LANG Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 9, 2004

¹

1535

The Chair (Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.))

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister responsible for Official Languages)

The Chair

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

¹

1540

¹

1545

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, CPC)

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Scott Reid

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Scott Reid

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Scott Reid

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Keith Christie (Deputy Secretary, Intergovernmental Policy, Privy Council Office)

¹

1550

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Robert Asselin (Senior Advisor, Office of the Minister responsible for Official Languages)

L'hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Scott Reid

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.)

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Christian Jobin

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Christian Jobin

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Christian Jobin

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

¹

1555

Mr. Christian Jobin

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Robert Asselin

Mr. Christian Jobin

Mr. Robert Asselin

Mr. Christian Jobin

Mr. Robert Asselin

Mr. Christian Jobin

Mr. Robert Asselin

Mr. Christian Jobin

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Robert Asselin

º

1600

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Robert Asselin

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

º

1605

Mr. Raymond Simard

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Raymond Simard

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Raymond Simard

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

º

1610

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

º

1615

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

The Chair

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

The Chair

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

The Chair

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

The Chair

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

The Chair

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

º

1620

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Scott Reid

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

The Chair

Hon. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.)

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Hon. Claude Drouin

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Hon. Claude Drouin

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

º

1625

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Robert Asselin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Robert Asselin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Robert Asselin

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Christian Jobin

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

The Chair

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

The Chair

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew

The Chair

º

1630

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Marc-Olibier Girard)

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

º

1635

The Chair

Mr. Marion Ménard (Committee Researcher)

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

---

NUMBER 004

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 9, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.)): As we now have a reduced quorum, we'll start the meeting. I would like to ask my colleagues whether we could take five minutes at the end of the meeting, just after the vote, to consider two or three requests for an appearance. In addition, there are also some people whom we wanted to see. I would like to propose a meeting schedule for those wishing to appear. So we could take four or five minutes at the very end to deal with that.

    That said, I would like to welcome the Honourable Pierre Pettigrew, Minister responsible for Official Languages and more particularly for the Action Plan. Mr. Minister, if you would like to introduce the persons with you this afternoon, you can then make your presentation. Then parliamentarians will definitely want to question you.

    Mr. Minister, over to you.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister responsible for Official Languages): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    Dear colleagues, I'm very pleased to be here with you today to discuss my vision of official languages as minister responsible for that file. I'm accompanied by Mr. Robert Asselin, who is my office's Senior Advisor on Official Languages, and Mr. Keith Christie, who is Deputy Secretary, Intergovernmental Policy, Intergovernmental Affairs, Privy Council Office.

    The Chair: Do you have any other copies of the statement for colleagues? No?

    You may continue.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: I'll try to be lively.

    At the outset, I want to reiterate the government's renewed commitment to our country's linguistic duality. As stated in the Throne Speech of February 2 last, linguistic duality is at the heart of our country's identity and is our image in the world. Linguistic duality also open doors for us around the world. The government will see to the development of that asset, from which all Canadians benefit.

    The Government of Canada has sent clear signals that the values and principles underlying the official languages policy are dear to its heart. For the first time in the history of our country, a minister responsible for official languages has been sworn in in that capacity. I consider it a privilege to be assigned to the portfolios of health, intergovernmental affairs and official languages. In that capacity, I'll have that many more opportunities to convince my provincial and territorial counterparts to incorporate official languages in our respective policies and programs.

    In talks with the provincial and territorial governments, I intend to be very proactive in order to enhance the status and use of English and French in Canada in key fields for the communities: health, education, early childhood, the economy, access to justice and access to government programs in general.

    The Action Plan for Official Languages has a significant intergovernmental component, and I intend to work with the provincial and territorial governments to achieve the objectives we have set for ourselves, with the greatest regard for jurisdictions. The official languages policy affects Canadians in a range of activities which do not fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of one institution or another. It is the business of all federal departments and agencies. Since greater coherence among portfolios is one of the government's priorities, I would like to make official languages an example of interdepartmental collaboration.

    Under the accountability and coordination framework, a key part of the action plan, all federal institutions are now required to be accountable for their obligations and commitments. The roles of the institutions on which the Official Languages Act has conferred specific responsibilities are also specifically stated in that framework.

    Allow me briefly to describe the changes we made to government structures on December 12 last. Roughly speaking, it can be said that the former duties of the Treasury Board President now fall to the President of the Privy Council and the new Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada. The nature of those duties remains the same. There has simply been a transfer of responsibility centres.

    The accountability and coordination framework also includes a series of articles that strengthen horizontal coordination. That is where the roles of the minister responsible for official languages and the other ministers who support him are described.

    I am essentially responsible for the file as a whole. I work with a group of ministers, which of course includes my colleague from Canadian Heritage, the President of the Privy Council, the Minister of Justice and the ministers who spearhead the initiatives in the Action Plan. That group is in turn supported by the Committee of Deputy Ministers of Official Languages, the Official Languages Law Group at the Department of Justice and the Official Languages Branch of the Privy Council Office.

[English]

    The ongoing legal debate about part VII of the Official Languages Act does not take away from the government's commitment to fostering the full recognition and use of both official languages in Canada, including the development of English and French linguistic minority communities.

    The action plan initiatives in education, community development, and public service improvement all complement one another. Together and combined with the new accountability and coordination framework they demonstrate how serious we are about complying with and implementing the Official Languages Act in its entirety. The concrete initiatives being advanced in the areas of early childhood, access to health services and justice in both official languages, immigration, and economic development demonstrate our firm determination in that regard.

