; it is a very important safety issue for myself and for the people travelling with me.
What must we do in order to impress this idea on the people responsible for flight safety across Canada? Why are we always coming up against this issue?
According to your report, you intend to follow very closely what will happen with the legislation to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Why are we still at this point? You have said that you are a psychologist. Can you understand this kind of behaviour?
Ms. Adam: I am a psychologist, but you are a Leo born on August 2, 2000.
The Chairman: I am indeed a Leo.
Ms. Adam: Your question has two parts, that is the part about Air Canada and the part about air transportation safety which is much broader. Air Canada, the former federal institution, as you are aware, is subject to the Official Languages Act, whereas the other carriers are not. Your question is therefore broader, and in that sense, it is more a political one, as to whether or not the Canadian government should study the issue of safety in both official languages. I have no answer to the question today as to why it is not being done.
As far as Air Canada is concerned, we have a direct responsibility to oversee the implementation of this legislation and ensure that no one loses their language rights.
Tomorrow I am testifying before the House of Commons Transport Committee to give our assessment of the legislation that was referred to us for study. I would tell you that we do have certain concerns. The federal government has committed to not diminishing the language rights of employees and personnel, following the restructuring, therefore within the new ACE Aviation entity. However, we are not convinced that the proposed wording clears up all the ambiguity.
Tomorrow, I will set out the problems, the reasons for them, and what in our opinion could be changed or improved in order to ensure that the official languages obligations of ACE Aviation are much clearer.
The Chairman: I will move to another issue. Being very well informed, you no doubt know that the negotiations concerning education funding have taken an enormous amount of time to come to an end and that there remain a few small problems. Would you have any suggestions for the governments involved? You always have the federal government in your sights. Earlier on, you were talking about partnership. This is indeed what we are discussing, and soon, this will involve the education of our youth.
Would you have any comments, thoughts or recommendations on how to speed up negotiations in future?
Ms. Adam: As we have already mentioned, one of the great lessons of the last 35 years in the area of official languages is that consultation and cooperation between the different levels of government is required.
Governance in the case of an issue like education involves several stakeholders. We are aware of the difficulties within the very heart of the federal government in leading, directing and coordinating transversal issues with several institutions. One can only try and imagine the complexity or the issues at an intergovernmental level.
Heritage Canada has been behind for several years. This is not the first time it has happened. It has almost become the norm. If we look at the past, everyone will agree, particularly Senator Tardif, that the negotiations in the education sector have always been late and been postponed from year to year.
I think we have to re-examine the way in which the federal government deals with its provincial partners. As is well known in every domain, when the results are never achieved, we have to change the recipe, re-examine the ingredients and see what can be done to improve the outcome.
It is time for Heritage Canada and for the government to rethink their way of doing things in order to obtain better results. The time has come to go through this exercise and to take advantage of the fact that we do not have an imperative or immediate objective to meet. Four years will go by before the next round. It would therefore be appropriate that it do this soul-searching with its partners.
The Chairman: We will now move to the second round of questions.
Senator Comeau: I have two questions. First of all, I would like to come back to the points raised by my colleague Senator Murray on the issue of day cares. You indicated that you were very pleased and that provisions were implemented recognizing linguistic minorities in Canada in the various agreements between the provinces. Have you had the opportunity to review the agreement with Quebec?
Ms. Adam: I am sorry, but I was distracted and I missed part of your question.
Senator Comeau: My question concerns the provisions on official languages contained in the current agreements — let us leave aside the issue of day cares for the moment. Have you looked into the agreement with the province of Quebec on the subject of linguistic minorities?
Ms. Adam: It is a very different agreement.
Senator Comeau: Yes. If I understand correctly — and you may check this assertion — it contains no provision recognizing the linguistic minorities within Quebec. Without going into detail, is this because of the distinct society concept?
A bill was passed by the House of Commons a few years ago about the distinct society. Is that the reason for this omission?
Ms. Adam: You have asked a good question. The agreement with Quebec has just been signed. If I understand correctly, it is really an agreement in principle which more or less indicates that the federal government and the provinces have agreed that Quebec has by and large met the objectives contained in the various agreements with other provinces. It was more of a financial agreement. However, I have not studied it.
The office's mandate is security. So if the mandate is meant to be the criterion, the impact would be to impose obligations on the RCMP all along the Trans-Canada Highway and not just for certain segments where there is a strong demand. The issue is now before the Federal Court of Appeal.
