[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 30, 1996
.1549 
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Order please!
We have with us today from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, Mr. Jacques Michaud, Chairman, and Mr. Yvon Samson, Executive director. We also have the name of Ms. Manon Henrie on the list.
A voice: Ms. Manon Henrie is ill.
.1550
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Therefore, it is my understanding that you are appearing to discuss the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. You have the floor to present your brief.
Mr. Jacques Michaud (President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada wishes to thank the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages for the opportunity to share our observations regarding Part VII of the Official Languages Act, and more specifically the implementation of section 41.
We have a brief, but unfortunately, it is not available in English. Would you allow us to distribute it anyway?
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Would members of the committee agree that the document be distributed in French only?
There are no objections from other members? Fine.
Mr. Michaud: Thank you. Our presentation will limit itself to observations and comments about the implementation process of this Part VII of the Act. We will also propose a few ideas or possible solutions aimed at enhancing the present process.
I should like to mention that in December 1995, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada appeared before this committee.
You will recall that our intervention at the time was essentially to comment on the first round of action plans submitted by the departments and agencies targeted for the implementation of section 41.
At that time, we briefly discussed the obstacles we ran into whit regard to the implementation of this section of the Act.
As you know, under Part VII of the Official Languages Act, the federal government and its institutions are committed to promote the flourishing of francophone and anglophone minorities in Canada and to support their development, as well as to promote the full recognition and use of French and English in Canadian society.
It then deals with the coordination of the objectives of this commitment by proposing certain concrete parameters that are to guide the actions of the coordinating department, namely the Department of Canadian Heritage as designated in section 43.
We strongly encourage those who have not yet done so to re-read the wording of Part VII which is, in our opinion, the expression of a fundamental value of this country and of Canada's influence in the international sphere.
We were here when the Commissioner of Official Languages, Victor Goldbloom, appeared last Tuesday. At the time, he explained the content of his report on the implementation of this part of the Act.
The FCFA feels that the remarks and recommendations in this document are critical. We hope that they will receive attention from the leadership of the current government, and be at the heart of the proceedings of this committee.
Here are some of our comments and observations.
Since our appearance, the Department of Canadian Heritage has worked out the problem regarding the distribution of the action plans. We are awaiting these plans with great impatience.
The FCFA of Canada is working closely with the Department Canadian Heritage to develop a communications plan for the implementation of section 41. Among other things, this tool will serve to ensure that specific efforts are made to continue to raise awareness within the concerned departments and agencies about the importance of the implementation of this section of the Act.
.1555
According to our analyses, which have been confirmed by those of the Commissioner of Official Languages, most departments and institutions seem unaware of the nature and scope of section 41. For them, the implementation of section 41 is apparently limited to offering services in both languages. In our opinion, there is a basic lack of understanding of the significance of linguistic duality in Canada.
The Department of Canadian Heritage has no direct authority over other departments and agencies.
We have observed, as the commissioner has pointed out, a lack of political will to ensure genuine implementation of Part VII.
Section 41 of the Act provides, as its intent, that institutions must adapt their programs, review their criteria and adopt incentives, particularly with regard to communities in accordance with their needs.
In addition, institutions and departments are hiding behind the current criteria of their programs which have not been designed to meet the needs of our communities. They've shown no imagination in creating and adapting programs to counter the gradual deterioration of Francophone and Acadian communities in Canada. There is a lack of commitment to integrate the objectives of Section 41 into the mission and objectives of the targeted departments and agencies.
We have noted a lack of information and training of the public servants responsible for the implementation of Part III. It is deplorable that during the consultations with the communities, no effort was made to define the needs, to explain what is at stake and to develop solutions that could have enabled the government to achieve its mandate in relation to Part VII.
We deplore the lack of clearly established priorities, of specific objectives and of detailed guidelines in the content of the action plans. There is no mechanism for auditing the action plans of action of the departments and institutions nor is there any accountability.
The implementation is compromised in many departments and agencies given the lack of financial and human resources assigned to achieving the objectives of Part VII.
For the FCFA of Canada, it is important to recall that the implementation of Section 41 of the Act directly affects the government's decision-making and planning process. We must ensure that the decisions made by the targeted departments and institutions are focussed on the development and enhancement of Francophone and Acadian communities, be it in terms of the development or implementation of federal programs and policies.
