[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, June 11, 1996
.1533 
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Order, please. Welcome, everybody. Everyone is here, and we have quorum.
Marcel Massé, President of the Treasury Board, is our witness today. Welcome, Minister. If I understand correctly, you do not have very much time today.
The Honourable Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): We have at least an hour.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): That should be enough for the Committee.
I would therefore invite you to introduce the other people with you and proceed with your remarks.
Mr. Massé: Distinguished Joint Chairman, and members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you today to talk about my annual report on official languages in federal institutions.
The 1994-95 Annual Report provides a review of the status of official languages in all departments, Crown Corporations and agencies that are subject to the Treasury Board's mandate under section 46 of the Official Languages Act.
[English]
This report covers service to the public and language of work as well as the equitable participation of English- and French-speaking Canadians in federal institutions. Gains have been solidified and progress has been made in various areas.
.1535
I'm proud to announce that in its initial phase the streamlining of government activities has not had a negative effect on the three major components of the program.
[Translation]
The proportion of bilingual positions in the public service stayed at 29%. The participation of Anglophones and Francophones in the public service also remained stable, at 72 and 28% respectively. But even more significant is the fact that the pool of bilingual employees in the public service surpasses requirements by almost 20%.
[English]
The proportion of employees who meet the language requirements of their bilingual positions continued to increase and as of March 31, 1995, represented 91% of all employees holding bilingual positions.
As the annual report indicates, these positive results hold true for each component of the program.
Even so, there are still problems in certain areas. Concerning language of work, the Treasury Board intends to remind deputy heads of federal institutions and heads of agencies that using both official languages in electronic communications is important for creating and maintaining bilingual work environments in regions that are designated as bilingual. That is why I directed the secretary of the Treasury Board to ask his counterparts in the departments to report to him. They are to provide him with the language training plans for each of their senior managers in the National Capital Region and in the regions designated bilingual who do not yet have the language proficiency required in their bilingual positions.
About service to the public, the general situation is satisfactory but far from perfect.
[Translation]
This is also the case for the active offer of services in both official languages. This consists primarily of indicating to the public that services are offered in both languages. The offer is called "active" because the client is offered this choice immediately, at the first point of contact. We note also that the provisions of services are comparable quality in either official language could be improved. I would like to emphasize, however, that these problems are not widespread.
[English]
Realizing these problems existed, my predecessor asked federal institutions for a report on each of their offices obligated to provide service to the public in both official languages. He also asked them to submit detailed action plans for each office whose performance was judged unsatisfactory.
I'm pleased to table with the parliamentary committee today a report on service to the public for all offices required to provide services in both official languages. As you will see, service in person, that is to say when the client has contact in person with the institution representative, has again been improved and was available in 85% of the 4,000 offices having an obligation to serve the public in both official languages.
[Translation]
The improvement is even more marked for the active offer of services, where the proportion of offices judged satisfactory increased from 53 to 97%.
Progress have been made and further gains will be achieved as institutions fully implement their action plans.
The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat will monitor the implementation of these plans. The federal government will not be content until 100% of the offices having an obligation to serve the public in both official languages are judged satisfactory.
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you, Mr. Massé. Mr. Marchand, you have ten minutes.
Mr. Marchand (Quebec-East): Welcome, Minister. Are you familiar with Part VII of the Official Languages Act, and have you read the report published by the Official Languages Commissioner in February 1996?
Mr. Massé: Yes.
Mr. Marchand: Are you also aware of the decision made by Cabinet in August 1994, when the Prime Minister made a commitment to implementing Part VII?
.1540
Mr. Massé: Yes, I am.
Mr. Marchand: So why is it that, with respect to the application of Part VII, there is no new money or implementation plan from Treasury Board?
We all know that you play a central and strategic role in implementing the Official Languages Act in Canada. So why have you submitted no action plan to implement Part VII, and why is there no new money allocated to implementing Part VII?
We know that, if there is no new money, the application of Part VII is almost negligible, as pointed out by the Commissioner in his February 1996 report.
Mr. Massé: Your statement contained several questions. The first question is on new money. New money is allocated to boost services, increase the number of people you employ to deliver those services, or increase the contributions to some communities.
In this case, the government - and to some extent Treasury Board - are clearly responsible for implementing the Official Languages Act. The sums set aside for that purpose have been sufficient to properly implement the majority of provisions in the Act.
When we decided about government having to be downsized, it was quite clear that all government activities had to be reviewed. When you downsize government as a whole, and particularly streamline social, economic and cultural programs by some 22% over four years as we are doing now, you obviously have to review your expenditures and reduce most of the appropriations and funding set aside for certain activities.
Official languages have been better treated than most other services; their budget has been cut less than most. This shows that official languages are higher on our priority list than some other activities which have been cut more deeply.
That deals with the new money issue.
With respect to Treasury Board's role, official languages is an issue that involves a variety of departments, and is??? the special responsibility of Heritage Canada and Treasury Board.
More specifically, Treasury Board's role is to ensure that the quality of services to the public and the qualifications of public servants are sufficiently high to implement the Official Languages Act. Those are the general responsibilities of a Treasury Board in a government, and the specific responsibilities of this Treasury Board in this present case.
A series of departments report to us on the way they fulfil their mandate, be it in terms of services to the public or in terms of their employees' language skills. What you have here is a compendium of reports sent to us by various departments. Heritage Canada also receives reports on the performance of various departments.
You asked me whether we prepared a similar report.
Yes. We are now preparing a report that will be ready by the end of the month - I believe - and will be submitted to Heritage Canada.
Mr. Marchand: You don't deal with Parts IV and VII together?
