LANG Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

0830

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

Hon. Hélène Scherrer (Minister of Canadian Heritage)

0835

0840

0845

The Chair

0850

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC)

The Chair

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

0855

Mr. James Lunney

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. James Lunney

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

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

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

0900

Mr. Christian Jobin

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Christian Jobin

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

0905

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine (Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, Department of Canadian Heritage)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

0910

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

M. Hilaire Lemoine

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

0915

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

0920

The Chair

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

0925

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

0930

The Chair

Hon. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.)

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

0935

Hon. Claude Drouin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

0940

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mrs. Judith LaRocque (Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage)

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mrs. Judith LaRocque

0945

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Raymond Simard

Hon. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

1000

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Hon. Denis Coderre (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Minister responsible for la Francophonie and Minister responsible for the Office of Indian Residential Schools Resolution)

1005

1010

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, CPC)

1015

Hon. Denis Coderre

The Chair

1020

Mr. Raymond Simard

Hon. Denis Coderre

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Denis Coderre

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Hon. Denis Coderre

1025

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin

Hon. Denis Coderre

Mr. Christian Jobin

Mrs. Diana Monnet (Vice-President, Official Languages, Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada)

1030

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin

Hon. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Denis Coderre

Mr. Yvon Godin

1035

Hon. Denis Coderre

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Denis Coderre

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Denis Coderre

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Denis Coderre

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Denis Coderre

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Denis Coderre

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Denis Coderre

Mr. Yvon Godin

Hon. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Hon. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

1040

The Chair

Hon. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

1045

The Chair

Hon. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Hon. Claude Drouin

Mrs. Diana Monnet

Hon. Claude Drouin

The Chair

Hon. Denis Coderre

1050

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Hon. Denis Coderre

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Hon. Denis Coderre

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin

Hon. Denis Coderre

Mr. Christian Jobin

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 006

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0830)

[Translation]

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

In accordance with Standing Order 108(2), we will now review our agenda. We will proceed with the study of the summary of past and future official languages initiatives from Canadian Heritage. This morning, it is our great pleasure to have the Honourable Hélène Chalifour Scherrer, the Minister of Canadian Heritage. She is accompanied by the Deputy Minister, Judith LaRocque, and Eileen Sarkar, Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Heritage. I am told that many other senior officials will also be available following the testimony we are about to hear.

Welcome, Madam Minister. Do you wish to make an opening statement? The floor is yours.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank my colleagues who have been kind enough to get up this morning in order to come and hear me. Sometimes a half hour in the morning makes a big difference. As you will see, today we have some high-tech equipment, since you'll be able to follow my presentation on the screens at the back. Ms. LaRocque and Ms. Sarkar, who are with me, will help me answer the more technical questions, if necessary.

First, I would like to speak to you in my role as Minister of Canadian Heritage, more particularly in the official languages field, to give you an overview of the Department's 2002-2003 annual report and then to recall the official languages objectives we are pursuing.

As you know, my responsibilities include implementation of official languages support programs. I also have a mandate to make federal departments aware of the role they have to play in promoting the official languages and coordinating efforts made to that end.

I come to this position at a very interesting, but also very important time. We are coming to the end of a cycle of agreements with the provinces and territories and with our partners in the communities.

Canadian Heritage encourages Canadians to recognize the importance of English and French in Canadian society. It also supports the official language minority communities and cooperates with the provincial and territorial governments to promote the two official languages.

I would also like my appearance before the committee to be an opportunity to hear from you and to benefit from your knowledge and experience with regard to the major official languages issues.

I tabled the 2002-2003 annual report on March 10 of this year. That report provides an overview of results achieved by the official languages support programs. It also sets out the principal achievements of the 29 federal departments and agencies concerned by the accountability framework.

It should be noted that the report presents the results for the 2002-2003 fiscal year, which ended on March 31, 2003. That means it does not include implementation of the Action Plan for Official Languages. That will be contained in my next annual report.

During that period, the Department conducted a number of evaluations of its programs, including the Official Languages in Education Program and the Official Language Communities Support Program. First of all, those evaluations confirm the relevance of federal action taken. Those reports acknowledge the impact of that action and also invite us to target our intervention more specifically and to identify more specific results. The evaluations will also help us reach more strategic agreements and more clearly define the results we want to achieve.

[English]

I would like to remind you that official language programs touch all Canadians. Two main objectives are the basis of our programs. First is the development of minority communities and second is the enhancement of our two official languages. These objectives are interdependent. It is important that members of minority communities live in their language and have the tools to prosper. It is also important to the future of Canada's official languages that the majority of Canadians appreciate the advantages of linguistic duality and that they recognize and accept the rights of official language minorities.

[Translation]

Now allow me to provide an overview of the past 10 years in minority language education, support for community life and second language education.

First let's talk about education. All young Canadians, Anglophones and Francophones, living in minority environments, are entitled to an education in their mother tongue. Over the past 30 years, the Department of Canadian Heritage has entered into agreements with the provinces and territories on minority language education. We have made major progress in this field.

For example, in education in French, 68% of young Francophones go to French schools. Unfortunately, we still observe a lower level of performance on certain tests such as reading. Work remains to be done to increase the number of youths attending French schools and to ensure they receive the best possible education.

As for education in English, 94% of young English-speaking Quebeckers go to English schools, and their performance level is equivalent to that of youths in the majority. As one picture is worth a thousand words, let me show you, with figures in hand, how positive the impact of our programs has been on the Francophone minority.

The table at the back shows the educational attainment of Francophone minorities compared to that of majority Anglophones. If you take a close look at the table, you'll see that the impact has already been significant in the 25-44 age group and even more significant in the 15-24 group.

Thirty years of investment in education has produced results. Look at the 25-44 columns and you'll see that as many young minority Francophones today are completing university educations as majority Anglophones. That's a complete reversal of the situation experienced by their elders, only 13% of whom completed postsecondary studies.

Now let's look at the state of community life. The communities now have strong community networks. These are institutions such as schools, but also infrastructures that reflect their identity, such as, for example, cultural centres, community school centres and community radio stations.

Community radio not only enables people to hear their language regularly, but also increases contact with artists, personalities and leaders. Community radio helps develop a strong sense of belonging. That moreover is what I observed when I met with the officers of the Association des radios communautaires (ARC) last week.

It's also important that the minorities be able to obtain services in their language from the provincial and territorial governments. A lot of progress has been achieved in this area. For example, I'm told that Quebec is now open to discussing an agreement on Anglophone minority services.

In January, I also had the opportunity to visit a service centre in Manitoba, where the three levels of government have joined forces to offer their services. This is a good example of joint action.

¾ (0835)

[English]

Along with learning a second language, young Canadians gain an appreciation of another culture that is part of the social makeup of this country.

Over the last ten years much progress has been made in language education in all of the provinces and territories. We should celebrate that fact. Some examples include: over 357,000 students are in French immersion; 24% of young people 15 to 19 years old are bilingual; more than 70,000 university students have improved their second language through the summer language bursary program, which permits university and college students to study in their second language for five weeks in the summer at a university elsewhere in Canada; and 86% of Canadians estimate it is important that their children learn a second language.

The following is a table that reveals how people perceive their progress with regard to learning their second official language. The survey on attitudes and perceptions towards Canada's official languages revealed that 68% of the respondents between the ages of 18 and 34 believe that elementary and secondary education has given them a good opportunity to learn the second official language.

In order to effectively double the number of functionally bilingual youth, we need to ensure that our education system has the capacity to provide young Canadians with the tools they need to learn their second language.

¾ (0840)

[Translation]

We are at a major turning point in the official languages issue. We're facing a new situation, that of the government's action plan. I also see the coming years as an ideal time to establish a new partnership with all our partners. I'm thinking here of the communities and of the other levels of government, the provinces and the territories.

The action plan confirms the key federal departments' commitment to community development. Through new funding, more departments, such as Health Canada, for example, will be working in partnership with the communities.

Now that other federal institutions are committed to acting in fields such as health, early childhood and immigration, we at Canadian Heritage will refocus our efforts on priorities directly concerning our department.

In addition, this coincides with the end of a cycle of agreements with the communities, with the provinces and territories in education and on minority language services.

I believe it's worth taking the time to reflect and consult in order to review how we can do better with the means we have. One thing is certain: we are going to agree on clear results with all our partners.

After 10 years of partnership with the communities, the time has come to see with them how we can build on our successes and determine together where we want to be in real terms in five years. We're going to want to agree with the communities on the best measures to ensure that community living environments permit as much exchange and contact as possible in their language, as in, for example, the areas of sports, recreation and family activities. We'll also want to agree with the communities on the best ways to enhance artistic and cultural vitality and to ensure that young people get increasingly involved in their communities, which is very important for their future.

As you have seen, we have made progress in cooperating with our partners in the provinces and territories, but we still have challenges before us. We want to work with them to achieve the following objectives. In minority language education, we want to increase the number of young Francophones in minority schools from 68% to 80%. We also hope to provide young Anglophone Quebeckers in the regions with distance training.

Again in education, but in the area of second language instruction, we hope to increase the number of bilingual young people from 24% to 50%. Discussions are under way, and I have every hope that we will be able to reach agreements in the coming months. A few weeks ago, moreover, I had a very positive meeting on the subject with Minister Reid, who is the Chair of the Council of Ministers of Education Canada.

As for provincial and territorial government services, we'll also be working with our partners so that more services are offered in areas that are priorities for the minority communities. Last January, I saw the great interest the provinces and territories have in heading in that direction, when I met Minister Selinger from Manitoba, who is President of the Conférence des affaires francophones.

You can't talk about the development of our two official languages without also considering culture. In addition to its responsibility for official languages, Canadian Heritage also administers a range of cultural programs. In so doing, it takes into consideration the needs of the minority communities and promotes linguistic duality.

For example, the funding programs of Canadian Culture Online have invested $200 million in three years to create Canadian cultural content in both official languages on the Internet. Eighty percent of the Web sites to which the program has granted funding have a French interface.

Through its cultural agencies, the government also assists in the development of communities with both official languages.

For example, Radio-Canada's radio and television services serve Francophones throughout the country. Programming is produced across Canada for regional and national broadcast. RDI, the Réseau de l'information, provides French-language service to 9.08 million subscribers, including 6.8 million outside Quebec. French radio reaches 98% of Francophones in the country.

Your committee recently addressed the government through two reports on cultural issues, including the report on the Canadian Television Fund, with regard to production in the minority communities.

¾ (0845)

In the first report, you recommended that the government increase its contribution to the Canadian Television Fund and confirm it for a number of years. On March 23, the government announced and it would restore its contribution to the Canadian Television Fund to its historical level of $100 million a year starting in 2004-2005. It further confirmed that investment for 2005 and 2006. The audio-visual sector is satisfied with that commitment.