    The accountability and coordination framework specifies the responsibilities of ministers and officials with respect to all of the act, and in particular, in regard to the nature of the solemn commitment set out in part VII. It is another piece in the tool kit to strengthen the implementation of part VII. For the first time, through paragraph 17, the government has specified how federal institutions will carry forward the commitments enunciated in this section of the act.

    In addition, the framework confirms or provides for several checks and balances, notably the analysis of policy documents from the viewpoint of legal implications, of proposals to cabinet for the impact on official languages, of submissions to Treasury Board for their impact on the development of minority official language communities, and of information forwarded to Heritage Canada on the implementation of part VII. Also anticipated under the framework are regular consultations with stakeholders, including the communities.

    The next ministerial consultations are expected to take place in the fall of 2004 and will be preceded by discussions between government officials and community leaders. As the minister responsible for official languages, I will play my coordination role and make sure the necessary tools are available for federal institutions to operationalize the integration of official languages into the daily planning and implementation of their mandates.

    Let me draw your attention to the evaluation provisions in the action plan. Activities in all sectors will be subject to results-based reporting. In addition, we are working hard at the moment to develop an overall evaluation tool for the action plan as a whole. An interim report, as well as a final report, will be presented to the government on implementation of the plan.

    A year ago, when the action plan was announced, it was well received, and the stakeholders indicated that they would assess the effectiveness of the plan based on results. I suggest we all do the same once results are available.

¹  (1540)  

[Translation]

    Minority language education is a right under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Much has been done to respect that right, but much remains to be done and to be consolidated.

    Second-language instruction is another important component of our policy. Learning another language is an asset in the open world we live in. Our two languages, which are international in stature, serve as a springboard toward knowledge of a third and fourth language, as the Chairman well knows.

    In education, as we've previously said, nothing is possible without the provinces and territories. But our joint effort, which has continued for more than 30 years, is built on a very solid foundation. My colleague, the Honourable Hélène Chalifour Scherrer, is conducting the negotiations to renew the protocol with the Council of Ministers of Education and the agreements that stem therefrom.

    In addition, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is about to enter into agreements with a number of provinces on the targeted funding announced in the plan, for a total amount, over five years, of $209 million for minority language and $137 million for second language.

    That's the start, the initial phase of the increase in the number of rights holders registered in the Francophone system. Similarly, clear objectives are being negotiated with each of the provinces and territories in order to double, by 2013, the number of high school graduates capable of functioning in their second official language. We'll have specific indicators enabling us to measure progress achieved.

    It won't be easy, but we believe it's possible. A recent study by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada supports this view: the challenge is enormous, but Canadians' support for our linguistic duality leads us to be optimistic. Three out of four Canadians want their children to learn French as a second language. If we're talking about three out of every four Canadians, I imagine the remaining 25 percent consists of those whose first language is already French.

    The first year of the Action Plan for Official Languages is coming to an end. The initial targets have been established in all the determined fields. And yet some are concerned about the government's desire to implement the plan and allocate the necessary resources to it.

    As I said in the House on February 18, in response to a question by your Chair, the Honourable Don Boudria, the Minister of Finance has expressed his intention to provide the $751 million funding attached to our action plan. An action plan implementation report will be presented to the government at the mid-term mark and at the end of the five-year period. I can assure you that we are on the right track, and I am relying on the support of this committee, of course, in order to continue making the action plan a tremendous success.

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for your attention. My associates and I will answer your questions, which will no doubt be relevant.

¹  (1545)  

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

    Mr. Reid, do you have a question? Go ahead.

[English]

    Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, CPC): The action plan, as it was presented a year ago, contains something that continues to mystify me. Perhaps now that you are the responsible minister you can enlighten me on it.

    There was great enthusiasm in the report about the success the government has had in increasing the ratio of eligible students to attend francophone minority schools outside of Quebec. Specifically, the report said, on page 26 of the English edition, which is the edition I have with me:

The proportion of eligible students enrolled in French schools rose from 56% in 1986 to 68% in 2001.

    Then a footnote on page 17 makes reference to the same percentage and says:

This percentage indicates the extent to which the francophone minority school system succeeds in attracting its target population.

    So we could hardly be more excited, until you look at the rest of the notes on that page, which go say:

In 1986, there were 152,225 children in francophone minority schools and 271,914 children eligible to go to these schools...56%. In 2001, there were 149,042 children in francophone minority schools and 219,860 children eligible to these schools, for a ratio of 68%.

    The point is that 149,000 is nevertheless lower than 152,000, and the number of eligible students has gone down dramatically. That suggests that all that's really been accomplished is a declining population of available students, which suggests that the government's measures to maintain a viable population of francophones outside of Quebec is not a smashing success.

    Based on this, I'm hoping you'll be able to suggest something other than the depopulation of francophones outside of Quebec as a measure by which to encourage increasing participation rates for minority population students in French-language education.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: No, but it's the percentage of students that counts. What do you want?

    Mr. Scott Reid: I would like to see evidence that you're actually succeeding in slowing down the decline of the minority-language population outside of Quebec. Presumably, that is the point of this exercise, right?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: That is the point of the whole action plan, indeed. That is why we are determined to invest the $751 million, and we're going to do it in partnership with the provinces precisely to make sure that the effect is there. We are quite determined.

    Mr. Scott Reid: I don't know. The eligible pool has gone down. You have fewer students enrolled now than you did in 1986. Where's the success?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: I fail to follow your elaborate demonstration about numbers--

    Mr. Scott Reid: I'm just quoting your numbers.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Well, I would like to see that. I will re-read it and try to understand, because you have brought up these numbers. I did not write this report; I inherited it. I would quite like to look into the numbers.

