Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 4, 1996

.1525

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Welcome again, Mr. Commissioner. I am pleased to see it took us all of one minute to reach quorum. That's good compared to the other day.Mr. Commissioner, I invite you to continue your statement and then I will invite members and senators to ask you questions.

Dr. Victor C. Goldbloom (Commissioner of Official Languages): Mr. Chairman, since this is a continuation of our discussions, I was not planning on making an opening statement this time, but rather immediately start discussion with members of the committee.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Is that what the Official Opposition representative wants as well?

Mr. Marchand (Québec-Est): Yes.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I give you ten minutes to ask questions.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): To be used wisely.

Mr. Marchand: Good afternoon, Dr. Goldbloom.

.1530

If I may, this afternoon, I would like to ask you questions on the role of each of the key departments you referred to in your February 1996 report.

On page 7, you refer to a number of departments who are responsible for implementing Part VII. I am somewhat confused, and perhaps others are as well, about what each department is to do to implement Part VII.

In light of last week's discussion on leadership or lack thereof for the implementation... I know it is a multifaceted issue and I would like to get as much detail as possible.

For instance, I know that Treasury Board has a role to play, as do Heritage Canada and several other departments. But let's start with the Privy Council. How do you view the Privy Council's role in the implementation of Part VII?

Dr. Goldbloom: We started that discussion last week, and I reminded you that in my annual report two years ago, I had suggested that Privy Council play a coordinating role and perhaps even act as an authority for the implementation of Part VII.

It is important to note, however, that others have been designated to implement the other parts of the Official Languages Act. Part VII is the section that is unclear. The former Secretary of State, which is now the Department of Canadian Heritage, is responsible for the coordination, but I, and several members of this committee, indicated that the Department has no authority and that relations between departments are rather horizontal, especially relations between Heritage Canada and other departments.

That is why I made the suggestion two years ago, but nothing was done with it. That being the case, in the report you studied, I suggested an alternative, namely the establishment of a Cabinet sub-committee that could take on that responsibility. The two options are viable.

I am still convinced that without an authority, implementing Part VII will continue being very variable and we might not reach the objectives set for the groups in question.

Mr. Marchand: As you just said, the Privy Council has a role of coordination and authority. It shares that coordination role with the Department of Canadian Heritage. Here again, the authorities are not clear, not because you are not being clear, but because the situation itself is ambiguous for the organization that is to take on the leadership role. It is not clear right now, because no one knows whether it will be the Privy Council or a Cabinet sub-committee, or perhaps the prime minister himself. Those are things that will therefore have to be clarified.

.1535

There is indeed a lack of leadership there. Someone or some department must take on the leadership role for the implementation of Part VII, otherwise nothing will come of it.

You say the problem is not so much one of defining the role of each department, which will de defined once the leader is determined, but rather one of clarifying what Part VII means. That's where things get really vague.

Who can one go to clarify the meaning and implementation of Part VII?

Dr. Goldbloom: Without being modest, I think the report I published in February and the most recent one, dealing with action plans for various federal institutions, were valuable contributions to a better understanding of Part VII of the Act and of the obligations institutions have to implement it satisfactorily.

The discussion this committee held last week could shed more light on the matter and provide a better understanding if an authority is recognized.

Thirdly, obviously the Department of Canadian Heritage already has some responsibility in this regard and, I might say, has shown a great deal of goodwill to ensure its success. After all, it was that department which announced the government's new policy and which ensured that the 27 targeted organizations produced an action plan.

The quality of those action plans was variable and in many cases unsatisfactory; we will therefore have to work together so that the second generation of action plans is a net improvement over the first.

Mr. Marchand: Can you tell us now what role the Privy Council will play in the implementation of Part VII, and tell us what involvement that department has had in the implementation? Have you established ties with the Privy Council? What have they done thus far and what should be their role in the implementation?

Dr. Goldbloom: Let me first point out that the Commissioner, by virtue of his duties, must have an arm's length relationship with the federal institutions that he is called upon to assess, if not criticize. So I do not have regular consultations with the various organizations. I occasionally have to discuss something with the Privy Council. I find them very open minded.

Mr. Marchand has asked me to define the role that the Privy Council should have. First of all, that is not really part of my job. I went as far as suggesting the Privy Council take on that responsibility. How should it carry out its duties? It seems to me it is up to the Privy Council itself to decide, in cooperation with the Prime Minister who oversees that organization.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you, Mr. Commissioner and Mr. Marchand.