You also recommended that a minimum 15% of the Francophone portion of the Canadian Television Fund be set aside for minority Francophone audio-visual productions. The board of directors has established an envelope for minority Francophone producers representing 10% of the total Francophone envelope of the Canadian Television Fund. That envelope will represent at least $7.2 million in 2004-2005.

You also recommended that the management and structure of the Canadian Television Fund and Telefilm Canada be reevaluated. The government recognizes the importance of attacking this question and has already begun consultations on governance of the Canadian Television Fund. A round table will be held in the coming weeks involving key players in the television industry for the purpose of specifically discussing this issue.

As to the second report, the government tabled its response in July 2003. It replied to the committee's five recommendations on the role of the CRTC with respect to official languages. As the committee had recommended, the government designated the CRTC as a federal institution targeted by the accountability framework for the implementation of section 41.

As regards CPAC's obligation to broadcast in both official languages, as provided under the Broadcasting Act, consultations are under way with the CRTC for the purpose of issuing an order to that effect. The CRTC has also conducted follow-up to ensure that hotels are informed that, since September 2002, they have been required to ensure that CPAC is available through their in-house television programming systems.

As regards the recommendation concerning distribution of CBC stations, the CRTC will shortly issue its decision on renewal of the licences of Star Choice and Bell ExpressVu. At that time, it will state its requirements regarding broadcast of the signals of Radio-Canada and CBC stations. Since your report, progress has been made in this area. However, the government has made a commitment to report to the committee this fall on the situation regarding the distribution of the public cable network's regional services.

Lastly, with respect to bilingual markets, the government believes that the CRTC's current policy allows for broad distribution of programming services in the minority language. It sees no need to designate bilingual markets. Here again, the government undertakes to provide the committee with an evaluation of the results of the policy when it appears this coming fall.

To ensure the future of linguistic duality in Canada, we must all be able to work together as partners: federal institutions, the other levels of government, the communities and majority volunteer groups. We must also involve young people and invite them to get involved. That's fundamentally important in my view.

I would like to see them get increasingly involved in their communities, take over from their elders and mobilize to preserve their culture and language. I would also like all young Canadians to be bilingual, and why not trilingual. It is important to build bridges between minorities and majorities so that everyone appreciates the asset our two official languages represent. I intend to work in that direction throughout my term as Minister of Heritage.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister. I would like to thank you for considering the opinion of the committee and other members on the Canadian Television Fund. That gives members hope. When we produce reports and see that things have been corrected as a result of our recommendations, I believe that everyone, at least I hope, thinks that's a good thing in that regard. Of course, others will no doubt want to ask questions about other reports, and they will do so. I already see some agreeing with me. In the meantime, a number of members want to speak.

Mr. Lunney, over to you.

¾ (0850)

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Thank you very much.

I would like to thank the minister for her good presentation.

[English]

That's my little attempt with my six words in French.

We have a lot of French-speaking people on the west coast, and many of them, of course, speak very good English. As for me, I have begun again to study French because it's important to try to build bridges and communicate with the people, even though they speak good English. I know that French immersion programs are very popular. On Vancouver Island, where I am, there are many families that take advantage of these programs and they're very proud of their children and their accomplishments. So I certainly support these programs and I'm glad to see them being employed and I'm glad to see parents taking advantage of them.

I know the exchange programs, where students travel to Quebec and study for a while, change their attitudes tremendously. They go out and visit francophone communities, meet people, have discussions around a breakfast table, and then come back. The impact is huge on these young people.

As a young person growing up in Manitoba, I benefited from an exchange like that. Although I didn't participate, it was a friend of mine who did, and the young woman from Quebec who visited my home in Winnipeg at that time and became a friend for all that time certainly increased my interest in French tremendously that summer as a teenager. So I really appreciate the impact of these programs.

I have to bring up this controversial incident that happened with Mr. Don Cherry over the hockey helmet issue. I have to say that it's incidents like this that undermine so much goodwill. The program announced they were going to investigate his remarks, which to most anglophones was considered just an observation about a hockey helmet, that in fact the players from Quebec and some European players were the first ones to employ these. To initiate an investigation of this remark, which most people would interpret as they're ahead of the pack....

When we were playing hockey a lot of the NHL players weren't wearing helmets at all, and we moved to helmets. So many of the players are now going to visors because we know eye injuries are very serious for everyone.

When we initiate an investigation it's as if the thought police were coming out. We have in the charter freedom of expression, and when we have this kind of an excessive response made by a government department I think it undermines a lot of the goodwill that is generated by other programs.

Madame la ministre, I submit that to you for your comments.

[Translation]

The Chair: Madam Minister, I don't know whether you can answer for Mr. Cherry.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: I won't do so.

[English]

I'm going to answer Mr. Lunney first, and I want to compliment you on your French, because I've heard you speak French, more than six words, and I think your French is not that bad. You should go on speaking French and then you would learn more.

Secondly, I was in Vancouver over the weekend and met with francophone communities, and they completely agree with what you just said. And I specifically met with an organization by the name of Canadian Parents for French. I was impressed with what I saw in Vancouver. They are very proactive. They speak English very well, but I'm always impressed by those communities. First, I'm impressed by the number of francophones outside Quebec, and I'm also very much impressed by the fact that they are very vibrant communities and very proactive.

I certainly hope that these exchange programs will go on, because not only is it a good way to learn a second language, it's also a good way to know your country and learn a lot more. This is a good start in life.

As for Mr. Cherry, especially on the comments that were aimed at Quebec, it was handled by the CBC. And even if the CBC is an independent institution and can take its own steps in deciding what it's going to do, that doesn't mean that as a government we have to agree with what he said.

¾ (0855)

Mr. James Lunney: What I was referring to, of course, was the investigation, that somehow we were going to look into these remarks and determine what was the basis of them. It was a simple thing. It's the point that we would have an investigation going on into something like this that really infuriates some people to say “What's going on in the country that we send out the thought police to try to clamp down on a remark?” I don't think it was intended to be a slur; it was simply an observation.

Do you understand where I'm going with that?

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Are you telling me that you don't agree with the fact that there should be an inquiry? Is that what you're saying?

Mr. James Lunney: Well, I think the fact that we're going to have an inquiry into a remark like that, some people find it very offensive.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: It was a remark made on national TV. It was not a remark.... What I'm being told is that we're not doing the inquiry.

[Translation]

The Commissioner of Official Languages

[English]

is doing the inquiry. It's not the ministry that is doing the inquiry.

Mr. James Lunney: I thought it was done under the authority of Dyane Adam and the official languages program.

The Chair: No, Dyane Adam is a servant of the House. She is one of ours from Parliament. She obviously doesn't work for the minister. She works for us as MPs. The Commissioner of Official Languages is not someone from the Department of Canadian Heritage. She works for the House of Commons, for Parliament. She's one of us internally. Of course she or her staff are always present in this room when we sit. She testifies here about once every two or three weeks. So that's not the minister's role.

Mr. James Lunney: I certainly heard a lot that was very negative in the press in the west in regard to this investigation. I think it's counterproductive when we carry things to that extreme. I'll simply register the protest on behalf of people who were deeply offended by what I would call an over-reaction.

The Chair: Okay. That being said, I'm sure you'll want to raise it with Dr. Adam when she appears before the committee.

[Translation]

In the meantime, Mr. Jobin, you have the floor.

Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.): Madam Minister, welcome to the committee and thank you for your excellent report.

The Dion Plan provided for $751 million, and the largest portion of that money is managed by Canadian Heritage, which enters into interprovincial agreements. Have there been negotiations with the provinces to sign such agreements? If so, what agreements have already been signed, and with what provinces?

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: The amounts that have been made available in the context of the Action Plan for Official Languages, commonly called the Dion Plan, are spread over various fields. In education, for example, where amounts had previously been allocated to each of the provinces, a supplement, which had been specifically identified, was added to the amount of money that was to be transferred to the provinces through the education program.

In that sense, yes, I met with Minister Reid from Quebec, who this year holds the position of Chair of the Council of Ministers of Education. Mr. Reid obviously would have liked to be able to have all the new funds. With him, we looked at how, for example, each province could receive an additional amount to assist it in funding its education initiatives and then keep a portion of those additional amounts for targeted initiatives in certain provinces where, for example, needs are greater or concrete actions can be identified. Mr. Reid will be seeing his colleagues in the near future to talk. We agreed that we would subsequently look at the matter again.

There are also additional funds that will be invested in the programs Mr. Lunney referred to, such as the bursary and monitor programs. There was also an addition for Canada's community. There's the education program and a second program, which more particularly concerns—we referred to it in the presentation—agreements between Canada and the communities. There too, we'll add approximately $19.5 million over five years. That amount will be distributed through agreements at the provincial level. Since that plan was put in place only a few months ago, the agreements previously signed with the communities were renewed for one year. We'll have to see with the communities how those funds will be subsequently distributed.

¿ (0900)

Mr. Christian Jobin: I'm looking at the education statistics, and it says that, in 2001, 14.7 percent of Anglophones in this age group living outside Quebec were bilingual, whereas 16.3 percent were bilingual in 1966. We see that there is a certain deterioration in this age group.

With the funds provided for education, $381 million, I believe, are the right actions being taken to ensure precisely that there is an increase in bilingualism among young students? We see that the statistics tell us the contrary, and we're wondering about that.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: I would point out moreover that the bilingualism level is higher in Quebec than in the other provinces. So if you take a general average, it's lower. These results are one of the reasons why additional funds were provided so that they could be invested, particularly on the Anglophone side, to support second language learning programs because we realized that the level is indeed lower in the rest of Canada.

Mr. Christian Jobin: There's also assistance for community organizations. An amount of $137 million was provided over five years, $27 million a year, I believe, and amounts of $10,000 or so depending on the organization. There are 350 organizations.

Is the money used effectively, or is this being done on a piecemeal basis? It's not much money for some organizations.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: At round tables in virtually all the provinces, I had the pleasure of meeting people who had benefited from these programs, which are part of the Canada-Communities component. One of the irritants raised by the communities was that, in each of the provinces, a little less money was given to each of the organizations every year, because a lot more players were sharing the pie. As a result, at the end of each year, since people were applying to these programs, there was less money. In fact, even though we added a supplement in the Canada-Communities program, ultimately each of the players around the table received a little less money. That moreover is one of the reasons why we also didn't designate where the funds added under the Action Plan for Official Languages would go, simply to give ourselves some time to review with the communities how those amounts should be distributed.

When you go around to the various provinces and meet a representative sample of people from the communities, the same thing keeps coming up. There are so many priorities around the table, so many players, that we ultimately don't know whether we're meeting... I don't think you can say it's being done on a piecemeal basis, but I wonder whether enough money is in fact being put into a project to carry it out and achieve the desired results.