Senator Murray: I do not know the case that you are referring to. Another aspect that complicates things is the fact that the RCMP plays the role of a provincial police force all along the Trans-Canada Highway. So it is a contract between the provincial and federal governments.
Ms. Tremblay: With respect to that, there is another decision involving New Brunswick. This is the case in New Brunswick and elsewhere, except in Ontario and Quebec.
Senator Murray: It is the officially bilingual province.
Ms. Tremblay: The court ruled that the RCMP, when it acts on behalf of the province of New Brunswick, which has more generous obligations with respect to service, should meet its obligations. The case is La Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick v. the RCMP, and Ms. Paulin is also an applicant.
The Chairman: Unfortunately, I have to put an end to this very interesting exchange and this too brief visit by the commissioner. I hope that we will have the opportunity to have you before the committee and hear from you before the end of your mandate. Thank you very much for your appearance here this afternoon.
Ms. Adam: Thank you, it was a pleasure.
(The committee suspended its sitting)
(The committee resumed its sitting)
The Chairman: We will now resume our meeting. I am pleased to welcome on behalf of the committee the Honourable Mauril Bélanger, Minister responsible for Official Languages and member of Parliament. He is very close to the people and he will speak to us very frankly.
If you will, please introduce the official accompanying you, Mr. Moisan.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger, P.C., M.P., Minister responsible for Official Languages: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I will give a short presentation. If it is too long, I am sure that you will stop me.
I would like to thank the members of the committee for inviting me to present the mid-term report on the Action Plan for Official Languages, which was tabled in the House of Commons on October 27. I believe that you have a copy. There is another document as well. This mid-term report reflects two and a half years of the Action Plan for Official Languages. Much work has been done on the results-based cross-government management and accountability framework, which is another document that you have received.
So I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on the work that you have done on Bill S-3 and the work that you may be doing this week on that bill. I would like to thank you in advance because it will really be a big step forward for official languages communities when that bill is passed.
With respect to the mid-term report, the Government of Canada made a commitment in the action plan to present a report on the plan's progress at the mid-point and at the end of the implementation period. The report that was tabled is not a formal evaluation. That will take place in 2007 to prepare for the action plan's renewal in 2008. It contains general information on the implementation and the tools developed for that purpose. We can come back later to this results-based cross-government management and accountability framework.
When you read the report, you will see that it also presents the communities' point of view; this is something new. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes (FCFA) and the Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN) were invited to give their comments about the action plan that was being implemented, and we have included them in the mid-term report.
Some of you attended the last ministerial conference on the Canadian francophonie in Regina, or perhaps you have heard about it. At that meeting, the provinces and territories asked that, in future, the minister responsible for official languages be the official co-chair of the federal-provincial-territorial session of the conference, which will be an opportunity to ensure greater cooperation between the Government of Canada and our colleagues who are responsible for francophone affairs in the provinces and territories.
The next slide shows the status of the implementation activities. It talks about broader consultations and better dialogue. I will go quickly because, as you know, at the ministerial consultations held on October 26 — and a number of you were there — the format was changed to allow for better discussion among the participants and ministers who attended.
We made sure to invite the chairmen of the Senate and House of Commons Official Languages Committees as well as the members of those committees. Thank you very much to all those who were able to attend.
You also know that officials of the Government of Canada meet with these same communities every spring. So there is a ministerial consultation in the fall and consultation by senior officials in the spring.
I think that this introduces some transparency and certainly opens up the communication channels between the Government of Canada and the communities.
We have been told that the communities have started to feel that they have access, that they can at least make their voices heard. They do not always get the results they want, but at least they feel that someone is listening to them.
I can tell you that, to encourage cooperation with the provinces and territories and ensure that they have access to the same information as we do, representatives of the ministerial conference on the Canadian francophonie and representatives from New Brunswick attended the October 26th consultation. So there is a great deal of cohesion between the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories.
One of the key initiatives of the plan that was entrusted to the Minister of Canadian Heritage is education. I can tell you that since the mid-term report was tabled, nine provinces and three territories have signed the framework. Only the province of Ontario has not yet signed, and there are intense discussions and negotiations underway.
This accounts for one third of the action plan, which is aimed at increasing from 68 per cent to 80 per cent the number of eligible students who will attend school in their language and doubling the proportion of bilingual high school graduates within 10 years.
Both of these are ten-year objectives.
The next slide shows the relationship between us and the communities. I mentioned earlier that we are trying to build better cooperation with the provinces and territories. The communities have a number of priorities that come under provincial and territorial jurisdiction. So a good relationship with our partners is important.