Mr. Serré.

.1540

Mr. Serré (Timiskaming - French River): We have all had a chance to study your report on Part VII and the action plans. I have two very short simple questions to ask you.

First of all, have you had any reaction from various institutions or departments, and if so, how did they react? The least one can say is that they got a C+ or a B-. Personally, I would have given them about a C.

I would like to know how the different institutions reacted. Will you do a short-term follow-up, in the next six months, or will you wait a full year before reassessing the so-called second generation of action plans?

Dr. Goldbloom: According to the intent of the Official Languages Act, when we have recommendations to make to a federal institution, be it after a citizen files a complaint or a study carried out by the Commissioner on his own initiative, we prepare a draft report and invite the institution to make comments. If there is a complaint, the plaintiff also has the opportunity to comment before we draft the final report.

We acted this way and we received a number of comments from federal institutions. We wanted to have at least a majority of them before drafting the final report, which required some time.

Since this report was tabled, we have not had any further reactions. The report was only made public a week ago.

The second part of your question is a bit more complicated, Mr. Serré, because we undertook this evaluation of action plans with 27 institutions. We did so at this committee's specific request, since it was noted that no one else was doing this.

Hopefully, there is a second generation of action plans that are already being prepared. Are we going to receive the same requests from the committee to evaluate the second generation? I don't know yet, but I can tell you that we've had to retain the services of an outside expert. Because of the budget cuts, we have less staff than we used to and in order to evaluate a second generation, which may involve even more plans than the first, since we discussed the gap between the 27 targeted organizations here and the 58 that have been targeted by our general study of the implementation of Part VII, I'm not sure that we will have the human and financial resources necessary to carry out this task. That's one of our current concerns, and we discussed it within our team.

Mr. Serré: In preparing your report, did you involve the minorities, groups such as the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada or Alliance Québec? I think they would have liked to have some input in this evaluation.

Dr. Goldbloom: We have consulted national, provincial and territorial organizations, particularly in the preparation of our analysis framework.

.1545

We wanted to make sure that our assessment of the action plans corresponded to the needs and expectations of the communities in question. We didn't involve the communities in the specific evaluation of the action plans. That work we did ourselves. We wanted to make sure that we'd be on the right track in the eyes of the communities.

I see that I have neglected to answer part of your question regarding the deadline that could be recommended. It seems to me - and I'm saying that off the top of my head - that a year is a long time, especially since we feel that the second generation of action plans should already be under way. If that wasn't the case, it would be regrettable.

Therefore, I would prefer to think in terms of 6 rather than 12 months.

Mr. Serré: I am in complete agreement with the commissioner. In the fall, I would like to see a draft report or an accounting of the various institutions with regard to this second generation of action plans.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Senator Rivest.

Senator Rivest (Stadacona): Commissioner, my question is for the Chair. First of all, everyone on the committee has been able to observe that the performance in terms of implementing Part VII has not exactly been brilliant. My colleague, Mr. Serré, said he would have given them a C. Mr. Marchand was closer to a Z. Perhaps the real result is somewhere between the two. It's not a brilliant performance on the part of the administration given the needs of minority communities.

As you've already noted yourself, I would like to emphasize the fact that the Commissioner's role is to gather and evaluate information. He's not the real decision-maker, and manifestly, the federal public service does not take him seriously. He can say so and simply acknowledge that fact.

With regard to the implementation of various programs under Part VII, Alliance Quebec and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne have expressed their dissatisfaction. Everyone is saying this. We're back to the point we were at last week. There is no political leadership in this. There was the speech made by the Prime Minister last August before the Congrès des Acadiens, but there doesn't seem to be anything else.

We're still stuck with last week's problem. Who will tell the administration? You're saying it as the Commissioner, but on the political level, we have nothing. I don't know if questions have been asked in the Commons, but a minister would have to say that this is serious, that things are not going well, etc.

So my question is more for The Joint Chairmanmen of this committee. As members of the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages, we had discussed making a statement about this. Is it being prepared? Will the wording be submitted to us? The Commissioner was in full agreement with this approach, and I hope he will raise the volume somewhat, without being too careful of political feelings, and point out that there's something that's really not working here. Is this in progress?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): The sub-committee met this morning. We did discuss a bit the tabling of a report on the parameters of Part VII. We intend to raise this proposal and exert pressure on the government so that we get a few answers about the questions raised by the Commissioner some time ago. The committee is to deal with this issue in the coming weeks.