In other words, the targeted departments and agencies should not wait for decisions to be made internally before considering the implementation of Section 41. On the contrary, factors that affect the development and flourishing of Francophone and Acadian communities must be integrated throughout the federal planning, decision making and evaluation process - in the targeted departments and institutions.
It is imperative that the Department of Canadian Heritage review its information and coordination strategy in order to inform the targeted departments and agencies of the scope of Section 41 of the Act. The content of the action plans and the meeting of national organizations and coordinators of the targeted agencies and institutions have showed that federal public servants do not understand the distinction between the obligation to provide services in both official languages and the obligation related to the implementation of Section 41 of the Act.
.1600
In order to improve coordination, the FCFA of Canada categorically supports the recommendation made by the Commissioner of official languages concerning the firm involvement of Cabinet, and I quote:
- A Cabinet sub-committee, or another appropriate mechanism aimed at implementing Section
42 of the Act, should be established to ensure the implementation of the commitment made
under Part VII, and more specifically to improve the action plans for implementation of Part
VII that the responsible departments have transmitted to the Department of Canadian Heritage
in response to the Cabinet directive of August 1994. The departments of Canadian Heritage,
Human Resources Development and Industry should automatically be part of such a
committee.
It's interesting to read this part, because barely an hour ago, we heard the Prime Minister of Canada say in the House of Commons that French will be a language of communication throughout Canada.
Cabinet should also: affirm that Part VII is a high priority for the government and clearly indicate to what extent considerations relative to Part VII are important when recommendations on the distribution of financial resources are presented to Cabinet, as well as recommendations on the examination and restructuring of programs; ensure that clear policy directives are disseminated throughout the federal administration regarding the fact that all federal institutions are expected to ensure the implementation of Part VII within their respective mandates; explain why the government continues to promote vigorous implementation of Part VII as well as the underlying justification for this, which is, first and foremost, the importance of linguistic duality and more specifically the fact that official language minority communities constitute an essential component of this Canadian value and secondly, to remedy the specific disadvantages suffered by official language minority communities, because of the inequities of the past and the structural obstacles that prevent them from fully participating in many federal programs.
The strategy for implementing the August 1994 decision must also involve the central agencies in the Canadian government. It is a well-known fact that departments tend to wait rather than act when faced with the unknown. The first round of action plans is eloquent proof of this. The federal government expresses its will through the action of these central agencies. They are the ones who take the initiative to develop control and policy mechanisms when the legislators pass a law.
The Privy Council, Treasury Board, the Department of Canadian Heritage because of its coordinating role, the Department of Justice, the Canadian Centre for Management Development and the Public Service Commission, because of their role in training public servants, and Statistics Canada, represent such central agencies, in our opinion. These departments and agencies, by firmly supporting the decision of 1995, will set an example for all government departments and agencies in Canada.
.1605
In closing, if one of Canada's foundation is linguistic duality, the federal government has no choice but to send a clear message to the government machinery. It must clearly state that the implementation not only of Part VII but of the entire Official Languages Act, is a priority for this government and should show leadership by creating a Cabinet subcommittee responsible for the implementation of this Act. It must vigorously encourage central agencies to develop direction and control mechanisms for the implementation of the Official Languages Act.
Linguistic duality must be reflected in the vitality of Francophone and Acadian communities throughout the country. Under Part VII of the Act the Canadian government and all its institutions are committed not only to promoting full recognition and use of Official Languages in Canada throughout society, but also to actively supporting the development and enhancement of these communities. Thank you.
The Joint Chairman (senator Roux): Thank you for this brief but eloquent presentation, sir.
Before I give the floor to my colleagues, could I ask you whether since you last appeared here you have noted any improvement in the situation, or whether the situation has stayed the way it was or if it has deteriorated?
Mr. Michaud: When the communities received this announcement two years ago, they invested a great deal of hope in it.
Last year, that is in December, we indicated that during this first year, movement had been very slow. Right now, no one can say it movement has accelerated very much.
Targeted agencies and departments don't seem to understand. There is a great deal of work to do, either with officials or in the regions to ensure that a real action plan is implemented to help linguistic minorities thrive.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Marchand.
Mr. Marchand (Québec-Est): Judging by your brief and your report from last December, I would say everything still has to be done. There has been little progress. As you have just confirmed to the committee chairman, little has been done since the announcement was made in August 1994, and everything remains to be done.
Mr. Michaud: You cannot really say everything has yet to be done or nothing has been done. I do not believe we could honestly say nothing had been done.
