Skip to main content
Start of content;
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 7, 1996

.1530

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): We have quorum to hear witnesses, but not to adopt the report. I would nonetheless like to welcome everyone.

We will hear the witness before adopting the report. According to the Standing Orders, I believe we can hear the witness and then have all members ask questions this afternoon.

Dr Goldbloom, welcome to the committee. We have paid close attention to the tabling of the report, and I am sure there will be a number of questions from the people around this table. You have the floor, Mr. Goldbloom.

Dr Victor C. Goldbloom (Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada): Thank you, Joint Chairmen. I have a very short opening statement.

I would first like to remind committee members that the Commissioner of Official Languages is an officer of Parliament. He is not appointed by the government of the day nor by Order-in-Council, but by a resolution tabled in the House of Commons that is debated, voted on, sent to the Senate, debated in the Senate and, once it is passed by the Upper House, ensures the Commissioner can be appointed and can take up office under the Great Seal of Canada.

[English]

The commissioner is, therefore, independent of government. I would like to state very simply that no person and no institution has had any input into the commissioner's annual report. No person and no institution has been consulted regarding the commissioner's annual report. The only exceptions are obviously the figures and statistics we have to obtain from different departments in order to publish them in the report.

[Translation]

The second point I would like to raise with committee members is that when I released my 1995 annual report during a press conference after the report had been tabled in Parliament, I urged listeners to read the annual report at the same time as the systematic studies I had carried out over the preceding months and which had been released.

There are four of them and I will name them for you: a study on service points, the federal offices designed to answer public inquiries in French and in English, published in February 1995; a study on the working language of federal civil servants in the National Capital Region published in May 1995; a study on the equitable use of French and English in Canada's courts published in November 1995; and finally, a study on the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act published in February 1996.

.1535

Those four reports have about 300 pages in each language, describe the problems of minority language communities and the shortcomings of relevant public institutions; they contain no less than 86 recommendations, of which several are multifaceted.

I would therefore ask that you take into account everything that was published before you assess the Commissioner's 1995 Annual Report. The Commissioner's Annual Report includes all that, and not just this volume.

Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions you or members of this committee might have.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you, Mr. Goldbloom.

as usual, we will move into questions from members.

Mr. Allmand, please.

Mr. Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): I want to give you my name for the first round of questions.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I have taken note of that. I think we usually start with the Official Opposition. You will have ten minutes for the first round and five minutes for the second.

I now give the floor to Mr. Marchand for questions.

Mr. Marchand (Québec-Est): I would like to know if you occasionally have memory lapses or suffer from Alzheimer's. The tone, the depth, the seriousness of the studies you made in the months preceding your 1996 Annual Report are not at all consistent with the report you tabled last week. This raises serious doubts in my mind.

When I read this report, especially the first seven pages, I wondered what style you were using. It makes me think of a commissioner who, on the one hand, wants to disguise the extent of the problems faced by francophones outside Quebec, and on the other hand, wants to put anglo-Quebecers and francophones outside Quebec in the same category.

The Official Languages Act was implemented 25 years ago to provide for a fair treatment of both communities in Canada. It seems to me the problem was with francophones outside Quebec. As far as I know, Quebec anglophones had never been treated unfairly under Canada's laws. I think that all laws pertaining to education and respect of the English minority have been upheld in Quebec for years. The problem is outside Quebec.

In Quebec, the English minority has nearly every service imaginable for a community, in fact, it's even difficult to say there is an English minority in Quebec. It is certainly not a minority in the traditional sense of the word.

.1540

Anglophones have access to all educational institutions, from elementary schools right up to university, as well as to all services. In fact, you said yourself that the level of bilingual services in Quebec is very high in courts and elsewhere. Quebec anglophones are extremely well served in Quebec, but that is not the case at all for francophones outside Quebec. A number of studies have been done on that, including your own. Even the FCFA stressed that it was a major crisis. You could even quote their 1978 report entitled "The Heirs of Lord Durham: the Manifesto of a Vanishing People.

I could quote what the FCFA told this committee a short while ago. The problem has not changed. The problem for francophones outside Quebec is still quite serious: there is more assimilation and the number of people with access to school has not really changed. In Ontario, for example, only one person in two has access to elementary school; in Western Canada, it's one in 20. In Quebec, all anglophones have access to elementary school, secondary school and university.

The assimilation problem is a fundamental one. In your report, you don't even dare use the term once, not once, Mr. Glodbloom, except on page 91 in reference to something else. You might say that is a detail, but it is like a doctor treating a patient without talking about the illness.

It is a little odd and I wonder why this is so. I could quote a number of passages from your report where the tone is somewhat complacent, as if things weren't that bad and as if progress had been made. In 25 years, there has been some progress, and yet the situation is still just as dicey. Access to schools and even control over schools in Western Canada could be taken away overnight.

These things depend on money, the small sum the federal government has contributed, and yet the federal government is cutting funding to communities. In her editorial in Le Devoir, Ms Bissonnette says you are particularly subtle when you talk about complaints; you do not say 8 per cent of those complaints are from francophones and you do not say how serious those complaints are either.

You put everything in the same boat and you talk about anglophone minorities in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec as if they were living under the same circumstances. That is a cover-up. In my view, you are trying to hide a problem.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Marchand, you have just taken up five minutes of your time. I just wanted to point that out to you.

Mr. Marchand: I think you are trying to hide a problem, perhaps cover up some mistake. Mr. Goldbloom, I find your report smacks a great deal of intellectual dishonesty. I thought your report would be serious, but it is outright camouflage. It is deliberate camouflage to hide the gravity of the problem that affects the very soul of Canada.

You use the terms "justice", "respect" and "fairness" several times, especially in your seven-page summary. You even mention apple pie. Nothing has been spared to give the impression that the situation has changed, when that is not the case at all.

Mr. Goldbloom, there have been four official languages commissioners since the Official Languages Act was passed. Why is it that three of them have been anglophone Canadians?

Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, is that the member's question?

Mr. Marchand: Yes, that is the question. Why do you think that out of four official languages commissioners in Canada, three have been anglophone Canadians?

.1545

Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, I am obviously not in a position to comment on decisions made by Parliament that I was not involved in, but I would like to react to Mr. Marchand's comments.

Mr. Marchand: Mr. Goldbloom, I would prefer to ask you another question instead of hearing your answer.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Marchand, you raised several issues and I would like our witness to have the opportunity to react to them.

Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Marchand has another question.

Mr. Marchand: All right, if he cannot answer...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): You will have a second turn, Mr. Marchand.

Mr. Marchand: Yes, that's right. If you can't tell me why three anglophone Canadians were appointed Commissioner of Official Languages, can you tell me whether you know what it is like to be a francophone outside Quebec? Do you know what it is like to be long to a minority in Canada?