    Did you understand the numbers he was referring to? Is there an answer to his question?

    Mr. Keith Christie (Deputy Secretary, Intergovernmental Policy, Privy Council Office): I think, Minister, it's the answer you've given that the whole purpose of the action plan is to provide a framework within which minority-language communities can regain strength and prosper. The whole across-government accountability framework we're putting into place to ensure that government departments do what they're supposed to be doing is meant to provide the support needed for the communities to flourish. We should look ahead rather than backwards.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Scott Reid: I'm only reciting the historical facts that were cited by you as a success, which is that there were 152,000 students in the schools in 1986, and in 2001, after you claimed success, we were down by more than 3,000 students.

    Let me ask it this way. Do you have any absolute numbers? You talk about 80%, but what is the absolute number of students you expect to have in these programs going ahead a decade? Is it going to be higher or lower than the current number?

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Asselin (Senior Advisor, Office of the Minister responsible for Official Languages): The answer, Mr. Reid may simply be that, on the whole, there are fewer students of that age, which explains the decline in the absolute number. That's why the percentage is so high.

    L'hon. Pierre Pettigrew: That may also be the case in the English-language population. That should be checked.

[English]

    Given your own enthusiasm for both official languages now, that will certainly help the climate in the rest of Canada. If the Alliance becomes enthusiastic about it, gee, the sky's the limit.

    Mr. Scott Reid: That's right.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Historically, that was not the contribution, so I celebrate that evolution. If you like to talk about history, I'm sure the future will be a lot better, given that fresh support.

    Mr. Scott Reid: I'm glad to hear of your enthusiasm for my enthusiasm, but I do hope you'll want to talk in terms of absolute numbers and not just percentages. That is a problem.

[Translation]

    The Chair: The next speaker will be Mr. Jobin.

    Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.): Mr. Minister, welcome to the committee.

    At the start of your presentation, you referred to examples of interdepartmental cooperation. However, we note that responsibility for the official languages effort is divided among the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Privy Council, the Minister of Justice and a number of others.

    How can any concrete actions be taken in the official languages field, when the action plan is so diluted among the various departments and ministers?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: That's a relevant question, and I'll try to take it into account in the way I work.

    As recently as last week, or the week before, we held the first working luncheon to discuss the official languages file. The seven ministers with sectoral responsibility in the area attended. There was palpable enthusiasm in all those ministers required to promote a part of the plan. As minister responsible for coordination, I found that very encouraging.

    I myself am not responsible for each of the sectors, but I must ensure that each of the seven ministers delivers the goods. That's the authority the Prime Minister conferred on me on December 12 by swearing me in as minister.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: Which means that there will be regular meetings to ensure that everybody is doing his work.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: I asked that we hold three or four meetings a year. I'm talking here about elaborate meetings attended by all the ministers, and not those I'll conduct with individual ministers in each of the sectors. As for the team consisting of the ministers who have responsibility at the sectoral level, I asked that we hold three or four working luncheons of that kind, very concrete, to measure results.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: So you need three or four meetings.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, every year. In other words, every season, we should meet to sum up the situation. Furthermore, as you know, we in government have what is called accountability. I am working to move that forward and to measure results. One of our major priorities is to ensure that each of the seven ministers is accountable.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: Mr. Minister, if you had to recommend a structure to the Prime Minister for implementing the action plan adopted on March 12, 2003, would you suggest the same form of division, in this case among the seven ministers?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, in my view, each of the ministers must have responsibility for his sector. I'm nevertheless very grateful to Prime Minister Martin for swearing in, for the first time, a minister responsible for coordination. There used to be a minister responsible for official languages. In fact, it even occurred that there was no such minister, whereas, at other times, there were seven ministers, each with his own responsibilities. Then, by means of a mandate letter, the Prime Minister appointed a minister to coordinate the various measures and activities. But a mandate letter does not have the same force as an oath of office. A minister very clearly becomes responsible the moment he or she is sworn in.

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Christian Jobin: On March 12, 2003, an action plan valued at $751 million was approved. Can anyone tell me what amounts will be allocated to official languages for the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 fiscal years?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: I don't have those figures.

    Mr. Robert Asselin: The amounts are not specified on a per-year basis for the simple reason that Canadian Heritage is currently negotiating agreements with the provinces in education, which makes up the largest part of the action plan. Having regard to those negotiations, we don't want to reveal the per-year amounts for the next five years.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: Ultimately, it's not broken down by year, but rather in accordance with the action plan.

    Mr. Robert Asselin: All we can say is that the amounts increase over the years and we're going to finish strong. On the other hand, we don't have a breakdown on a per-year basis.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: All right. Three sectors are identified in the action plan: education, community development and the public service. Can we know the anticipated results for the coming years in those three sectors?

    Mr. Robert Asselin: What sectors are we talking about?

    Mr. Christian Jobin: Education, community development and the public service.

    Mr. Robert Asselin: All right, as the minister explained, in education, we're talking about negotiations spread over five years which Ms. Scherrer will conduct. The plan sets out very specific objectives, for minority language and second language. It provides for targeted funding, that is to say funding that is allocated solely to projects meeting our objectives. That's very important.

    The provinces previously enjoyed greater discretion in granting funding. We're now talking about $65 million for the public service. The plan very specifically describes all the objectives that must be achieved. The idea, of course, is to make more positions bilingual and to train people, and to do that with very specific quantifiable objectives.