Some agencies and departments appear to have understood and would like to implement some plans or initiatives. Some that come to mind are Industry Canada, as we mentioned during our last presentation, Statistics Canada and the National Film Board, and there have been some encouraging signs from Human Resources Development Canada.
There is work to do. We feel a tremendous amount of training is required for those who are to implement the plan, namely our officials.
It seems we have not yet reached the stage where people understand the difference between Part IV, which deals with services, and Part VII, which deals with development plans for francophone minorities, among others.
Mr. Marchand: What do you think are the obstacles? Why can't the government make any headway with the implementation of Part VII? You said some department officials don't understand. You also implied there was a lack of goodwill on the government's side. Are there any other obstacles besides those?
Mr. Michaud: I think the most important thing is to be able to overcome that lack of goodwill.
.1610
For example, there is the question of accountability. As the Commissioner of Official Languages would have put it, there must be an organization at a different level to give those agencies and departments some direction, and those departments and agencies must be accountable. That is probably the biggest part of the solution.
Mr. Marchand: So you are saying agencies, departments or ministers must be accountable. Who do you think should oversee the implementation of Part VII?
Mr. Michaud: In our brief, we spoke about a committee and we think it should be a Cabinet committee so that it has some influence and is able to strongly recommend some facets of the action plan that will make those government departments or agencies accountable.
If it is a Cabinet committee, there would be representatives from departments such as Industry Canada, Heritage Canada, of course, Treasury Board, Privy Council and Human resources Development. Those are examples of departments or government agencies that would have some clout to implement the action plans, which would guarantee the development of French-speaking communities in Canada.
Mr. Marchand: You gave a long list of departments and agencies that could appear before the committee to discuss that. Obviously, you mentioned the Department of Canadian Heritage, Treasury Board and the Privy Council. You say this agency could even be established under the auspices of the Privy Council.
The Department of Canadian Heritage acts as coordinator. It seems to me that department more or less did its job. How do you see its role? Why is it the coordinator? Do you think the Department of Canadian Heritage is in a position to provide instructions to other departments to ensure the Act is properly enforced?
Mr. Michaud: It must be understood - and I will ask Yvon to add to my answer - that the roles of coordinator and director are not the same. A coordinating department is at the same level as other government departments or agencies. The department that plays this role may provide some input about the implementation of section 41 of the Act in departments and agencies. However, a coordinator does not have the power required to direct government departments and agencies or to require them to implement these action plans. Hence, the coordinator does not have the responsibility or the authority to give direction to departments and agencies. That is why, we would assign this function to a committee, that would have the power it needs.
Would you like to add something, Yvon?
Mr. Yvon Samson (Executive Director, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada): The role of the Department of Canadian Heritage is to coordinate the efforts of the other departments in drafting plans. It provides guidance, and is required to report to Parliament on its results. With its report, it must table the results achieved by the other departments. However, it does not play the role that an agency such as Treasury Board could play. The latter is responsible for general administration, management, business plans, and so on within the government. The Department of Canadian Heritage cannot require that the plans contain certain points. It can merely encourage departments to include them in their plans.
Thus, the role of the coordinator is all very well, but is has no teeth. The coordinator has no impact on the drafting of the plans.
.1615
Mr. Marchand: You mentioned the financial aspect of implementing principles. In your view, has the government provided funding for the implementation of Part VII? What is your opinion?
Mr. Michaud: There is certainly a deficiency there.
Mr. Marchand: Can it be said that money was earmarked for the implementation of Part VII, or are you saying that the bottom line is that no money has been provided for this?
Mr. Michaud: We cannot generalize and say that no money was provided for this because some departments and agencies have included in their annual plan a strategy for meeting the requirements set out in section 41. However, a minority of government institutions did this. Consequently, there is a great deal of work to be done to ensure that the financial and human resources required are available to implement section 41.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Senator Rivest.
Senator Rivest (Stadacona): Both the Commissioner's report and your testimony today say that the implementation of Part VII is not going very well. There is no boss. There was a statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada two years ago in Acadia. You have described the situation very well. There is one coordinating department, and another body, Treasury Board, which, in the midst of many other things,... In the brief you presented today you suggest an approach, but it cannot work. All we have is a vague, serious statement, no doubt made in good faith by the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister has other fish to fry.
He's very much involved with Plan B, as you know, but you need a Plan A just as we do. The Prime Minister has not commented on this subject since he made this statement two years ago, and we now find ourselves in a quagmire. The Commissioner would like to get things going, hear complaints, support the communities and discuss these issues publicly. His report says so. What we need is some authority that can tell ministers what to do.