Dr. Goldbloom: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask you what language I am using right now. If someone is appointed by Parliament to be official languages commissioner, he or she must speak one of the two official languages. He must also be able to express himself reasonably well in both languages and must understand the real issues affecting Canadians living in minority situations throughout the country.

Mr. Marchand: Do you think you can relate to francophones outside Quebec if you have never been one yourself?

[English]

Mr. Allmand: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think it's the usual custom in this committee that once you've posed questions to the witness, no matter who the witness is, you give the witness a chance to answer. I would ask the hon. member to please.... He made quite a substantial statement, and I think it's only fair that we allow the witness to respond.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I would like to say your point is very well taken. For the benefit of all members, I think we should allow the

[Translation]

witness to express his views and answer a few of your questions.

Mr. Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I disagree. I have ten minutes and I can do what I like with them. If I want to ask him another question...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Well, I regret to inform you that...

Mr. Godfrey (Don Valley West): If it is a speech, can the witness excuse himself for those ten minutes?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Marchand raised a number of issues and, like most members of this committee, I hope to hear the witness respond to some of them. We have just two minutes left and I would certainly like...

Mr. Marchand: Yes, but if you insist on... Mr. Goldbloom has not answered my question.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Then he will answer now.

Mr. Marchand: I have just asked him a very direct question. I asked him if he knows what it means to be a minority francophone in Canada.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Marchand, please let the Commissioner answer your question.

Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, each one of us has had different experiences. If we were to limit our understanding to our own experiences, we would be very limited. Co-chairmen, I would ask you if you know of any other Canadian besides the one speaking to you right now who spends his time travelling to those communities, who spends his time listening to them to get a better grasp of their problems, their life, so that he can do everything in his power to make sure the Canadian government and federal institutions do what they can to improve their living conditions.

I urge you to find me one other Canadian besides myself who, over the past four years and ten months, has gone to every province and territory, to the premier or education minister or to both, and in some cases to other ministers as well, to plead the case of those communities, especially francophone communities who find themselves in a minority situation.

.1550

Mr. Chairman, I prepared 86 recommendations to improve access to justice, access to federal services and the working language conditions of federal public servants, particularly French speaking public servants.

I also made recommendations aimed at encouraging federal institutions to produce plans of action which we will be discussing during another hearing of this committee, regarding the implementation of part VII of the Act. That is what constitutes the action of the commissioner.

Excuse me, I wanted to add something but it has slipped my mind for the moment.

Mr. Marchand: Perhaps I could...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Excuse me, Mr. Marchand. Commissioner.

Dr. Goldbloom: I will therefore add something.

Assimilation is a real problem that I am not trying to hide. On the contrary, I'm the one who co-sponsored and co-chaired a symposium on exogamy, which has a significant influence on assimilation and the vitality of communities.

As we face assimilation, we have two choices. We can compile statistics and report on what's going wrong, or we can take action.

This is what I wanted to add. When I became Commissioner of Official Languages in June 1991, there were only two Canadian provinces, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, which had handed over to their francophone communities the administration of their school system.

Let me humbly point out that over the past four years, without wanting to brag, my representations to provincial governments have not been fruitless.

There are now six provinces where that is the case, since we've added Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. We are before the courts to support francophones in British Columbia, we are preparing to do the same in Newfoundland and we're having talks with the government of Ontario, where a few months ago, I met the minister of education to discuss school administration.

There is still a great deal left to do and a lot of things to be obtained, but - and I will use a term I'm borrowing from Mr. Marchand - it is dishonest to claim that there has been no progress in the past twenty-five years or in the past four years.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you, Dr. Goldbloom.

[English]

I think we'll follow the usual order and allow the other opposition member to ask questions.

I would like to remind you, Mr. Breitkreuz, that you have 10 minutes.

Mr. Serré (Timiskaming - French River): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think it's usual to let assistants sit at the table with members of Parliament and senators.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I believe there are very few seats remaining on that side. I don't have any objection that the hon. member sit on that side.

Mr. Serré: I have no objection personally, Mr. Chair, but I think we are creating a precedent for other committees as well. Think about it.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): For the time being, I think, because we're running out of time, and I don't want to cause too many technical errors, and there are many questions people would like to ask...and that includes you, Mr. Marchand.

That's why, Mr. Breitkreuz, I'd like to ask you to start asking questions. You now have 10 minutes.

Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr. Goldbloom.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I would like the assistant to remove himself from the table. I'm using as a precedent the fact that he doesn't agree with me on all issues.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

.1555

Mr. Breitkreuz: Mr. Goldbloom, when I was reading through the 1996-97 estimates I came across the activity description for the Commissioner of Official Languages. For the benefit of both you and the committee, I want to quote from part II of the 1996-97 estimates, page 19-9:

Mr. Goldbloom, will you commit to living up to your job description and appear regularly before this standing committee? I ask that because of your previous record of attendance before this committee, which has been anything but regular.

Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Breitkreuz is apparently unaware of a resolution adopted by this committee after considerable discussion. In the course of that discussion, I committed myself, on more than one occasion, to be available to the committee and to appear before this committee as often as might be necessary in order to answer all questions that might be asked by members of this committee. That discussion ended with the committee adopting a resolution requesting that I be present at all meetings.

Following the adoption of that resolution, I have attended virtually all meetings, and on virtually all of those occasions I have sat and listened and have not been asked to make any contribution to the deliberations of the committee. It is my intention to continue to be at the entire disposal of the committee.

You will recognize that this is a large country. We've just been talking about the obligations I have toward particularly the minority communities across the country. They count on me to share with them their experiences in order that I can make appropriate recommendations for the appropriate functioning of federal institutions in their regard.

So I am on the road sometimes, but it is my intention to continue to be at the disposal of this committee. Any time, if it is the wish of the committee, that we schedule a further appearance...apart from being a presence in the background. If it is the wish of this committee that we schedule an appearance where I can report on anything that interests the committee, answer questions from the members of the committee, there will be no hesitation on my part.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Thank you. I was aware of the resolution, but I wanted to bring that up directly.

Mr. Goldbloom, to say that federal language spending is expensive is indeed a big understatement. In every area of language policy, the federal government has either placed huge burdens on the Canadian economy or it has assumed these burdens directly, thereby placing huge burdens on, of course, the Canadian taxpayers. This burden comes up with the concise numerical figure of about $4 billion a year. That's the figure I go by, it being the only concise figure that has been produced in this country. About $2 billion of that is on compliance costs.

Your reports, of course, don't come close to that figure. I'm just asking if in the next annual report you could include all spending on official languages, which includes all the expenses interwoven in the various ministries, translation, language training - the whole government expenditure on official languages.

