LANG Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, March 17, 2003

¹

1535

The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.))

Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs)

¹

1540

¹

1545

¹

1550

¹

1555

º

1600

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance)

º

1605

Mr. Stéphane Dion

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Stéphane Dion

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)

Mr. Stéphane Dion

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Stéphane Dion

º

1610

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Stéphane Dion

º

1615

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

Mr. Stéphane Dion

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Stéphane Dion

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Stéphane Dion

The Chair

º

1620

Mr. Stéphane Dion

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Stéphane Dion

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Stéphane Dion

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Stéphane Dion

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Stéphane Dion

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Stéphane Dion

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)

º

1625

Mr. Stéphane Dion

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Stéphane Dion

Mr. Robert Asselin (Special Advisor, Official Languages, Privy Council Office and Department of Intergovernmental Affairs)

º

1630

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

Mr. Stéphane Dion

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Stéphane Dion

º

1635

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault)

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.)

Mr. Stéphane Dion

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Dion

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

º

1640

Mr. Stéphane Dion

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Mr. Stéphane Dion

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.)

Mr. Stéphane Dion

º

1645

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Stéphane Dion

º

1650

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Stéphane Dion

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Stéphane Dion

º

1655

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Stéphane Dion

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

»

1700

Mr. Stéphane Dion

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Stéphane Dion

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Stéphane Dion

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Dion

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Dion

»

1705

The Chair

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

---

NUMBER 014

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, March 17, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this meeting with Minister Dion to discuss the renewal plan for Canada's linguistic duality.

    I have some information for you. It appears that the entire e-mail system on the Hill is down and that nothing is working today. So the briefing notes that our researcher had prepared could not be distributed, except somewhat late today, by fax, for those who received them that way. So in this case, we will excuse our researcher and blame the House. We always need to find someone to blame. So it is not our fault. We apologize, but at any rate, the plan, which was released last week, was distributed to all members' offices last Thursday or Friday I believe.

    Having said that, Mr. Minister, we welcome you. You could perhaps introduce the people with you. After your presentation, as is customary, we will move on to a question and answer period. You have the floor.

    Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am accompanied today by my Executive Assistant, Mr. Geoffroi Montpetit; my Special Advisor, Official Languages, Mr. Robert Asselin; Ms. Hélène Gosselin, Deputy Secretary, Intergovernmental Policy and Research at the Privy Council Office; Ms. Anne Scotton, Director General of Official Languages at the Privy Council Office. Some other people accompanying me are sitting at the back, including Mr. Michael O'Keefe, Senior Advisor in the Official Languages Directorate at the Privy Council Office.

[English]

    Since I have facing me the most knowledgeable members of Parliament regarding official languages, I will assume, and I'm sure it's the case, that you are well aware of the content of the action plan, “The Next Act: New Momentum for Canada's Linguistic Duality”, and certainly aware of how much this action plan was requested by not only the communities but a large number of Canadians who are queueing to have the capacity to enjoy the different services of the Government of Canada, with the provincial governments, that are given to help Canadians be more in touch with their two official languages. What I may do, though, just to bring it back to our memories, is go through the main aspects of the action plan.

[Translation]

    In short, if I truly want to summarize the essential aspects, as I already mentioned some time ago and with the agreement of the stakeholders I consulted, both on this committee and in Parliament, as well as among experts, communities, associations and my provincial counterparts, the Government of Canada has set three main objectives, three axes for the development this Action Plan for official languages, the first being education, the second being community development, and third being bilingualism in the public service. So to launch the discussion, I can perhaps quickly describe what you will find in the document.

[English]

    The first point was an accountability framework. Because it's not only a matter of additional money, it's also what we are doing with it, and how we may be accountable for it. It was requested by the communities very strongly. And there was a sense among ourselves, within the government, that although all departments were working well in their own responsibilities, there was a lack of coordination between departments, and we needed to improve our capacity to work together.

[Translation]

    Annex A deals with the accountability framework. It is a public document to which everyone can refer.

    Chapter 2 contains the description of this framework, and that is what I am now going to quickly summarize.

    First of all, the accountability framework establishes the main responsibilities for official languages incumbent on each federal institution. The document is not exhaustive, but does cover all essential aspects. It is important to have this kind of checklist, if I may call it that, that can be used to find out what each institution is required to do.

    Moreover, the accountability framework adds five new responsibilities. The first one is described in paragraph 7 of the accountability framework which is on page 64 of the English version and which reads as follows:

7. Henceforth, all federal institutions are required to analyze the impact of proposals contained in memoranda to Cabinet on the language rights of Canadians and federal public servants.

    Not a single document will be sent to Cabinet without the issue of official languages having been studied and our having determined that the aspect in question has been studied. It is my understanding that there is even a minister who will be responsible for ensuring that this is done and that his responsibilities have been renewed. I thank the Prime Minister for that.

    The second addition is paragraph 17, which is at the start of the section entitled “Enforcement Provisions Applicable to All Federal Institutions”. It reads as follows:

17. Every federal institution, as part of its strategic planning, implementing its mandate and policy and program development process, will need to:

That is followed by a list of things that each federal institution will have to do to ensure that the official languages dimension has been taken into account.

    This approach revolves around consulting affected publics as required, especially representatives of official language minority communities, in connection with the development or implementation of policies or programs.

    Paragraphs 31 to 44 are the third addition. They make official or formalize the horizontal coordination that is so essential. The minister responsible for official languages has a new mandate in addition to the one he received from the Prime Minister to ensure the action plan is implemented. He must coordinate the implementation of the action plan and will make up a kind of triumvirate or rather a quatrumvirate with the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Heritage and the Minister of Justice, to which other ministers could be added according to the area that will be affected by government action. They will be supported by a committee of deputy ministers, with increased responsibilities, and an intergovernmental affairs secretariat that will no longer depend on ad hoc funding for its intergovernmental affairs division, and which will therefore be able to do this work on a permanent basis that is recognized in the budget. This reinforced coordination goes hand in hand with added consultation, including the obligation to consult communities on a formal basis once a year, in addition to the usual consultations.

    The fourth addition is paragraph 44, which is on page 72:

44. In that context, the Justice Department's Official Languages Law Group will identify files with a potential impact on the government's constitutional and legal obligations on official languages, monitor potentially controversial files, ensure that policies, programs, initiatives and government documents are compliant with the Official Languages Act and the Constitution, and review government documents from the viewpoint of risk management and legal implications.

    That is something that many participants asked for, as did the Department of Justice itself, which wanted to have this broader role, since it must now identify the legal implications of any initiative. It will not simply verify after the fact if there was compliance with the act; it will now go to the source of all decisions to ensure that throughout the process, the Government of Canada is honouring its obligations in terms of official languages.

    The fifth and final addition contained in the accountability framework, and this is an equally important addition, is that there will now be coordination in terms of the evaluation of the official languages policy, including the evaluation of the action plan. Each department will remain responsible for evaluating its own policies, but in addition, this evaluation will be coordinated, and this will be done namely by the minister responsible for the coordination of official languages.

¹  (1540)  

    That describes the accountability framework.

¹  (1545)  

    The first development axis is education. Quite obviously, language is largely transmitted by schools and everything that's around them. Without the action plan, the education budget for the next five years would have been $929 million. The action plan adds another $381.5 million. This increase will represent 48% during the last year of the plan. Like any good negotiator, I made sure that it would be a little higher during the last year, so that the last year would become the recurring year the following year. Therefore, during the last year, there will be 48% more than there would have been without the plan.

    Thus, there will be two new funds, one for minority-language education to the tune of $209 million and the other for second language instruction for $137 million. Furthermore $35.3 million will be added to two programs, one for Summer language bursaries and the other for the language monitor program. Therefore, there will be more young people who will have an opportunity to have an educational experience in the other official language. The number of monitors will be increased from 889 to 1,000 a year and the number of bursary students will climb from 8,000 to 10,000 a year. In addition, they will be better paid.