That is the big problem. I would like to ask the Bloc representatives whether they are sometimes short on questions in the House? Perhaps you could ask some questions on this.
Mr. Marchand: We asked some today.
Senator Rivest: Great! So that's the main problem. The will exists. Part VII exists. We know how important this is to official language minority communities, and we should be working on it.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask what you think. The committee is made up of parliamentarians from the Senate and the House of Commons. At our meeting last Tuesday, I believe the chairman suggested that as a committee, we could do something more than just ask questions and table reports in the Chambers.
We could propose a strongly-worded resolution on the need for some political will to appoint an authority to call the shots so to speak, and to follow up on the implementation and results of the action plans.
It seems there is a political will. I'm sure the prime minister is in favour of the idea. If anyone is in favour of it, it is the prime minister, but he has other things to do. It seems that no one in government is concerned about the results, except the commissioner and yourselves. But there is no one to pick up the ball after that. The issue seems to fall between the cracks.
Would you like the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Official Languages to do something to help the cause? Subsequently, the committee could look at whether Part VII is working. You said it was important to have some leadership. Would this type of leadership be helpful?
Mr. Michaud: I appreciate your comments tremendously, Senator, because that is precisely what we have been asking for since December. We know that some plans are submitted to us and to the Department of Canadian Heritage and are evaluated by the Commissioner of Official Languages and by ourselves as well at the moment. However, we cannot expect Cabinet to evaluate the action plans. It has other things to do than read documents that are as thick as the Bible.
.1620
We would appreciate it very much if there were a committee set up that has some teeth, as Yvon was saying earlier. It could tell government departments and the agencies that they are not implementing section 41. Only a committee or some group with a connection to Cabinet would have the authority required to convince departments and agencies to genuinely comply with the requirements of section 41.
Mr. Samson: I think a resolution from the committee would be a good thing.
Senator Rivest: This just ain't working. I'm being a bit colloquial, but I think you know what I mean.
The most significant point is the commissioner's insistence on this matter and you repeated that yourselves. The fact I find the most revealing, which Mr. Marchand mentioned as well, is that the officials don't understand the difference between service to the public required under the Official Languages Act and Part VII.
It's a sort of atavism. We're having difficulty not because of a lack of goodwill or because people are knocking on the wrong doors, but simply because people are not clued in. Excuse me, but that's how it is.
We could have Sheila appear before the committee once she is back. I imagine she will come back to the Department of Canadian Heritage and tell us that she is coordinating these activities. But that will not be enough. We have to go further.
I'm pleased with your suggestion, Mr. Chairman.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): I would like to tell my colleagues from the Senate that the bells are ringing at the moment. It is a 15-minute bell. So unless we have completed our work by 4:30 p.m., I will suspend the meeting for 15 or 20 minutes.
I have Mr. Allmand's name on my list. In addition, unless someone objects, I will give the floor to Mr. Leblanc, even though he's not a member of the committee.
[English]
Mr. Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): The last day the commissioner was here, I was commenting on the very problems you're discussing today.
I stated it was my experience that it's very difficult for one minister to impose plans or to direct other ministers of the same government who are on an equal status with himself or herself. In my view, it's not only with respect to part VII, which gives the Secretary of State, now the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the right to coordinate, but the President of the Treasury Board has a similar responsibility with respect to parts IV, V, and VI, which are language of work, service to the public, and so on.
I've suggested that perhaps the only way of assuring the political will you speak about and the necessity to get this thing done is to give it to somebody who has authority over them all - that is to say, the Prime Minister - which would not be unusual in certain cases. The Prime Minister could do it through officials in the Privy Council Office, which in effect is the coordinating arm of the government in any case. It would seem to me that since this act is so important for the unity of Canada and for justice between the two different official language groups, this might be a solution.
Have you given any thought to that very specific solution? I know you've talked about a committee. I'm not opposed to that, but it seems to me the only way you're really going to get this done is if the Prime Minister has the responsibility, of course with the appropriate officials to assist him, to see that it is done,
[Translation]
that the Act be amended. This committee can table a report recommending amendments to ensure that Part VII is implemented. It could assign this responsibility to the Prime Minister, with assistance from the Privy Council.
What do you think of that idea?