.1600

Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, translation and language training are included in the figures provided in the commissioner's annual report. The commissioner does not have the resources to do the accounting analysis that would be required to go beyond the figures provided by Treasury Board.

We asked Treasury Board, and I have asked Treasury Board on more than one occasion, to ensure, if there are hidden costs, that I be able to talk about those costs in order not to conceal anything from the Canadian public. I have met with the Auditor General of Canada with the same request.

The only thing that has come out of the discussions in this committee has been that because of the accounting principle - and I'm not an accountant, but this is what I have been informed - that an expenditure must be accounted for once only, under only one budgetary heading, it would be possible that some expenditures for, for example, the translation of some document would be absorbed into the cost of that project rather than appearing in the total cost of translation. That is a possibility.

I have inquired about it. The answer I have received is that if there are such amounts, they are minimal. When this issue comes up, people go back to the frigates and the translation of the technical manuals for the frigates, which was before my arrival here.

So I am not aware of any significant expenditure not accounted for here.

Let me say also, Mr. Chairman, with great respect, that we did put the figure of $4 billion that appears in the book Lament for a Notion, by Mr. Scott Reid, before three university economists. We asked them for their evaluation. Their evaluation was not positive. They said the basis on which this figure is compiled is not a solid one.

So I have to differ with the interpretation that the total amount is so far beyond the amounts of government expenditure presented annually in the report that the report is not an accurate picture.

I can't go further than that.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Breitkreuz, make this a short question, please.

Mr. Breitkreuz: You will acknowledge, though, Mr. Goldbloom, that there are expenses in official languages other than what are contained your report.

Dr. Goldbloom: Yes, there are undoubtedly other expenditures. One area in which it is claimed that there are major expenditures is that of two-language packaging and labelling. We are in the process of completing a study of that, after extensive consultation with large, small and medium-sized businesses in Canada and various business associations. We shall be pleased to place that report before this committee when it is finished.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you, Dr. Goldbloom.

[Translation]

Senator Rivest.

Senator Rivest (Stadacona): There is a little problem here, Commissioner.

Of course I read the Commissioner's report. In this report as in previous statements, the Commissioner has always underscored the seriousness and gravity of all linguistic rights issues. I do indeed think that in Canada, there is a fundamental characteristic according to which the principle of linguistic equality must exist not only in terms of principle but also in reality.

We have observed the considerable efforts deployed by government, and you did demonstrate this in your previous reports, but there is still a great deal left to do to fill the gap.

Moreover, I'm always somewhat uncomfortable when the situation of the anglophone minority in Quebec is compared to that experienced by the francophone minorities outside Quebec.

When our Reform Party colleague, Mr. Ringma, sat on this committee, he used to paint a rather sombre picture of the situation of anglophones in Quebec. But today, our friend the member from the Quebec City region, has been describing the angelic attitude of Quebec vis-à-vis that minority.

.1605

In the area of linguistic rights, I don't think either linguistic group has the monopoly on virtue.

If that were the case, if Quebec was all that virtuous vis-à-vis its minority, I wonder why the current premier of Quebec, ever since he came to power, has strived so hard to dissociate himself from the school of thought of his predecessors and display his understanding and open-mindedness toward the concerns of the anglophone linguistic minority of Quebec.

He did it with such conviction and in such a remarkable manner during the last general council of his party that many people who were probably acting in good faith wanted to make the anglophone minority of Quebec backtrack on simple linguistic rights, particularly with regard to public signs and the provision of health care and social services in the minority language.

Mr. Marchand: Not all Quebec anglophones have...

Senator Rivest: All this to say, Mr. Chairman, that the fits of anger some may have and, will continue to have, when it comes to language issues lead to exaggeration. They may shift the centre of interest of a committee like this one and the efforts that have been made by the commissioner and by the National Assembly itself.

Obviously, we must keep an eye on this issue and express our dissatisfaction with the fact that there are still huge gaps to be filled, but it is not necessary to use unpleasant language.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Are you waiting for an answer from the Commissioner?

Senator Rivest: No, I'm not. I just wanted to make that comment, that's all.

We must not use terms that implie value judgments and intentions that seem to me clearly exaggerated.

There's no doubt that the situation of the francophone minority outside Quebec must concern us first and foremost, because it is a much more difficult situation, as the Member has pointed out. In the three years that I've sat on this committee, I've come to fully understand that most of the efforts of the Commissioner and the federal administration were aimed at rectifying that very situation.

Moreover, there was a constitutional amendment specifically trying to guarantee the rights of the francophone community of New Brunswick.

Given that context and the progress that has been achieved, I want to put a question to the commissioner concerning school rights.

Up to a few years ago, six or seven provinces would still not give their francophones the right to administer their own schools. Much progress has been made, and I think there are only three provinces, including Ontario, where there are still problems.

Commissioner, could you expand on the issue of school rights for francophone minorities outside Quebec?

Dr. Goldbloom: I must reiterate what I already said earlier this afternoon. In 1991, only New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island had handed over the administration of schools to their French-speaking communities.

Thereafter, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta created a school administration system for their francophone communities. Next, it was Nova Scotia, where the government passed a bill creating a school board for the entire province.

I must add that the actions of various provinces took place after two decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada in 1990 and 1993. It was following the second decision that the four provinces I just referred to decided to act and legislate.

.1610

In British Columbia, the situation is as follows: while the other three western provinces had taken action, the provincial government of B.C. refused to proceed with legislation.

A few months ago, a school authority for francophones was created in British Columbia. This school authority has a geographically limited responsibility and, in our view, but not in the view of the provincial government, does not meet the requirements of article 23 of the Charter. As a result, the francophone parents of British Columbia have sued their government. The case is to be heard by the courts next month. The Commissioner has requested and obtained intervener status in order to participate in the court's decision.

In Ontario, a royal commission on education heard many witnesses, including your humble servant, and recommended that the four existing francophone school boards be transformed into 15 boards throughout the province. This report was handed over to a task force that was to study its implementation, and the task force came to the same conclusion. The provincial government elected some months ago has spoken publicly, on more than one occasion, about the creation of these 15 school boards.

In Ontario, there's also a major problem involving the chronic injustice of the distribution of school tax revenue. I've also drawn that problem to the attention of the royal commission and of successive provincial governments. Today, the government of Ontario has announced that there will be an in-depth change in the taxation system and the distribution of this tax revenue. In other words, there will be a different education support system throughout the province. According to what I read today, there is no mention of the 15 francophone school boards, but it was not denied either.

Finally, in Newfoundland, where the francophone population is proportionally smaller than in most other provinces, francophone parents still want to pursue legal action against their provincial government. If this action goes forward, the Commissioner will also request intervener status in order to help the court better understand the situation and the Charter and therefore help the court make the best possible decision.