The federal and provincial governments often have very similar objectives. In many areas, the provincial and territorial governments are already involved with the mechanisms set up by my colleagues, particularly in health, justice and immigration.
We need to extend that cooperation and I would be pleased to explore ways of doing that with my federal colleagues in other departments and agencies. This is something that looks positive.
I can tell you that in this case, for example, agreements in principle in the area of early childhood development are a great success. I believe that eight such agreements have been signed. All the agreements except the one with Quebec include language clauses. The reason that the agreement with Quebec does not have this type of clause is that the laws governing the delivery of social services and day care services already contain the guarantees of service to the anglophone community.
This was not the case in the other provinces. We insisted on including language clauses and we succeeded.
This is another example of cooperation, since the agreements were signed voluntarily.
Let us move now to the horizontal framework. This is an opportunity to talk about it and if I have very technical questions, I will ask Mr. Moisan to help me.
The framework is quite complex, but it will become a very useful tool for the communities in ensuring follow-up in all the departments and agencies regarding their needs.
The framework applies to all federal institutions. It strengthens the community consultation mechanism and improves coordination of all official languages programs.
It is part of the official languages planning and accountability activities in all agencies and departments, and it is becoming a model of performance accountability in the Government of Canada. It will play a particularly important role until regulations are developed after Bill S-3 is passed, as I hope it will be.
Bill S-3 deals with regulations, but in the meantime the horizontal framework will be the horizontal management tool for the entire government. The communities themselves developed this horizontal management tool with the officials, and it enables them to identify objectives and measure whether these objectives set jointly by the communities and the departments are met.
The next slide gives an idea of the complexity of this framework and shows our role. Everyone has a role. The Prime Minister, Parliament, the House of Commons, the Senate, the Commissioner of Official Languages. There is a group of ministers and a group of deputy ministers that meet every month to discuss official languages issues. All of this will be coordinated with the departments and the public.
I will not go any further right now. If there are detailed questions, we will come back to the framework.
It is already beginning to be used by federal institutions. It will continue to evolve because that is the nature of things.
The first example of where the framework was used, and some of you will remember this, was when I announced in March, along with my colleague, Madam Bradshaw, the renewal of the envelope for the Réseau de développement économique et d'employabilité (RDEE) in the amount of $36 million over three years, or $12 million a year, which is now part of the action plan.
The communities are using the framework to plan for and use this envelope of money. The objectives are targeted to each case and each community. Approval is given by the department and the envelope will be used to implement the objectives.
Statistical data often come into play, which is why it is important — and this is becoming a priority for me — to have the 2006 post-census survey done. We are talking about a few million dollars and the funding is needed, and this is something that I am working on. The post-census survey will probably become the statistical basis for measuring the progress and developments in the coming years.
For the next two years, we need to continue working together with the communities, our federal partners and the provinces and territories.
We have managed to increase the action plan by millions of dollars. At the beginning, the action plan was set at $751 million, since the RDEE had been added. Last week, we had confirmation that two envelopes were being extended by one year, and we hope that they will be extended again before the overall plan is renewed. There is an envelope for health, for front-line care or community care, if you like, and the other is for training of public servants.
In both cases, the envelope was to expire in March 2006 and will be extended by one year. That makes $22 million in all. If we add the $36 million already added to the RDEE, the action plan represents a five-year investment of more than $810 million.
As you can see in Appendix 3 of the mid-term report, the investments are more or less on target as the amounts were increased from year to year. In the first two years, we expected the various departments and agencies to set up structures and mechanisms for ``delivering the goods''; this has now been done just about everywhere. The pace of investment will be increased to reach $810 million within three year's time, in other words, by 2008.
We still need to prepare the action plan follow-up. Here I am not talking only about the investments, but the legal aspect as well. Hence the importance of Bill S-3. Tomorrow I know that the commissioner will be appearing before the Transport Committee to discuss Bill C-47, the Air Canada Act. We need to look into the legal, legislative and regulatory framework.
There is also the whole issue cooperation with the provinces to ensure that it works. There is the matter of court follow-up and legal rulings; I am positive that you will have questions to ask on these issues. Finally, there is the issue of renewing the action plan and I will conclude on this point.
We have already started giving thought to this issue. During our consultations with communities, the people clearly wanted the plan to be renewed but they wanted some additions, they wanted to cover, for example, the issue of arts and culture, youth, seniors, and even some mention was made about the international scene. These are matters that are being considered and will be examined over the next two years.