    With regard to the objectives, well there are two essential ones. First of all, in the case of those who are entitled to French-language schools outside Quebec, we seek to increase the percentage of those who attend French schools from 68% to 80% within 10 years.

    With regard to the second language,

[English]

the aim is to make sure that one graduate student out of two will be able to handle--not to be fully bilingual, but to handle--the two official languages in 10 years from now. It's about 24% today, and the aim is to increase it to 50% by 10 years.

[Translation]

    To achieve this, the first objective will be better quality of teaching thanks to the targeted funds that Ms. Copps will negotiate with our provincial counterparts, in order to respect provincial jurisdiction. For example, for francophones outside the province of Quebec, we have to ensure that the quality of education is comparable to that received by the English majority. That's the primary objective.

    The second objective is to have more teachers and to help with recruitment, teacher education and training.

    The third objective deals with day care and kindergartens. We have to start as early as possible. If we do things right from the outset, fewer parents will go to English-language day care because there is no French-language day care or kindergarten near their homes. Once their children are in the English system, it is very difficult to convince them to send them to French school. If we give them the opportunity to send their children to French-language kindergartens and day care centres from a very early age, that could help a great deal.

    The fourth objective is to make sure that there are more school-based community and cultural centres and to help existing ones. I'm referring here to community and cultural centres that gravitate around educational establishments. In fact, we would like to see schools become not only teaching places, but also places where the community comes together. In places where this has worked, it has always done very well. So we must ensure that it happens more often and that it receives better funding.

    The fifth objective concerns post-secondary education. Many young people drop out at the high-school level because they say that in any event, when they go to university, it will be in English.

[English]

    Many students in immersion schools stop immersion by the middle of secondary school because they think it will be in English at university anyway, and they need to be ready.

[Translation]

    We will therefore develop more opportunities for francophone and bilingual colleges, for College Saint-Boniface, for example. In addition, in places where there is no equivalent to the Faculté Saint-Jean, we'll determine whether it is possible to develop programs in partnership with anglophone universities.

[English]

    For instance--and I don't want to say it's already in the pocket, because it's to be negotiated between the provincial government and Heritage Canada--Simon Fraser has a project of this kind.

[Translation]

    As you can see, there will be continuity. We will try to strengthen preschool, to improve the quality of education at the elementary and secondary levels and then maintain this at the university level, both for francophones and anglophones who want the opportunity to continue their studies in French, at least in part.

[English]

    We have a lot of English-speaking students in French immersion schools who are bilingual at 18 or 19 years old but who are not really bilingual any more at 25 years old. We need to find a way to help them keep their French alive.

[Translation]

    Lastly, there's teleEducation. We are seeking to develop more methods for teleEducation in places that are very far from major centres and where there are few students.

[English]

    For English-speaking Quebeckers, it will be the same thing. In addition, parents have asked us to help their children learn better French. They want their children to stay in the province, so for them it's a priority that French language teaching must be better. We will work with the Government of Quebec toward this goal.

    They have insisted on distance education in areas where the number of kids is very low, and they want to experience more community school centres, like the ones you have so much in French-speaking communities outside Quebec. We know it's working well, so we will see, with the provincial government, if it's possible to increase the community school centres for English-speaking Quebeckers.

¹  (1550)  

[Translation]

    That covers education.

    I must tell you that I also believe in something very important in the field of education, and that's research on all these issues. The government invests $380 million in close cooperation with expertise in the provinces, teachers, principals and parents, but researchers have a great deal to tell us. In Canada, research in the field of language learning is one of the best in the world. But we have a feeling that we have to help those coming up through the ranks, because some of these highly renowned teachers are preparing to retire and taking on fewer students. We therefore have to make sure they are replaced. I looked into this, for example, in the area of research on federalism.

    The SSHRC has developed a program to make sure that there are new up and comers in this field, and I want the same thing to happen in the field of language learning to make sure that Canada remains in the vanguard in that field as well. There was new funding in the last budget and I've contacted the SSHRC to find out what it would be possible to do. I felt that they were very enthusiastic about this idea. I get the impression that it will be possible to do certain things in terms of research, things that were not announced in the action plan but that will be an important complement to it.

    The second axis is that of community development.

    There are many things that are already being done. Canadian Heritage does many things. We must not forget that what's contained in the action plan is in addition to what's already being done. We're trying to remedy some of the deficiencies in our relationship with the communities.

    The first issue was obviously early childhood. In accordance with the principle I set out earlier, we have to begin very early. We will therefore negotiate with the provinces with regard to day care services. Last week, Ms. Stewart confirmed that $900 million would be made available for day care.

[English]

    There already was an agreement, in 2000, on early childhood development, that some amount from this early childhood development policy must go to help language communities--not necessarily only official language communities but also official language communities.

    Madam Stewart, from this new funding of $900 million, will make sure, and I'm sure she has the agreement of the provinces, that part of this amount will go for language communities, including official language communities.

[Translation]

This consortium will bring together about a dozen Canadian universities. The objective is to train 1,000 new health care professionals by 2008. This was very well received.

This is difficult to quantify, but an amount of money will be made available.

    The sum of $22 million was identified by Human Resources Development Canada for literacy training, pilot projects for day care and for assistance to national organizations involved in early childhood education in linguistic minority communities. With this money, we intend to train between 150 to 180 experts in these areas. I think that this very targeted assistance will be highly useful.

    One very clear demand from the communities involved health care. There are aging populations that are often more unilingual than younger ones and they fear not to be able to get enough services in their own language. The Government of Canada listened to these communities. With the consortium, with Mr. Gauthier's help, we managed to establish a plan that may not have been realistic at the outset but that became so at the end. This resulted in a plan that calls for $119 million over five years, including $75 million for staff recruitment and training, $14 million for networking and $30 million for primary health care.

    Therefore, for francophones, there is already a Pan Canadian consortium for the training of francophone professionals, which is part of the current national health care training centre.

[English]

    For the English-speaking communities in Quebec, we want to identify some specific measures that will help some areas in Quebec, the ones that have difficulty keeping English-speaking or bilingual professionals, to keep those professionals, or to train them to be more able to give services in English.

[Translation]

    With respect to networking

[English]

for the English-speaking community in Quebec, the aim is to create the equivalent of an association that you have in French,

[Translation]

which is called the Société Santé.

[English]

    In addition, Madam McLellan, the Minister of Health, will allocate $30 million for primary care for minority language speakers.

[Translation]

    So that is what we are going in the area of health.

    For Justice, there is $45 million over five years; $27 million will go to the government's legal obligations, namely the contraventions matter, the re-enactment of legislative instruments, and so on, and $19 million will be targeted as follows: funding projects with partners such as the provinces, funding for lawyers' associations, and so on; stable funding for associations of French-speaking lawyers and their national federation, consultation with the communities on all language matters; and assistance to the communities on legal matters, etc.

    In the case of immigration, it is more a question of information than money. We have to inform new Canadians about the existence of official language communities and the opportunities they have to learn one of the two languages, and also to invest a little in teaching French or English to immigrants who do not speak either language.

    The new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already gives more weight to knowledge of either of the official languages. We will be providing $9 million to conduct market studies and do promotional activities, and to support projects to establish information centres for francophone immigrants and tele courses in French.

    There will be four economic development initiatives. There will be 13 million new dollars for the Francommunautés virtuelles program. This project helps communities get Internet services, and it is working very well. It will enable us to carry out 200 new projects. This is an important addition to existing programs. There is $7 million for 800 new internships in business for young people; $10 million for technological infrastructure pilot projects, for example access to on-line library; and $8 million, which could have a tremendous effect, to help people gain access to programs for the majority and to get advice about the economic development of businesses.

    The government wants to strengthen its partnerships with the provinces. Consequently, $14.5 million more will be earmarked for priorities developed by the provinces and the federal government. One such area could be early childhood, for example.

    Finally, Heritage Canada has a new, generic fund of $19 million for community centres, cultural dissemination, and so on. This is for community development. I repeat that this is in addition to everything that is in place already.