Senator Rivest: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the Commissioner is talking about progress that has been achieved, but does not hesitate to talk about problems that continue to exist.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you very much. The next speaker will be Mr. Serré. Mr. Serré, you have ten minutes.

Mr. Serré: Dr. Goldbloom, welcome to the committee.

Dr. Goldbloom: Thank you.

Mr. Serré: You may recall that when you appeared here last year, I raised the problem of Radio Canada in my riding. I'm happy to announce that today, thanks to your intervention, we now have Radio Canada/CBC in both official languages. No matter what the Bloc Québécois member may say, there has been progress in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I have a very concrete question for the Commissioner. I will try to distance myself from the cynicism and political partisanship of my colleague from the Bloc Québécois and stick to the objectives of this committee and of the Commissioner, which are to monitor the application of our Official Languages Act throughout the country. However, I cannot remain silent in the face of some comments made by the member because I felt personally concerned, as a Franco-Ontarian.

.1615

I'm very pleased to see that he's suddenly taking an interest in the problems of Franco-Ontarians, but allow me to remind him that if he'd been truly interested in defending the rights of Franco-Ontarians, he could have stayed in Ontario rather than go to Quebec in order to divide and destroy this country of ours.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Serré, I would prefer that we limit ourselves to questions that concern the Commissioner. You will certainly have an opportunity to raise this kind of question in the House or elsewhere. I will therefore insist on this, because we don't often have a chance to have the Commissioner with us, so once again, I would ask all members present to limit themselves to the essential issues and ask questions that are directly related to the Commissioner's report.

Mr. Serré: I agree with you in part, Mr. Chairman, but I think it's important for the work of this committee to underscore the progress that has been made in both official languages thanks to the work of the Commissioner and many other people in this country.

With regard to high schools, it was said that we have not seen any progress for a long time, but the opposite is true. I can remember a time when we did not have French-language high schools. I fought to obtain the first French-language high school, in Ontario, in Sturgeon Falls. We now have our own system of French-language secondary schools, our own college, the Collège Boréal, the Collège du Nord, etc. I therefore cannot accept anyone claiming that nothing is happening, while as a Franco-Ontarian, I fought to obtain those rights.

The member also referred to Ms Bissonnette. Allow me to point out that Ms Bissonnette travelled throughout the country and underscored the vigour and contribution of the francophone communities outside Quebec in her article.

After the Commissioner's report was tabled, several newspapers ran headlines to the effect that services to the minority were available in 75% of points of service outside Quebec but that service was actively offered in only 40% of all cases.

In the case of Quebec, I think that service to the anglophone minority is available in approximately 98% of cases, but it also leaves something to be desired. What do you intend to do to solve this problem, that situation?

Secondly, you were asked to make a specific report on the application of Part VII. That report was to be tabled in January, I believe. We are awaiting it impatiently. Can you tell us when we can hope to have that report tabled?

Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, to respond first to the question concerning the active offer of services, I must say that this is a problem that we've encountered throughout the country. When we discovered that outside Quebec, service in French was available 72% of the time, we were forced to note that this service was not offered in an active way. The same is true in Quebec where, as you've pointed out, sir, service was available 98.8% of the time but only offered 40% of the time.

This a question of attitude. In the large majority of cases, it's not a show of contempt, but simply a matter of habit. We remind federal institutions of the need to obtain active offer from their employees so that the unknown people across the counter can feel comfortable and know that they can express themselves in either official language.

I don't think habits will change overnight, but I will continue to remind federal institutions of the need to obtain active offer of service to the public.

With regard to Part VII of the Act, the report on the implementation of this part by federal institutions has been made public since February. At that point, the Department of Canadian Heritage requested that 26 other federal institutions which are deemed key institutions produced a plan of action.

.1620

All the organizations in question have now produce a plan of action. It became apparent that the Department of Canadian Heritage saw its role as being limited to obtaining more plans of action rather than extending to their analyses. This committee requested that the Commissioner proceed with an analysis of the plans of action. We therefore developed an analysis grid for that purpose, we applied it and we drew conclusions. According to the spirit of the legislation, when we criticize a federal institution, we have to give that institution an opportunity to comment on our preliminary observations before we draft our final report.

We are therefore at that stage. We received about ten responses out of 27 and I have made a commitment to table the analysis of these plans of action before this committee. I intend to do so before the summer recess, therefore in the coming week. I don't intend to wait for the 27th response to do this, but it seems to me that since I only have 10 responses out of 27, I should wait until I have at least the majority of responses in order to present an overall view of the reaction of these key organizations to this report on the application of Part VII.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you, Commissioner. We appreciate that bit of good news. I will now allow the Join Chair to ask a question.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Commissioner, do you think you could obtain the responses that you have solicited from the 17 remaining organizations more quickly if the committee decided on a deadline for the tabling of your final report?

Dr. Goldbloom: I think so, and I would certainly be happy to come to an immediate agreement with the committee on that date for the tabling of my analysis of the plans of action.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Marchand, you have five minutes.

Mr. Marchand: In response to certain comments that were addressed to me, I would like to say that Quebec is not yet the garden of Eden. It is obvious that there are deficiencies.

However, when you compare various situations, it is perfectly obvious that the deficiencies or oversights concerning francophones outside Quebec are of a completely different order of magnitude than what is offered to Anglo-Quebeckers. This is patently obvious to anyone with eyes in their head, even those who don't want to see.

Therefore, I do not appreciate the fact that the Commissioner is putting everyone in the same basket, as if Anglo-Quebeckers were in the same situation as francophones outside Quebec, and that he stated in his report that they are on an equal footing. As a matter of fact, Mr. Goldbloom's entire report and all his statements start from that premise. Let me point out that we will never solve the problem of francophones outside Quebec if we start from that assumption.

The rights of francophones outside Quebec were never respected. Even today, the Constitution of Canada, with regard to official languages, is not respected. In Quebec, at least, it is respected from A to Z and it always has been.

I can tell you that in Quebec, anglophone Quebeckers have administered their own schools for a long time now. Moreover they can afford to fund their schools. Francophones outside Quebec, as you said yourself, Mr. Goldbloom, have been in an unfair situation for a very long time.

.1625

I could continue in this vein a lot longer, but I simply want to say that this is only a quarter of the problem. As long as we don't recognize that fact, we will never solve the problem of official languages in Canada. But perhaps you yourself, as Commissioner, are limited because your view focuses on Anglo-Quebeckers and you do not have the experience of a francophone outside Quebec.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Is that your question?

Mr. Marchand: No, I'm coming to my question. I would also like to respond to the statement made by my colleague Mr. Serré, and tell him that I too fought for schools in Ontario. I moved to Quebec mainly so I could live in French. It's almost impossible to live in French outside Quebec, except in a very limited number of areas. Speaking French is a political gesture that you have to repeat every day given the phenomenon of assimilation which is continuing and even growing.