This is the program review that we're currently examining with each of the communities, each of the players, not in order to cut funding, but, on the contrary, to ensure that each organization that receives funds is able to achieve its objectives and is not forced to receive less money every year because there are new players around the table.

We really asked the people responsible in the communities to consult each other and to identify their priorities: not 28 or 30 priorities, but a few. We suggested that they prepare a two- or three-year plan; one year it's one's turn, the next year it's another's, so that the funds we invest in the communities will ultimately achieve the anticipated results.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Good morning, Ms. Scherrer. Thank you for your presentation. Since I have a number of questions, I'll get to it right away.

There is a lot of division, a lot of dilution in official languages issues. We've often talked about that here, in committee. Your colleague Pierre Pettigrew is the minister responsible for official languages. You're testifying like the person responsible for official languages. I would like you to explain to us your statutory obligations under the Official Languages Act.

¿ (0905)

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: All right. Would you like to ask your other questions?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That's my first question.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Yes. You're going to know precisely; you can be sure of that.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I'm going to help you, all right?

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: No.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: In section...

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: No, no.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It's because I have the answer. I'm going to help you.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: I do too. I can do the same thing for you.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Section 42 of the Official Languages Act states:

^ç	42. The Minister of Canadian Heritage, in consultation with other ministers of the Crown, shall encourage and promote a coordinated approach to the implementation by federal institutions of the commitments set out in section 41.

Reference is made to the previous commitment, in section 41.

In your action plan, in your presentation and in your analyses, you never, at any time, in any circumstance, refer to your statutory obligations.

What are your statutory obligations compared to those of Pierre Pettigrew in the implementation of the Action Plan for Official Languages? Who is responsible for official languages in the Paul Martin government? You must know.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Yes, but you're really going to know because...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Then we're listening.

The Chair: We're going to allow the minister or her associates to answer.

Mr. Lemoine, would you like to speak?

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine (Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, Department of Canadian Heritage): As you mentioned, Mr. Sauvageau, the Minister of Heritage holds her responsibilities under Part VII of the Act, to which you referred. Those responsibilities are ultimately of three kinds. First, of course, unlike your colleague whom you are going to meet at nine o'clock this morning, everything that concerns education or official languages outside the federal government, that is in Canadian society, is the responsibility of Canadian Heritage.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If I understand correctly, under section 42 of the Act, the Minister of Heritage is responsible, in consultation with others, for the Official Languages Act. Responsibility for the Official Languages Act falls to the Minister of Heritage.

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: Part VII of the Official Languages Act falls to the Minister of Heritage. Ultimately, the Department of Justice, as you know...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: All right. Part VII being the one concerning the advancement...

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: Part VII is the one concerning advancement in Canadian society, and that's the role of the Heritage Minister.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: With your permission, through you, I would ask Ms. Scherrer whether she thinks that section 41 is executory or declaratory.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: If you're alluding to Senator Gauthier's bill, I'm going to tell you that the Act is currently declaratory, not executory. If you're asking me whether I believe it should be executory, I must tell you that, having discussed the matter at length with Senator Gauthier, I have a great deal of sympathy for his bill. I know that it has implications for other departments. Other colleagues, as you said, are also concerned, such as Mr. Coderre and Mr. Pettigrew, and of course the Minister of Justice. They'll definitely find implications in it for them. If you want to know my position, I am very much open to this bill.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you very much.

Section 44 states:

44. The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall, within such time as is reasonably practicable after the termination of each financial year, submit an annual report to Parliament...

I have a few questions concerning your report. I hope you've read the report because a number of ministers don't read them. First, why did she file it a year late? Second, are you satisfied with the 20-page report you're tabling? In theory, you should be satisfied, based on what you write, because you say that the reports should include the main achievements of the 29 departments concerned.

The accountability report is not an exercise in “back-patting”—to use Jean Perron's expression on the radio yesterday—but rather a report on what has been done and what hasn't been done in the sense of verifying. So if, for example, among the 29 departments and agencies that are required to file their accountability report, you take the Department of Foreign Affairs and you sum it up, in your opinion, is that the accountability conferred on you by section 44?

¿ (0910)

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: First, as to whether I'm satisfied with the report, the deadline for tabling it was indeed one year. You have to consider that it takes a year to obtain the necessary figures in order to be able to file the report.

M. Hilaire Lemoine: The current report concerns the 2002-2003 year. Before we have the provincial government's final education expenditures, those of the communities, of certain departments to which we've made certain cash transfers under the IPOLC programs, for example, this kind of time period is needed in order to finalize all the figures because we want to publish figures that are based on actual expenditures, not on budgets.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So every year you file your report one year late?

Mr. Hilaire Lemoine: Roughly, yes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: My other question concerns...

The Chair: This is your final question, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Let's take any department or agency among those that are required to file a report. In Interdepartmental Coordination, you do a summary of the summary of the report. Is that accountability?

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: I would like to remind you, Mr. Sauvageau, that this report does not take the action plan which has been implemented into account. Next year's report will definitely be tougher because it will take into account all the measures that have been implemented.

The Chair: Mr. Simard, over to you.

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

I too would like to congratulate you for taking our reports into account. I believe that's important. I think our work is quite important and it's reassuring to see the minister take it seriously.

We talk, for example, about the development of both official languages and the importance of bilingualism in Canada, but the situation is nevertheless quite precarious, in Western Canada, for example. I can talk about the situation in my riding. Reference is made here to the Canada-Communities agreements, and to $27.5 million a year. That's a fairly big figure, but, on the other hand, that money is used to support our minority infrastructures and, quite recently, there has been talk of perhaps reviewing that and reviewing the programming. First, I would like to be sure of one thing: that the communities are involved in the negotiations or discussions. That's very important. It must not be a matter of one solution being decided by the government and imposed in Manitoba.

I also believe that the solutions, the new programs, must be flexible enough to take into consideration the fact that not all the communities outside Quebec are at the same level. I believe that may have been a problem in the past. It's taken for granted that everyone is at the same level and that things are being done in all the provinces. I would like to hear your comments on that.

Lastly, I would like to point out that, in the provinces or minority communities, it's often taken us decades to achieve a certain degree of progress. So we're not ready to let go, I can assure you. I would like to ensure that any future discussions or negotiations will start off from where we are right now. I understand that we should make sure we are as effective as possible—I don't agree with that—but, on the other hand, you have to take into account the fact that these people have fought for years, and even decades, to get what they have today. I would like to hear your comments on that, please.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: I've had the chance to hear from the Francophone communities in your province and around your riding. It's possible that it was precisely in light of those remarks from the grassroots level that we considered maintaining the funding this year. The division of existing amounts should be reconsidered, in view of the fact that there are even additional funds.

Reducing the amounts granted to the communities is out of the question; I even think, on the contrary, that additional amounts are provided for in the Action Plan for Official Languages. After hearing the people from each of the communities, we realized how much the ways they wanted to invest in their communities varied from province to province. I can tell you that, in that respect, there was an enormous difference between the people of Vancouver, whom I heard last weekend, and those of Newfoundland.

It was also in light of the remarks made by those people that we decided to have them take part in selecting their priorities. They all agreed that the number of priorities was not manageable. Every time they were asked, around the table, to establish their priorities, we found ourselves with 28 priorities for each of the communities. New players continually got involved, so that we considered having a moratorium on new players so that we could decide who would take precedence in the fund sharing.

These consultations will definitely be conducted with the stakeholders on a province-by-province basis. We can't establish a common denominator and say that, as of now, we're investing in a given field: there are too many differences from one place to another. However, I must admit that some communities are very well organized.

This consultation between the communities will be very beneficial for them, in view of the fact that there are a large number of service overlaps. Each of the communities operates with its own payroll and employees. Those people will now be able to sit down around the table and determine how they can share resources and help each other. In my opinion, it was already clear that, in that way, they could abolish certain budget items that would no longer be necessary.

I think it's important that this exercise be conducted at the grassroots level. In that way, priorities, which have been determined by the communities, will meet their needs. Furthermore, after a year or two, they will be in a position to evaluate, on their own, whether the choices they've made are appropriate. It is in fact very difficult to determine, from Ottawa, as Mr. Jobin asked, whether funds have been well used. That's hard for us, since we aren't on the spot.

Lastly, community stakeholders were ready to share this responsibility, as long as funds were not cut, as you said so well.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: A final question.

Mr. Raymond Simard: A final question?

The Chair: Yes, quickly, if you would.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Madam Minister, you visited the bilingual service centres in my riding, and you saw how they operated. That, in a way, is an example of how we can get organized in Canada. The fact remains that here we always talk about funding from one year to the next. I don't know whether you intend to consider this question. In Manitoba, for example, there were plans to build six bilingual centres, and now have three. However, at the federal level, the process appears to have stopped at three, and that troubles us.

I would also like to talk briefly about the moratorium on advertising. The community radio stations and the Francophone press suffer enormously from the situation. I would like to know, given the authority you exercise in this area, whether you can intervene. For example, in my riding, the freedom of these people has been greatly compromised: 40 percent of their budgets is linked to federal advertising. I would like you please to give me answer on this point.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: With regard to the first question, I believe you were alluding to the single window. We met with the representatives of certain centres, and we're signing agreements with each of the provinces. That's being done on a province-by-province basis. Furthermore, additional funds have been invested in this program. It's not an enormous amount, roughly $14 or $15 million over five years for all the provinces.

There was already a base amount of approximately $13 million intended for the provinces as a whole. But there will soon be a new player, the Province of Quebec, which has decided to sign the agreement, even though it has not done so since 1999. There's also an additional amount of approximately $14 million, but it's allocated over five years among the various provinces. As you can see, these are not huge amounts.

Precisely for that reason, we want to target programs or initiatives so as to improve this kind of project. It could become a pilot project and be used across Canada. This is a quite extraordinary partnership initiative.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

Now, Mr. Godin, over to you.

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

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I'm going to try to go quickly because we don't have a lot of time and we have a lot of questions to ask.

In the report of September 15, 2003, the government gave the committee its response. It said it had asked the CRTC to require class 1 and 2 cable companies to distribute CPAC on two separate video channels for each official language. At that point, however, it's important to say that the CRTC has not yet ordered class 1 and class 2 cable companies to distribute CPAC on two separate video channels. As we speak here, we are broadcasting live, Madam Minister, but the Anglophones of Bathurst can't hear us. So I would like to know whether Canadian Heritage has done any follow-up because it wasn't stated in the report that the government was going to suggest or recommend, but that it was going to ask that the CRTC require that of businesses.