    There will be $65 million over five years to make the public service more bilingual, including $14 million for targeted activities to encourage innovation and training, learning of and respect for the two official languages in the various federal institutions. All institutions with a new, innovative project will be able to access this fund, which will be broken down into two components: a regional fund for outreach activities throughout the country, and a fund for the National Capital.

    There will be a $12 million centre of excellence, which will help Treasury Board do its job. We must realize that at the moment, Treasury Board spends only $2.6 million a year on official languages. That is much less than the funds available to the Commissioner of Official Languages. Let us just say that at the moment, the watchdog has far more resources than the institution it is watching. Consequently, we are going to help Treasury Board access the resources required to perform its responsibilities.

    As regards training, as you know, there is a waiting list of people who want training. It is not right that there should be a waiting list. That is totally unacceptable to the government. We are therefore adding $39 million to further promote the recruitment of candidates who are already bilingual, and this includes promotions as well. We want to conduct some pilot projects on this and offer better access to training earlier in people's careers and help them maintain and increase their language skills. Of course, we will be continuing to hire many unilingual Canadians, and we will have to help them receive training and maintain their skills. So those are our initiatives with respect to the federal public service.

    Finally, at the moment, there are people who are interpreting my comments. These translators and interpreters, who are part of the so-called language industries, are essential to our success in the area of official languages and essential to this action plan. Without nationalizing this industry, because we are not a communist country, the Government of Canada will see what can be done to help this industry remain one of the best in the world. Consequently, $5 million will be provided to fund an association that represents an industry, which is very scattered at the moment and requires consolidation.

¹  (1555)  

We will therefore be spending $5 million to enhance the visibility of this industry in Canada, so that guidance counsellors, for example, are more familiar with the profession and try to steer more young people toward it. We also want to ensure that the high quality of our language industry is better known internationally.

    Ten million dollars will go to establish a research centre on language technology in Gatineau, at the Université du Québec en Outaouais, which is one of the best places for this type of study. You know how much I believe in research. I felt very strongly about the establishment of this research centre. It will have to find some new funding, but $10 million will give it a good start.

    So that is our action plan, Mr. Chairman. It is in addition to everything we are doing at the moment. Each of these public dollars will be spent for all Canadians. In any case, we do not have a choice; the Europeans and the Americans are investing heavily in the language skills of their people, and Canada will not be left behind.

º  (1600)  

[English]

    It's too important for our quality of life and for our competitiveness.

    The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

    Mr. Reid, seven minutes.

    Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the committee, Mr. Minister.

    One of the areas that you didn't dwell on today but that was very much present in the presentation made on Wednesday last week was the question of language within the Canadian public service. I want to spend some time discussing that, if I may.

    In 1969 the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism suggested what seems to me to be a sensible approach to language use within the federal public service.

    I just want to quote very briefly from their report:

...we recommend that the federal government adopt the French-language unit as a basic organizational and management principle, and that it therefore provide for the creation and development, in all federal departments, Crown corporations and other agencies, of organizational units in which French would be the language of work; these units would be established in a variety of locations and would be of different sizes and function.

    They said:

The essential idea of the French-language unit is that its personnel--both francophone and anglophone--will use French as the language of work. This requirement will not entirely exclude the use of English, but it will sharply circumscribe it. Generally, only French will be used within designated French-language units and between these units and the senior officers of the departments. In communication between the French-language units and other units, a policy of receptive bilingualism will apply.

    Implied in that is the existence of English language work units and the idea that these two groups or types of units would be roughly proportional to the populations within Canada as a whole, thereby establishing equitable participation for francophones and anglophones and ensuring that unilingual people of both language groups could participate within the public service. The point was to maximize the number of opportunities for francophones and anglophones, but at the same time to minimize the number of positions for which bilingualism was required.

    Now, a different approach was taken in your presentation last Wednesday. You proposed continuing to expand this alternative approach to the one suggested by the royal commission. The alternative approach is to attempt to create a larger and larger number of bilingual essential and bilingual imperative posts as a way of creating a bilingual public service. This has a number of what I would describe as perverse results, or unintended results, that are not beneficial to the community as a whole.

    First of all, it causes the exclusion of a majority of members of all groups in Canada from the top posts. For instance, 57% of francophones don't speak English and therefore are excluded from such posts; 91% of anglophones don't speak French and therefore are excluded from such posts; 80% of immigrants are excluded from such posts because they're not bilingual in English and French; and 95% of aboriginals are not bilingual in English and French, and thus are excluded. That's one problem.

    Another result that occurs here is that there is an ever-decreasing number of posts available at all for unilingual people. This is true for both francophones and anglophones, but it is particularly dramatic for francophones. In 1974, before the system went into effect, 34,000 posts within the public service were open to unilingual francophones--that is, you had to speak French, but English was not essential. As of 1992, only 25,000 posts were open. So we saw a dramatic drop in the number of posts open to unilingual francophones. And according to research that I've been conducting, it looks as though fewer than 20,000 posts are open to unilingual francophones today.

    Finally, an ongoing problem--indeed, an intractable problem, as things stand--within the public service is that people are denied the ability to work in the language of their choice. This of course is something that comes up in one study after another by the Commissioner of Official Languages.

    It seems to me that as long as you try to create a situation in which people are put into bilingual posts and are then required to work when they lack the capability to do so, you inevitably will get situations where meetings are forced to operate in the language of the person with the most limited linguistic skills. I don't see that problem ever being resolved as long as we have the current system in operation.

    So I look at all these results, Minister, and I wonder if we wouldn't be better off moving away from this system of designating posts bilingual imperative or bilingual essential, returning instead to a system that has been successful in the limited places where it's been tried, and that is the system of using French language work units and English language work units.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: Scott, nothing in the plan suggests that we need to increase the percentage of bilingual posts. What the plan is about is ensuring that bilingual posts will be assumed by bilingual people.

    From April 1, 2001, to March 31, 2002, the percentage of new staffing positions where it was supposed to be bilingual was 38%. That means all the others are for people who may be unilingual--they are welcome--and for half of them the requirement is English.

    So to say that we are preventing unilingual speaking Canadians from becoming civil servants of the federal government is certainly an exaggeration.

[Translation]

    Mr. Scott Reid: The figures show that in 1974, there were 34,000 positions available for unilingual francophones, whereas today, there are fewer than 20,000. I think this is a real problem, particularly when I note that over 57% of francophones are not able to speak English. These jobs are not available to these people.

[English]

    There's a similar problem for anglophones, although I think it's worse, frankly, when it comes to unilingual francophones, which is why I draw those numbers to your attention. I'm not suggesting that you personally take responsibility for that. I do think, however, it's an indication of a system where we've found, to an ever-increasing degree, that in the long term jobs are simply not available to unilingual people. And they have a reasonable expectation that the largest employer in the country will provide some form of employment for them.

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: Let me reiterate my point. Almost two-thirds of the jobs available do not require bilingual capacities. I think we are very sensitive to this problem.

    The other point is that language is something you may learn, and for that you need help. The action plan is about that, to help people--if they want a promotion, for instance--have access to good training in the other official language. For me it was a priority. There are so many who want to have good training. There's a waiting list.

    To me, this was the main problem. Before thinking about increasing the number of bilingual obligations, make sure that people have the capacity to reach the requirement when the requirement exists. But still, for almost two-thirds of the jobs there is no requirement.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Ms. Thibeault.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I would like to thank the Minister and his officials for being here today. There is so much in this document, that there is a temptation to ask a number of questions. However, our time is limited.

    You say, Minister, with respect to the $381.5 million over five years in education, that the federal government consulted with representatives from the provincial and territorial governments. Could you tell us about the reaction of these governments?

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: Before I am given the documents...

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Perhaps I misunderstood. Perhaps you intend to carry out consultations.

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: In response, I would say that there has been a strong tradition of federal-provincial partnership in this area for the past 30 years. Agreement has generally existed, even during the period of budget cuts. Now that we are at the stage of reinvesting, I am expecting that there will be even more agreement. The needs being expressed from all sides are so great that it does not take much imagination to agree about them.