Therefore, I have several questions for Mr. Goldbloom. Mr. Goldbloom, in your opinion, why isn't the Constitution of Canada respected outside Quebec in the matter of official languages? Is this because the government lacks the will to apply the law? Is it because of a lack of will on the part of the provinces or some deficiency on the part of the Commissioner?

Dr. Goldbloom: Obviously, the application of the Official Languages Act and of the constitutional provisions dealing with official languages leaves something to be desired. Since there are deficiencies, I'm called upon to highlight them each year.

I would simply like to say, and I repeat that despite Mr. Marchand's interpretation of my report, that I'm not seeking to draw a comparison between the Anglo-Quebec community and francophone communities.

During my press conference, some journalists expressed an interest in that and insisted on an answer. I feel that it is rather pointless to constantly draw comparisons. To my mind, what counts is the reality experienced by francophones outside Quebec. That reality, despite Mr. Marchand's pessimistic, negative and restrictive perspective, is still quite an interesting one.

I've just come from western Nova Scotia, from Sainte-Anne University, the only francophone university in Nova Scotia, where I participated in the graduation ceremony for 60 young people, a ceremony which was held in French. I observed that the French life of the community was quite vigorous.

I deeply regret that people seem to enjoy saying that what exists does not exist. I can't even keep track of the number of festivals that take place throughout the country to celebrate life in French. I deeply regret that some people seek to diminish the image of the Canadian francophone community outside Quebec.

Mr. Marchand feels that I'm putting everyone in the same boat in my report. That's not my intention at all. Very often, when writing to newspapers throughout the country, I point out the fact that 84% of our complaints come from francophones. In response to people who tell me I employ too many francophones, I answer that I need to work with francophones because it is the francophones of Canada who are at a disadvantage with regard to federal services and for whom I must intervene in order to improve their situation.

.1630

Mr. Chairman, it's very easy to draw those kinds of comparisons and perhaps we should devote one entire hearing to examining the history of each of the communities in question. However, I formally reject the suggestion that I'm trying to hide the reality of the francophone minority by compiling statistics that put anglophones and francophones together.

Mr. Marchand: In that regard, Mr. Goldbloom, there's absolutely no doubt that you are hiding things. It's obvious. Listen, I've read documents... On that point, you will never prove the opposite, Mr. Goldbloom. You don't input erroneous data. There are no mistakes, but it is obvious that you are seeking to hide a very grave situation. It's obvious and I could give you many examples including this one...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Marchand, could you raise these examples at another time, please?

I see that Mr. Allmand is becoming impatient. Mr. Allmand.

[English]

Mr. Allmand: It's not my intention today to get into a debate with Mr. Marchand, but I want to say this before I put my question. I fully agree that there are francophone communities across this country that are at risk and many that have been assimilated, but there are many others where there has been a renaissance. As a young man I lived in New Brunswick and northern Ontario. If I compare the period of the 1940s when I lived in New Brunswick with today, there has been a real renaissance. The first Acadian premier of New Brunswick could testify to that. I lived in Chapleau and, Monsieur Serré, if I compare the 1940s with today, there's an absolute change over those years.

Mr. Marchand's statement that everything was just hunky-dory in Quebec with respect to the anglophone minorities is a total misrepresentation. First of all, he fails to understand that with anglophones in Quebec it's not a question of assimilation. It's a question of the destruction of their community institutions, the closing of their schools and their hospitals, an attack on their rights.

Mr. Marchand says the Constitution is totally respected in Quebec. It's respected because we had to go to court on several occasions and strike down the provisions in Bill 101 that tried to stop us from speaking English in the courts and in the Assemblée nationale. And the law on the signs, which tried to ban all English signs - which wasn't duplicated anywhere else in the world that I know of, with any minority language - we had to go to Geneva, for God's sake, to get a hearing on that before there was a change.

I don't want to debate that today, but it was raised by him and I feel it has to be responded to. In my office I have had thousands of complaints of injustices. He's the one who is really making the comparison, not the commissioner. There are two different things: there is assimilation with francophones outside Quebec; and in Quebec, with anglophones, it's the loss of population and the destruction of community institutions.

Mr. Commissioner, the point I want to raise with you is with respect to the negotiations to transfer training and employment provisions to the provinces. Many of us are concerned that the matters that are now under federal jurisdiction, despite the criticisms in your report - and I take note of them on page 43 - with respect to the delivery of training programs in Ontario.... This highlights the validity of my point. Many Canadian are afraid that with the transfer of manpower training, formation, to the provinces, it will be done all in one language, either in English in the anglophone provinces or in French in the francophone provinces. But now those training programs that are under federal jurisdiction are subject to the Official Languages Act.

When we transferred the airports to the provinces and the municipalities, we made certain in the transfer that they would respect the Official Languages Act. When we transferred other matters - there was one other matter I can't quite remember now - we insisted that they maintain the Official Languages Act.

Dr. Goldbloom: Air Canada, CN.

Mr. Allmand: Yes, Air Canada, the privatization.

I want to ask whether you're following this dossier closely. I have here a letter from Mr. Duhamel of Manitoba, who is extremely concerned that in the transfer of training programs to Manitoba there were no longer any given in French. I would like to know if you are following this dossier closely and trying to do what you can to make sure that in any such transfer, we will put in the condition that these programs must be given in the two official languages, that the national Official Languages Act must be respected throughout Canada.

.1635

Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes. I have been following this problem over an appreciable period of time. When the privatization of airports was under discussion in this Parliament, I appeared before a committee of the Senate. I made the strong recommendation that the linguistic obligations be maintained in the privatization process. It seems to me the same principle should apply to transfer from the federal to the provincial level.

It seems to me, as we look at the Official Languages Act and the regulations adopted under that act, that they constitute recognitions of human reality and that there are Canadians who require service in one or the other official language, according to which part of Canada. It is because there are real human beings requiring those services that the services should be offered in both official languages, where numbers warrant, whether the responsibility is federal, provincial or private sector. The same Canadians are requiring the same service, and they should have the same entitlement to understandable service, whichever the level of responsibility.

Mr. Allmand: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I'll give you one minute for one question that is directly related to Mr. Allmand's statements.

Senator Rivest: I think that the concerns about the transfer of jurisdiction for manpower are quite legitimate. Allow me to point out that when the Quebec government signed agreements on the collection of the manufacturers' sales tax, which became the GST, there were specific provisions at the time of the transfer to ensure the Official Languages Act would be respected. So this does not prevent the transfer of jurisdiction over manpower.

Mr. Allmand: No, and I'm glad to see that the Commissioner is concerned with the issue.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I wish to thank the senator for that clarification.