The other very important question concerns what your department intends to do with the Canada Day funds, for which occasion Quebec receives $5 million, whereas Ontario, for example, receives $700,000 and New Brunswick $120,000. Are we all equal Canadians? When will this fight stop? We have the sponsorship scandal; we can see that there was $1.6 million for the Hot Air Balloon Festival.

I have a letter here from a small organization of the Acadian Peninsula Family Festival, which had requested $5,000 for sponsorships for that festival last year. Communication Canada denied $2,000 of that $5,000, saying:

We have therefore analyzed your final report and assess the unreceived visibility elements at a value of $2,000; that amount will be deducted from the original amount of the sponsorship.

The Government of Canada cuts the funding of a small community of volunteers working for the family, and others help themselves to billions of dollars. So I'd like to have an answer. If it's not here, it will be later.

I know we don't have a lot of time, but I would like to address another subject briefly. We talk about various government departments that are responsible for official languages. We see that the Government of Canada is appealing from the decision on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency office in Shippagan, which had been transferred to Shédiac. On the one hand, you say you want to promote Francophone communities, and, on the other hand, the associations of municipalities go to court against the Government of Canada because it makes transfers, and the Government of Canada appeals from the decisions.

The same thing happened with electoral boundary reform. The Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick is going to court against the Government of Canada because that was not respected, and the government is fighting the Francophone municipalities. Every time we win something, the government wants to take it away from us.

I know my questions are blunt, but I believe you are aware of the problems because they've undoubtedly already been presented to you. Your assistants next to you are very familiar with them.

Thank you.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Mr. Godin, there won't be much time left for the minister to answer.

Madam Minister, you have the floor.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: That's all right.

Mr. Yvon Godin: She can send me the answers in writing. That's all right.

The Chair: We want to hear the answers too.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chair, this is important. If the minister doesn't have the time to answer my questions, which are so important, she can send the committee the answers in writing, please.

The Chair: All right.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: I'm going to answer at least two of your questions. With regard to CPAC and the CRTC, you know that we have an obligation to consult the CRTC. I can simply tell you that we're not asleep on this matter. An Order in Council has been drafted, and the CRTC has been consulted. Once the consultation is complete... In any case, the work with the CRTC is ongoing.

As for Canada Day and sponsorships, I don't want you to confuse the Canada Day component with the sponsorship component because they are two completely separate matters. As regards the sponsorships of your organizations, I want to come back to that to remind you of what I've said a number of times. Communication Canada no longer exists. Your family organization can write to Canadian Heritage and ask if we can provide it with financial support through one of our programs, which is not the sponsorship program, since it has been abolished. At that point, we'll deal with your organization not in relation to Canada Day, but like all the organizations which received financial support last year.

¿ (0925)

Mr. Yvon Godin: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I know that my questions were asked quickly, but Canada Day and sponsorships are two separate things.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: You referred to someone who had applied to Communication Canada but did not obtain any funds. Canada Day is one thing, and sponsorships are another.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Five million dollars in Quebec...

The Chair: There won't be any more time to answer anything.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chair, we're talking about $5 million to Quebec, $120,000 to New Brunswick and $700,000 to Ontario. What's that going to change?

The Chair: Just a moment, please.

Madam Minister.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Your small organizations that want to apply need only do so. As for Canada Day, which is a completely different component of Communication Canada, you told me last time about what you considered to be disparities. We'll talk about that again, and you'll have an answer on the subject at that time.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

I would like to ask a question about the Heritage Department's programs that will, as it were, replace—I don't know whether that's the word I should use—the funds intended for festivals and community activities that used to come from sponsorships. If I've understood correctly, in recent years, in the context of a community festival, applicants who were not operating at a loss, that is that were not in debt at the end of the year, virtually never received any grants from the department.

It's not that they were disqualified, but, as your department didn't have enough funds to meet all requests, it first subsidized those that were operating at a loss, then those operating at a profit. But it never got as far as them. There have been two cases of this kind in my riding.

Do you think you'll now have additional funds to satisfy more applicants under these programs?

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Mr. Chair, I hope we don't give priority to those who have financial problems in the context of their festivals, but that, on the contrary, we more constantly support those who manage to submit a realistic budget to us and to achieve their objectives. If that wasn't previously the case, I dare hope it will be now.

The Chair: So we should conclude that things have changed, since I would be in a position to show you refusal letters sent to people in my riding. I assure you they state precisely what I've told you.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: I'd like to see actual examples. I can also tell you that we're currently asking all organizations, in the context of all the funds, to submit a realistic and strict budget and to state specifically how they intend to use the funds requested. I hope, on the contrary, that we'll support those that show some discipline.

The Chair: My other question concerns French-language education.

You said that, in Quebec, 94 percent of Francophones were registered in the education programs offered in their own language. Elsewhere in Canada, you said the figure was 68 percent. Have you seen an analysis explaining why 32 percent of those people aren't studying in their language?

Are parents not aware enough of the fact that educating their children in their mother tongue is an asset? Is the phenomenon due to a lack of French-language schools in the communities where they live? Or is it a combination of the two? Are there any figures that would enable us to know what leads 32 percent of these people not to attend French-language schools?

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: There may be a number of answers to that question. My colleague, Mr. Simard, with whom I discussed it this week, will no doubt agree that the problem is in large part an infrastructure problem. We mainly refer to Quebec with regard to young people who attend English-language schools. The infrastructures have been there for many years, as a result of which it is much easier for parents to have access to an English-language school in their area.

Mr. Simard referred to people who fight for access to resources in regions where Francophone communities are spread over very large areas. Clearly for some parents, it may be tempting to use the local school, which does not necessarily offer instruction in their mother tongue.

However, we are increasingly seeing groups getting organized and demanding infrastructures. That makes an enormous difference. A group we met in Manitoba showed us that, over the past five years, the number of young people attending French-language schools had virtually doubled every year, simply because the infrastructure was already in place. There may be a number of reasons for this phenomenon, but I'm sure the infrastructure problem is a plausible reason.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll now move on to the second round.

Mr. Drouin.

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

Madam Minister, it's a pleasure to see you here before the committee with the departmental people accompanying you. I'm first going to comment on the total budget of $272 million, compared to $9 million for administration. That demonstrates healthy management. I would like to congratulate you on that work, and I encourage you to continue in that direction.

In your presentation, you showed that there had been an increase in educational attainment among minority Francophones. I think that's excellent as well. We must continue in that direction. The efforts that have been made are beginning to produce results, and I'm really delighted at that.

You mentioned that 357,000 students were registered in French immersion. Is that number rising or declining? Do you have an idea of the numbers? Perhaps you can answer that later.

You also mentioned that 24 percent of youths 15 to 19 years of age are bilingual. A little further on in your presentation, we see that the objective is 50 percent. That is obviously done in cooperation with the provinces and territories, and we clearly aren't the only ones working in that field. This may be a difficult question, but what timeline is set out for reaching this 50 percent objective?

One thing I really liked was the overview of perceived second-language progress, which shows that the work has been done, because the lower you go in the age groups, the more progress has been made. So that proves that the efforts that have been made in recent years are producing results, and I'm really pleased to see that. I want to congratulate you, you and the people from your department.

Lastly, you note with regard to reading test results that students from Francophone minorities have poorer results than their counterparts in the English-language school systems, in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba. Here again, this is a shared jurisdiction, and that's the responsibility of the provinces.

Are we going to insist that our provincial counterparts put the emphasis on this area to ensure they have the same chances as the other minorities?

Thank you. Those are my comments, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Briefly, as regards immersion schools, it appears that attendance has stabilized. There has not been a decline, but, although there has been an increase, attendance levels now seem about to stabilize.

With regard to bilingualism objectives, as I said, bilingualism levels are obviously much higher among young people in Quebec. I don't remember the figures, but I believe there was a major gap between youths in Quebec and elsewhere, and the objective we've set for ourselves is 10 years.

As for provincial initiatives, I was very pleased after my meeting with Minister Reid because I feel he really wants to expedite provincial initiatives and partnership at the provincial level. Moreover, he too was pleased to see that there were new players at the table, people who really wanted to put initiatives in place so that bilingualism increases. I believe he intends to come back and even step up efforts, whereas, previously, meetings were perhaps informal and less frequent. What I thought I understood from the Chair now, since Mr. Reid is the Chair of the Council of Ministers of Education, is that he really intends to expedite matters and to be highly proactive. That moreover is why he requested additional funds to help him, obviously, invest in each of the provinces. In certain provinces, results have been quite outstanding, whereas others—virtually everywhere else—may have to be pushed more to put initiatives in place.

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

¿ (0935)

Hon. Claude Drouin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I was calculating the $381 million figure divided over five years, divided by 10 provinces, to see the additional effort that was made, but I haven't finished my calculation.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: For education?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, but I don't think that yields big numbers.

My component concerns education. Madam Minister, on page 10 of your brief, as Mr. Drouin and Mr. Jobin have noted, you state that 24 percent of young people 15 to 19 years of age are bilingual. You've said twice that the figure is 24 percent because the result is quite satisfactory in Quebec.

One research memo states that, between 1996 and 2001, the percentage of young bilingual Anglophones living outside Quebec fell from 16.3 percent to 14.7 percent. So there has been a decline.

The Evaluation of the Official Languages in Education Program states, at page 5:

[The basic second-language programs] give mixed results and it is unlikely they are contributing to the federal objective of increasing the number of students with a working knowledge of the two official languages.

Could you provide us with a province-by-province table on bilingual young people and a list of objectives by province?

If all young Quebeckers become bilingual, you'll reach your 50 percent objective, but the result will be quite limited geographically. I'm sure you have objectives by province and figures by province. I'd also like you to send the committee Statistics Canada's figures for the last 10 years.

You were very impressed by your visit to Vancouver, but I'd like to remind you that the assimilation rate in the Western provinces is 70 percent. So it's true that people there are dynamic and really want to put their shoulders to the wheel, but you're aware of the statistical reality that there is an assimilation rate of 70 percent.

So I'd like to have the tables by province over the past 10 years and the objectives of the action plan and/or Department of Canadian Heritage. On page 15, you say that your objective is to achieve a rate of 50 percent of bilingual young people within 10 years. I'm sure you have planned for intermediate stages to verify whether you are on the way to achieving those objectives.

When you look at the intermediate stage of the Statistics Canada plan between 1996 and 2001, you realize that there is an alarm bell that would ring and tell you that there has been a 2 percent decline outside Quebec, and that bell has been rung by your department.

In short, are you sticking to your 50 percent objective, and can you provide us with tables by province for the past 10 years?

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Yes, you'll have the table; that's not a problem. As for performance by province, that's precisely part of the negotiations that will be held through the Council of Ministers of Education Canada.

Another point I want to raise today is that support for second-language learning is often provided... For example, there is the option of studying in one's mother tongue at the primary and secondary levels. The fact remains that it's very often more difficult at the university level, as a result of which various initiatives will have to be taken.