    For the past two years I have been meeting with my provincial and territorial counterparts responsible for official language communities and I have felt a great deal of enthusiasm. Some time there was some nervousness when a plan was presented to us and we felt that it would be hard to implement. For example, the first time the health issue was raised, it was a bit ambitious but instead of getting discouraged we worked with the communities and came up with something solid. So I'm expecting that this will be very well received.

    I can indicate what some of the media reactions have been, but I have also received letters. The correspondence that I have had with my counterparts has been quite positive. I met with them twice in a multilateral forum, once in Edmonton and again in St. John's last fall, and the meetings were very positive.

    I would say that there is now a new generation of men and women involved in politics in the anglophone provinces, and these people went to immersion programs themselves, have spouses working in that area or children in such programs. So this is part of their universe. For example, the Manitoba Minister of Finance is a great friend of the francophone community in Manitoba, and his children are in a French-immersion school. When Minister Copps and I announced the minority language education component in Saint-Boniface, he made a point of coming even if he could not speak officially because the province had not yet come up with its part of the funding. Those negotiations will take a year. Minister Copps is counting on a year to negotiate a deal with the provinces that respects their jurisdiction but that also meets the objectives that we can agree on.

    The MLA responsible for francophone community development and immersion schools in British Columbia, Richard Stewart, told me at the outset that it would not be difficult to find common objectives, since the communities had already informed him of their objectives, which he supported. I believe that the provinces and the federal government will come to an agreement on something that is being called for by the grassroots.

º  (1610)  

[English]

    To give you an example, Paul Robichaud, New Brunswick's minister responsible for la Francophonie, said--and I quote--“We should be the first ones to have access to the money. It's good news. We are talking about new money here.”

[Translation]

    I think that Mr. Castonguay is listening.

[English]

    Stan Frey, director of French curriculum development with the Saskatchewan Department of Learning, said:

It's a positive move, it's a very good initiative and it's well thought out. At this point, what we have to do is identify how provincial funds may be made available to allow Saskatchewan to participate fully in the activities that have been outlined....There is a place for ongoing consultation through the federal-provincial agreements that are negotiated on a yearly basis.

    In Alberta, Lyle Oberg, the provincial education minister, said:

I am cautiously optimistic....We have to work together. We are the ones who run the school system, not the federal government.

So we agree. And he said also that he would likely match any contribution from the federal government.

    I have other reactions, but let me tell you, I think these are positive reactions for good partnerships.

[Translation]

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Mr. Chairman, do I still have a little time?

    Minister, at the outset you talk to us about section 44, which deals with accountability. I will read it: "In that context, the justice department's Official Languages Law Group..."

    Minister, does that mean that we will be moving toward making Part VII of the Official Languages Act binding?

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: No, it is not and should not be binding, for two reasons. First of all, it was not designed for that purpose. It would have to be rewritten, because it is much too vague to be put in the hands of a judge. It is a political commitment, and this action plan shows that we take that political commitment seriously.

    The second reason is that Part VII refers to a number of provincial jurisdictions. I really do not see the federal government being held legally responsible for something that is under provincial jurisdiction. In our federal context, I find that difficult to imagine. That is why it was designed as a political commitment. We need to do everything possible, in areas under provincial jurisdiction, to try to help the provinces assume their responsibilities.

º  (1615)  

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you, Minister.

    The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Minister, I am pleased to see that this action plan that has been expected since you were appointed has finally arrived. I want to start by talking about the accountability framework.

    Your document states: "This framework is the cornerstone of our Action Plan." The press release that you sent with the documentation says that the accountability framework clarifies and identifies the responsibilities of departments. I believe that is accurate. It clarifies and identifies, but it does not add anything new.

    I would like to ask a few questions about that. Listening to you, one has the impression that all this is wonderful and very interesting—no one is against virtue—but just to keep everything wonderful and interesting, I would like to have some clarification about your document.

    To begin with, the plan clarifies and identifies what already exists, and it does not introduce anything new. Second, paragraph 2 of appendix A is very clear:

2. It is noteworthy that the framework in no way alters the obligations and commitments of each federal institution under the Act as a whole, nor the specific mandates assigned by the legislation to certain lead ministers and bodies.

    I want section 42 clarified, so that we know whether Minister Copps is responsible for coordinating responsibility or whether you are. You are saying that section 42 of the Official Languages Act will not be amended in order to clarify that.

    You said that there are new elements. You said that some of the 30 points are new. There are 30 old points and a few new ones. I would like you to tell me what difference there is between paragraph 4 and paragraph 12 of the accountability framework. I would also like you to tell me the difference between paragraph 6 and the new point 17. The Treasury Board directive entitled "Official languages principles for the preparation and analysis of submissions to Treasury Board" is reproduced almost exactly in paragraph 17.

    I would like you to tell me the difference between paragraph 7 and paragraph 20, which uses exactly the same wording. Paragraph 7 is supposed to be new.

    Finally, I would like you to identify the differences between paragraph 31 to 44, which deal with horizontal coordination, and paragraph 24 of your plan, which is section 42 of the Official Languages Act, which gives the Department of Canadian Heritage exactly the same mandate that you are giving yourself.

    I would like to know what differences there are among these paragraphs, which are supposed to be new but actually reproduce what already exists, either in the Official Languages Act or in the Treasury Board directives.

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: There are important differences, but the action plan does two things: it identifies the current responsibilities for the first time and it adds new ones. You would have to know practically nothing about how government used to work barely two years ago to not see the tremendous difference that came about as soon as the government set up coordination in this area, which was very fragmented. Everyone said that it was fragmented.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If I may...

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: I would like to finish. Thank you.

    The communities recognize this as well. If I read what was written by Mr. Arès of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada...

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, no. If you would, Mr. Dion, I would like you to talk about the differences...

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: May I finish, Mr. Chairman?

    The Chair: Let him finish, Mr. Sauvageau.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Arès, President of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, wrote:

This accountability framework will ensure that all federal government departments and agencies will have to take into account the needs of minority francophone communities in developing their new policies and initiatives.

    So the plan being presented today is a truly comprehensive approach. I think that the communities have certainly noticed the difference. We also notice it within government and we are going to use this accountability framework as a key piece of the puzzle that we were missing.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Now, if I may, I would like to read paragraph 4 and 12 of appendix A for your benefit. Paragraph 4 states:

4. All federal institutions are obviously required to comply with the Act. The institutions listed in Schedules I, I.1 and II of the Financial Administration Act are subject to Treasury Board policies.

    Paragraph 12 states:

12. All federal institutions are obviously required to comply with the Act. The institutions listed in Schedules I, I.1 and II of the Financial Administration Act are subject to Treasury Board policies.

    Those two paragraphs seem quite similar to me.

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: Yes, but one deals with Parts I to V, and the other with Part VI.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Paragraph 6 reads as follows:

6. Since 1998, the Treasury Board directive "Official languages principles for the preparation and analysis of submissions to Treasury Board" has ensured that institutions that make submissions to Treasury Board have analyzed the impact of their initiatives on communications with and services to the public and the right of employees to work in their official language of choice.

    That is paragraph 6, and paragraph 17 says exactly the same thing.

    So in what is supposed to be new, there is nothing new. Moreover, with respect to the accountability framework, there were 29 federal agencies and departments that were required, because of their importance for the development of minority communities, to present an annual report to the heritage department. That was accountability. But in addition to that...

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: If you read 25 different paragraphs, it is difficult for me to answer. May I answer each question, please?

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Of course. Can you be brief, please?

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: In the case of paragraphs 4 and 12, the answer is quite simple: paragraph 4 deals with Parts I to V, and paragraph 12 deals with Part VI. After that, paragraph 6 covers only what is submitted to Treasury Board, whereas paragraph 17 requires all federal institutions to take official languages into account in their submissions to Cabinet, something that they did not use to do. No, that is paragraph 17, and not paragraph 7. Paragraph 17 goes even further: every federal institution, in its strategic planning framework, must take official languages into account using a procedure designed for that, and this is a completely new requirement.