[English]

Mr. Breitkreuz, five minutes.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Of course, what we just heard now isn't reasonable or fair, but I don't want to concentrate on that right now.

Just to follow up on the numbers I gave and the numbers you mentioned, which three academics take issue with, I think it's up to the government - and Mr. Spicer referred to this after he was off the commission as the commissioner - that there be a complete accounting of every dollar spent on official languages. I think it's up to the government to produce that, not to have three academics say that the $4 billion Mr. Reid comes up with is out of line.

Regarding the measuring of francophones and anglophones in their respective minority regions across the country, the Canada census, or Statistics Canada, uses as its measurement tool ``home language'', whereas it seems in your report you use ``mother tongue''. Of course, you come up with entirely different figures and different numbers.

Dr. Goldbloom, why do you insist on using a measurement that basically is a generation out of date?

Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, first let me say that I share the concern of Mr. Breitkreuz and of everyone else that a clear and complete accounting for costs be provided. He is accurate in saying that it is up to the government to provide that. I have no wish and no purpose to conceal any costs. The public has the full right to know exactly what things are costing.

With regard to language, we do not limit ourselves to mother tongue. On many occasions I have drawn attention to the difference between the identification of Canadians by mother tongue - and that question is still asked in the census - and the identification of Canadians by virtue of the principal language used in the home.

.1640

We also look at statistics for how many Canadians speak or understand each language, and those figures show interesting differences. With regard to mother tongue, for example, 16,300,000 Canadians in the 1991 census identified themselves as English speaking; 18,400,000 Canadians identified themselves as using English as their primary language in the home. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that among the 17 most numerous languages in Canadian society, English is the only one that more people use as the principal language in the home than those who identify English as their mother tongue. The number of people who speak English in Canada is 22,500,000.

Now let's look at French. Mother tongue in the 1991 census: 6,600,000. These are people who identify themselves as having only one mother tongue. There are some additional people who identify themselves as having two mother tongues. Language of use in the home: 6,300,000. That gap of about 300,000 has been fairly constant for a considerable time. The number of Canadians able to speak French is 8,500,000 - a record in the history of Canada.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I'd ask the commissioner to wrap up his comments, please.

Dr. Goldbloom: That's as far as I need to go at present, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you.

[Translation]

Honourable Senator Comeau, you have five minutes.

Senator Comeau (Nova Scotia): Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. I wasn't going to comment, but I can't help myself.

I hear Mr. Marchand accusing you of not being familiar with francophones outside Quebec. I heard Mr. Marchand use the expression "francophones outside Quebec" at least 35, 40 or 50 times, whereas you, Commissioner, only used it once. That's why we will continue to count on your support, Commissioner, and not on that of Mr. Marchand's group.

Indeed, Mr. Marchand continues to insult French Canadians by calling them "francophones outside Quebec". I and many of my French Canadian fellow citizens who are not from the province of Quebec do not appreciate being identified as "francophones outside Quebec". We want to be recognized as Canadians who live in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, or wherever. We are not "francophones outside Quebec".

I suppose that you'll try to claim that you are our big brothers and that you will protect us from the gentlemen who are here with us.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I'd ask you to put your question anyway. You have very little time.

Some honourable members: Oh, oh!

Senator Comeau: I'll just finish up with this comment.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): No. Put your question to the Commissioner, please.

Senator Comeau: Dr. Goldbloom, you were awarded a PhD by the Nova Scotia francophones during the weekend. It was well-deserved and we hope to be able to honour you even further in the future.

Dr. Golbloom: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, perhaps you might allow me to clarify my answer to the question put by Mr. Breitkreuz a few minutes ago.

[English]

When we are evaluating the official language status of federal public servants, we don't look at mother tongue. We simply ask people what their first official language is and each persons opts for one or the other.

The other thing is that it's important that we remember the definition of mother tongue, which is the language first learned and still understood. That means that even though a person may have come to use another official language or another language as their principal language of use in the home, if they identify themselves by mother tongue as being English speaking or French speaking, that means they continue to be able to use that language. So they are not lost to the community.

.1645

[Translation]

I'd like to comment on something we discussed previously and add that I know many leaders of francophone communities all across the country who married someone from the other language group who use English as their main language at home and who are still leaders who are honoured by their francophone communities.

The fact that English is used in some homes as the main language does not mean that everyone in that home is lost for the francophone community.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you, Commissioner. I will now give the floor to senator Robichaud, a past premier of New Brunswick.

Senator Robichaud (L'Acadie): I'll start with a very brief preamble leading to a few questions to which I would like to get brief answers.

I'd like to say to the members of this committee and the Commissioner that in 19 years of provincial politics and 23 years of federal politics as a Senator, I have never during this whole career, seen so much ugly extremism expressed around one table. It's because of these extremists at the other end of this rectangular table, it's because of extremists like them that we need the Commissioner for Official Languages who is of enormous help to us.

I totally agree with my colleague Mr. Allmand when he says that during the last few years, French has made tremendous progress and that Quebec anglophones have not had very many losses. They have severe problems, just as we have severe problems. But we need the Commissioner's office. Thankfully, to date, we've had very good Commissioners of Official Languages who have provided tremendous service. And we have made enormous progress.

I'm not at all of the opinion expressed during the seventies by Mr. René Lévesque, the boss of someone we've heard here this afternoon, who said that the French minorities in this country were going to disappear. I don't agree with that prediction at all. I never have, and I'm convinced, more than ever, of the francophone vitality in the provinces bordering Quebec.

Some honourable members: Oh! Oh! The wants to avoid saying "outside Quebec".

Senator Robichaud: Commissioner, you've twice said something about having intervener status. You said that the Commissioner would have intervener status in a B.C. court and another court... On what grounds could you intervene?

Dr. Goldbloom: I'm not a lawyer, Mr. Chairman, so my terminology is perhaps not quite correct. I will have standing as amicus curiae as they say in legal circles, in other words, as a friend of the court.

The Commissioner is not in a position to join with a group of lawyers setting out the parents' case. However, he can give expert advice, if you will, stemming from his knowledge of the legislation and previous decisions of the Supreme Court.

.1650

By the way, the previous Commissioners have had this standing before the Supreme Court of Canada in both cases submitted to that tribunal. So it is possible the Commissioner might be of use and, of course, provide a very clear interpretation of clause 23 of the Charter, an interpretation which has been confirmed several times. This clause grants the official language communities in a minority situation the right to manage their own school system.

Senator Robichaud: I have a current events question. In your report, Commissioner, you had something rather unfavourable to say concerning services in French provided by Air Nova. It gave rise to a bit of a controversy. Could you give us an update on the relationship between Air Nova and your office today?

Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, there is no direct conflict between the Commissioner and Air Nova. There is a conflict between the Commissioner and Air Canada. A number of years ago, certain companies were not fully owned by Air Canada. The situation has changed. Air Nova, Air Ontario and the others are now fully owned by Air Canada.

In my opinion and that of my legal counsel, clause 25 of the Official Languages Act is clear. When a third party is acting on behalf of a federal institution, that third party falls under the same legislation, the Official Languages Act in this instance. We received a certain number of complaints about each one of Air Canada's partners. I wouldn't want to give the impression that the number of complaints against Air Nova is enormous.

We received several complaints about one recurring omission, that of publishing an announcement in a French-language newspaper at the same time as it was published in an English-language newspaper. As for service to the public, we get 10 or 15 complaints a year. We send those complaints to Air Canada, a federal institution. Despite its being privatized, that corporation is still subject to the Act.

Air Canada refuses to recognize its responsibility in the case of Air Nova and thus refuses to forward those complaints to Air Nova and to make known to Air Nova what the problems are, with a view to having them corrected, and the public better served.

As Air Canada is maintaining its refusal of its responsibility towards its partner corporations, we had no other choice but to ask the courts to decide. We advised the parties, particularly Air Canada, that we were going to court to obtain an interpretation of clause 25 of the Act in the cases of Air Nova, Air Ontario and the others.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you, Commissioner. Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Beaudoin (Rigaud): A simple point of information. I had the pleasure of pleading in court with Mr. Bastarache, who has been appointed judge, since the Forest decision was handed down. Is the situation approximately the same? Are courts involved more often or have there been more court cases since the Forest decision?

Dr. Goldbloom: Off the top of my head, I would say that the numbers are constant although they do change from time to time. This year, senator, I published a separate document - I see you have it in front of you - a report on the cases that went to court and the other legal problems we have.

.1655

This was done to save money, because there are fewer people interested in that chapter than in the rest of the report. Everything that's being done is set out in that booklet.

Senator Beaudoin: The number of cases is about the same.

Dr. Goldbloom: Yes. On the other hand, we are noticing that the problems being posed are more complex than previously. So the legal recourses we have to take are more involved than previously.

Senator Beaudoin: More specific. On the other hand, you are making progress.

Dr. Goldbloom: I believe so.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you. I will now give the floor to Mr. Marchand, MP.

Mr. Marchand: First, I think I'll make a few comments and then go to a question.

First, I'd like to apologize for having used the expression "outside Quebec". I wasn't being spiteful. When I was growing up, we had the Fédération des francophones hors Québec (federation of francophones outside Quebec) which has now become the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (federation of francophone and acadian communities of Canada). Maybe it's better that way.

I'd also like to say that the problem of assimilation of francophones outside Quebec is not due to Quebec. It is not caused by Quebeckers, nor by Bloc members nor the separatists nor even the péquistes. It's a problem that does not have its roots in Quebec. This problem has its roots elsewhere.

You, Mr. Robichaud, whom I very much admire... Actually, it's the first time I've had the opportunity to see that you consider me to be an extremist. I for one have a lot of respect for you because you passed the first law on bilingualism in Canada, the only one which is actually still maintained.

Moreover, I admire the Acadians because I am a native of Ontario. The Acadians stood up for themselves. Their rights were abolished in 1871 and it took almost 100 years before they were recognized once again. That is a great success. I admire the vitality of the francophones in Acadia and the Acadians.

It's not the same case in Ontario. In Ontario, we would have liked to have Premier Bob Rae declare the province bilingual. He did not. Actually, he showed no respect for the management of school boards in Ontario. There are a lot of problems in Ontario.

You say there has been a lot of progress, great strides. In a way, I agree with you because in Ontario also the teaching of French was forbidden. We got elementary schools in Ontario in the 1950s and high school in the 1960s. Today still, we're fighting to have access to our schools because the funding of schools goes to the English schools in Ontario. It's a flagrant case of injustice. I could give you a lot of examples.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Do you want an opinion from the Commissioner, Mr. Marchand?

Mr. Marchand: I'm getting to it.

Some honourable members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Marchand: Just to tell you, Mr. Robichaud, that I am also fighting for the francophones outside Quebec. There are Quebeckers who are more or less okay just as there are English Canadians who are more or less okay. I want francophones outside Quebec to survive. That's in my interest and in the interest of Quebeckers. No matter what may happen in Quebec, the survival of the French fact in North America will be a good thing. That's my view.

I'll now get back to Mr. Goldbloom to tell him once again - and maybe I'm repeating this for the last time - that I think his report is basically only smoke and mirrors. Otherwise, why would the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, in 1994, before this committee, amongst other things, say:

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Please put an end to your quote and put your question.

Mr. Marchand: I'm getting there.

That is what the FCFA said last year to this committee. This is essentially the same as what was said in another text.

.1700

Here is my question: why is your report at variance with the view of the Fédération des francophones hors Québec or the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada? Who speaks for the francophone communities?

Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, that is Mr. Marchand's interpretation. I do not share it. I agree with the quote he drew from the FCFA's testimony. In my report, I point out the problems and I make recommendations. Allow me to briefly quote two recommendations drawn from my report concerning the implementation of Part VII of the Act.

Mr. Marchand: Nothing has been done with Part VII. I would just add, Mr. Goldbloom, that on page 12 of your report you say:

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Marchand, you could ask all your questions on monetary issues on Thursday of this week.

Mr. John Godfrey.

Mr. Godfrey: Is the problem of assimilation officially part of your responsibilities, Commissioner?

Dr. Goldbloom: I would say that assimilation is a peripheral part of our responsibilities. My chief role is that of ombudsman. That means I must be available to the men and women of Canada who experience unacceptable situations in federal offices or in their dealings with federal institutions.

Part VII of the Act refers - let us quote it correctly - to the federal government; not to the Commissioner or to any other individuals, but to the federal government, which "is committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development". I'm somewhat confused when Mr. Marchand accuses me of not being interested in these matters, because he did quote an important criticism that I made on page 12 of my report.

Because of this clause, I do take an interest in the life of linguistic minority communities. Because of this clause, I request and obtain meetings with provincial premiers, with provincial ministers of education, justice and other areas that come under provincial jurisdiction. So I do defend linguistic minority communities, and more specifically francophone communities throughout the country, so that they get the monetary and other resources they need to continue living in French, thereby defeating the process of assimilation.

I cannot be passive in the face of the problem of assimilation. The objective of the things I do is to help communities resist the trend toward assimilation.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you, Commissioner. We have a final question from Mr. Breitkreuz.