I believe that the Chair of the Council of Ministers of Education was also very much aware that there were initiatives and considerable progress in certain provinces, but not in others.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That's because that part is incorrect, in view of the fact that education is a provincial jurisdiction. I would appreciate and thank you if you recognized that.

When Canadian Heritage negotiates with those people, you'll have objectives.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Yes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I'd like to have your objectives. Don't put that off to Pierre Reid or others you'll be consulting in three years.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: I won't put that off on Pierre Reid.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I want to know now what your objectives for each province are for the next 10 years and what the situation has been in the past 10 years.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: All right.

The Chair: The minister has noted that.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: But that will definitely be done in cooperation with the provinces because we won't be inventing anything for the provinces.

The Chair: All right, thank you.

Mr. Godin, go ahead quickly because I would still like to give the floor to Mr. Proulx before closing. You may ask a final question.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have two brief questions, but ACFO...

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Please take your time; you're going too quickly.

Mr. Yvon Godin: But things have to go quickly here. The money doesn't go out quickly, but we have to move fast.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Yvon Godin: The Department of Canadian Heritage has cut the funding it provided to ACFO; there were problems. Now ACFO tells us as well that it can't use that money the way it would like for Franco-Ontarians. I would like to have your opinion on that because you said earlier that you supported the organizations and that you wanted to grant them more funds, whereas there have really been cuts in funding to that organization.

Did I correctly understand earlier that you supported Senator Gauthier in his efforts to advance Bill S-4 and to really implement it and say that we accept the two official languages in Canada?

¿ (0940)

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: As you know, ACFO has experienced financial problems. The department has advanced it funds to enable it to operate, to review its policies, to define its priorities and to submit an operating plan to us. We have asked it to file that report by the end of June. At that time, we will determine how it will be possible to continue funding it.

As for Senator Gauthier's bill, as I said earlier, I'm not the only person concerned. There are obviously implications at all other levels. However, I am ultimately very sympathetic to that bill.

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

Now over to you, Mr. Proulx. This may be the final question.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Madam Minister, and thank you for being here this morning.

Madam Minister, with regard to the Strategic Development Fund, it was reported in the context of an audit that, in 2001-2002, 44 projects varying in dollar value from slightly more than $9,000 to $1.1 million, were funded, which is positive. However, there are some negative points. I'm sure that the situation has been corrected since you entered the department, but I would like to know what you've done.

...the data prior to 2001-2002 are not certain as a result of coding problems.

That's not impressive.

...lack of funding criteria [...] anticipated results and performance indicators.

That's no better.

The process for allocating the Fund's funding has no structure or transparency.

I'm sure you've made changes, but I would like to know what they are, Madam Minister.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Are you referring to a fund in particular or to all of the...

Mr. Marcel Proulx: This is the Strategic Development Fund component.

While waiting for her to find the answer, Madam Minister...

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: She has the answer.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: All right, go ahead.

The Chair: Ms. LaRocque.

Mrs. Judith LaRocque (Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage): That, I believe, was part of the audits conducted by the Auditor General in 2000-2001. We definitely implemented measures to correct most, if not all of the problems raised by the Auditor General. In fact, I believe we will shortly be reaudited by the Auditor General. We can compare results then.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Madam Minister, could you ask your officials to provide the committee with a list and description of all your department's programs mainly concerning official languages? With all the additions, deletions and changes, one gets lost. That's not hard for you, who work in the field every day, but it's a bit more difficult for us. Consequently, Madam Minister, I would very much appreciate it if we were provided with that list.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: With pleasure, Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.

The Chair: We have about two minutes left.

Mr. Simard, you had another question. Ask it, and then we'll suspend the meeting for a few minutes.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you, Mr. Chair. A little earlier, I asked the minister a question regarding the situation of community ratio stations and the Francophone press. I didn't get an answer on that subject. So I would like us to come back to it.

As I've already mentioned, I think they're much more affected by this problem than others, in view of the fact that they depend on federal advertising to a large degree.

Have you found a solution to this problem?

The Chair: Madam Minister, we know that this matter is mainly the responsibility of Public Works. Do you nevertheless have anything to tell us on the subject?

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: The 15 percent cuts announced and the moratorium on advertising are Public Works' responsibility, not ours. Those organizations were very much affected. However, I believe one of our programs can help them.

Mrs. Judith LaRocque: There is a support program for community radio. Perhaps we could check to see whether there is any way to improve it somehow. However, as the Chair said, the matter is more the responsibility of the Department of Public Works.

¿ (0945)

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: At a meeting, we gave those organizations more details on the program to which they can apply.

Of course, they talked about the fact that the cuts and the advertising moratorium had affected them enormously. So that's a decision that was made by the Department of Public Works.

Mr. Raymond Simard: We can't afford to lose our community radio stations or our newspapers, and this situation in that regard is the responsibility of Canadian Heritage.

Hon. Hélène Scherrer: Absolutely.

Mr. Raymond Simard: This matter could eventually be your responsibility. Thank you.

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

On that note, it remains for us to thank the minister, the deputy minister and the entire team who have made themselves available to our committee this morning. We thank you.

Before the break and the arrival of our next witness, I would like to consult committee members on two subjects. I've just heard at least two questions about community radio stations and programs of that kind, for the Department of Public Works. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but would you like to have the Minister of Public Works appear with regard to the advertising program and its impact on the minority media? Is there any interest in that?

Some hon. members: Absolutely.

The Chair: Then do you wish our clerk to take the appropriate steps? All right.

I would like to pass on a piece of information to you before we take a five- to 10-minute break before continuing the meeting. I've been informed that the Commission nationale des parents francophones has confirmed it will be here tomorrow. It was Mr. Simard who told us about them.

Tomorrow, Mr. Simard will chair the meeting because I will be outside the country at an interparliamentary forum.

I also want to inform you that, on April 20, we should hear from the Canadian Cable Television Association. Mr. Godin, it was mainly you who asked that they appear, and we expect them to be here on April 20. If you wish, we'll place greater emphasis on the fact that we expect them to be here because they've told us two or three times that they might be coming and did not come. So we'll insist more. Is that what you wish?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, Mr. Chair. I don't think we can continue accepting the fact that they don't come. I believe they have an obligation to come to the committee.

The Chair: We're going to tell them that the committee expects their presence. If their president is not there, they should send someone else, but they're coming. Is that it?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, that's it.

The Chair: Now we're still awaiting confirmation of the appearance of the Minister of Justice, also for April 20. As I'm speaking to you, it has not yet been confirmed.

I would therefore ask that we take 10 minutes to do what we have to do before resuming the meeting with Minister Denis Coderre. The meeting is therefore suspended for roughly seven or eight minutes.

¿ (0948)

¿ (0959)

The Chair: We'll now resume the committee's proceedings. Before inviting the President of the Privy Council to take the floor, I have learned that you had a motion for us, Mr. Godin.

À (1000)

Mr. Yvon Godin: Precisely, Mr. Chair. I would like to move that the Canadian Cable Television Association be summoned to appear on Tuesday, April 20, from 9:00 to 10:00 a.m., on the question of the broadcasting of CPAC.

The Chair: I believe we are one member short of a full quorum. We'll wait a bit. Even if we have to interrupt our proceedings between two questions, we'll formally pass the motion later, all right? You've heard the text.

Then, very briefly, Mr. Simard, you've asked us to invite the Association des juristes d'expression française before the Minister of Justice because they apparently have things to say that could help us with our questions for the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Precisely.

The Chair: Then we'll invite the Association des juristes d'expression française and then the Minister of Justice. That may be the same day, if we can do that, but we'll hear the Association des juristes first. Is that it? Thank you.

So we'll come back to the formal adoption of the motion in a moment, but I would absolutely like to pass this motion this morning so that we can inform those people as soon as possible so as to prevent them from finding other excuses for not coming.

That said, in accordance with Standing Order 108(2), we will move on to the study of the report of the past and future official languages initiatives of the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency.

Mr. Minister, in view of the short time we have, we would ask you to make a fairly brief presentation.

Mr. Minister, the floor is yours.

First, I want to thank you for this warm invitation. This has probably been one of the most important committees for me since I've been in politics because it addresses culture, bilingualism and fairness. Now that I am the minister responsible for the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada, I have an additional challenge. I am not only responsible for the administration and modernization of the public service, I'm also responsible for establishing an integrated and coherent policy framework that includes official languages.

I therefore want to assure you, first of all, of my full cooperation and unswerving support for the promotion of official languages. I don't believe I have anything to prove in that regard. I know that all of you around this table have that same passion. So I hope we'll be able to work together toward a common objective.

I'm going to describe the Agency's responsibilities for official languages. I will follow that with an assessment of the first year of the action plan, which is aimed at promoting official languages within the federal public service, as well as some initiatives planned for the second year. Finally, I want to speak about a new approach to monitoring. It's all well and good to talk about bilingualism, but you have to ensure that there is follow-up and that there are the tools to do so.

The Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada was created with the goal of improving human resources management within the public service. The creation of the Agency resulted in the transfer in full of the responsibilities of Treasury Board Secretariat and the President of the Treasury Board in terms of official languages to the Agency and the President of the Privy Council. The Agency is therefore responsible for the development and general coordination of the principles and programs related to Parts IV, V and VI of the Official Languages Act.

The Agency is charged with ensuring that institutions subject to the Act offer their services to Canadians in the official language of their choice, that they create and support a work network that is conducive to the use of both official languages in bilingual regions, and that they offer equal opportunity for employment and promotion to both linguistic groups.

The Agency provides continuity in terms of official languages. It's in this context that I will be tabling in Parliament the annual report on official languages for fiscal year 2003-2004.

In March 2003, the government announced its Action Plan for Official Languages to revitalize and support Canada's linguistic duality. One of the three objectives of the plan is to establish an exemplary public service. What have we done so far?

First, official languages policies and directives on language of work and on human resources management were announced in November 2003.

Second, they will come into effect on April 1, 2004. We have stressed imperative staffing to ensure that more public servants are bilingual at the time of their appointment to bilingual positions. From now on, imperative staffing will be the norm. It will become mandatory for bilingual positions at the EX-03 level in 2005 and in 2007 for the EX-02 level. This includes positions in bilingual regions as well as those in unilingual regions where supervision of employees in a bilingual region are involved.

We have insisted on language training earlier in the career of public servants. We have put the emphasis on proactive language training and retention and its integration into employees' professional development plans. The new Canada School of Public Service will be responsible for language training. So when we talk about learning and demonstrating the ability to be bilingual in a position, the idea is not only to demonstrate that ability, but also to work in a cultural context and to say that language training is just as important as ongoing training in financial management, for example. So we'll also have a follow-up strategy in that area as well.