.1625
Mr. Michaud: We would like to thank you for your suggestion. That is exactly what we need to overcome the problem we have been experiencing for the last two years. The committee could be made up of representatives from Treasury Board, Industry Canada, and so on. But there must be a direct connection to the Prime Minister or the Cabinet, so that the committee has some authority over the departments and agencies covered by section 41. We would appreciate it tremendously if your committee were to make this recommendation in the form of a resolution.
[English]
Mr. Allmand: It's my belief, and it's based on experience, that you need more than a committee of officials. You spoke about the lack of political will. The political will has to flow from a political figure, either a minister or the Prime Minister, somebody who has authority from the people. It seems to me that the only one who could do this properly... He has other things to do too, but the authority of the Prime Minister might get this done.
I'll move to another subject. Could you give me some examples of the sorts of things you would consider of high priority that should be in the action plans to accomplish the goals of part VII, sections 41, 42, and 43? I ask that question because once I know the sorts of things you have in mind, we would know under what ministers they might come.
For example, the extension of Radio-Canada and the cultural programs are of high priority for the épanouissement des communautés de langue officielle.
Could you give me some idea of the kinds of things you would like to see the government implement - not all of them, but the ones with the highest priority - the sorts of things necessary for your communities, the communities you represent, to not only stay alive but also s'épanouir comme mentionné dans la loi?
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): I'm sorry, Mr. Michaud, but I have to go to the Senate. I don't know whether Senator Rivest will accompany me.
[English]
If there is no objection, perhaps the meeting could continue under the chairmanship ofMr. Marchand, even if we have no quorum. If no one asks the question, I think we can continue.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: It depends on how much time he gives himself.
Some honourable members: Oh, oh!
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): We will be back as soon as the vote is over. Thank you.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Marchand): You have the floor, Mr. Michaud.
Mr. Michaud: You gave a good example, Mr. Allmand, when you said the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was an essential tool for francophones throughout Canada. As you know, some Canadians are more isolated than others. So the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is an extremely important instrument of communication. This government agency must have an action plan that provides for the French fact in all the regions of Canada.
At the moment, there seems to be some suggestion that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is an entity that belongs to a particular region of the country, and that it does not present what is going on in Saint-Boniface or Moncton. The people living in those communities do not see themselves as part of the Canadian whole within this important instrument of communication.
In communications as well, there are all the fields covered by Industry Canada such as computer science, the Internet, and so on. We need a plan to ensure that French is taken into account in these electronic communications systems. That is not clear at the moment, even though a great deal of progress has been made.
Culture is another extremely important part of identity.
Mr. Allmand: There's theatre as well.
.1630
Mr. Michaud: That's true. Without a Canada-wide training program, Francophones outside Quebec will not be in a stable position on the world market. Thus, we have to ensure that Human Resources Development Canada has a plan to provide Canada-wide training for our Francophones.
These are important points for us.
We talk about all these projects to ensure that Francophones are a stable economic part of Canada if we want to keep the international reputation we enjoy at the moment.
Our French-speaking community must become a selling point, a value-added item. These are the priorities we would have discussed with the Department of Canadian Heritage.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Marchand): Thank you, Mr. Michaud. You have the floor,Mr. Leblanc.
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): We've talked a great deal about action plans and policy. Some say that the government has the will to do something. Statements have been made. What always surprises me in all of this is that the financial resources are not available for carrying out everything that is talked about.
When Quebec proclaimed Bill 101, it hired about 400 people to promote and enforce the law. It's all very well to pass legislation, to show political will and to make speeches, but without the resources we need to carry them out, we will not get very far.
I still see the same problems when I travel around Canada, after being a member of Parliament for 12 years. Last month, I was travelling on Air Canada in Toronto, and I asked the attendant a question, to which he replied in English. I always ask whether the person speaks French. Her answer was that unfortunately she did not. I insisted that she was supposed to be able to speak French according to the act. I told her that I was a francophone and that I was entitled to service in French. She apologized, but she was angry. She almost told me where to go.
As far as federal government services go, there's very little respect for the two official languages. As long there is no punishment...
A deputy minister is responsible for running a department and is supposed to enforce the Official Languages Act as regards service to the public. Until there is some provision for punishment... If, after several attempts, it is found that the situation is not improving in this deputy minister's department, he or she should simply be punished or penalized in some way. That's one approach, but I'm sure there are others.
However, I think there is very little done within the federal government to ensure that service in French throughout Canada is improved.