Finally, I am working on some projects, you are aware of some of them, they may pertain to Prince Edward Island where a school is rapidly becoming necessary (Prince-Ouest), or it may concern Quebec...
[English]
There is a school, Dollard-des-Ormeaux in Quebec City, where a decision has to occur rapidly because the anglophone population that uses that school, many of them the children of defence personnel at Valcartier, would have to take three buses and spend an hour and a half each morning and evening on city buses to go to school, so there is a necessity to move on that.
[Translation]
The St. Thomas Health Centre in Edmonton and the Boréal College Campus project in Timmins are both very active files that we would need to complete properly, certainly by next Monday.
The Chairman: Thank you, Minister Bélanger for this very quick overview. As I said, your presence is most appreciated given the circumstances.
I would like to ask the first question. I faithfully visit the Radio-Canada website every morning to see what is going on in the Canadian francophonie and I believe that Radio-Canada should be congratulated for this type of media service. We can find out almost instantaneously what is going on from Newfoundland to British Columbia amongst our minority francophone communities. Quite often this information is available for Quebec as well.
You announced that Ottawa would be extending two programs arising from the official languages action plan until 2007. Here I am referring to the health services in French program and the bilingual public servants program. I would like you to talk about the bilingual public servants: why has this program been extended, what is the challenge, the problem and is this going to be the last time that it will be extended?
Mr. Bélanger: What happened is that there was a waiting list of federal public servants who wanted to take language courses in order to meet the requirements of the position they were in. Up until a year ago, there were maybe 20 public servants per month who requested language training. According to the action plan, a significant amount of money was spent over the first three years to eliminate the waiting list. So there was to be a rotation, but no longer a waiting list. However, further to a government decision, there was a reaction that led to a five-fold increase in the number of requests made per month. We received 100 rather than 20 requests per month from public servants who wanted to take courses when the government said that it would no longer be extending the deadline for senior public servants, the EX5s, EX4s, EX3s, to meet and abide by their position requirements. Perhaps we should have foreseen their reaction but we did not, and hence there was a much greater demand. So instead of reducing the waiting lists, we increased them.
As we had planned to offer this program for only three years, we went to the government authorities in order to have it continued on a year-by-year basis; that is how we administer ``sunset'' programs. We renew them for one year at a time only. That is the reason why we try to have the program renewed and that is why cabinet agreed.
The Chairman: Can sunset programs at times last a long time?
Mr. Bélanger: Sometimes. But as I told you, and I make no bones about it, I would like to see it renewed one more time at least in the hope that we will really eliminate the waiting list for public servants who wish to learn another official language.
The Chairman: I would like to deal with another aspect of your responsibilities. You play the role of coordinator within the federal organization. Are you very involved with the provinces?
Mr. Bélanger: Yes.
The Chairman: Very involved?
Mr. Bélanger: Yes.
The Chairman: I will tell you why I have asked you this question. Over the past few years, I have noted that the francophone community in the Northwest Territories has had tremendous difficulty in having its rights recognized. Obviously, there is an issue as we speak that we do not need to raise, although you can make reference to it if you wish, but are there any other cases in Canada where minority rights have met with resistance? Wonderful progress has been achieved, and this must be mentioned, but this case in particular has always surprised me. I am trying to understand it, explain it, but it is not easy. Nobody likes to go to court.
Mr. Bélanger: People who find themselves going to court, who participate directly in this recourse, sometimes find that this is the best way to reach a goal. That must be respected.
As far as the territories are concerned, the Official Languages Act is not as solid there as it is elsewhere. The scope of the Official Languages Act in the Territories is not the same as it is for the provinces or communities living in the provinces. Despite that, the government does have a desire to move forward. I hesitate to mention this, but I will do so all the same. This pertains to the entire issue of health. The government is perfectly aware of the requirements and is working actively to resolve this issue in a constructive fashion. I can go no further than that.
The Chairman: You have not necessarily opened up Pandora's box, but you are telling us that there is a problem, the obligation of the Northwest Territories to abide by the Official Languages Act. This comes under our jurisdiction in the federal government, does it not? We can amend the act. Do we need to proceed constitutionally in order to change things or is there some other way that we can do this, for example by order in council, to ensure that the linguistic minority in this territory benefits from the same advantages enjoyed by the minority in provinces throughout Canada?