    As for community development, there are a number of sectors: early childhood, health, justice and the economy. In that regard, we'll have to wait until the plan has been implemented for a number of years before achieving very concrete results.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. Now over to Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): I'll take the ball on the rebound, Mr. Asselin. You said we'll have to wait a few years for concrete results. However, to do that, objectives should be set to determine whether those results are achieved or whether we're achieving them. That's in fact another question.

    At the outset, I'd like to welcome you and thank you for accepting our invitation, on quite short notice, I must admit.

    Here's my first question, Mr. Minister. You're taking up your duties in a fairly particular situation: for the first time, as a result of two complaints which the Commissioner of Official Languages deems admissible, two ministers are being investigated for non-compliance with the Official Languages Act.

    I would like to know whether you have reviewed those complaints and whether, as official languages coordinator, you have checked to see what work has been done in those two departments to correct the situation.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: I've met with Ms. Dyane Adam a number of times, in particular...

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: She isn't under investigation: I'm referring to the departments in question.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: They're under investigation?

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I filed a complaint concerning non-compliance with the Official Languages Act in two departments. Since that's your area, you must be aware of this. I would like to know...

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: I've met with the Commissioner, and I'm satisfied that she is monitoring developments concerning your complaints. However, her office is independent, and it will be up to her to determine whether the complaints that you filed with regard to the departments in question are valid.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Let me bring you up to date: the complaints were ruled valid in October.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Were they considered valid enough to be examined, or was it in the sense of...

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: They were ruled valid enough for an investigation to be undertaken. The investigation is under way. Obviously, it's the Commissioner who is conducting the investigation; it's not you. I would like to know whether you have spoken with the two ministers in question, at least to determine what they're doing to correct the situation while the investigation is under way.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: We coordinate the work of all the ministers. All are required to comply with the act. All are required to achieve the objectives that we have set for ourselves.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Do you know what those two departments are?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Which departments you filed a complaint against? I don't know.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: All right. Thank you.

    I find it a bit unusual that you can't name them. Do you find it normal for two ministers to have been named...

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: The Senior Advisor himself has been monitoring the file for a number of years now. In my predecessor's time...

    Mr. Robert Asselin: Mr. Sauvageau, the Commissioner receives thousands of complaints every year. We don't inquire into each of those complaints.

º  (1600)  

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You're right, but this is the first time entire departments have been under investigation, and this doesn't concern factual complaints or situations. It concerns the President of the Treasury Board, for failing to comply with one of your three plans, that is to say the one concerning the public service. It also concerns National Defence, which, in more than 60 percent of cases, does not comply with the bilingual designation of bilingual positions.

    Do you think it normal that two unilingual Anglophone MPs have been appointed to the head of two departments which are under investigation with regard to the Official Languages Act?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: The important thing is that the ministers do a good job. I don't believe that a person's linguistic attributes should necessarily prevent him or her from ensuring that his or her department complies with our government's official languages commitments.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You're right. However, as a general rule, the minister or deputy minister responsible shows leadership. I would like to know what kind of leadership a unilingual Anglophone minister can show, when his department is under an official languages investigation. That's a legitimate question.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: He may feel vulnerable because he doesn't speak both official languages and do even more. That's what we should hope.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I urge you to look at what's being done at the Department of National Defence, where, in more than 60 percent of cases, designated bilingual positions are not occupied by bilingual personnel, and at the Treasury Board, where designated bilingual positions are filled by people who don't meet bilingualism standards. I believe that has a great deal to do with the action plan you have to coordinate. I'm a bit surprised at that aspect.

    Another aspect of the action plan, probably the most important in fact, is the accountability framework. You had lunch with Ms. Hélène Scherrer, who, under section 41 or 41, is responsible for the Official Languages Act and thus for accountability. Did you ask her why her annual official languages action plan was roughly eight months late?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: She's currently very busy addressing that delay. She's very much involved in negotiations, and I hope we'll see better results at the start of the second year.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: They're not complying with the Act at the Department of National Defence. They aren't complying with the Act at the Treasury Board. Canadian Heritage, which is responsible for accountability...

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: You say they aren't complying with the Act, but let's wait for the Commissioner's report. The member shouldn't set himself up as a judge.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You're probably right.

    The most important aspect of the action plan is accountability. In that area, what already existed in the departments, agencies and institutions as a whole was gathered up. Can you tell us what's new in the action plan of March 2003 regarding accountability and what didn't previously exist?

ç	A lot of mechanisms did not exist in Part VII, including article 17 of Appendix A of the plan, which appears on page 66 in the section entitled “Accountability—Part VII”. In addition, articles 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 did not previously exist. I draw your attention to article 17, which states:

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

    I won't read the five points stated, but I emphasize that they did not previously exist.

    The Chair: The next question will be asked by Mr. Simard.

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

    Welcome to the committee, Mr. Minister.

    I somewhat share my colleague's concerns about dilution of the program, since four or five departments are involved. In addition, Mr. Minister, you are responsible for a very big portfolio, health. Recently, fairly critical situations have occurred and you reacted very well to them. I congratulate you for that. They concerned the place of French in the health field and also the RDEE's. I congratulate you for reacting well.

    You may have good instincts, but I'm not convinced that those of government officials are as good. I believe awareness should be raised in this area. I'm not certain that the people from Health Canada, for example, who must now deal with Francophones and minorities, are very sensitive to the needs of those minorities. I don't know whether there is a program or whether you're planning a kind of awareness program.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: First, thank you for your kind comments. When I was young, my father told me that, when you want something done, you should ask the busiest person you know. There's a much greater chance it will get done because busy people are organized and have the right people around them.