.1550

Senator Rivest: All right. This should not be a parliamentary report in the traditional form, which goes to the House of Commons.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Indeed, that's why we're voting as a committee.

Senator Rivest: We have to plan for dissemination and have some kind of communication plan to alert public opinion about the serious problems we're encountering.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): We will broach that issue when the time comes.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Senator Rivest, I'll take this opportunity to offer my apologies. You weren't here this morning at the sub-committee and that was my fault, because I was to ask you to sit on it last week.

In order to reassure you, let me say that among other epithets used this morning, we spoke of a brief and striking report.

Mr. Marchand: There has also mention of sending an invitation to the prime minister.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I would prefer that we stick to questions put to the Commissioner. Do you have any more questions, Senator Rivest?

Senator Rivest: No, not for the moment.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Godfrey, please.

[English]

Mr. Godfrey (Don Valley West): Following up on this discussion we've just been having as well as the line of questioning followed by Mr. Serré, I'm struck by this 1993 recommendation you made about establishing a responsibility centre in the Privy Council Office. I heard you say in response to a question put by Mr. Serré that given the nature of your role and that of the office, you can only go so far.

Perhaps I didn't catch it - maybe you didn't say it - but what was the reaction? Were you really asking the Privy Council Office to give a reaction in 1993, or was it just an offer that was thrown up? Were there any informal discussions about how such a thing might happen? Where does this now lie? Is it out there somewhere in cyberspace?

Dr. Goldbloom: At the time, there was a reaction. I don't remember precisely how it was conveyed to me, but I was informed that this suggestion would not be accepted and implemented. That's one reason why, in the present exercise, I offered an alternative hypothesis, that of a subcommittee of cabinet, to look at this.

The limitation I feel is that my preoccupation has to be with results. It's not, in my sense of it, my role and responsibility to indicate how those results must be obtained. It's not appropriate for me to enter into the internal administration of a federal institution and say this is how you must do it. But if the results are not obtained and if the communities come back to me and say they are in a persistently disadvantageous situation because part VII is not thought of, is not recognized, is not implemented by the federal institutions that ought to be thinking about it and doing something about it, then I have to alert public opinion and Parliament, through this committee, to that shortcoming.

Mr. Godfrey: You are now pulling up history from memory, but do you recall why they thought it inappropriate at the time for them to take some direct responsibility for this?

Dr. Goldbloom: No, I did not get any detailed explanation, but I think - and this is a subjective interpretation - the feeling was that the former Department of the Secretary of State, amalgamated into the Department of Canadian Heritage, ought to be given a chance to do something about it. Subsequently there was the announcement in August 1994 that the government would be taking action in that regard.

.1555

It was encouraging that this position was taken. Between the encouragement felt by both me and others at that time, and the evaluation of the action plans we have before us now, I think there is an appreciable margin that this lack of satisfaction with the action plans has resuscitated the discussion the committee has been having about a centre of responsibility to ensure that the implementation would in fact take place.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I have a couple of questions on your role concerning part VII of the Official Languages Act. Since you're sort of the watchdog making sure we respect the official languages in Canada amongst the various ministries, what will be your role, given the government's intention to transfer a substantial portion of our responsibilities in human resources? For instance, this week Minister Robillard announced there would be a transfer to Quebec, to New Brunswick and to other provinces in areas formerly administered, if you will, by the federal government.

What guarantees that such services transferred to the provinces will respect minority rights? What role will you play? Will you take part in any of the negotiations between the federal government and the provinces? What kind of role do you anticipate, given your limited and rather restricted resources? How will you follow up on...I basically call it a ``sell-off'' of federal government services to the provinces, because you're going to have to multiply yourself by ten.

How will you follow what's going on in Quebec, in New Brunswick and the Maritimes and all ten Canadian provinces? How do you see your role evolving in the months to come - not even years - with regard to that federal initiative?

Dr. Goldbloom: To begin with, I'm not aware that the commissioner over the 25 years of the existence of the position has participated directly in federal-provincial negotiations. I certainly have not. On the other hand, I have by and large established cordial and open relationships with provincial governments and territorial administrations, and with very few exceptions have not experienced difficulty in being able to sit down with provincial and territorial authorities to talk about the concerns of the official language minority communities.