Mr. Bélanger: We can always introduce an amendment. Parliament is sovereign with respect to the legislation it adopts, subject to court challenges to ascertain whether or not the legislation is ultra vires. For the time being, the government is not planning to review the Official Languages Act. We could plan such a review in the next Parliament. However, for the time being, such a review has not been put on the Order Paper. This does not prevent us from being very aware of the situation.
I would point out that the government is currently working on drafting a strategy for the North. In preparing this strategy, for which we have earmarked money, the government closely consulted the linguistic communities, including the francophone community, in order to ensure its involvement in any strategy that will finally be implemented. The same holds true for the negotiations currently underway with the provinces and territories regarding child care and other things. Every time we discuss matters with provincial and territorial government institutions, I ensure that the linguistic communities are included and respected.
You alluded to a file that is before the courts. I also referred to this case, because I hope that we will be able to find an out-of-court solution. Nevertheless, if we do not manage to do this, the courts will decide.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Minister, and for your commitment to promote the official languages file and linguistic duality.
According to the annual report of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the action plan, which should be uniting the efforts of the various federal institutions in order to revitalize linguistic duality, is suffering from a lack of cohesion and coordination. You also indicated that the Prime Minister and cabinet had a significant role to play in the mid-term report as regards horizontal management and accountability. Several stakeholders from the field have pointed out that the role of the Office of the Privy Council is not spelled out in the Official Languages Act and that it should be.
Do you believe that the coordination and horizontality function carried out by the Office of the Privy Council should be spelled out in the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Bélanger: You have caught me a little bit off guard. This is an issue that the government will eventually have to answer to because it is being asked the question more and more frequently. If there is to be a review of the Official Languages Act in the relatively near future, this is a question that will have to be dealt with.
Senator Tardif: Would that make the job easier?
Mr. Bélanger: Depending on how it is organized, yes. Nevertheless, if this aspect is poorly organized, the job could be made more cumbersome.
At one point, we were perhaps right to call for a greater cohesion. However, the mandate of the Minister responsible for Official Languages was established and this individual has been in position for some time now. Consequently, I dare hope that there is now greater cohesion. Moreover, priorities have been set and we work based on these priorities.
This year, the priorities established by the government were Bill S-3 and the mid-term report to ensure that the plan was operating properly. Of course the government had other priorities and I feel that, together, we will manage to attain them.
If we can continue setting priorities further to consultations with parliamentarians, communities, territories and provinces, then this cohesion will exist.
At the provincial level, as the co-chair of the Annual Meeting of Ministers Responsible for Francophone Affairs, I can tell you that we will continue to provide this cohesion. We also have a committee of ministers that I can use. I call this committee together about once a month. We set an agenda which also leads to this cohesion. Nevertheless, it does happen that we may not make as much progress as we would have liked in certain instances where other factors have had to be taken into account. For example, in education, we still have not managed to strike an agreement with Ontario, which is unfortunate. Without pointing any fingers, we will have to manage to do this.
As long as we are able to work on a priority by priority basis, the cohesion will become more obvious. Will there be greater cohesion? I cannot answer that question.
The Chairman: I would like some clarification. You just said that Bill S-3 was a government priority?
Mr. Bélanger: Yes.
The Chairman: This bill was nevertheless a Senate public bill.
Mr. Bélanger: Our priority was to support it and to ensure that it passed. As a government, we had some concerns and we had to make some amendments.
Senator Chaput: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for the hard and relentless work that you have been doing ever since you were given this responsibility. Despite the fact that you have often been the subject of criticism, your efforts are greatly appreciated and we thank you.
You spoke of some of the real progress that has been made. As we look at the action plan, the education, the objectives and the invested funds, communication and agreements reached with communities, and the RDÉEs in the economic sector, the results are excellent. Now, in the mini-budget, there is mention of two envelopes that were renewed in the health sector and for training public servants. All this helps to develop the use of French in communities and services.
Here is my question. In a mini-budget like this one, who decided to target the two envelopes dealing with health and training? You can no doubt guess what I am driving at.
The Canada-Community agreements, that seek to impact people in their environments, were signed for one year and must be renewed in March 2006. The ones dealing with health and the training of public servants should be renewed in March 2006 and were mentioned in the mini-budget. However, the Canada-Community agreements were not mentioned. The communities are getting very nervous again. But you may not be able to answer my question.
Mr. Bélanger: I can answer it. Let me say that no announcement regarding the continuation of these two envelopes was included in the fiscal statement or update; this was done separately. When we consulted the communities last October, I clearly stated that the new envelopes would be included within a budget from now on. It remains to be seen whether or not there will be a budget in February. Nonetheless, there will be a budget for fiscal year 2006-07, and I hope that it will contain other envelopes that will reflect the wishes of the communities as they were clearly expressed during the consultations.