I don't know what you think, but I believe the problem lies with the resources we have available. We spoke about this earlier, and I think we really have to find the resources we need. It's all very well to display political will, but when we don't have the resources required to carry it out, we get nowhere. In any case, that is what's happening.
Mr. Michaud: That is the point that underlies the arguments we are putting forward. In addition, the Commissioner of Official Languages, in one of his reports this year, reported on French language services within certain federal departments.
It is deplorable to see that there is a lack of will. In fact, it's almost insulting to see some officials maintain that they do not have to develop or ensure the vitality of the French fact in Canada.
And yet Part VII is very clear. Departments and agencies are supposed to go beyond words, and actually offer service. The service is supposed to allow the French fact to grow and develop in Canada. It's not that clear that federal officials have understood this message.
We have to work on making it understood what is meant by promoting the vitality and development of the French fact in Canada. Officials must be trained to carry out their responsibilities properly.
.1635
Mr. Leblanc: You are still talking about awareness. Personally, I don't think that is enough. We are living in North-America, where 300 million people live in English. If we want to protect French in North America, we need more than high-sounding speeches. Our laws must have teeth.
The federal government must take the same approach as Quebec. And even in Quebec, we're having a difficult time. Even though we took drastic steps, we are still having a difficult time. We are not blaming the anglophone community for that. We are part of an English-speaking continent, and it just is not easy. Thus, we need some very solid support if we want to maintain what we have, or else, we should decide to give up. If we decide not to give up, we need certain resources in order to make progress.
Mr. Michaud: I think the committee we are talking about would have to draft an action plan with teeth. Or if you want to pursue your idea of punishment, could we penalize some departments or officials?
Mr. Leblanc: Those individuals who do not comply with the act?
Mr. Michaud: Yes. So that possibility exists, and that is why we would like this committee with links to Cabinet to have some teeth, to have an action plan and to have ways of forcing the departments and agencies covered under section 41 to act constructively and in good faith.
Mr. Samson: I couldn't agree more. As Francophones outside Quebec, we experience the type of situation you had at Air Canada with respect to Part IV, which is about service to the public in the language of their choice.
The act has existed for 25 years. It was amended considerably in 1988. Some very explicit regulations were drafted by Treasury Board in 1990. Nevertheless, as the commissioner pointed out, 60% of Canadians are still not getting an active offer of service in French. After 25 years, 60% is a lot of people who are not getting service in their language when they request it.
So I understand your frustration very well and the commissioner can use some provisions of the act to take matters before the Federal Court, for example, to force certain departments to take the act seriously.
Perhaps we should be looking at some ways of giving the act the teeth it requires.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Marchand): If I might, I would like to ask a few brief questions and make a few comments.
Mr. Leblanc said that it would be helpful to punish departments that do not comply with the act.
I would point out that even today, some provinces are not complying with the Constitution. The federal government is having a great deal of trouble encouraging some provinces to live up to the requirements of the Constitution.
However, Part VII comes under sole federal jurisdiction.
Hence, the government has all the power it needs to ensure that Part VII is implemented. However, as you say, there is a lack of will and a lack of money.
You say that there is some money, but clearly, there is not enough. Our francophone communities need these resources, and the situation is very difficult.
I would like to come back to the idea brought forward by Mr. Allmand. I think he made a most brilliant suggestion.
There is no point in making a minister accountable, because one minister cannot impose his or her will on the others. That is very difficult.
A subcommittee of Cabinet, as you suggested, could become invisible and disappear into the background.
.1640
Do you think that if we are to get some action, we should ask the prime minister to appear before the committee to make an official statement about the implementation of Part VII and commit himself to making available a specific amount of money?
In your view, should the prime minister come and say that the government will earmark a certain amount of money for this purpose?
Mr. Michaud: Unfortunately, I don't understand enough about the functioning of government to say that a certain amount of money could be earmarked for the implementation of the act. At one point, a figure of $50 billion was mentioned.
In any case, there must be a statement. There was a statement made in 1994, which is not part of any accountability framework. Could the committee give us a detailed description as to how the accountability of departments and agencies is evaluated? Would we then be able to say that unfortunately, a particular department or agency does not meet the evaluation criteria.
I don't know whether we can ask the prime minister to earmark a certain amount of money, or whether we might expose ourselves to a great deal of criticism if we were to say that the implementation of section 41 should cost $50 billion. I'm not familiar enough with the functioning of the federal government to answer your question.
Yvon, would you like to add something?