    Paragraph 7 is certainly new, since I was given responsibility, with the signing of the Social Union Agreement, for ensuring that everything that comes to Cabinet complies with that agreement. I did not have this responsibility for official languages, and no one else did either, but now it has been given to me.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Where is it written in the Official Languages Act that you have that responsibility?

    The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, we will let the minister respond, and I will come back to you one last time.

    You may continue, Minister.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes.

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: That is a procedure within the executive, it does not necessarily come under an act. In the case of procedures within the executive, the Prime Minister can create my position, abolish it, or whatever. In this case, he created it—I have this responsibility, and this is something the communities have been calling for for a long time.

    Next, we have paragraphs 31 and 34. So, under "Horizontal Coordination" it states:

31. This administrative framework is designed to strengthen horizontal coordination for the Act as whole, so as to decompartmentalize the different components, supporting the minister.

    That is exactly it. This confirms the new responsibility that must be maintained. Paragraph 34 provides:

34. The Minister is responsible for facilitating the development of this accountability framework for the official languages policy and for the implementation of the Action Plan...

    Paragraph 34 refers exclusively to the action plan. I do not believe that is true of paragraph 31.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Final question, Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If it is new, why did Ms. Diane Allard, the assistant to the President of Treasury Board, tell me that National Defence, like the 182 other institutions subject to the Official Languages Act, must report to the Treasury Board Secretariat on official languages each year.

    National Defence has just finalized its report, which, by the way, is quite disastrous. Thus, the 29 agencies and institutions table an annual report with Canadian Heritage and the other 182 institutions and agencies will have to report to Ms. Robillard, and the new feature is that these reports will also be tabled with you.

    Is that correct?

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: It is true that many reports are submitted to Treasury Board, in particular those mentioned by Ms. Allard on Parts IV, V and VI alone. There are many reports, but I think this committee has often found that while these reports are submitted, there is rarely any follow-up on them. One of the reasons for this lack of follow-up was that there was no coordination of all these reports. Now, there will be a minister responsible for ensuring that all these reports are not in vain. So there is nothing here that diminishes in any way what was already in place, but we are introducing overall coordination and accountability to the communities, which did not exist before. That was essential, that did not escape the notice of the communities or of the minister and the public service. All these stakeholders felt that this component needed to be added.

    The Chair: Mr. Bellemare.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I would just like to say one word to you, Minister, on your report: "bravo!" Secondly, I would like to thank you.

    I have two questions. The document of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada entitled Des communautés en action: Politique de développement global à l'égard des communautés francophones et acadiennes en milieu minoritaire (Communities in action: overall development policy for francophone and acadian minority communities), identifies arts and culture as a priority. Following the release of the action plan, the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française said publicly that it was displeased at the lack of measures in the artistic and cultural spheres.

    Why does the action plan not contain any specific measures in this area?

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: I would like to start by making it clear that there are some measures in this area. For example, of the $380 million for education, as I mentioned earlier, we are planning to strengthen the component that involves providing a forum for educational institutions by strengthening, community centres and cultural centres, where possible. I think this is essential. We know there are great needs in this area.

    Second, the Department of Heritage has reserved $19 million to establish fairly targeted funds, for cultural dissemination activities, for example. In addition, we are going to strengthen our agreements with the provinces, and if we agree together that it would be a good idea to do more as regards culture, we will do more.

    Finally, Ms. Copps received $500 million more recently, as you know, for culture. A good share of this funding has not yet been spent or earmarked, and she is determined to see what she can do for the official language communities with these funds.

    I repeat that the action plan does not cancel out what was being done formally, either in terms of the accountability framework or our efforts in the area of culture. Consequently, since we have $500 million that is still in circulation and not part of the action plan, the Department of Heritage felt that other sectors should be strengthened, because we have other sources of funding for this one.

    I would also like to say that if we compare... Some officials from Health came to see us. They made some submissions to us which, initially, did not seem realistic to us or to the provinces. Rather than becoming discouraged, they started over and worked with us. So, ultimately, the $119 million is something that was well planned by all of us together. It comes as no surprise to them, that is what they expected and they are pleased. We are going to work well together, the plan is well structured.

    If I go to the Department of Finance, which has just given $500 million to culture, and ask for funding for culture in my action plan, the people there are going to ask me straight away what concrete, specific measures I have to propose. For the time being, Mr. Pelletier is still working on his national cultural action plan; that is still underway. It was therefore difficult for me to win that particular battle, and I did not waste my energy on that. I therefore concentrated on the best what I could obtain. As you know, the Department of Finance works like a funnel: all the requests are justified, and ultimately, those that are best prepared are accepted.

    The reason we got this action plan on which you are congratulating me is that the communities and the government, and I would like to thank my provincial counterparts, all work together well to come up with the best plan in town, so that we would gain approval over other plans that were not prepared as well. In terms of culture, perhaps the presentation was not quite ready. In addition to the $500 million Ms. Copps obtained, and in addition to the funding provided for in the action plan, if there are some additional things to do, I would tell the association you mentioned, to continue to work hard. This is a plan; it is not a straightjacket. If there are some very solid, additional things that can be done, we will have a better chance of getting support from the Department of Finance if we work in this way.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I have a second and final question. We read on page 29 of the action plan that the government wants to provide bilingual graduates the opportunity to put their skills to good use through summer jobs and exchange programs.

    Could you tell me, Minister, to which job programs this measure refers, and how much is available to achieve this objective?

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: I think that the action plan refers to the amount by which these two programs are being increased.

    With your permission, I will ask Mr. Asselin to answer because I didn't fully understand the question. I know that the monitor and bursary programs were increased by a lot. In the action plan, I give you the percentage of increase. Waiting lists for these two programs are quite long, and sometimes young people are somewhat discouraged when they see that the amounts of the bursaries are too small or that they were not given enough as monitors. So we increased that.

    Mr. Asselin.

    Mr. Robert Asselin (Special Advisor, Official Languages, Privy Council Office and Department of Intergovernmental Affairs): Essentially, Mr. Bellemare, these projects are funded based on requests from the provinces. Therefore, in the framework of the OLEP agreements, the funds that are targeted will be one of the federal objectives. So the provinces will have to submit projects that share that objective. These are not necessarily existing programs.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Mr. Simard.

    Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Welcome to our committee, Minister. I had an opportunity to take part in your presentation on Thursday morning and I thank you for having made the announcement on education in Saint-Boniface; that was very relevant in our area. So I don't have many questions to ask you, but I do have some comments. If you care to respond to them, please go ahead.

    One of the concerns we have in my riding, for example, and which I've discussed briefly with your assistant, is that certain departments that already deal with our francophone communities are withdrawing from their commitments. I've heard that departments with an economic portfolio had already said that since francophones were going to get money, they could withdraw. This is something I find very worrisome. We're talking about the accountability framework. The concern is that the reverse will happen and that people will withdraw from their current commitments. That's the first thing.

    Secondly, with regard to education, this is a good initiative; I believe in it fully. However, it is very important that the Minister of Canadian Heritage continue to consult the community by negotiating with the provinces, because now that we're more familiar with the action plan, I think that we as a community do have a contribution to make in these negotiations. For instance, at the provincial level, we're told that the money may be used for capital projects. It would be good to continue to make sure that the communities set the priorities for these projects with the provinces. The contribution of the communities should certainly not be ignored at this stage.

    In addition, you've certainly seen that this plan was very well received in the franco-Manitoban community, for example. I think you were told on a number of occasions that you had listened carefully and gotten the message clearly. The reaction was also good among the anglophone majority community. I think that if there was one comment to be made, it is that we want to make sure this money is well spent and that we are held accountable. So to my mind, this is an encouraging sign and I agree with all this. In any event, we really have to make sure we get the most out of your plan. Those are my comments.