There are two aspects here that appear to me to be important. One is that when the Parliament of Canada has adopted certain laws and applied them to the federal administration, and the federal administration then undertakes to privatize or to transfer to another level of public administration certain responsibilities, it seems to me that the obligations inherent in the federal legislation should be conveyed to the other level of responsibility - so with the privatization of airports and so, in my view, with the transfer of responsibilities from the federal to the provincial level. This is something on which I have insisted quite strongly in my appearances before committees of this Parliament.

The second major aspect is that we have seen, with regard specifically to human resources development and training, that there have been imbalances between the resources and the courses available to both minority and majority communities. The most conspicuous - and numerically, in this regard, important - situation, is that in Ontario. As a result of a complaint lodged by ACFO we undertook an evaluation of human resources training programs available in Ontario and found, as you know, because the document, with the authorization of ACFO, is a public one, that there is considerable discrepancy in the numbers and the quality of courses available in French compared with those available in English in Ontario.

.1600

So it would seem to me that the negotiations should bear upon the fair and equitable availability of courses for human resources training to both language groups in each province that becomes responsible with the withdrawal of the federal government from that.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): That being said,

[Translation]

what's your assessment of the Canada Health and Social Transfer? If I understand correctly, last year was the first experience we had of this because an $11 billion block funding was transferred to Quebec allowing that province, like the others, to decide how it would dispose of that amount of money.

This massive transfer of funds to the provinces has surely affected some of the services or certainly led you to review your evaluation of federal government services. It's a considerable amount, even if you look only at Quebec.

Dr. Goldbloom: If you look at the history of Canada, we must regret certain situations where various provinces have not fulfilled their responsibilities toward their official language minorities in the same way that the Government of Canada has.

Recently, there were signs of progress. I've already pointed out the introduction of school management in four provinces and one territory since I arrived on the job almost five years ago. While we can now have a mutually respectful, open and loyal discussion, we have no right to presume that the transfer of responsibilities from the federal to the provincial level will be unfavourable to official language minorities.

That is my wish. Obviously, as the main interlocutor of the communities in question, I will hear more about this and in the course of my duties, I will be forced to point out, in my annual reports, what is being done and what is not being done, the points that are satisfactory or unsatisfactory for the communities in question.

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you, Commissioner. Before I go on toMr. Marchand, I look forward to your evaluation of your exchanges with provincial authorities in your upcoming reports in 1996.

Mr. Marchand.

[Translation]

Senator Rivest: I have one small comment.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Please go ahead.

Senator Rivest: As to the transfer of labour training, the federal government has reserved the possibility of issuing guidelines, as it did with the harmonization of the GST, which the federal government has yet to pay us for. The Commissioner could use these guidelines as a reason to askMr. Young that one of them should be the in respect for our official languages. This is very important, particularly in communities outside of Quebec.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Marchand, please.

Mr. Marchand: That may be the answer to the question that I wanted to ask him because, basically, I wanted to continue in the same vein as the Chairman.

.1605

However, I'd like to start by emphasizing that this morning, we agreed to make a brief, striking report on the implementation of Part VII.

Moreover, we decided to send out an invitation to the Prime Minister to appear before this committee, perhaps in the Fall, to help bring leadership to the implementation issue.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Marchand, it was understood that the point you've brought up would be discussed in committee, and I think we'll certainly come up with a consensus. I don't want to presume that the decision was made with certain reputable senators absent. So I think we'll limit ourselves to your many questions.

Mr. Marchand: I'd like to continue this line of thought, because the devolution of powers to the provinces is truly a significant issue. You spoke at length about it, and you brought up the case of Ontario, concerning labour training. You know that not much has been done in this area.

It may be that Senator Rivest has found a possible solution. What suggestion would you make to the federal government to ensure that Francophone minorities, for instance in Ontario, would get a part of the envelope transferred to provinces, as well as a part of the powers? What mechanism could ensure that minorities are not pushed aside, as is the case presently in other provinces except Quebec?

Dr. Goldbloom: To my mind, the essence of the Official Languages Act, and more specifically Part VII, is clear. It should inspire the negotiators who will work out the necessary agreements concerning the transfer of responsibilities. Presently, in the carrying out of federal institutions responsibilities - of the 27 that we've been speaking of since the beginning of this discussion - there hasn't been a clear acceptance of responsibility for the fair distribution of resources.