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Marchand): The situation is serious, because programs for Francophones outside Quebec are being cut at the moment. I think 40% of the funding for Francophones in Saskatchewan has been cut, for example. I also heard, quite recently, that there has been a considerable cut in the funding for ACFO in Ontario. That is unfortunate.
There is always a limit! Obviously, we live in a period of budget restraint and, at the same time, it is said that the survival of Francophones outside Quebec or francophone communities in Canada is a priority and essential to Canada's survival.
We're going to have to get the money somewhere. I therefore feel that the government must make a commitment. Otherwise, all hope of Francophones surviving, all hope of implementing Part III will go down the tubes. Do you not think that we will have to commit some money to this?
Mr. Samson: Yes. When you take a look at the official language figures, you can see that 0,04% of the federal budget has always been earmarked for this activity. However, when you look at the budgets allocated to intervenor organizations, which are the stewards of francophone communities, you can see that the amount of money has dropped over the past four years. They are now given 0.0017% of the federal budget. We have to have the means, and I'm not sure that we have them right now. Indeed, there has been a noticeable decrease.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Marchand): Thank you. Mr. Allmand, you now have the floor.
[English]
Mr. Allmand: Yes, thank you.
I just want to point out that while part VII applies principally to federal jurisdiction, it should be noted that under paragraphs 43(d) and (e) it says that the federal government is to encourage and assist provincial governments. In paragraph (d) it says it is to provide services in the minority languages, and in paragraph (e) to assist the provinces to provide opportunities for Canadians to learn the English and French languages. Then it says that the federal government is to encourage and cooperate with the business community, labour organizations, voluntary organizations, etc., to achieve the goals of part VII, which is the linguistic duality of Canada. Then it goes on to say that they should do this with respect to foreign states.
.1645
So although the focus of part VII is principally on the jurisdiction of the federal government, it says that the federal government, through the Secretary of State, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, is to offer support, assistance, and incentives to the provincial governments, the private sector - business and so on - and even to other countries so that they will recognize and support the linguistic duality of Canada.
I personally would like to find out what they've done with respect to paragraphs (d), (e), (f), and so on.
That leads me to the other point that was raised.
While we cannot, in this committee, punish departments and ministers who are not very aggressive in implementing part VII, we certainly can embarrass them. I recall that in this committee in the past, when the Commissioner of Official Languages named certain ministries that were very delinquent in following up on their responsibilities under the act - I remember the armed forces, the RCMP, certain departments - we called the ministers and the officials before the committee and publicly wanted to know why they were so delinquent.
To a certain extent, we embarrassed them for not following the law. So although we can't put them jail or fine them, we can give them a rough time. I'm suggesting that when the full committee meets, we should take up the report of the official languages commissioner and his further analysis and really zero in on those departments that aren't doing their job.
Some are worse than others. I might ask the question, in your view, are there not some departments who are doing much better at responding to the needs of the francophone minority communities, whereas others are quite delinquent? The commissioner has pointed this out from time to time, but you may have your own experience.
Mr. Michaud: I think that's fairly evident. Industry Canada is one of them; we have a lot of respect for that department at this time in the plan.
[Translation]
Implementing the plan is not quite the same as doing the planning. It's slow, but we are familiar with the planning process and we appreciate the effort. Now we understand the francophone communities and the government, particularly Industry Canada, will have to work together.
Mr. Samson: The Treasury Board even wanted to be exempted. CIDA was exempted in the past and we haven't seen any other plans since then. We could name others. Moreover, in our December report and in the Commissioner's report, we evaluate the plans and we demonstrate how some lack political will.
Mr. Michaud: I would like to respond to this initial comment made by Mr. Allmand, who referred to paragraph 43(c) or (d), where it is mentioned...
Mr. Allmand: And (e) and (f)...
Mr. Michaud: ...to encourage the provinces and the territories...
Mr. Allmand: Encourage and assist.
Mr. Michaud: That's right. Once the provinces or the territories have decided to make a commitment to offer, through the Canadian Federation, services in both official languages, we will help them deliver these services. I am thinking more particularly of a basic tool that any community should have: education.
Article 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly indicates that the members of the Canadian Federation, the provinces and the territories must comply with article 23. Today, three of our provinces have yet to comply with this article.
.1650
We truly have a problem with the idea that we have to convince these people to provide equitable services in health, training and so on and so forth.
Mr. Allmand: Paragraph 43(d) states that the federal government must assist and encourage provinces to provide provincial and municipal services in French and English.