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: Thank you very much, sir. I fully agree with you on the two essential points that you raised. The third one, when you say that the majority anglophone community reacted well in Manitoba as in New Brunswick, I agree completely. Sometimes there are editorials which say the opposite, but in general, public opinion in Canada is far more open to linguistic plurality insofar as the funds are well spent. It is true that the sum of $750 million scared a lot of people. Of course, that seems like an enormous amount of money, but last week, $900 million were announced over five years for day care. So here we're talking about $750 million for the entire official languages issue. When you look at this in relative terms, it's important for Canadians to know that this will be well spent. But I'm convinced that this is a good investment for all Canadians.

    With regard to your first point, let's avoid ghettoization. What the Government of Canada is doing is not discharging the provinces of their responsibilities toward some of their taxpayers and citizens. You are 100% Manitoban just as much as an anglophone.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: And what about the federal departments.

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: I'm coming to that.

    So, what the federal government is doing is helping the province pay the extra cost that being a minority community represents. For example, it's more expensive to run a school in a minority community. It's more expensive to keep teachers in place, to scrap together the money for school buses, for school books, etc. So we try to calculate what that extra amount represents and we help the provinces pay for that, but we're not there to tell the province that we'll now look after 100% of this minority's needs and that the province only has to work with the majority. That would be a serious mistake.

    I must tell you that the communities sometimes push us toward that. For all sorts of reasons, they would like to be embraced more and more by the federal government and every time I must admit that I tell them that they're really on the wrong track here: we are not equipped for that. There will never be a federal school; schools come under provincial jurisdiction in accordance with the Constitution. So if they want us to help them, they have to help us with the provinces but they should not try to get us to go over the heads of the provinces because that would be a serious mistake. So as a community leader if you could communicate that message, it would be very helpful.

    Now with regard to the federal departments, the same holds true, but the accountability framework will help because we will consult the communities far more effectively. We are forced to do so. What I've said—and please convey this message yourself—to the community leaders, parents and all the people I meet is that every time they are told to go look at programs exclusively for francophones, that majority programs are not meant for them, they must tell us, because we will put a stop to that as fast as possible. If we don't get that information, we can't take action. So tell us, because that practice is not acceptable.

    As a businessman you will understand this perfectly well. For instance, there is a fund that will be earmarked to provide what is called counselling to business to help them gain access to majority programs. So the counsellors are there to ensure that such occurrences don't happen and that francophone businessmen aren't told that they have their own funds and they therefore don't have access to programs aimed at the majority.

    I'm sure that negotiations with the provinces will take into account the legitimate needs of the communities, but the communities cannot be at the table as elected decision-makers. These negotiations are carried out between two elected levels of government that have constitutional responsibilities and that are partners. However, if these two governments concoct plans that do not meet the requirements of the community, the accountability framework will help us find that out.

    Ms. Copps is a good negotiator and she will make very sure that whatever agreement is signed with her provincial counterparts in the area of education, for example, will be in compliance with the legitimate demands of the communities. The same is true for Ms. Stewart in the case of early childhood.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Yolande Thibeault): Now, I think that Mr. Castonguay has some questions for the minister.

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Minister, you know that when Commissioner Romanow travelled across the country, some associations and groups suggested that he should add a sixth principle to the Canadian legislation dealing with linguistic duality. Now, in the light of your report, I see that the different departments have firmly resolved to collaborate horizontally.

    May I know your position on whether or not such a principle is necessary in Canadian legislation?

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: Perhaps the chairman would like to answer.

    The Chair: I think that you do not want to hear my answer,  minister.

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: I also worked with Intergovernmental Affairs, and the advice I receive, which correspond to my own assessment of these matters, show that there is a limit to what one can do with federal spending power and that, beyond a given point, the courts will say that this is disguised provincial legislation which is outside the federal mandate. Thus, as regards the Constitution, I do not think that we are on solid ground.

    It is important that the Canada Health Act, which is one of the most important pieces of legislation for Canadians, should be firmly anchored in the Constitution. Weakening it would create problems for everyone.

    And then there is something else. Compelling the provinces to do certain things is not the same as bringing them to believe in these things and to do them on their own. The action plan which was just developed for health care was developed in close collaboration with the provincial governments. Thus, it is much more likely for them to feel that they can make a contribution, that it is reasonable, than if we impose something on them only to have them sue us in court because they do not like what is imposed upon them and that we would sandwich communities between two governments in court.

    Let me read to you in French the comments of the President of Promoting Health for Everyone, Hubert Gauthier, one of the chief architects of this plan:

This investment of $119 million for health care in French will allow local stakeholders to set out priorities for their community and to begin to implement an action plan that would make available to francophones a wider range of health care services in their language [...] With the participation of the federal government, we can take advantage of the increasing interest shown by the provinces, territories and regional boards, to bring everyone to the table and find ways to improve health care services in French in every region of Canada.

    What we are trying to do is to bring everyone to the same table.

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I have a question about working language in the public service. Section 5.1.2 on page 50 in the report deals with a persisting imbalance in favour of English as the working language. As a general rule, English remains the preferred working language at the expense of French, except in Montreal.

    You just mentioned the waiting list for people who want training. We may have to solve a problem here. You also mentioned that some people took immersion courses and did well during the first years, but then would suddenly drop out and lose any gains they had made.

    Practically, is there any way to prevent situations where public servants get this training, but once they are back on the battlefield, realize once again that one language prevails over the other, so that all their investment has been in vain? Has there been any attempt to make follow-ups to ensure that the investment is not lost?

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: This is why, Mr. Castonguay, it was important to have a global action plan. All these factors are related. You would like more meetings to be held in French, but it is difficult to hold meetings in French if one of the key decision-makers at the table does not understand the language. Then, everyone goes back to English. This situation occurs frequently.

    Thus, if we could increase the number of public servants who understand French, this would not occur as frequently. Besides, if we increased the proportion of bilingual anglophones, it would result in fewer francophones than there are now. Francophones are over represented in the federal public service. Figures show that 31% of public servants, which is nearly a third, have French as their mother tongue, because anglophones do not always meet the language requirements. Hence, we aim to reduce this percentage for the simple reason that there will be more bilingual anglophone candidates. To attain this objective, we will have to invest large sums in immersion schools all over the country.

    I just came back from British Columbia, where the number of students is decreasing due to demographic factors. The number of students registered in immersion schools is increasing. There is some enthusiasm for this. I find this very encouraging, but it should not be taken for granted. We must see to it that both the Government of British Columbia and the Canadian government are able to maintain this interest in the parents and to ensure that the children get solid support in primary school, high school and, if possible, at the post-secondary level.

    Another thing I should like to say about follow-ups, is that two-thirds of francophone children outside of Quebec have one parent whose mother tongue is not French, but in most cases English.

    This work cannot be done in isolation. We must ensure a good coordination of all the initiatives, with a framework for accountability, and the responsibility for the overall coordination of the action plan.

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Minister, once the people have been trained and we come face-to-face with reality in the real world... Currently, this committee is perhaps the only one that works mainly in French. The other committees and activities are mainly carried on in English.

    How can we ensure, after training the people, that their ability to work in both languages will be maintained? I think that this is a part of the challenge. Has anyone thought about this?

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: Yes. One of the objectives of the $38 million granted to the Public Service Commission, is to ensure continuous training in the other language. We must not allow these language skills to wither away. Besides, the innovation fund that Ms. Robillard wants to set up will be aimed at maintaining peoples' language skills and at finding ways to do this. We will not have to do much arm twisting for this because most of our public servants do want to keep up with their language skills.

    The Chair: Ms. Allard, you have the last intervention of the first round. Then we will have a second round.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Good afternoon, Minister.

    Recently, a number of anglophone organizations from Quebec appeared before the committee and decried the fact that Quebec's anglophone minority was declining and that many young people were leaving for other provinces.

    Does this worry you personally? Does your plan contain miracle solutions to convince our anglophones in Quebec to stay with us, and give us the benefit of their presence and experience?