This is a golden opportunity, I think, to define the needs and the fair sharing of resources, and this should be part of the negotiations and the subsequent agreement.

Mr. Marchand: I'd like to come back to the action plans. It seems that, in the implementation of Part VII, departments action plans will be submitted to you by the end of June this year. I thought that the second generation of action plans was to be submitted to you by the end of this month. True or false?

Mr. Golbloom: I'll have to check the schedule. It is clear that these action plans have to be submitted to the Canadian Heritage Department. Will I get them? It's possible, but allow me to first check the schedule.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to confirm that the date we're aiming for is June 30th. It is expected that, out of courtesy at least, the action plans will be sent to our office.

Mr. Marchand: Why are we now down to 27 departments and agencies, instead of the 150 or so government departments or agencies which should for all practical purposes, draft reports concerning the implementation of Part VII?

.1610

Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Marchand, in our report, we tried to measure the impact of each of the27 organizations on the implementation of Part VII, and we noticed that there were major variations, that certain departments had a significant impact and others a lesser impact. If we were to extend this action plan requirement to 150 or 160 federal institutions, we would be affecting a significant number of organizations that don't really have an impact.

I return, as different members of the committee have done, to the discrepancy between the27 which have been chosen by the Canadian Heritage Department and the 58 that we targeted in our evaluation of the implementation of Part VII. I am convinced we have to broaden the scope of our work so that all the organizations that should be part of this effort, are.

Mr. Marchand: Earlier, you mentioned that the role of the departments would be specified depending on the leadership, which has yet to be determined. Then, the action plans development would be carried out by sector. I think that there are three sectors. Who is going to define these sectors, For instance labour training? Who will define the scale or the ratings they set? Will it be you? What can we expect from Human Resources Development Canada as far as labour training is concerned? Who will decide for this sector, for culture, for education, and do on? As to labour training, how will the rating system be set?

Dr. Goldbloom: When the Department of Human Resources Development acknowledged my report concerning the ACFO's complaint, its reaction was rather positive. The department recognized the unfairness that exists and started to look for a way to rectify this situation.

The process is under way. I wanted this report to be a wake up call for the institutions to think about their responsibilities, not only in principle, but by examining their actions so that they meet the requirements of Part VII of the Act. This process should continue sector by sector.

It's a bit complicated, because a given department may have an impact on more than one sector. How to split them up and how to weigh them? I tend to look at things from the other end, I mean to look at the results and say: "The results aren't there, so we must do better".

As I was saying in response to a previous question, I don't try to get involved in the internal governance of a department and say: "This is how you should do things, rather than some other way". But I do want to say: "You must get results, and there must be real benefits to the communities".

.1615

Mr. Marchand: So we don't have the results and we want to make sure to get them sector by sector.

I sent you a letter last Friday to ask you if you had carried out other analyses concerning the action plans for the implementation of Part VII. These would be sector by sector, or an overall analysis. I had the impression, reading what you tabled, that in certain areas, you are opening the door to further analyses, sector by sector or one overall analysis of government.

Dr. Goldbloom: We didn't carry out any more in-depth studies. Specifically, we didn't carry out sectorial studies, as you would have liked, Mr. Marchand.

There are many different reasons for this, the first being - and I emphasized this in our previous discussions - that the process was a bit out of sync. The Canadian Heritage Department had published a guide, which was to help other institutions prepare their action plans.

We came up with our analysis framework, which we ended up sharing with the institutions, but the action plans had already been prepared and the organizations could no longer use our instrument. So it would be fairer and more useful to do so with the second generation.

There is another factor, and I highlight it with regret. Allow me to focus your attention on page 9 of the report. You will find a small table called "Benchmarks of the Sufficiency of Action Plans". The figures are fairly low, ranging from the best at 20.86% to the worst at 9.21%. It seemed to us that there wasn't much hope that a sectorial study would produce more brilliant results than those in front of you. This is why we didn't do it.

Mr. Marchand: May I ask another question?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Go ahead, Mr. Marchand. I will take the time to think.

Mr. Marchand: This time, Commissioner, I would like to come back to your report of February 1996 and especially to the 21st of the 56 recommendations in this report. There are a lot of things in it and a number of them are quite interesting. However, there is one that I find fascinating.

Dr. Goldbloom: What page is that at, please?