    Second, as I am the Minister of Health, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister responsible for Quebec, I sit on the Operations Committee and on the Priorities and Planning Committee, and I take part in all the truly strategic committees in the Martin government's decision making. In the Operations Committee, for example, virtually all of government is managed, in that that's where the traffic is directed, where the decision is made to send a particular brief to Cabinet, to a particular committee, and so on. I'm there, and I'm there wearing each of my hats.

    So I believe that the official languages file benefits from the fact that it has a minister who sits on the Operations Committee and the Priorities and Planning Committee, without ever forgetting his responsibility for languages, because I was sworn in for that purpose. That gives official languages considerable weight and enables me to influence a certain number of decisions and orientations in government as a whole. It also gives me the power to make colleagues more aware of the importance of that file since I very often have the opportunity to speak to ministers who have responsibilities. So I have the opportunity to make them even more aware of how important this file is. Moreover, I do so every time I have the opportunity.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Raymond Simard: After the near critical situations we've experienced, have any plans been put in place to ensure they do not reoccur? I believe there's a lack of awareness among government officials, because they aren't used to it. I don't know whether you've planned something along those lines.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: The matter you referred to is within the Department of Health itself. It went well because, as I'm also the Health Minister, I didn't need a lot of time to call the Health Minister and ask him to intervene. I handled it immediately, and that's why the matter was settled so quickly. As minister, I was able to correct the situation myself as soon as I got wind of it, in a matter of hours.

    I can tell you that the general role I have to play in government gives me very quick access to all ministers, because when I call, things move. People wonder why I'm calling. So I tend to get calls back and fairly effective follow-up to my intervention.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: Second, we are still concerned that the funds that are supposed to be allocated to official languages and that are circulating in a number of departments may be spent elsewhere. I've been assured that's not the case and that those funds can in fact be identified. Is that the case?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: That's entirely the case. The funds are clearly identified within the departments. There is an established accountability exercise. I want to have those working luncheons where we coordinate actions four times a year, in working meetings, precisely for the purpose of obtaining reports on that so that I can ensure the funds are invested in the right way at the right time.

    Note that a large portion of those funds is transferred to the provinces. As a large part of the plan concerns education, nearly half of the plan's funds are transferred to the provinces. And when the funds are transferred to the provinces, as we're talking about official languages, those amounts must obviously be spent to promote official languages, French in particular.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: In the $751 million official languages plan, I feel that considerable emphasis is placed on second language, on immersion. That's good, but a certain balance must nevertheless be maintained.

    I'm thinking about French-speaking Manitoba. If you don't have a dynamic community where you can experience life in French, all the young people who finish immersion won't have any opportunity to practice. That's quite disturbing for us. So efforts should be made to ensure there is a balance between support for our communities and immersion.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: With regard to education in particular, the new funds are $209 million for minority languages and $137 million for second language. As you can see, the minority question has not at all been neglected. It still takes the lion's share in education.

    But I absolutely agree with your observation that we need a healthy environment to accommodate people who complete immersion so that they can really live in French. It's less artificial.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Godin, over to you.

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Good afternoon once again, Mr. Minister. You said a moment ago that it would be good to have two, three or four languages. I believe it would be better if we could first solve the problem of our two official languages in Canada before broadening that. Otherwise we're going to get lost in the problem by trying to resolve the issue of the two official languages, about which there is a law in Canada.

º  (1610)  

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Please understand, what I said is that speaking two languages opens the mind to the possibility of speaking others. I'll tell you why I say that, Mr. Godin, because that's important. A number of people in the rest of Canada wonder why we should encourage French rather than Spanish, for example, which is a rising language, or instead of some other language. In a country like Canada, where English and French are two very good international languages that open a lot of doors, you'll learn Spanish much more easily if you already know French. English-speaking Canadians who have learned French will learn Spanish much more easily. Similarly, Francophones who learn English will learn German more easily. I wanted to counter the argument of those who agree that we should encourage a second language, but who wonder why we should promote French. That's why I think it's important to say that.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Two boats left port at the same time; one left England and the other left France, and they arrived in Canada. Those are the two languages that were accepted, and that's why there are two official languages. English and French were the two founding peoples.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Not really at the same time. One boat left 150 years before the other.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: That's true, and that was Acadia. We should remember that. It was the Acadians.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, but it was 150 years before the other boat.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Let's come back to this one. Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier has just had a bill passed, with the unanimous agreement of all political parties, to make Part VII of the Official Languages Act executory. Is the government prepared to support that bill on Part VII, which was unanimously supported by the Senate? If you truly believe in the official languages, if you truly want to solve the problem, is the government prepared to go in the same direction as the Senate and make it executory? That would give the Official Languages Act some teeth.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: First, the bill is currently before the Senate, and the government is monitoring its progress very closely.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: The bill is already passed.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: It was passed this afternoon?

    The Chair: No, it hasn't been passed yet. I'm its sponsor in the House. The bill was passed in committee. It should pass on third reading this afternoon, but it wasn't done around 2:45 p.m.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Excuse me, it was passed in committee. I would like to have the government's opinion on that.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: We have an action plan, and we are going to continue to work in a manner consistent with that action plan.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: The action plan doesn't talk about making Part VII executory.