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: As you well know, there are no miracle solutions, in official languages or in any other field. However, what the plan contains are very targeted measures that the anglophone community has requested, measures that focus on tele education in areas where anglophones are few, or teaching methods to learn French more effectively. The problem within the anglophone community is not so much maintaining the English language as it is keeping their young people in Quebec. Parents want at least some of their children to remain near them when they become adults. For that to happen, the young people will need opportunities to become better integrated into Quebec society, and they have frequently asked for help in learning the second language.

    In the health care sector, we focus on the right to services in the official language of choice, and this means keeping health care professionals in the province. It is easier in Montreal, when you live around McGill University, but if you live in the Gaspé or Eastern Townships, that is not always easy. We have to ensure that the Société Santé you mentioned on the French side has an equivalent for English speakers.

    Martin Murphy, President of QCGN, the anglophone community group, issued a [press release in which he commended the efforts of the Canadian government:]

º  (1645)  

[English]

press release commended the efforts of the Canadian government:

The unequivocal recognition that “the federal policy on official languages needs to be enhanced” and the “new momentum” given to this policy with the Action Plan is to be applauded.

[Translation]

    I am very happy with that response, and my colleagues and myself look forward to working with them. There is a great deal to do. Obviously, the needs of the anglophone community are not the same as those of the francophone community.

    In the action plan, for example, you will see that there is a far greater focus on keeping the language. When both parents are English-speaking, we see 99% retention. When one of the two parents is not English-speaking, retention is fairly high as well. So the English-speaking community concerned is not really keeping its language, as you said. That is why the action plan targets needs. We do not have an homogeonous action plan throughout Canada. We try to identify individual needs. English-speaking Quebecers do not have the same needs—though they do have needs—as Acadians or Franco-Manitobans, or Ontarians in northern Ontario, compared to Ontarians living in Ottawa. So we will have to adapt measures to individual communities.

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Thank you, Minister.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Reid.

    Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Minister, I just want to turn now to the question of the amount of money you're devoting here on this very ambitious proposal of raising the number of high school graduates who will come out of school bilingual. Your goal is to raise this from the current 24% to, 10 years from now, 50% of all graduates.

    I have to admit, given the funds you're devoting to this it seems a bit unrealistic. To make this point, I thought I'd just go through your numbers.

    You have a second goal of raising the number of eligible minority community students who attend minority language schools. Now, that one seems to make sense.

    I just want to run through and compare these two goals. On the goal regarding minority language community students going to schools of their own community, you state that the goal--and I'm quoting--is to bring the percentage up from 68% to 80% “within 10 years”, and to do that you plan to devote $209 million over a period of 5 years.

    I just did a little calculating here. Now, 12% of the eligible population of francophone students outside Quebec is 26,000 students. I'm assuming the amount of money going to francophone students outside Quebec would be around half of the $209 million--as per page 73 of your report--which over five years equals $21 million per year, or $800 per student. So that strikes me as being a goal where the numbers of dollars may have some connection with the goal that's in mind.

    On the other hand, when it comes to the goal of boosting the number of Canadian students who come out of school bilingual, the dollars become almost preposterously small by comparison. The goal, from page 27 of your report--and again I'm quoting--is this:

Today, the proportion of bilingual Francophones and Anglophones in the 15 to 19 age group is around 24%. The objective of the Action Plan is to raise this proportion to 50% by 2013.

    I just did a little math here, and it shows that 26% of students would be raised from being unilingual to being bilingual, and 26% of 5.2 million kids who are of primary and secondary school age is 1,352,000 children. The funds devoted are $134 million. If you divide it by five years--this is of course a five-year funding proposal--you're now down to a situation where you get about $20 per student per year.

    It's a bit hard to see how, with $20 devoted to a student, you're going to achieve this dramatic increase in the number that will be graduating bilingual.

    I wonder if you could explain to me how that would work.

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: I'm not sure I follow all your math, but I'll give you mine.

    We are now spending roughly $200 million per year for education, $150 million for minority language and $50 million for second language.

    With what we are now adding--that is, $209 million for minority language and $137 million for second language--it means that, in proportion, we increase much more our help for second language than for minority language. For minority language, it will be an average yearly increase of 20%, roughly, and for second language it will be 40%.

    But this is my math and that is yours.

º  (1650)  

    Mr. Scott Reid: In absolute dollars it's still only twenty bucks a student.

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: We looked at that, and Heritage Canada looked at that, and they came with this distribution in order to reach the two targets.

    The other point is that it's an action plan that is global. A lot of things we will do, labelled as minority language, will help the second language, and the other way around. I'm encouraging communities--Canadian Parents for French, for instance--to stop being so competitive on the ground. They are in the same boat.

    Many of these parents are exogamic parents--that is, they've married between each other--and they are in the same world. We need to find a way to be sure that their children will have access to both language heritages, English and French. It's why we need an action plan in particular.

    What we do to invest in more teachers will be good for the two networks, and what we do to have better pedagogy and so on will be good for the two networks. So we should not oppose one to another. They need both of them.

    If we invest only in the communities, what will we do with all these English-French couples when we lose them? But if we invest everything in immersion schools, if you lose the communities, the incentive to learn French will decrease.

    So I would say it's the same objective. And the fact is, the reaction to the action plan has not been, as you said, to ask, “Do I have more or less than the other?” Everyone has said it's good.

    I quoted community leaders, but now let me quote from an article about Canadian Parents for French:

Adrian Dix, of the CPF's B.C. branch, said that immersion is still popular in the province and that there will be “a vast increase” in the number of bilingual Canadians over the next decade. “[The federal target] is ambitious, and I'm glad it is,” he said.

I can't say it any better than that.

    Mr. Scott Reid: The target is certainly ambitious, but I'm still struggling with how a budget of $20 per student per year is going to make students bilingual. I mean, if that were the case, most parents would pull out $100 bills so they could have their kids learn five languages. You know, it takes more than that, and I don't see how the goal....

    Frankly--I'll tell you what I think--it seems to me that saying 50% of students is a public relations goal, and completely unachievable. I don't know why you didn't go all the way and say, what the heck, 100% of students. It would sound even better, and it would have no less connection with reality than the numbers you've proposed here have.

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: First, in what we are doing for second language learning we are not alone. Provinces are much bigger players in it than we are. What we are doing is encouraging something that is welcomed by the voters of these provinces. That's why they are very willing to work with us to improve it.

    But in terms of the trend, there were polls between 1996 and 2001...and it's why we need an action plan, to be sure that we start the momentum again. In the past there was a very strong improvement in the capacity of young Canadians to learn the other language. I give some data in the action plan. Half of anglophone Quebeckers between 15 and 24 years old had mastered French in 1971, while eight out of ten had done so in 2001. So one may say that English-speaking Quebeckers became bilingual in one generation.

    The proportion of francophone Quebeckers the same age with a command of English rose from 30% to 38% between 1981 and 1991. In fifteen years, between 1981 and 1996, the proportion of anglophones outside Quebec able to express themselves effectively in French almost doubled from 8% to 15%.

    So there is no reason why we would not increase that now that we have better pedagogic skills and now that we have so much will around the country to learn the other language. The demand is there. The waiting lists are very important for immersion schools and so on.

    In Finland, for instance, they have copied our immersion school system--they call it the “Canadian system”--and they are able to learn two, if not three, and sometimes four languages. They are not more intelligent than we are. They are just using our own pedagogic skills.

    So I don't see why we won't see an important improvement ten years from now if we work all together in accordance with the action plan.

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: Merci.

    Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I'd like to come back to your action plan, rather than speculate on bilingualism, something already well-established in our community. I would like to ask you about chapter 2 of your action plan, the accountability framework. If I understand correctly, it is a means to put the new official languages action plan into practice. Under section 2 of the accountability framework, Ms. Copps remains responsible for promoting French and English, that is, she remains responsible for Part VII of the Official Languages Act. Under section 45 of Part VII, Ms. Copps can designate organizations and institutions required to report annually on official languages. At present, there are 29, but that figure could be 50 or 75. We are in agreement so far.