Mr. Marchand: It is on page 41 and I will read it to you. I would like you to qualify it because I find it very fascinating. You say:

Dr. Goldbloom: This program has existed for a number of years and has two goals: the education of the language of a minority community and second language education.

.1620

Both are important. In my opinion, the future of every minority community depends on the quality of education that is provided in that community's language. In fact, this is why I insisted so often on the importance of preschool education, of beginning child's education before elementary school in his or her maternal language, in the language of the community.

I hope this program will be used to strengthen the life of the community in question.

Mr. Marchand: When we think of a second language, we are no longer talking of minority communities.

Dr. Goldbloom: We are clearly speaking of the majority community.

Mr. Marchand: That is correct. The implementation of Part VII clearly focuses on minority communities. I don't see the link between the two. I don't understand.

Dr. Goldbloom: This is why I have focused on education in the language of the minority community. I am a great supporter of language education as well as of increasing Canadian abilities to speak at least our two languages as well as others. It would be advantageous from the individual point of view. Community life is what concerns me and therefore even the Official Languages in Education program to strengthen the community is my concern here.

Mr. Marchand: Perhaps I do not understand then. I understand that essentially, the federal government contributes the largest share of funds for second language programs and for minority language education. If I understand correctly, you are saying that there is a link between the implementation of section 23 of the Charter and of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

Dr. Goldbloom: Since section 23 involves school governance, these things are linked. Nonetheless, I must say that the money in question, that is made available by the federal government under the Official Languages in Education program, is transferred to the provinces that use it as they wish. There are two goals to be met: minority language education and second language education.

It is difficult to get clear accounting of how this money is used in the different provinces. So, I am not able to provide this accounting or the breakdown of figures, and I stick to the principles and renew my insistence on the importance of education in the language of a minority community.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Commissioner, yesterday, we passed a constitutional amendment regarding Newfoundland. Do you believe that the amendment in question will have any effect on the teaching of French as a second language or on the French schools in that province?

.1625

Do you believe that you should play a greater role in terms of supervision, follow up and recommendations to that government or to this one?

Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Gagnon, if I understand correctly, your question deals specifically with Newfoundland.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): With Newfoundland.

Dr. Goldbloom: Fine.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Has the issue been considered?

Dr. Goldbloom: Yes. I communicate fairly regularly with the Francophone community of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is one of the three provinces that have not yet set up a school governance system for their Francophone community.

It seems, in the eyes of the provincial government, that the present system, under the Constitution, was an obstacle up until yesterday. It seems to me, because we have worked a lot on this, that there was still a way of going forward with school governance.

The Government of Newfoundland states that the passage of this amendment will facilitate the overall restructuring of the education system in that province and will allow for the creation of a management organization for the Francophone community.

What is not yet clear, is what this school governance system will look like. Given that section 23 of the Charter is clear, although more clear since its interpretation was twice confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, it is my duty to follow this matter very closely in order to decide whether what will eventually be proposed will conform to the requirements under section 23.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): You say that you will carefully follow the evolution of the school system in Newfoundland and the implementation of the principle of "when numbers warrant". What do you expect from the government of Newfoundland following the passage of this constitutional amendment?

Dr. Goldbloom: For the moment, Francophone parents have begun a process that should bring them before the courts in order to resolve the question, in order to get a decision from the courts confirming the implementation of section 23.

The provincial government, through the Minister of Education, said publicly that it would prefer to negotiate a solution that would satisfy the Francophone community and respect section 23 rather than go before the courts.

As I did in other provinces, such as in Nova Scotia, I provided the experience that we has acquired by following many issues and by noticing the differences between one system and another. We have the possibility of giving an opinion, that I want to be useful, on whether or not a formula conforms with section 23.

If such a service is seen as useful by the government-and I dare believe that it will be in any case by the community-, I will be very pleased. I'm not saying this out of a lack of respect for the legal system, but to go before the courts is time consuming and costly, and it would be better to resolve the problem through a consultation. And if I can contribute in any manner to this consultation, I would be extremely happy.

.1630

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I would like to thank you for those clarifications. If I understood correctly, you might possibly act as a mediator between the Francophone parents and the Government of Newfoundland.

Dr. Goldbloom: I think that the word mediator is a bit strong to describe the role that I might play. It would involve recognizing a power that I do not have. But I would like to offer my good offices and I hope to contribute to a solution.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Senator Robichaud, please.