Mr. Samson: But financial resources are being cut and federal-provincial agreements of this type are on the decrease. Consequently, today we do not have either the means or the resources to reach these objectives. We need to make a change in this area.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Marchand): Before turning the floor over to you, Mr. Leblanc, I would like to make a short comment. If Mr. Allmand agrees with me, we could summon the Prime Minister to appear before the committee. I would be the first one to support such a suggestion to the steering committee. If you support me, Mr. Allmand, I am absolutely sure that we can request the Prime Minister's appearance here before the committee. He could answer certain questions with respect to the implementation of Part VII.
Mr. Michaud, if the Prime Minister were to appear before the committee to answer certain questions with respect to official languages and were he to commit an amount of money to implement Part VII, do you not think that certain things would become priority issues?
Mr. Allmand has just referred to certain provisions of the Act requiring that certain services be provided in both official languages, but there are some urgencies. There is a fire burning somewhere in Canada, but where? I would like to hear your comments on this issue.
Mr. Michaud: If you are suggesting that we ask the Canadian Government to allocate financial resources, my answer is yes. We would say that culture, industry and the economy must be identified as the priorities. In our eyes, these are very important components, and there is also education, which is a basic tool for any cultural community group. These components are our priorities.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Marchand): Mr. Leblanc, you have the floor.
Mr. Leblanc: Earlier, when I talked about taking measures or punishing, I meant that when a deputy minister is hired to manage a department, he or she must abide by the rules. I believe that this legislation is an integral part of the rules that must be followed. This is what I mean when I say that this deputy minister is responsible for his or her department, because he or she must manage the department. As far as I know, there has never been a case in history when a deputy minister has been relieved of his or her duties because of a failure to abide by the Official Languages Act.
We are not compelled to invest a tremendous amount of money when we are really determined to do what is needed to comply with an act. It's not always a matter of money. It is just a matter of telling a deputy minister who does not comply with the act: "Listen, you have not complied with the act. We have pointed this out to you on several occasions. If you persist in doing this, well, my good friend, you will lose your job".
This is how we must take measures. It's all well and good to give speeches and to have the political will, but you have to give yourself the wherewithal. We have the instruments that we need. There is nothing easier than telling someone: "If you do not enforce the act as the senior manager, as the deputy minister, you will lose your job". But I have never heard of a case where this requirement was made of a deputy minister and where he or she lost his job because of a failure to comply with the act.
.1655
Mr. Allmand was a minister at one time. Perhaps he did this, I don't know. Personally, I have never heard of this happening, and I have never seen that.
Often, just the opposite occurs. The deputy minister always tries to get around the legislation because it's less complicated, because it's a problem.
We have everything we need to do this, but talk is not enough. We need to have the will to carry out what we say and what we write.
Mr. Michaud: I would simply like to add that as a taxpayer and as the representative of more than a million Canadian taxpayers, I share your point of view. I would say: "If you aren't capable of doing your job, of meeting the requirements of the position, you can easily be replaced".
An honourable member: Why not?
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Marchand): Before concluding, I would like to ask you one final question, Mr. Michaud. Next Tuesday, the Commissioner will be appearing before the committee.
We're going to ask him which departments are the biggest offenders and, if the government were to come up with the money, what are the most pressing needs. We will also ask him whether he agrees that we should first of all talk to the Prime Minister so that we can be assured of some concrete results.
Are there any questions that you would like us to ask him next Tuesday to help get the implementation of Part VII back on track?
Mr. Michaud: The most important thing for us is to ensure that there is a mechanism that will make the departments and agencies subject to section 41, accountable.
Yes, we would like to see a process for accountability set up as quickly as possible. This is the main message to get across to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Samson: We appreciate the Commissioner's systemic reports, such as the one he produced on services to the public, etc.
The Commissioner can make recommendations to Parliament, and he is there to recommend to members of Parliament what should be done in specific cases or with respect to specific departments or agencies who are not complying with their obligations.
You talked about a report or a firm resolution on the part of the joint committee. We would like to know when you might be in a position to submit such a resolution in order to have some progress made with respect to Part VII.
Perhaps you could ask the Commissioner if he has any other suggestions.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Marchand): I have no further questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Michaud and Mr. Samson. Once again, please excuse the delay, which was of course attributable to the Senate members of the committee. There are two problems in Canada: official languages and the Senate.
The meeting is adjourned.