    Still under section 2, the President of Treasury Board, Madam Robillard, remains responsible for Part VIII, which covers the duties and responsibilities of Treasury Board in the area of official languages as it relates to the public service. Under section 48, she tables an annual report. In April, Minister—and I quote page 5 of your report—you were asked "to coordinate the government's official languages policy, to chair meetings of interested ministers", and lower on the same page, you were appointed "minister responsible for official languages".

    In about one and a half paragraph.

    Who is responsible for the Official Languages Act?

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: Everyone is responsible for the Act. You are quite right in saying that an accountability framework does not prevail over a statute. In any case, the framework recognizes that all legal obligations are maintained. The accountability framework simply adds a coordination component, which flows from the government's operating mechanisms, and which in no way contradicts the Act. On the contrary, it will ensure that the government fulfill its obligations under the Act more effectively.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So if I understand correctly, everyone is responsible, so nobody is personally responsible. It would have been good that one minister be responsible for official languages as the FCFA had requested, rather than six or seven. I think that would have been better.

    At present, I'm trying to understand this. With the new action plan, the Minister of Canadian Heritage will receive an annual report from 29 organizations and institutions. When she receives those reports, she puts them into a new envelope and forwards them to you, because you said indirectly a few moments ago that she was not fulfilling her duties properly since there was no follow-up on those reports. When the president of Treasury Board, who is not following up on the reports properly either, receives her annual reports, she too will put them in a new envelope and forward them to you. Is that more or less what the new accountability framework involves?

    If that is the case, since the framework is new and since you are responsible for it, what will you do with the annual report from the Department of National Defence, which shows that 60% of Canadian forces personnel in bilingual positions are not bilingual, and that 50% of Canadian forces personnel at headquarters do not comply with the Official Languages Act?

    So, is the annual plan simply being forwarded because the two people it was sent to before did not do their work properly? If so, how will you respond to a plan that clearly shows the Act is not being complied with?

»  (1700)  

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: It would have been a serious mistake to completely change the Official Languages Act and strip those ministers of their responsibilities, only to give those responsibilities to a single minister. That would have led us to the sort of ghettoization we are trying to avoid. It would have been a serious mistake. But not setting up an overall coordination structure would also have been a serious mistake. By the way, I did not once imply that the departments were not doing their work properly. I said that the existing structure was preventing us from deriving full benefit from the work done by each department, and that the structure was a form of compartmentalization. So to avoid compartmentalization, we set up an overall coordination framework.

    I have been through something very similar with the Canadian government policy on the first nations. If we had not been careful and made adjustments, we would have ended up with 19 departments of aboriginal affairs in the cities, and small communities with barely 75 people would have 50 reports a year to fill out simply because of a lack of communication. We did set up a committee and established a much more effective coordination structure. That's what we did for aboriginal affairs.

    Now, that is what we have also done in the area of official languages. We are not stripping anyone of their responsibilities. On the contrary, we will help each stakeholder fulfill his or her responsibilities more effectively. So there is one minister responsible for coordination of official languages, and he could be called in short minister of official languages, but that does not take away from other ministers' responsibilities. As a committee, I invite you to work closely with Ms. Robillard on all parts of the Act for which she is responsible, and the same for Ms. Copps. I would also suggest that you invite Mr. Cauchon, and ask him about his new responsibilities under the accountability framework. My colleagues will of course appreciate all the work I'm giving them to do, but I would ask you to invite them and engage them in dialogue, and also discuss my coordination activities with me.

    As for the Department of National Defence—and this goes to show how important team work is—I can tell you that Ms. Robillard cannot achieve everything alone without support from her colleagues. The Minister of National Defence is quoted on page 59 of the action plan: "... the president of the Treasury Board will be able to count on the support of her colleagues." For example, I quote the Hon. John McCallum, Minister of National Defence, who recently committed himself "to achieve a substantial improvement in the performance of the Canadian forces in the area of official languages, or bilingualism." That is his responsibility, and he is not stripped of it by the action plan. The action plan will help him fulfill it more effectively.

    The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If I understand correctly, the report which was tabled with Ms. Robillard before your action plan will still be tabled with Ms. Robillard after your action plan is in place. So with your new accountability framework, who will you be receiving reports from?

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: My team will be able to check all the reports, because even though they will be tabled with Treasury Board, we will also have access to them.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Did you not have access to them before?

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: I didn't have a team. That was not being done but now we will be able to do it. And if we find that there should be more follow-up, it will be our responsibility to arrange for such follow-up. Our job will be to coordinate the process. It will not be to strip anyone of their responsibilities.

    The Chair: Last question.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Very well. I will give you another real-life example, if I may. Ms. Robillard has established March 31^st as the cut-off date. In principle, we have not stripped her of any responsibilities regarding bilingual officials, the EX-4s and EX-5s. But as minister responsible for official languages, to show that you are serious about this action plan, what will you do on April 1^st to those who fail to comply with the Act?

    The Chair: If I may, Minister, just to inform our colleagues, we have asked the president of Treasury Board to appear before the committee by early April at the latest.

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: She will be just as responsible for them as she was before March 31^st. The difference between before that date and after that date is that, after that date, she and I will be able to discuss the issue in a much more structured fashion, and with experts available to help us determine exactly what to do. My work is to help her, not to strip her of her own responsibilities.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Dion.

    Colleagues, we have three items to deal with. These are housekeeping issues. I would like us to deal with them now before we lose quorum. Minister, you are of course free to stay. We thank you very much for appearing here today, and as far as I know you will always be available if the committee wished to continue debating the plan. Do you have any concluding remarks you wish to make?

    Mr. Stéphane Dion: Very quickly, I would like to thank the committee for the help it has provided in drafting the action plan, and again point out that there is continuity in the process. This is the beginning of something, not the end of something.

»  (1705)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Colleagues, if I may, we have three items. Let us proceed quickly.

    If you remember, we passed a resolution to reduce quorum from nine to six members, but we made a small error. The resolution did not specify that one of the seven members had to be an opposition member. The resolution was referred to the House, which asked whether we wanted to include the opposition. So we should adopt a resolution simply stating that, notwithstanding Standing Order 118(1), the Standing Committee on Official Languages requests leave from the House of Commons to reduce quorum for the committee to seven members, provided that such quorum include one member of the opposition. If committee members so wish, we could adopt the new resolution and submit it again.

    Moved by Mr. Bellemare and seconded by Mr. Sauvageau.

    Any comments?

    Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Why did you reduce quorum to seven members rather than to five?

    The Chair: Mr. Godin and Mr. Sauvageau suggested seven members, and we all agreed. So we would like a quorum of seven, provided that one of the seven members is from the opposition.

    Motion carried.

    The Chair: The second item,and we are moving quickly. I have told committee members to see whether we could change the time of our Monday meeting. I know that it's not perfect for everyone, but 9:00 to 11:00 on Tuesday morning is still better than Monday afternoon. Is everyone agreed?

    So if someone can move the motion, we can change our meeting schedule. At present, we meet between 3:30 and 5:30 on Monday and Wednesday afternoons. That would be changed to 9:00 to 11:00 Tuesday morning and 3:30 to 5:30 Wednesday afternoon. Can I have a motion to that affect?

    Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I have a Heritage Committee meeting at that time.

    The Chair: I know that this is not perfect for everyone.

    Motion carried.

    The Chair: So, as of next week, not this week, we will meet from 9:00 to 11:00 on Tuesday morning and 3:30 to 5:30 on Wednesday afternoon. Our next meeting will be on Wednesday of this week.

    The third item is a question for information purposes. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the Chief Election Officer, wrote me a letter as committee chair. I wanted to draw members' attention to the letter, which I have circulated. He wrote after he appeared before us. The particular comment I wanted to draw your attention to is in the last paragraph. I quote:

In conclusion, I would like to repeat my invitation to members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages to attend the post-redistribution conference. A two-hour session reserved for questions raised by members is scheduled for the afternoon of September 17, 2003.

    I know this is a few months away, but I did want to give you a heads up. We did have quite a lively discussion, and there was significant interest around the table.

    On Wednesday, we will talk about future business, and a report on offences. So Wednesday afternoon will be an in-camera meeting.

    Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.