Senator Robichaud (Acadia): Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak today.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): This is the place to do it.

Senator Robichaud: I am fairly outraged that the francophone community of Newfoundland has to go before the courts rather than the political powers of Newfoundland to have its rights recognized. Do you agree with me that political means should be sufficient and that we shouldn't have to spend the money and suffer the humiliation of speaking before the courts because the leaders of Newfoundland were not able to recognize that the Official Languages Act applies in Newfoundland as well as in the rest of the country?

Dr. Goldbloom: Senator, after two decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada, in my opinion it is unreasonable that a minority community should have to go before the courts to obtain a confirmation for something that has already been confirmed twice.

For this reason, I take note of the good will expressed by the Minister of Education in Newfoundland who said: "I would like to avoid going before the courts; I would like to arrive at a solution by holding a discussion with the community". This gives me hope.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Commissioner, the members of the committee intend to closely follow the development of this new constitutional reality in Newfoundland.

Mr. Marchand.

Mr. Marchand: I would like to digress for a moment with regard to the Newfoundland case. We know that Mr. Wells, when he was Premier of the province, had also made promises to the Federation of Francophone Parents in Newfoundland and Labrador. In 1908, as you know, they also took their case to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and, after Mr. Well's promises, they withdrew their case. Later on, the Norman Report was published. However, they did not have access to this report for two and a half years, Mr. Robichaud. They did not get access to this report which recommended that the francophones of Newfoundland and Labrador have the right to manage their own schools.

They have to take the legal process to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland in order to assert their rights. It's scandalous and I completely agree with you on this, especially because the Supreme Court of Canada did render decisions, among others the Mahé decision.

It's true that it's scandalous, but do you not agree, Commissioner, that the Prime Minister of Canada could easily have met with Mr. Tobin and said to him: "Mr. Tobin, I am going to ensure that your amendment is passed, but you must commit...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Marchand, one must be careful. If it's a...

Mr. Marchand: I will ask him the question.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): ...a current issue, that's fine, but I don't think that the commissioner is able to judge political thought or to justify the positions taken by...

.1635

Mr. Marchand: He is an adult and he is capable of replying. Don't you believe, Commissioner, that there was a chance for the federal government to apply pressure to ensure that Mr. Tobin officially committed to doing it, in black and white, concretely, in writing, rather than leaving things up in the air as is the case at present?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): You don't have to answer that question.

Dr. Goldbloom: Mr. Chairman, you are right to say that Mr. Marchand's question is leading me on to slippery political ground.

I would like to say that during the first years of my mandate, having met with many provincial governments and having heard some of them say: "We want to give our francophone communities school governance, but we don't have the financial resources to do so", I worked with the then federal government to get some $112 million, in order to get around the objections of some provinces. Based on what I know, these amounts are still available to the provinces who have not yet given school governance to their francophone communities.

My experience with the government of Newfoundland has been a bit different. I met the then Premier Mr. Wells. He spoke of the constitutional problem that has just been resolved. He also said: "I made one main commitment: to build a road on the Port-au-Port Peninsula in order to link the two francophone communities that must make a long trip in order to meet". He also said: "This is a commitment that I have made and that I will keep". In effect, this road was built.

If there have been constitutional obstacles or stumbling blocks, I now hope that a solution is within our reach.

Mr. Marchand: We will follow that. I would like to come back to what you were saying with regard to the recommendation on page 41 of your February 1996 report.

I simply want you to clarify what you were saying. If I understand correctly you were saying that the federal government transfers money to the provinces and that they don't necessarily use those funds towards the needs of the francophone minority. Part of these funds go towards education, teaching. The same thing is done with social transfers.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): This includes all provinces including Quebec.

Mr. Marchand: Yes. You were saying that would be a way of ensuring that the federal government, with the transfer of money to the provinces, could contribute to the progress of the implementation of section 23 and of Part VII. Is that right?

What is the next step to ensure that the government can see the issue more clearly? What method is being considered to ensure that the francophone communities - I'm not talking about anglophones in Quebec - have a certain level of control over the envelope and the powers?

.1640

Dr. Goldbloom: Establishing school governance gives the community budgetary control that can't exist otherwise.

Secondly, the communities say that the money is transferred from the federal government to the provinces under the Official Languages in Education program but that the results are not exactly what they should be.