    The Chair: Mr. Godin, you could let the minister finish his sentence.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: The framework proposes an approach for federal institutions to implementing Part VII of the Official Languages Act. We intend to be very vigilant and dynamic in this regard.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: You talk about being vigilant and dynamic. There is $751 million for official languages, and every time the agencies fight for something they've won... I give you the example of the four inspectors in Shippagan, who won their case with the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick. They went to Federal Court and they won: it was ruled that the transfer of inspectors from Shippagan to Shediac violated the Official Languages Act. But the government is appealing the decision. Are we going to be given the $751 million and have it taken back right away? People are asking questions about this. There's a lot of publicity saying that the government is prepared to allocate $751 million for official languages, and the communities are encouraged, but, when something happens and the communities defend themselves with the few laws that currently exist, and win, the Department of Justice or another department goes to court to appeal the court decisions.

    How can we move forward if the communities, which don't have a lot of money, use all their savings to fight and win court cases on official languages, and if the government, with its deep pockets, fights them when they win? That's regressing. I think this is one of the most important questions right now because it goes against the action plan. The action plan states that we want to improve the situation, but, when we improve it, the government fights the communities. I don't know whether you're aware of the situation, but it's the kind of situation that often occurs. Every time the communities make headway in court, the government appeals.

    The Chair: Mr. Minister.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: We'll have to see. I'm not aware of the specific case you're referring to. I'll check with my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to see why the Solicitor has decided to appeal. You know that we can appeal for all kinds of reasons. It creates law when we don't dispute certain decisions. I'm not aware of the specific case you're referring to. So we'll see.

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Do I still have some time?

    The Chair: Yes, go ahead; ask a final question.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: ACFO, which is a very important association in Ontario, is currently having trouble, since the government is reducing the amounts of money it pays it. They've just signed a $148,000 agreement valid until June. The money is being paid bit by bit. Will the government start cutting grants to the various associations? This time, it's ACFO; the next time, will it be the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick? These are associations that have really done good work for Francophones in the minority regions outside Quebec. Could I have your opinion on that?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: I'll discuss that with my colleague, Ms. Chalifour Scherrer, who is the minister responsible for funding those organizations. I'll take a close look at that and see with her on what basis and criteria those reallocations are determined. Larger amounts of money are available than previously.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. Before going any further, I would like to ask the minister a question myself concerning the $751 million figure.

    Since the Manley budget, there has been a procedure whereby, at the end of the year, unspent funds are recovered for reallocation purposes. One of the tests is a percentage, which I don't remember. In my opinion, this $751 million amount should not be subject to that procedure every year because the funds would be removed and reallocated to something else.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: That's what's called lapse of funds. No.

    The Chair: All right. My next question concerns the Office of the Commissioner. The Commissioner is our police department. She is an officer of Parliament whose mandate is to monitor, investigate and so on, to ensure that the Act is complied with. I don't think it's normal that the Privy Council, as we speak, has taken steps with the Commissioner of Official Languages to take back unspent funds and to subject them to spending reviews by the Treasury Board. There is even a submission, which I have in hand, to recover a portion of those funds. I would like to share this information with the minister on behalf of the committee a little later to ensure that the Office of the Commissioner is not stripped of those funds, particularly since, in agreeing to those votes only a few days ago, we all wanted to provide the Commissioner and her office with all the necessary powers to do a better job for us all.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: I would like to see that submission as soon as possible. We're approaching March 31. I would like to ensure there is no problem. Personally, I've had no wind of that.

    The Chair: All right. I raised this question informally a little earlier today in a discussion with the Treasury Board President. I will take it upon myself to hand the two documents over to you and perhaps to share them with my colleagues on the committee as well. I think it is important that our Commissioner not lose the tools she has so that she can do an even better job.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: As regards the lapsing of certain funds on March 31, I would remind you that the $751 million figure is spread over five years. Consequently, lapsing could only apply at the end of the last year. Funds can be carried over from one year to the next. You have to watch out in the fifth year, if any money is left. However, I believe that investments will increase as we move forward in time.

    The Chair: All right, but I would like us to protect the office of our police force.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, of course. I was coming back to your first question, but not out of lack of interest in the second.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. If I understand correctly, Mr. Minister, you'll only be here for another 15 minutes. Consequently, members, it would be desirable to proceed quite quickly.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: I have to be in the House of Commons at 4:30 p.m.

    The Chair: Mr. Reid, the floor is yours.

[English]

    Mr. Scott Reid: Very quickly, I'd like to pursue another item that came up last year when the report was put forward.

    The government stated that its goal was to raise the proportion of bilingual francophones and anglophones in the 15- to 19-year-old group from 24%, which it was in 2001, to 50% by 2013. But when I sat down and did the math on the amount of money going forward to provide funds, it came out to something in the neighbourhood of $20 per student per year. I couldn't figure out how you'd achieve this remarkable goal with such a small amount of money. Worthwhile as the goal is, just $20 a year isn't going to do that, as far as I can see. If it could, then I'd suggest we spend $100 a year and teach kids five languages.

    I'm just wondering how you have managed to deal with this, and how you realistically expect to achieve this goal by 2013.

º  (1620)  

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Provinces are putting in the same amount of money as the feds, so it doubles it. There again, I appreciate very much your support for more money to eventually support the increase in bilingual citizens. But for the time being, we believe that will help to meet the objective of doubling the numbers.

    It's not only a matter of money. As you know, there is an enthusiasm and interest in favour of immersion.

    Mr. Scott Reid: Well, I don't doubt for a minute that more money helps to achieve the goal. I must say that what I saw was that there were two things going on. Number one was we'll put forward some money amounting to twenty bucks. Maybe with the provinces throwing in equal numbers it works out to forty bucks a student per year. Then I saw a goal, which was basically picked out of the sky: 50%. It's great, but I don't see any logical connection between the two. I don't see any effort to connect the two. One is just an assertion: in the year 2013 half of students will speak the other official language. Then we're tossing in twenty bucks, or forty bucks, with the provinces throwing in their bit. These are unconnected in any realistic way.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: This is seed money. The provinces are pitching in as well. The Parents for French are pitching in, and a number of associations are contributing to those numbers as well.