To reflect current needs, the maximum number of hours has been increased by 410 for levels B and C. A full review of language training has begun. This review will enable us to rethink our objectives for the future of the public service and we will achieve them. We have also undertaken a review of the policies regarding services and communications with the public.

The action plan allotted $2 million over five years to increase recruitment of bilingual-ready candidates for bilingual positions. A memorandum of understanding has been signed with the Public Service Commission and work is in progress.

The action plan made it possible to strengthen our monitoring function in federal institutions in order to help them to evaluate and improve their performance in terms of official languages. We are working on quantifiable performance measures:

In terms of language of work, we are continuing to monitor executives who do not meet the language requirements of their positions. A formal audit is under way.

À (1005)

With regard to service to the public, in March 2003, we followed up on audits of seven airports with significant demand. A telephone audit was also carried out and the results will soon be shared with the committee.

Let's talk about evaluation tools. One of the main objectives of the reporting system is to help institutions strengthen their performance. In this perspective, we are also developing self-assessment tools. For example, we are now testing an automated tool that will allow institutions to determine, in a specific context, the number of employees needed to meet their services to the public and language of work obligations. This tool should be available on the Agency's Web site by the summer, and the institutions will be able to take advantage of it.

We are finalizing a prototype for an official languages management dashboard that provides a clearer picture of the situation within each institution. It will provide quantitative and qualitative data, along with audit results and major issues identified in monitoring activities. We will include the results of other initiatives, such as those of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages with whom we share our data and results.

Among activities aiming to promote a change in culture, the Official Languages Branch manages the Innovation Program, a five-year program that received $14 million in funding. Its goal is to support innovative projects that have ripple effects. This program has raised considerable interest. During the first year, 2003-2004, 18 projects were approved with a dollar value of $800,000. An evaluation will be done so that lessons are learned. The second phase was launched last December; 47 proposals were received and $1.8 million will be distributed among the projects selected for 2004-2005.

We rely on the network of departmental champions to contribute to the change in culture. They help multiply the impact of our efforts. These ambassadors contribute to a better understanding and respect of official languages within their institution. A regional champion initiated an awareness project, known as the quality management system for official languages, which has proved its worth in 2002-2003 and was expanded last fall.

[English]

I would say, just for the record, that it's really important that we can work together horizontally. It's not just a leadership up there. We have to make sure that at every level everybody will do their part to make sure that we are respectful of our linguistic duality, to make sure that we implement what we have in mind for the future of any kind of legislation. And since it's a matter of culture and mentality, it's not just a matter of legislation or regulation, it will be imperative that everybody will be part of that process.

So what we're doing, basically, is having an inclusive way of doing things so everybody can participate. When we're talking about providing services, it's very important at the same time that we build on the environment of the work of the people who are working there so they have also...they have the right to have an environment that suits them well too.

If you have any questions I will be more than pleased to talk about the last report of the commissaire aux langues officielles.

À (1010)

[Translation]

This project, in collaboration with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and Canada Border Services Agency, aims for a work environment with a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect. So this project, which, along with others, has emerged from this Agency, has been extremely beneficial. I believe it could also be implemented in all the institutions. We have to go further and ensure that it works elsewhere as well. Tools have been developed or identified.

Almost 3,300 employees of both agencies, working in bilingual regions, are involved in this project dealing with language of work. Training workshops were recently offered to instructors who will multiply the beneficial effects of the project. Citizenship and Immigration Canada has launched a similar project and several other departments and agencies have expressed an interest in this approach based on quality and our values.

Let's talk about our new monitoring system. The Agency has a duty to pay closer attention to the overall situation and to better measure the linguistic performance of institutions. For that reason, it has concentrated on revising its monitoring system. It isn't enough to ensure that we have passed a test. We also have to ensure that we have evaluation measures in the field for quality of services and performance in the departments and institutions. We must ensure that we can quantify and qualify that and take preventive or appropriate measures that will enable us to achieve our objectives.

The annual cycle has been compressed and the Agency will proceed with horizontal reviews which will affect a number of institutions. You will have noted that I talk a lot, and not just in vertical terms, in order to ensure that, in the field, we can also have a horizontal approach which enables us to a have a much more effective process. At the same time, we will carry out spot checks in some institutions.

There is an increased emphasis on results in the annual reviews. The analyses and follow-ups are stricter. From now on, they will target situations where improvement is required. The Agency is developing a management dashboard on institutions in order to obtain an overall picture of their linguistic performance. The information will be updated twice a year and published on our Web site in order to increase transparency and share the results with our partners. The Agency will be discussing this project with a number of institutions in order to define the precise content of the report card.

In conclusion, this has been a good start, and I want to reiterate my support and enthusiasm. With the commitment of our employees, we are building a new, modern and efficient agency, and we are ensuring that we have a clearly established reporting system that will provide concrete and measurable results. We intend on integrating official languages in the culture of the public service. Our vision and direction have not changed. We remain committed to being at the forefront of issues and actions.

[English]

I think what will be important to send as a message is that no matter where the region is, we have to work where we can unite and push forward that official languages are an asset at every level, at every place. By being respectful and by focusing on that kind of culture, I'm pretty sure that asset will be a plus in our own innovation strategy in our quest to give a better quality of service, but at the same time to make sure that our public service workers are pretty pleased in a proper environment.

[Translation]

Thank you for your attention. I would be pleased to answer your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. Before moving on to questions, can we first pass Mr. Godin's motion? It will only take a minute. We have a quorum now, but I don't know how long that will last.

Mr. Godin, the floor is yours.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chair, for the benefit of committee members who were not present, I'm going to reread it. I move that the Canadian Cable Television Association be summoned to appear on Tuesday, April 20, from 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. on the question of the broadcasting of CPAC.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: If you'e willing, let's limit each speaker to five minutes. I would like as many members as possible to be able to speak before the end. We have no choice; we have to leave at 11:00 a.m.

Mr. Reid, over to you.

[English]

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, CPC): Minister, I'm glad to have you here in committee.

You invited us to talk a little bit about the official languages commissioner's recent report, and I wonder if I could ask you a question relating to that.

For those who are watching on TV, the report is a study that came out a couple of days ago on the language of work in the federal public service.

For a long time I have admired the model proposed by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism of 35 years ago, which argued that we ought to create French-language work units and English-language work units. This would allow an equitable participation rate for both of the linguistic groups in the country. Since one would assume that most of the people in the French-language work units would be francophones and most of those in the English-language work units would be anglophones, it would also allow people to work in their language of choice, which normally would be their mother tongue.

But of course we've taken a different road, and we've tried to create equity in the public service by means of bilingual-essential and bilingual-imperative postings. It seems to me that there is a contradiction, which is very difficult to resolve, between the goal of allowing people to work in the language of their choice and the goal of ensuring that all Canadians can participate, including unilingual ones, who are, after all, the majority in both the francophone and anglophone communities.

One consequence of this--and in section VII of her report the commissioner actually says this--has been that a percentage of the population is in fact put in a situation where its language of work for certain parts of its work is in practice the language it would not choose. She says specifically, and I'm quoting here:

Nearly one-quarter of Francophone respondents and about 10% of Anglophone respondents state that, in their work units, managers require that work be performed in one official language rather than the other.

You can comment any way you want on what you think would be the best way to remedy this, but do you not agree with me that there would be some merit, based upon the limited experience we have with single-language work units--for example, we have a frigate that operates entirely in the French language, and the Royal 22nd Regiment, the Van Doos.... Do you not think that would ultimately be the most effective way of resolving this inherent contradiction that exists in so much of the staffing of the public service?

À (1015)

Hon. Denis Coderre: Thank you for that question. Of course, I watch the news, and I had a briefing on the report itself. We will be able eventually to expand on it and analyze it more profoundly.

I would say this. If you're a doctor, you need the proper education and the proper tools to work with. You need to make sure that you meet those criteria. If we need a bilingual person, it's not for nothing. It's not as a joke. It's because we believe that in order for that individual to do his job well and to serve his people, he needs to be bilingual. Why are we asking for a bilingual position if we're not able to respect that? I don't think it would be appropriate to play with those kinds of criteria.

[Translation]

I think the important thing is to be respectful. When we talk about official languages, there are no second class citizens. Whether you're Anglophone or Francophone, if a position is designated bilingual, I think the minimum level of respect is that we ensure that that is the case. It's not because we're difficult, it's because we want to ensure that the person in the position can carry out his or her mandate at a number of levels. The imperative question is that, if we have very specific criteria for filling that position, including the language question, we have to be respectful of that from the very start. We have previously adopted transitional measures, but I believe that the word “imperative” is also associated with the word “respect”.

I will close by saying that we want to be competitive, to be effective and to aim for total quality. In any case, more than 62 percent of positions are unilingual. The fact that certain decision-making positions require a level of bilingualism, is, in my opinion, respectful. It's also an important question from the standpoint of quality of services rendered and with regard to the people who work there.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

I would ask members and the minister to ask brief questions and to give brief answers so that we can stick to the schedule.

Mr. Simard, over to you.

À (1020)

Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome you, Ms. Monet and Mr. Minister. I would like to ask you a question. I'm back at the charge since I already put this one to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It concerns single windows.

We in Manitoba have a single window, which you visited, Mr. Coderre. It's a pilot project based on the Chartier Report where services are provided in both official languages, but the language of work at the single windows is French. For example, in my riding in Saint-Boniface, Manitoba, we have what was the first bilingual service centre, which provides service in both languages for all three levels of government.

One of our challenges is to convince the departments to get involved in these pilot projects. They are supposed to provide the single windows with resources. I'm talking about this not because it's going on in my riding, but because I think it's a project that could be successful across Canada.

Does your department have a role to play in convincing the other departments to get involved in this kind of project?

Hon. Denis Coderre: We definitely have a role to play. The fact that I'm also responsible for the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada means that we work in cooperation with the Minister of Canadian Heritage and other departments. Having visited this centre myself, I think it's an extraordinary initiative.

It doesn't necessarily need to be introduced everywhere or be required everywhere. However, to the extent that you have an extraordinary joint effort by the various orders of government, which together have decided to take part in this partnership and to provide services in both official languages, I think it has merit. I believe it's an excellent initiative. We can encourage it, and I believe you can rely on the full cooperation of the Privy Council and on mine in making this kind of promotion.

Ultimately, the important thing is that your single window is the symbol of the success of a partnership at the horizontal level. The community has taken charge of itself and worked in cooperation. Things must not always come from Ottawa. It must not always be big brother Ottawa who tells you what to do. This is a Manitoban initiative in which all partners have taken part. I believe my role is to be a facilitator and a connector.