So, my recommendation is that when each of these agreements comes to an end, the new negotiation will focus on more explicit assurances that the resources provided by the federal government be used for the benefit of the minority community.

Mr. Marchand: As in the case...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): One last question, Mr. Marchand.

Mr. Marchand: We have time, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): We have 15 minutes for discussion. I would like to remind you that the sub-committee has an interesting program and that we have to look at other issues.

Mr. Marchand: In this case, this recommendation is addressed specifically to the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Dr. Goldbloom: Yes.

Mr. Marchand: So, in that case, the department is clearly able to ensure that some of the funds that it transfers to a province be given to a minority in that province. Does the department have the power to do that?

Dr. Goldbloom: The department obviously has some influence and when we negotiate, we can arrive at a mutual understanding of what is understood on both sides.

But what complicates this issue, is the fact that education comes under provincial jurisdiction. So, there is a limit to what the federal government, a federal department, can say to a provincial government. Negotiating is one thing and giving directives is another. This can be resolved through negotiation.

Mr. Marchand: On page 59 of your report, with regard to manpower training, it's the same thing. You say that over $3 billion worth of investments per year were made and that no amount was used specifically for the francophone minority.

There again, the federal government could negotiate and ensure that part of the funds which are transferred to the provinces go to meeting the needs of the francophone minority.

Dr. Goldbloom: It seems to me...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): In my view, that question should be directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada. How can you assess where money is spent when your role is to assess linguistic services for minorities?

Dr. Goldbloom: I do not have the authority to get involved in provincial accounting and to examine how money is used.

Mr. Marchand: You know that culturally, Radio-Canada is very, very important. I would like to hear your comments on that.

You know that funding is unfairly divided among Radio-Canada and CBC, even though the costs are comparable, and that basically, a report has stated that to ensure good service to francophone and acadian minorities, Radio-Canada would need $80 million.

But the federal government continues to cut funding to Radio-Canada. What is your impression of that?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I can give you a few figures, Dr. Goldbloom. I would like to remind you that 40% of Telefilm Canada and the Canada Council's budgets go to Quebec and that the francophone portion in Quebec is 35%, if I am not mistaken.

.1645

Could you conclude by commenting on these points?

Dr. Goldbloom: As regards the sharing of CBC's financial resources among the English and the French sectors, it's a long standing debate, a complex one, and there again, I must focus on the results.

We undertook an important debate, in particular in this committee, on RDI, the Réseau de l'information, which is not yet available in all parts of the country where there are pockets of French-speaking people.

I would have liked it to be mandatory to broadcast RDI in all markets, not just in markets deemed francophone, but also in markets deemed anglophone, with a significant French-speaking population.

This recommendation was not retained, and the CRTC and CBC preferred to proceed on a voluntary basis and wanted to see how cable companies primarily would broadcast it on a voluntary basis.

We have highlighted various problems, including the complete absence of RDI in Prince Edward Island and the unavailability of the signal in other important parts of the country.

The CRTC and CBC still do not want to make broadcasting RDI mandatory in all markets. Instead, they are focusing on new technology developments which will shortly make direct-to-home broadcasting possible, regardless of the location, but I do not know how long that will take.

It seems to me that the future is promising, but we still have some problems today. For example, cable companies change the location of the channels from time to time, and sometimes put RDI on a channel above 50, which forces subscribers to buy a decoder to have access to it.

I intervened on more than one occasion in such a decision, like I did when, in order to broadcast RDI, TV5, Musique Plus and the French weather network were left out - but that was a swap that had not been announced ahead of time. There was a loss in exchange for a gain, and that wasn't discussed ahead of time. I rose up against it, and some changes were made.

I monitor the matter closely, in terms of the results obtained and the real availability of valid programming in French and in English, according to the concentrations of people.

.1650

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you to Mr. Marchand and to all members of the committee.

We are going to continue with the discussion on a report of the sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages. The sub-committee report will be tabled now.

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. We plan to closely monitor the projects that you will be following over the next few months.

Dr. Goldbloom: Thank you.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Thank you for making yourself available to the committee, Mr. Commissioner. It is greatly appreciated.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Excuse me, but I regret to inform you that the rest of the meeting will be held in camera. So only members of the committee will be present, and I do not see the need to record this in-camera session. Does the committee agree?

[The meeting continued in camera]

Return to Committee Home Page

;