    The Chair: Perhaps we'll move quickly, given the limited time we have left.

    Monsieur Drouin.

[Translation]

    Hon. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I would like to congratulate our colleague, Pierre, on his appointment to this important position. I believe it is very appropriate to assign responsibility for promoting official languages to the Minister of Health and Intergovernmental Affairs. I believe that having to speak both languages is an asset for the population of the entire country. It's a privilege. We mustn't just monitor, but also promote this opportunity we have to be able to speak both official languages.

    Mr. Minister, you said that nearly half of the amount was going to the provinces through transfers. How do you monitor that? Is it the minister concerned, Canadian Heritage, or you who is responsible for monitoring?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: I coordinate the exercise as a whole, but each department negotiates the agreements. I'm thinking, for example, of education, because that's mainly where money is transferred to the provinces. The Department of Canadian Heritage has responsibility for negotiating and monitoring to ensure that money goes to the right places. I have to coordinate the work of all my colleagues.

    Hon. Claude Drouin: We recognize that it is important for the public service to be able to serve Canadians in the official language of their choice. Are there any objectives? Have any methods been found for encouraging our public service to serve the public adequately?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: First of all, Ms. Robillard did quite a remarkable job, with a great deal of courage. She was determined in her work, and that's the kind of determination we intend to encourage and promote. There's always the carrot and the stick. When the carrot doesn't work well enough, at one point, you have to be a little more vigorous. That's what's happened in recent years. I believe that's an approach our government feels quite comfortable with.

    Hon. Claude Drouin: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You're right: Ms. Robillard was extremely determined, but only with 0.5% of the public service. That infatuation should now be extended to the remaining 99.5% of the public service. That's important.

    Mr. Minister, you and Mr. Asselin referred to new provisions on accountability, articles 17, 18, 19 and 20. Can you send the committee examples of what's being done now to increase employee awareness which was not being done before? Every institution must be able to transmit the relevant information to the Department of Canadian Heritage, as necessary. I'm certain that, if it's written in the chapter on accountability, we have to ensure that it's done, and not only in writing. Is that correct? So can you send us some examples of what's being done fairly soon?

    As regards the public service, you say you are enthusiastic, determined and so on. Can you tell us what you think of imperative and non-imperative staffing? For example, in filling a bilingual position, non-imperative staffing enables a non-bilingual person to occupy that bilingual position. It seems to me this problem should be resolved at the outset. If designated bilingual positions were filled with bilingual people, it seems to me that, logically, that shouldn't cause any problems over the long term.

    My question is twofold. Do you agree that non-imperative staffing should be eliminated or that it should be extended to criteria other than bilingualism? In other words, if you want to hire bilingual persons who are not bilingual, could we hire lawyers who are not lawyers and accountants who aren't accountants? Do you agree that non-imperative staffing should be eliminated or that it should be extended to all hiring criteria in the public service?

º  (1625)  

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Do you have an answer to that question?

    Mr. Robert Asselin: Imperative staffing has been around for all positions in the government for a long time. Ms. Robillard was very firm in November with regard to the EX-2 and EX-3 positions. She set deadlines. All EX-2s will have to be imperatively bilingual by 2007, and EX-3s by 2005. I believe that the government has shown, on the whole, that it is very serious about the imperative staffing question.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: With all due respect, I would say that, to be even more serious, if bilingual people were hired to fill bilingual positions...

    Mr. Robert Asselin: It's better if people are already bilingual at the outset. That's why the plan refers to complementarity between the education of young people, who will increasingly be bilingual, and their entry into the public service.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You can't say there's a shortage of bilingual personnel.

    Mr. Robert Asselin: At times, yes.

    The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, we're going to say there's a lack of time if we don't let Mr. Jobin speak. Mr. Jobin, you may ask a final question.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: Mr. Minister, nearly half of funding is conditional on ratification of federal-provincial and federal-territorial agreements on health, access to justice and education. I would like to know whether the provinces and territories are aware, or have been aware, of the action plan. Has any way been found to inform them of the action plan?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, first of all, when the action plan was being developed, elaborate consultations were conducted with them. I had the opportunity to discuss this with them during one round. I visited each of the provinces and each of the territories. The language issue was raised regularly in most of the provinces and territories. I observed that all jurisdictions were interested in cooperating and working in that direction.

    Mr. Christian Jobin: Do the provinces and territories have any money? I believe that, under the terms of those agreements, payment of that money is conditional on their matching federal funds.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes in some cases, and no in others. In most cases, the province's share is quite significant.

    The Chair: Mr. Minister, do you have any time to answer a final question from Mr. Godin?

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Economic development is addressed on page 46 of the Action Plan for Official Languages. The plan addresses the question of economic development in the official language minority communities. What amounts have been spent on economic development in the first year of the action plan, that is 2003-2004, and in what minority regions has economic development money been spent? If you don't have an answer today, I would appreciate you sending it to the Official Languages Committee.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: We'll be pleased to send that to you. I don't have the figures here.

    The Chair: Mr. Minister, thank you for appearing before the committee this afternoon. We wish you every success in your work to improve the situation, not only for all of us in the House of Commons who are responsible for this issue, but especially for all Canadians who seek a Canada where the official languages are respected to a greater degree. Thank you very much.

    Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Thank you very much. This was very pleasant.

    The Chair: I would like to ask members to stay a few minutes because requests have been made to us. With your permission, we'll settle this immediately.

    Here is the information concerning the coming meetings. As you all know, we will not sit next week. We contacted the Canadian Cable Television Association so that its representatives could come here tomorrow. They were apparently not ready to come and testify tomorrow, but they would probably be prepared to appear on March 24. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and the minister responsible for the Canadian Public Service and Human Resources Management Agency have confirmed that they will meet us on March 30. On March 31, we'll have the Minister of Justice, who has also confirmed that he will appear. Mr. Vice-Chair, I believe you will have to chair the meeting that day because I will be out of the country representing Parliament. That's it for appearances by the various witnesses.

    Now two other requests have been submitted to us. Allow me to share them with you. The Commission nationale des parents francophones has asked to appear before our committee through the Vice-Chair, Mr. Raymond Simard. That organization has its headquarters here in Ottawa.

º  (1630)  

    The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Marc-Olibier Girard): I have the subject here.

    The Chair: That group wanted to talk to us about early childhood development in the Francophone communities in relation to the action plan. A second group has asked to appear: the Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario. They want to appear to talk to us about how the federal government could negotiate agreements with the provinces and territories “to promote governance and delivery of municipal services in both official languages”.

    Is there any interest in hearing from these two groups? If so, we can ask our Clerk to try to find the time to hear them.

    Mr. Simard, as one of those groups contacted you, you may take action.

    Mr. Raymond Simard: That's no problem for me. But we normally examine certain subjects and invite witnesses accordingly. If people are open to that, I would be open to it, but...

    The Chair: Of course, our time may be limited to a few weeks, but I don't know about that any more than anyone else. If it were up to me, we would have a number of months, but I'm not the one who decides.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Let's settle it right away.

    The Chair: Are you interested in the two groups in question? All right. In the meantime, of course, we'll continue the work under way.

    Does the committee wish me to write to the two ministers in question regarding the votes for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages so that we can ensure that the Commissioner's funds are not taken back? My position is that she is an officer of Parliament, that this is a committee of Parliament which approves votes, that we have tabled them in the House, and that it must at least be the budget of the person who has been asked to do the work. If that had not been the case, we would have said something else.

    Mr. Godin, go ahead.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to make a point to the committee.

    The Chair: Can we finish with the point I raised? Is that all right? All right.

    Mr. Godin, you may introduce a new subject.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: We're going to hear from the cable industry people. I don't know whether we could do any research on what is going on in Canada in the SAP field.

    It's true that I got rid of my Canadian Tire television; I took it back.

    The Chair: I didn't want to address that subject.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm going to address it because I want to tell you how important it is, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the question that was raised when CPAC came, I just received an e-mail at my office, and I want to tell you about it because it's important. I won't name the man because I don't have permission to name him publicly, but this is interesting.

[English]

He wants to know why CPAC is in French all the time, and I tried to explain. The man is over 70 years old and does not understand how the remote works.

[Translation]

    Last week, an 80-year-old woman called me. You can't imagine how angry she was. She told me that, since CPAC broadcasts the program in only one language, Anglophones in the region no longer understand the proceedings of Parliament.

    If possible, I would like us to do some research into the scope of the problem. You will remember the man in Moncton who went to court and won. Now the problem is still around in the regions where there are two fairly large groups representing the two official languages and where the program is only in one language.

    I didn't write this; it just arrived. It's to show you the extent of the problem. On the same subject, I think we should also look at what the judge said and what that represents. The Speaker of the House appealed from the Federal Court decision and lost. So what does the decision mean? I would like to have some interpretation of what the court decision means, particularly for the communities where there are two language groups. In my region, for example, each of the communities is quite large.

º  (1635)  

    The Chair: Mr. Ménard, can you provide any information?

    Mr. Marion Ménard (Committee Researcher): There are two aspects to what you've requested. You're referring to the Quigley affair. On that subject, I can provide you with a chronology of facts and an explanation, a summary of the entire case.

    As for SAP, I wish to point out that, as far as research goes, I can't come up with much more data than what CPAC presented to us the last time. I don't have any additional figures, but I could do some research.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I would find it hard to tell someone to do as I do and to take his television set back to the store. I had the courage to do it, but I would have trouble telling a 70-year-old man or woman that. I can't go into every home and show them how it works. But I can assure you that people aren't happy.

    The Chair: In any case, get what you can for that meeting, Mr. Ménard. Of course, the other day, we were given explanations, but they were explanations for cable companies, because CPAC transmits...

    Mr. Yvon Godin: It's not CPAC, and we agree on that. CPAC transmits.

    The Chair: All right. Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: At the last meeting or two meetings ago, I pointed out that the acronyms of all the committees are in English only on the invitations. You raised a doubt in my mind because I didn't have the sheet. So I went back to the office and I asked my assistant for it. I had the sheet a moment ago, but I don't know where it went. I can tell you, after checking and rechecking it with my assistant, that the acronyms are in English. Mr. Girard, you're going to receive a fax, today or tomorrow morning, confirming that. I had brought the sheet, but it disappeared.

    The Chair: We're interested in that, of course, but we should also talk about it with the members who represent us on the Board of Internal Economy.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I'll call you back.

    The Chair: It's in our interest as well.

    With that, I thank you. As you know, there will be no meeting tomorrow because we have no witnesses. We would have liked to have some, but none were available for tomorrow.

    So we'll be back after the break week, depending on witness availability, as stated earlier.

    The meeting is adjourned.