The action plan as such involves more work for the communities. Now they have to work with several departments and not just one. This is a positive development, because it makes the departments accountable. However, it entails more work and more pressure. The communities have clearly stated this need. To reassure them, the government said that it understands and hopes to solve the problem in a future budget.
Sunset programs are up for review at this time of year to determine whether they will be renewed. These are the only two and they were both renewed, but separately from the fiscal statement.
Senator Chaput: We could not expect it to be mentioned in a mini-budget like the one we just received. Isn't this what was intended? I received some calls today.
Mr. Bélanger: I agree that it might have been mentioned, but not the reductions, because they are dealt with differently through the ways and means process. All the measures in the fiscal statement must nonetheless be adopted by Parliament and also included in a budget. Unless they can be included in the current envelope, which is not the case.
Senator Comeau: My questions are not related to each other. The last time you appeared before the committee, I asked you a question regarding the public service's school for language training. Would it not be possible for schools that provide second-language training to give these courses to public servants instead of creating a new school for the public service? Have you had an opportunity to look into this?
Mr. Bélanger: No, not in the detail that you would require. All I can say is that the public service school is now negotiating with several private agencies, I think there are six, so that public servants can be trained and in order to reduce a waiting list that is getting longer and not shorter.
Senator Comeau: This did not answer my question. Have you looked into, considered or thought of using other specialized language schools instead of creating a new school for the public service?
Mr. Bélanger: I remember your question very well, and my answer is not negative, but positive. I met the president of the Public Service Commission regarding this as well as the people involved with the school to see whether they had reached any agreements with existing post-secondary learning institutions. The answer is yes, they have reached some agreements. I asked them specifically to deal with Sainte-Anne among others. I am awaiting the Public Service Commission's reply. Yes, they have concluded agreements, but I feel that it was not planned. I do not have any authority to impose anything. This is a request. They told me that they would discuss this and get back to us.
Senator Comeau: We would not want to give the false impression that the Canadian public ranks either higher or lower than private industry. The Canadian public does count. In fact, what is good for the Canadian public should also be good for Canada's public service. Neither more nor less.
My second question is about Nova Scotia which, for several years, has not made any great progress in offering services to language minorities. For some years now, we have witnessed a change in the attitude of the Nova Scotia legislators and its population. Now we are victims of our own success in Nova Scotia. For several years, there was no progress for Nova Scotian francophones. There were delays in offering services to Nova Scotians. Now that there is an open door and as we are reviewing past agreements, we should be able to make some progress with regard to the funds allocated proportionately to other provinces. Does the federal government intend to get provinces like Nova Scotia to catch up? I could even mention Prince Edward Island.
Mr. Bélanger: I cannot tell you about Prince Edward Island, but I can tell you about Nova Scotia. The 400th anniversary of the Francophonie in North America and the third Congrès mondial acadien both occurred at the same time, and the Nova Scotian legislature adopted legislation regarding services for the Acadian population. By the way, I congratulated Minister Chris d'Entremont who dealt with this file. Since then, we have met and discussed the way in which the Canadian government and Heritage Canada in particular — because that is where the agreements are reached — could help them by implementing their action plan which is largely modelled on ours. As far as I know, the discussions are moving ahead and I have not been told otherwise. When I am not told that there is trouble, it means that things are going well. I should not presume this, but I know that Minister d'Entremont has held several talks and I do not know whether anything has developed recently. I think that they feel confident that they will get the help they need to advance.
Senator Comeau: During my recent trip to Nova Scotia, I felt that if the federal government was ready to increase the funding, and here I mean the 50/50 formula, I think that the province would be more receptive. The federal level is saying that this is enough for now. This is what I felt after meeting the public servants and the minister.
At the beginning of your presentation, you mentioned agreements for early childhood and you went very quickly through the issues of Quebec and agreements with Quebec. Could you repeat that for me please, because I did not understand.
Mr. Bélanger: Among the eight currently signed agreements, seven have slightly varying linguistic clauses. These linguistic clauses specify that provinces must report either on the number of venues for services or the number of places within the services; there are also clauses that deal with the need for consultation, and so forth.
I think that in every case the communities showed their satisfaction with linguistic matters. The only agreement where there is no satisfaction is the one with Quebec, simply because their legislation on social services and child care centres already guarantees access to these services for the minority linguistic community, the anglophone community of Quebec, which was not the case in other provinces.