I think this is an extraordinary initiative which would enable us to go further. However, we will impose nothing. We have to see with the other regions whether people are interested in this. I believe it's worth doing.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: You may ask the next question, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It's strange to hear you say that nothing will be imposed.

Hon. Denis Coderre: Except this evening, except on the Bloc!

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Minister, I would like to talk about the imperative staffing question. I'm picking up on your response to Scott Reid.

You seem very rigorous and aware of the importance of imperative staffing. However, you said in your presentation that imperative staffing is becoming the norm for all bilingual positions and mandatory for all essential public service positions.

I would like to ask a number of questions. First, why isn't it becoming mandatory for all bilingual positions? Why is it only the norm? Second, the fact that it's mandatory for all essential positions and duties is one thing. Third, it will become mandatory for staffing bilingual positions at the EX-3 level in 2005, EX-2 level in 2007 and EX-1 level eventually. The EX-1s represent 50 percent of EX positions, and that will “eventually” become mandatory.

I want to remind you that I filed a complaint with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages because, in my opinion, waiting until 2005 and 2007 in order to comply with the law violates the Official Languages Act. I would like to hear your opinion on that subject.

Non-imperative staffing can currently be used on an exceptional basis. Do you acknowledge that the exception is quite widespread in the Canadian Forces when 60 percent of designated bilingual positions are occupied by unilingual Anglophones? I believe we could redefine what constitutes an exception in the federal government. Non-imperative staffing is used here for EX-1 level positions.

In closing, I would like to hear your opinion on the following subject. I believe that non-imperative staffing should be either eliminated or expanded to the public service as a whole. That means that we could hire accounts who are not accountants, lawyers who are not lawyers, judges who are not judges, if we want to employ bilingual people who are not bilingual or fill the designated bilingual position with a person who is not bilingual.

I think it's as ridiculous not to use imperative staffing for a designated bilingual position as not using it for all other positions in the public service.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, over to you.

Hon. Denis Coderre: When I became a member, the first committee I sat on was the Standing Committee on Official Languages. As a result of that experience, whether it was as Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or now as President of the Privy Council, I would tell you this. I think we have not only demonstrated the political will, but we have also established a pragmatic tool that will enable us to take responsibility for and introduce these changes in a respectful manner.

This is not only a matter of imperative or non-imperative staffing spread over a number of years. In the circumstances, there is also the introduction of new legislation concerning the public service. We are in a transition phase. We've gone quite far, and I think we also have to make sure we can have a plan that works. I don't feel I have to prove my desire to be extremely respectful of the Official Languages Act. In my opinion, we must ensure we have inclusive tools that will enable us to carry out these plans.

I'm satisfied on the imperative staffing question. Unlike you, I think it will work. We'll see what the Commissioner has to say about your complaint.

À (1025)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It's going to work in five years.

Hon. Denis Coderre: We'll see, but we won't wait for five years for things to happen. Furthermore, you don't pull on a flower in order to make it grow faster. We've decided to water it and to work. In the meantime, we have established a monitoring plan and have made sure we have an inclusive horizontal report to ensure that, when we talk about culture and respect, people understand that language training is just as important as training in financial management, for example. So this is a question of continuing training.

I've also sent the message that it's no longer enough to take a test. We ultimately have to ensure that there is also a follow-up strategy to ensure that that respect can continue. All that has to be done in an inclusive and respectful context in which all the partners have a role to play. A political will, a will to act must not necessarily be constantly demonstrated with force. We can make sure we are respected all the same.

I'm told there is a three-year plan to improve the situation with the Department of National Defence. In any case, I can promise you that I'm going to be present, and that I'm going to monitor the situation very closely. Every time action must be taken on an ad hoc basis, I'm going to do it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Jobin, over to you.

Mr. Christian Jobin: Mr. Minister, on December 12 last, the Prime Minister created the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada. Under the Official Languages Act, the Treasury Board is responsible for implementation of certain parts of the Act.

Do you believe there is any reason to amend the Act to withdraw those responsibilities from the Treasury Board?

Hon. Denis Coderre: I'm told that that was transferred by order from the President of the Treasury Board to the President of the Privy Council for the purpose of creating the Agency.

Mr. Christian Jobin: All right. The Dion Plan provides that $64.6 million will be used to make the federal public service exemplary from the standpoint of bilingualism. The first year of the plan's implementation has just ended, I believe. Do we have the results from the year just ended? What portion of the $64.6 million was used?

Mrs. Diana Monnet (Vice-President, Official Languages, Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada): lower case “v” at “vice-présidente”

For language training, provision was made for $36.1 million over three years, that is to say approximately $12 million a year, to meet needs which were becoming increasingly significant. So that money will be used by the Public Service Commission for the school.

A report was requested, but we know they've already significantly reduced the waiting lists. Half a million dollars was set aside for the language training study to make training more modern. There was an innovation plan to encourage pilot projects in the departments through the champions network, which had the multiplier effect the minister referred to. That money has been spent, and we're awaiting the evaluation, in April, of the various projects in order to know what worked, what caused problems and so everyone can benefit from the experience of the departments responsible.

Money was also given to the Official Languages Branch for it to become a centre of excellence, to a much greater degree than in the past. That money was used to help us modernize official languages policies regarding human resources and also, as the minister explained, to reinforce our monitoring function.

À (1030)

The Chair: Over to you.

Mr. Christian Jobin: On April 1, the Canada School of Public Service will replace the Canadian Centre for Management Development in the field of training and development.

What will the school's role be?

Hon. Denis Coderre: In my view, if we want a modern public service, we have to do two things.

First, we have to know how to renew ourselves by putting people who will play key roles in place. We also have to send out a message that it is possible to have an extraordinary career in the public service and that the public service is a vehicle for change that will enable us to adapt to the new realities of this century.

Second, we have to define a continuing training objective. As I've said from the start, language training is an asset and an attraction which, in the context of continuing training, is just as important to acquire as the best financial management techniques, for example.

We must not only help people who must carry out the mandates develop their language training, but also prepare those who are at other levels. Thus, in the public service, we will have to help our leaders of tomorrow to become responsible for that.

The Canada School of Public Service will thus be an institution whose role will be of considerable importance. In the context of the modernization plan and the implementation of the new Human Resources Management Agency, human resources also means continuity, greater depth and renewal. In that sense, the role of this institution will be crucial, because it will enable us not only to assess our own needs, but also to develop the skills of professionals and persons who have decision-making responsibilities, while enabling them to assume that role fully.

In my opinion, the future School of Public Service and the Human Resources Management Agency will really be interrelated. They each have an important role, and those roles complement each other. I'm relying to a very large degree on those characteristics to ensure that the modernization of the public service is not achieved solely through the implementation of legislation. We will also have at our disposal quantitative and qualitative evaluation tools that will enable our public service to remain what it is today, that is to say the best in the world.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome the minister to our Standing Committee on Official Languages.

As we know, the minister has previously chaired this committee. I remember that he supported some of our ideas at the time. We'll see whether things have changed since he has become a minister.

I would mainly like to know his position on section 41 and on Senator Gauthier's bill.

Hon. Denis Coderre: All right.

Mr. Yvon Godin: This morning, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that she was sympathetic to that bill. I would now like to know whether the same is true of the minister and whether he would go so far as to support it.

À (1035)

Hon. Denis Coderre: I'm extremely sympathetic to it. Of course an analysis must be conducted at the departmental level, and that is my colleague's responsibility. I nevertheless intend to hold very specific discussions on the subject with my Cabinet colleagues.

I must admit that I'm extremely sympathetic to that bill.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Well, two ministers have expressed their sympathy. Now if we could rally all the ministers who are sympathetic to this bill, that would make it an acceptable bill for Parliament.

The other question is...

Hon. Denis Coderre: My sympathies.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Coderre, but you're taking up my time.

Even though you may say it's not your responsibility, I would like to talk to you about the government's position on ministers whose deputy ministers do not speak French.

I don't know whether you know the answer, but, if you do, I would also like you to tell me how many ministers have deputy ministers who don't speak English.

Hon. Denis Coderre: Who don't speak English?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes.

Hon. Denis Coderre: How many deputy ministers don't speak English?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes.

Hon. Denis Coderre: I believe they all speak English.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Consequently, don't you think that...

Hon. Denis Coderre: I didn't say they were unilingual Anglophones, but that they speak English.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That's what I understood.

Hon. Denis Coderre: All right, we understand each other.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Don't you think, sir, that, at the outset, that shows serious weaknesses in the government's leadership? Moreover, in her report, the Commissioner of Official Languages said:

Anglophone and Francophone federal employees who have the right to work in their own language find that the work environment at present does not offer them equal opportunities to express themselves in the language of their choice.

So there is a linguistic community that cannot express itself in the language of its choice when dealing with a deputy minister who does not speak its language. The same is true in all services throughout the machinery of government.

Hon. Denis Coderre: Two things. First, there's a difference between asking whether they are unilingual Anglophones or whether they also speak English and asking whether some of them speak French. I'm going to tell you two things. First, as regards the environment—and I'm speaking off the cuff—it's not just a question of the government offering a work place in the language of one's choice. In my opinion, some personal work has to be done in that regard. It occurs that, in a room, there is a unilingual Anglophone and four bilingual individuals who, out of kindness, will speak in English. That's often seen.

I think the message that has to be sent is that we aren't just aware of the situation, but that there is a firm will on the part of our government, and of your humble servant, to ensure that, when we're talking about services in English and in French, they also have to address the question of the work environment, for bilingual services. Each of us, both decision-makers and those who take part in the process or effort, have a role to play.

If it's determined that there are deficiencies, my role, my responsibility is to ensure that we can actually respond to certain specific problems on an ad hoc basis, as far as that is possible. As President of the Privy Council, as the minister responsible for the Agency, I—and I mean “I”—am very sensitive to this issue, and it's one of my priorities to address the work environment as well.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, and thank you for your support for the bill I am sponsoring.

Hon. Denis Coderre: My sympathy, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you for your sympathetic yes.

Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I feel reassured by being in a group of sympathizers.

Mr. Minister, good morning and welcome to the committee.

Good morning, Ms. Monnet.

We're going to continue in the same vein as my colleague Mr. Godin and we're going to talk about the environment. As you know very well, Mr. Minister, currently in many departments, middle- and lower-level employees are bilingual, except that it is often, not to say always, impossible to work in French because the departmental heads are not bilingual.

I have two questions. First, as regards the monitoring you referred to earlier, I would like to know what the procedures will be or what the monitoring procedure will be?

Second, in her 2002-2003 annual report, as Mr. Godin said, the Commissioner of Official Languages made two recommendations to the Treasury Board President, who was responsible for bilingualism at the time. First, she recommended that deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers be required to have the same level of bilingualism as is required of other public service executives. Second, she recommended that it be ensured that imperative staffing be normally required for assistant deputy minister positions open to candidates from outside the public service.