.1705

[English]

Mr. Breitkreuz, you have less than five minutes.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Regarding this whole business, this whole sociological concept, of assimilation, that occurs despite government regulations or government intervention. From what I know, there is no society where assimilation did not occur, or has been curbed, because of government intervention. Given that this was one of the main reasons for enacting the Official Languages Act - the other reason, of course, was unity of the country - it has failed miserably. Why, then, do we go on perpetuating the notion that the Official Languages Act is working and indeed go on pumping more dollars into it to basically cover up a huge mistake?

Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, let me start by pointing out that I do not adopt laws and regulations. I am charged with supervising the application of laws and regulations adopted by this Parliament. So it is not in my prerogative to comment on the intention of the legislator in adopting this or other laws, these or other regulations. They are there, and I take them and look at how they are applied.

The notion that this has been a failure is one I find difficult to agree with. Obviously there have been shortcomings in the application of the act and the regulations. Because of those shortcomings I continue each year to call them to the attention of whichever government is in place in order that the government think about these things and take what has been decided by Parliament and make sure it is appropriately applied, or else bring in legislation to modify it.

But let me point out that we are looking at a human reality in Canada where out of about 27 million people, according to the 1991 census, 22 million understand English and the rest do not. The vast majority of those are French speaking. Therefore, as federal institutions, having a responsibility toward all Canadians, having an obligation to communicate with all Canadians understandably, we need both languages.

There are a lot of languages represented within the Canadian mosaic. We have 22.5 million people speaking English and 8.5 million people speaking French. The third language is Italian, at 700,000. So no other language figures in the portrait of Canada as an instrument of communication with all Canadians.

When we set out as federal institutions, as the Government of Canada, to communicate with all the citizens of this country, by using English only we reach 83% of Canadians. By using English and French we reach 98.6% of Canadians.

So we have that continuing obligation. One cannot say that because there are imperfections in the way in which the act has been applied, because there is forgetfulness on the part of federal institutions with regard to obligations towards linguistic minorities, we should therefore wash out this responsibility of communicating understandably and respectfully with all Canadians.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Commissioner, I would like to thank you

[Translation]

for your testimony. I would also like to thank the members of the committee. I expected a rather boisterous session, but everything went smoothly, and I would like to congratulate you for respecting the time limits we gave you and particularly for respecting the opinions of all members of this committee.

.1710

I imagine we will see you again on Thursday, Commissioner.

I would just like to add that a few years ago, I followed your political career very closely. You were one of those people who inspired me and others of my generation to choose public life.

In my opinion, you remain a model, because of your command of our country's two official languages. I would like to emphasize this, because it is important to recognize that we have a Commissioner who, in my view, does what is expected of him and listens carefully to all the minorities in this country.

Dr. Goldbloom: Thank you for your kind words, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate them particularly because I have not had all the experiences of all the minorities in Canada.

Some honourable members: Oh! Oh!

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you, Mr. Goldbloom.

I would like to table the first report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, which met on April 30.

I have here the proposed schedule for the next few weeks. I see that we invited the Commissioner to appear this afternoon, Thursday. That's fine.

However, at point 2, I see that the committee invited the President of Treasury Board to come and discuss his Annual Report. We have a problem there. Although he has tabled his report, he is going to be away for some time, is that correct? He will not be able to come and meet with us.

An honourable member: Mr. Massé?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Did he give a reason?

The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Ms Paradis): He said he had other commitments.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): The subcommittee also recommends that the committee invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and there too we have a serious problem.

Some honourable members: That's your problem.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): That's true. So let's talk about it.

An honourable member: Is there no Minister of Canadian Heritage?

Senator Rivest: I believe Ms Robillard is filling in for the moment.

Mr. Godfrey: Could we invite the parliamentary secretary?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I think there are other groups we could hear from, such as Alliance Quebec and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada.

Senator Rivest: I agree that we should invite representatives from the Federation, but the President of Treasury Board is a most important witness. He's the person in charge, he has full responsibility. It's all very well to criticize the Commissioner, as I find Mr. Marchand has done, but I hope he still has the energy to criticize the President of Treasury Board as well, because he is the one responsible for all this.

.1715

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Would the committee like to summon the President of Treasury Board to appear?

Senator Rivest: I think the President of Treasury Board should make an effort. This is an important matter.

Mr. Godfrey: We will ask the clerk...

Senator Rivest: Let's send Mr. Marchand. He will make a public statement.

Some honourable members: Oh! Oh!

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): The Joint Chair will inform...

Senator Rivest: I don't want to give Mr. Marchand carte blanche.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Exactly. Would the committee like to hear his testimony on...

Senator Rivest: I know that he has other responsibilities, but I think we have to be insistent, because the President of Treasury Board... We understand that there is a particular problem as regards the Minister of Canadian heritage.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): So that's carried.

Senator Rivest: Then we have to invite the Federations. I think Mr. Marchand would agree.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I agree. To do things properly, do we agree that the committee should invite the President of Treasury Board to appear?

Some honourable members: Yes.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Agreed unanimously. Do we agree that the committee should invite the Minister for Canadian Heritage?

Some honourable members: yes.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Agreed.

Senator Rivest: There is a problem with respect to Heritage Canada. Ms Robillard is acting minister. There is nothing worse for a parliamentary committee than to hear from a new minister who is not familiar with the issues. Moreover, Ms Robillard has other responsibilities. She's going to spend her time repeating... we could have the deputy minister appear, the person in charge, so that we can be a little critical.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): We do have Part VII of the Official Languages Act as well. We are expecting some reports to be tabled soon. Should we agree on a date? We were talking about a deadline.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Yes, to hear from the Commissioner on his report about the feedback that he got from 17 other departments and agencies. He is still waiting for this feedback. So to help him give these departments and agencies a little push, perhaps, before the summer recess, we could decide on a date on which we would ask the Commissioner to report to us.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I would like to tell you about a little talk I had with the Commissioner during which he told me that the reports would definitely be tabled before the House of Commons adjourns. I think we could find a date that suits both him and the committee. Is that all right?

We could consider June 19, for example. The House rises on June 21.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Or the week before.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Or the week before. We could set the whole month of June aside to study these reports.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, if it were a Wednesday, like today... No, excuse me, today is Tuesday. So let us consider June 11. I think this would help the Commissioner encourage these people to get their reports in. He said himself that he would agree if we were to say that we would expect his report on June 11.

An honourable member: That's great.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Let's let the Clerk tell the Commissioner about our wishes with respect to the tabling of these reports. That's excellent.

There is another important point. Do we have quorum? We do, that's good. We have to pass the report.

Senator Rivest: Not right away. We have not finished discussing it.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Did we not settle that point?

Senator Rivest: We are in the process of convincing Mr. Marchand that it's a good report. We want to start...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Shall the report as presented to the committee carry?

The report of the Standing Committee on Agenda and procedure is carried [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): The meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.

Return to Committee Home Page

;