Senator Comeau: I understand; I think that I have finished with my questions.
[English]
Senator Murray: I am an Ontario senator but I was born in Nova Scotia. I take some interest in these matters. When we ran into each other on November 11, I mentioned this committee had been in Nova Scotia and I would like to follow-up on what Senator Comeau said.
It is a revelation to go there and you could cite all kinds of statistic and come away pessimistic. They are down to four per cent, or less, of the population and there has been, in the past, a rate of assimilation that is serious. I think the figure is 80 per cent of the ayants droit who present themselves at the schools have inadequate French. That is a simple way to put it. On the other side, however, we found there was a will not just to survive, but to flourish as a community. More than that, they have certain infrastructure now. We know the history that there are 19 schools going from kindergarten to grade 12. There is the Collège de L'Acadie with five campuses in the province where people can obtain further education. There is L'Université Sainte-Anne, Radio-Canada, and so on. I come away believing that there is reason for hope and a positive approach here.
Most important now, as Senator Comeau mentioned, the Government of Nova Scotia has come forward with legislation and a plan that they put before us. What was impressive to me about the plan was not so much that it was full of grand and noble ideals, although I suppose it was, but that it was doable, with practical plans and objectives that they can reach.
I hope that the federal government, which has done a lot in this field and a lot for the linguistic minorities, will be a real partner here. Money is always welcome, but when you think of it, over 35 years, as the commissioner reminded us earlier, we have built up in both the federal sphere and in other provinces, a body of knowledge, history, expertise and all the rest of it. If you and your advisers get into this with a province such as Nova Scotia, you can help them implement it. If, in one area or another they are, perhaps, moving more slowly then they would like to, you can give technical assistance; in other areas encouragement about what was done elsewhere would be helpful. I know money is important, but the way to make this happen is to have a real working partnership, always respecting each other's jurisdiction, as we say. Given that the foundation is there, five or 10 years from now it might be a success story.
I have read all the early childhood agreements in principle. Some are stronger than others, but they are all good. I was agreeably surprised when I read them. After the agreement in principle, they get down to the nitty-gritty — money and all that sort of thing. It will take some monitoring to ensure that it works out the way we hope it works out.
They have made a good start. Some of them are proud of it. I mentioned to the committee earlier that, on a different topic, I had occasion to speak with Manitoba the other day. The provincial Minister of Finance took the trouble to point out what they had done. He said, ``We insisted on this. This is what is there in minority language.'' As I observed to the commissioner when she was here, the glass is half full and maybe a little more in many respects. That is really not a question. It is a comment to send you on your way in these dark days.
Mr. Bélanger: I thank you for that. Cooperation is truly the situation in Nova Scotia now. What triggered it that summer, apart from the goodwill of people, was an influx of tourists from everywhere. There was great pride in the province. It lead quickly to the act, and a plan. We have reason to be optimistic. We have enough reason to be pessimistic in the world, but we have now, as you have mentioned, 19 schools. There is also a network for health and access to the services in French.
I know that Nova Scotia is now talking about immigration. We signed an agreement today with Ontario that specifically includes an obligation to consult with the Association of Francophone Municipalities of Ontario, AFMO. We also have, as you said, the agreement on daycare. There is also an organization of lawyers. There is progress on that side. Le Réseau de développement économique et d'employabilité, RDEE in Nova Scotia. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, has been cited as an organization that is aware of its responsibilities in terms of official languages. We are now in the process of renegotiating manpower agreements. The Government of Canada had been criticized, and rightly so in the past, vis-à-vis the agreements we signed with provinces on labour. We are now into the renegotiation phase of some agreements and making sure there are linguistic clauses. Yes, there is money, but there is money flowing from existing programs and then there is overall additional help. In this case, the Government of Canada is prepared to work on both fronts.
The framework that we set up should help to reach targets. It is starting at a lower bar than in other provinces, but that does not mean progress cannot be made. I have to be optimistic in this business; otherwise, there is no point.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Minister, must you still leave at 6:30 p.m.?
Mr. Bélanger: No.
The Chairman: Are you waiting for the sound of the bells?
Mr. Bélanger: Can we hear them from here?
The Chairman: Yes, if you open the door.
Mr. Bélanger: I think that someone will certainly come to tell me.
The Chairman: All right.
Senator Tardif: I think that this management framework for the official languages program is really an excellent beginning. There are clear and precise performance indicators, and the framework really defines the target. It is excellent. If all the departments and commissions do as well, we should move ahead quite well.