What are your intentions on those two points? First, monitoring and, second, the hiring of deputy ministers, associate deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers.

À (1040)

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Hon. Denis Coderre: As regards the deputy ministers, as you know, that's the Clerk's responsibility. However, with respect to cultural change, the importance of language training in senior executive positions and in those requiring a certain level of bilingualism, I believe that everyone must put the shoulder to the wheel to ensure that we can be respectful.

I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Lucienne Robillard, who, as President of the Treasury Board, pushed imperative staffing to the forefront. We're in fact sending a message that there is really a change on this issue, in order to ensure that we can implement our vision.

I believe that monitoring is intimately related to this work environment issue. That's why we needed evaluation measures enabling us to put this new applied model into place. To project a vision of the situation, we'll send this concept to all committee members, if you wish. Monitoring is somewhat a linguistic management concept that will enable us, first, to identify...

We're not saying that everything will be perfect. We're saying that we need to put tools in place that will enable us to qualify, quantify and position ourselves and ensure that we can resolve the situation. That's why I referred to continuing training a little earlier and said that not only must we ensure that the work environment can be adequate, but, if there are deficiencies, we have to be able to respond on an ad hoc basis. That doesn't mean that everything will be bilingual everywhere tomorrow morning. It means that, tomorrow morning, we'll be able to be respectful not only of the quality of services we want to provide, but also, as you said so well, that those individuals can also work in their language within the same organization.

I understand, and we won't be burying our heads in the sand. There is a report by the Commissioner of Official Languages, there's a situation that exists, and there's a reality that we have to face. Our role is to ensure that we can take measures and work on the basis of the culture and mentality to ensure that we can all contribute to a common effort. That means that, through this monitoring, comparative and evolutionary studies will also be conducted at all levels of the departments and institutions every six months to determine where we stand. Our role is to point out certain situations and, through this committee, we'll be able to take specific actions that will enable us to shed light on a certain situation.

In closing, if we use our tools, such as imperative staffing and our follow-up and training program, in my view, that will enable us in concrete terms to achieve our purposes so that we can have an environment...

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Reid, for a second round.

[English]

Mr. Scott Reid: Merci, monsieur le Président.

When we're talking about language of work and working in one's language of choice, I think we would all accept that unilingual people work in their language of choice or else they don't work at all, because they are incapable of speaking the other official language.

When you have a situation such as the one the Commissioner of Official Languages has identified, where in her randomly selected survey, 98% of the employees could communicate in English--only 2% were unilingual francophones--but 28% of anglophones were unilingual and therefore incapable of speaking French, when you have an environment like that, a community like that, the reality is that either conversations between those unilingual people and the francophones aren't going to happen or else they'll happen in English. There's no avoiding this situation.

It seems to me, therefore, if we have two goals, one of trying to provide equity in the number of posts at all levels of seniority for francophones and anglophones, and the other of trying to allow people to work in their language of choice, we're faced with two solutions. One is the the B and B commission proposed 35 years ago, where you create work units, either English-language units or French-language units, not in those areas where you need to have translation going on and not in those areas where the services must be provided to the public in both languages, but in other areas. That is one alternative. Or you make the decision to basically start removing unilingual people from the public service, which, quite frankly, based on what the commissioner is saying, has already happened with francophones.

I raised this when I wrote a book on the subject of bilingualism ten years ago. I said the number of unilingual francophones had been plummeting for twenty years, and based on testimony we've heard at previous committee meetings, that trend continues. We're starting to see it happening with unilingual anglophones, too.

It seems to me that of the solutions available to us.... Or the other alternative is that we can pretend we're going to allow people to speak their language of choice and never accomplish it, which the commissioner suggests is to a large extent the situation that's going on.

Given that, I wonder if there is not a lot of merit to the idea of adopting what the B and B commission recommended 35 years ago, which was to try to create French-language work units and English-language work units in order to create communities in which people can function in their language of choice. That would include, of course, not merely bilingual people, to whom such a choice is a nice thing to have, but the unilingual people, who are increasingly being excluded from the public service.

À (1045)

The Chair: Mr. Reid, we want to leave some time for the minister to answer.

[Translation]

Hon. Denis Coderre: I find that conception of Canada quite insulting. Should Francophones be confined to a ghetto, put in a corner and allowed to speak French among themselves? They'll definitely be very well off in their little corner!

My Canada has two official languages. My Canada consists of two nations, an Anglophone and a Francophone nation, which must be put on the same footing. Out of simple respect for those people, I don't think we should consider anyone as a second-class citizen.

Mr. Martin's Liberal government, of which I am a part, believes in bilingualism and wants to adopt measures which will celebrate bilingualism. In our case, we're working on what unites us, not what divides us.

Thinking that way means rejecting out of hand everything that goes on in the provinces where extraordinary work is being done, such as Manitoba and New Brunswick. I find it a bit misleading and perhaps even dangerous to start drawing a distinction between people as you do. However, I know that you're in good faith, Mr. Reid. I'm not suggesting you have bad intentions.

The Chair: Mr. Drouin, over to you.

Hon. Claude Drouin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, Ms. Monnet, welcome to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Quickly, I would like to clearly understand two points. First I want to congratulate you for the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada. I think it's an adequate tool to provide follow-up in the public service. We have an opportunity to show what an asset our two official languages are. It also enables our public service to use them to respond to the public. I think that's an asset. The former President of the Treasury Board started a national awareness campaign across the public service.

Is that still ongoing? Can we show people across the country the relevance and importance of the two official languages and how they represent an asset, an added value for those people? Can we help them gain access to senior positions? First I would like to know whether that campaign is ongoing.

Second, there is a new School of Public Service. Ms. Monnet told us that she had $12 million a year over the next three years, if my memory serves me.

Mrs. Diana Monnet: That amount is in addition to the language training budget.

Hon. Claude Drouin: Is there an evaluation or are there indicators enabling us to measure the work done and the objectives achieved? Do those initiatives correspond to the needs of our public service? Have they been adapted? These are the questions I have in order to determine whether the funds are being well used and the results are as expected.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Minister.

Hon. Denis Coderre: First I would remind you that the School of Public Service will start up on Thursday. Second, I believe that that awareness campaign is indeed ongoing and that it is also being conducted virtually everywhere.

Earlier I referred to pilot projects and champions, particularly with regard to the Canada Revenue Agency. In my opinion, this kind of thing must obviously be encouraged. Furthermore, it shows that official languages are a phenomenon that must apply horizontally. The public service has a presence across the country, and it is important to seize that advantage in order to advance this kind of pilot project. In the meantime, everything I told you about earlier, including monitoring, will be in effect. Some policies, which will have been simplified, which will consequently be clearer, will enable us, with the tools we have, to put forward, in our concrete and pragmatic way, a policy that is both adapted to reality and proactive.

The single window, which our friend Mr. Simard referred to, is a good example. Ultimately, the idea is to include and reach people. We must educate people, but we must maintain renewal and continuing training within our organization. That's why, in my opinion, there is a completely direct link and complementarity between the School of Public Service Canada and the new agency.

À (1050)

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

Mr. Sauvageau, you had one final question. Next there will be one final question from Mr. Jobin, then we will have to close the meeting: someone else needs the room.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Coderre, I wanted to inform you that the action plan concerning the Canadian army, to which Ms. Monnet referred, is the one that is the subject of an investigation by the Commissioner of Official Languages. We're told that their three-year objective is still not to comply with the Official Languages Act. We therefore cannot be pleased with the existing action plan, since, according to it, the aim is only to reduce non-compliance with the Official Languages Act to 50% from the current 60% over the next three years.

My question is this: why aren't bilinguals immediately being hired to occupy bilingual positions?

Hon. Denis Coderre: We're advancing a policy, authorities and institutions which will enable us to modernize the Public Service Act. However, from what I understand, we're already implementing this kind of ad hoc response.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: My question is a simple one.

The Chair: No, there isn't five minutes left; don't worry.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Why isn't a bilingual person hired to occupy a bilingual position starting on April 1, 2004?

The Chair: The minister has the floor.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Let's take the example of interpreters. I suppose bilingual people are hired to occupy that type of bilingual position. Why not hire bilingual people to occupy a bilingual position?

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, the minister has the floor.

Hon. Denis Coderre: I've been saying that that's our intention right from the start. For that reason, we're examining the issue of imperative staffing. However, a distinction must be drawn between positions that are unilingual and those that are not. Furthermore, should people who are currently in training be taken into consideration? You know that there are people at the EX levels who are in training.

I see you shaking your head. I know you're not happy with my answer, but that's nevertheless a reality and it enables us to show that we are taking measures to advance matters. By giving the opposite impression, you prove once again that you're not interested in the answer: all you want to do is ask your questions.

The Chair: A final question, now.

Over to you, Mr. Jobin.

Mr. Christian Jobin: Mr. Minister, I appeal to your vast experience as a member and minister; you've been part of the machinery for a long time.

We know that linguistic duality is an asset for Canada and that it is an integral part of our identity. We heard from the Commissioner of Official Languages, Minister Pettigrew, who is responsible for implementation of the Act, and Ms. Scherrer, who is also responsible for that, but in areas outside the government.

You have that responsibility with respect to the Agency. Do you believe that scattering responsibilities over a number of ministers is the right way to implement the Official Languages Act? Have you been able to meet on a regular basis? Does this way of operating enable everyone to work in the same direction, as regards the action plan that was introduced, the Dion Plan?

Hon. Denis Coderre: I'd say that that's everyone's business. We are members of a Cabinet committee that meets and is concerned with the official languages issue. With regard to finances, Pierre Pettigrew delivered the goods by announcing a fund of $751 million. You were able to observe the work of our Minister of Heritage. We work in complementary fashion and we all have a role to play. It's not the business of a single minister or department; it's everyone's business.

The fact that our government—rather than a single minister—has proven its will to act by advancing, in this continuous manner, tools that make it possible not only to evaluate and quantify, but also to respond to situations in an ad hoc as well as medium- and long-term way shows how good a decision that was. In my opinion, the more people there are who believe in it, the more of us there will be playing a role in that regard, and the more it will be a formula for success.

Mr. Christian Jobin: Thank you.

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

On that note, I hope that your efforts to achieve compliance with the Official Languages Act within the public service are crowned with success. You have proven your interest to us by your presentation and your answers this morning and, of course, by your presence before this parliamentary committee.

In closing, I remind all my colleagues that there will be a committee meeting tomorrow afternoon at 4:30 p.m. At that time, we will hear from the Commission nationale des parents francophones, and the meeting will be chaired by your excellent Vice-Chair, Mr. Simard.

The meeting is adjourned.