But I am thinking, for instance, of the Canadian Tourism Commission, which did not get a good report from the Official Languages Commissioner regarding its will to go ahead with an action plan for official languages or regarding the services it provides to the public. We know that there was a change and that they moved.
Can such a framework, with its positive impact, be imposed? What pressure can we bring to bear to make sure that they carry out their commitments by introducing such a framework?
Mr. Bélanger: There are two things. With regard to the Canadian Tourism Commission, this also involved the issue of language of work. I think that when they decided to move, the awareness of the government apparatus was raised and they realized that there was a gap. The current policy maintains the existing rights of the employees.
Those who chose to move will keep their right to work in either French or English until the time when the government has finished reviewing and creating a policy for the headquarters of a Canadian government agency with regard to language of work.
With regard to an action plan, I think that we should note the importance of Bill S-3 that the Senate sent to the House, and that the government now supports, and that is now back in the Senate. This bill will make it compulsory for everyone to take active measures. This will require some planning. All the departments and all the agencies without exception, one year after Bill S-3 has received royal assent, if and when it receives it, will have to do this work. The Canadian Tourism Commission will not be exempted.
[English]
Senator Buchanan: During the committee's travels to Nova Scotia, I found a common thread running through most of the francophone community. I was pleased to see the kinds of organizations that many communities have to promote, develop and further French language and culture in their education system, health facilities and community organizations. Perhaps I should not say this too roughly but bureaucracy is killing many of them because it is stifling them.
We heard that many community organizations find the paperwork coming from Halifax overwhelming. Some of these communities are isolated and do not have the funding or the organization to do that amount of paperwork for the bureaucracy that is pushed on them. One organization in Cheticamp said it had given up applying for certain programs because it could not fund the consultants required to prepare business plans and the preparation for the community organization for cultural programs. The community organizations receive little or no help from the relevant federal government department to help them. It seemed to me that the bureaucracy was beginning to stifle some of these communities, which might result in killing some of the great opportunities we might have there. We found evidence of that in almost every organization we met with. The organizations are anxious to stop the slow assimilation into the anglophone communities of these areas.
In Nova Scotia over the years, we have seen areas such as Cheticamp, Chezzetcook and other vibrant Acadian communities on the eastern shore disappear. They are gone. Perhaps 1 per cent or 2 per cent of the population, who are francophones, can speak French or have anything to do with the French culture anymore.
Senator Comeau: If I may interject, an area like Chezzetcook has lost most of its French language but the children from that area would be ayants droit. There is no move by anyone to recoup those people. Neither the provincial nor the federal governments is doing anything about that. Chezzetcook should be looked at by the federal government.
Senator Buchanan: The danger is that once you begin, you will find that areas such as Petit-de-Gras, Louisdale L'Ardoise and Cheticamp are slowly but surely losing their sense of being Acadian francophones and developing their culture with the young people. The young people are leaving the area but the ones who stay are not becoming part of the French milieu.
I asked one lady in Cheticamp what her biggest problem was with her organization and she replied that it was the bureaucracy in Sydney. I am not condemning the people that work in the offices in Sydney but I have found over the years in government that people are overwhelmed by paperwork that was unnecessary, for the most part, and costly.
Mr. Bélanger: I cannot disagree with you entirely because I have heard it elsewhere as well, not only about Nova Scotia. This is somewhat of a pendulum swing that will flow from great cries of boondoggles that may or may not be as such. When that happens, there is a natural tendency to tighten up. We are into an era of control and duplications.
Senator Murray: We have 300 new auditors.
Mr. Bélanger: Yes, we are into that. There might be other ways to mitigate some of that. I am speculating because I do not have the management of any programs. I have heard that communities have complained because they have to reinvent themselves every one or two years to tie themselves to a particular project. They are project-driven as opposed to being operational. Perhaps we could look more at multi-year operational funding with some reporting to maintain accountability and transparency. Perhaps management of the Canada-Community Agreements could be lightened a bit, but we are not there yet. The pendulum is swinging one particular way. Comments such as yours and others will have to force the pendulum back a bit toward the middle but we are not there yet.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Would the senators please stay for a moment. First let me express our appreciation to the minister and Mr. Moisan for having appeared under the circumstances.
Honourable senators, before you leave, let me ask you to keep the draft report with you and bring it to the next sitting. I need a motion in order to append the commissioner's speaking notes to today's transcript.
The motion has been made. Is there any objection? It is carried.
The committee is adjourned.