Mr. Massé: No, we do not. Section 41 and those that follow deal with substantive issues. Part VII provides for responsibility sharing between Treasury Board and Heritage Canada.
Mr. Marchand: That's right. However, in his May report the Commissioner pointed out that Treasury Board plays a key role among the three departments essentially responsible for applying Part VII. He deplored the fact that, in his view, Treasury Board had not made much effort to ensure the proper implementation of Part VII.
.1545
I would like to know why that effort has not been made, and why there is still no action plan today, even after the Prime Minister's official commitment in 1994. We're talking about a commitment made by the Prime Minister two years ago. And about a department which plays a crucial role in the implementation of Part VII. On several occasions, the Commissioner has said that nothing has been done. Let's say that little has been done. What exactly has been done?
Mr. Massé: First of all, the Official Languages Commissioner has made several recommendations. One of those recommendations is as follows: that Treasury Board asks the Department to provide in their action plans an indication of how their activities have contributed to the success of the official languages and to the improvement of the language situation in linguistic minority communities.
That's a recommendation on which we have a different point of view; pursuant to section 42, an action plan has to be submitted to Heritage Canada. Section 42 stipulates that departments have to report on any substantive activities associated with the Official Languages Act. The report must be submitted to Heritage Canada, and cover issues that would otherwise be dealt with in the action plan.
That would mean duplication. As you know, we are fundamentally opposed to duplication because it's expensive. We therefore believe that these questions should appear in the report sent to Heritage Canada. We don't want to put the questions ourselves a second time.
Mr. Marchand: That is a question of leadership. You said that Heritage Canada had a role to play. We believe that role is one of coordination.
So what is your role in the implementation of Part VII? Do you have a role? Do you have a leadership role? If you do not, who will take that leadership role to ensure that Part VII is implemented.
Mr. Massé: Essentially, our role as Treasury Board in relation to other departments and in the area of official languages is similar to the role of any treasury board in almost any government. Treasury Board deals with organization and oversees the performance of departments in administrative and personnel issues, primarily. That is what we do. That is the specific function of Treasury Board.
I'm happy to see you're recommending that we should be given more responsibilities.
Our responsibilities are primarily to ensure that departments perform their duties properly in providing services to the public - that is what they are there for - and that public service employees mett all the official languages qualifications. That is Treasury Board's role.
Heritage Canada is responsible for allocating contributions to linguistic minority communities, and also to deal with official language issues, by maintaining relations with the community and by delivering the various programs that apply to linguistic communities.
Mr. Marchand: Do you believe it is important that Part VII be implemented.
Mr. Massé: It is very important that Part VII be implemented. I have been with the federal public service since 1971 or 1972, and I have seen considerable changes take place over that period of time. Since the Official Languages Act was enacted in the early 1970s, the standing of French in the federal public service changed considerably over just a few years.
I don't need history books to tell me about those improvements because I was there myself. Things improved a great deal after the Official Languages Act was implemented within the Public Service. French was given much greater importance throughout Canada, particularly in services delivered by the federal public service.
.1550
Things are not perfect; it is, after all, a difficult area. It is an area in which many countries have tried to legislate, with varying degrees of success. In our case, however, considerable progress was made in a relatively short time.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Marchand.
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, President Masse.
Mr. Massé: ``Massé'' please. There was a Masse before.
Mr. Breitkreuz: My apologies.
It's good of you to take the time to come to this committee.
Before I ask the president a question or two, I wonder if it's in order, Mr. Chairman, to give notice of a motion I wish to put before this committee. May I do that now?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Is this the motion now before us?
Mr. Breitkreuz: Yes.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): We will take it into account - 48 hour notice - and it will be brought up at our next meeting and it will be discussed at that time. It has been received.
Mr. Breitkreuz: The motion is that this committee send a letter to the Minister of Justice urging him to immediately terminate all proceedings against Hahamovich Kosher Imports Inc. of Montreal.
Thank you.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Yes, we will discuss it at our next meeting.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Mr. President, the last number of weeks we've had the commissioner of the official languages commission appear before us. Now we have you. We also have the Department of Heritage. That's also responsible for official languages. It seems to me there's an awful lot of duplication here. We have the Prime Minister making all kinds of promises. We have two departments and a commission. There appears to be an awful lot of duplication. The summary you have here is essentially the same as what Dr. Goldbloom was talking about.
Mr. Massé: The subject-matters are a bit different. But I think your main question is whether there are too many organizations dealing with official languages.
It is pretty normal for the government, in areas like this, to have a number of actors involved. If you're looking at the environment, you'll obviously have the Department of the Environment, which does the laws and regulations; the various departments, including Transport, that apply them; and a central agency, such as Treasury Board, that makes sure the laws and regulations, especially from a financial aspect and a personnel aspect, are implemented. What you have in this case is just about the same pattern.
The Department of Heritage has a budget for minority languages of about $250 million. It sets out the basic grants and contributions and is also responsible for the substance of the application of the law as the Department of the Environment would be for its own laws.
The various departments themselves are accountable for implementing the law in their fields of jurisdiction. The role of Treasury Board is to monitor service to the public by departments - that is clearly within the general jurisdiction of Treasury Board - and the qualifications of the personnel of the departments in terms of linguistic ability. We also check that. That's also part of the normal monitoring role of Treasury Board.
The difference is probably the Commissioner of Official Languages. We have a kind of ombudsman in environment for a bit of the same reason, but the Commissioner of Official Languages was named so Parliament itself rather than the party in power would have a report on what is happening with official languages. Of course this is a program that is judged to be more important to the federation than run-of-the-mill programs, because it strikes at the heart of the nature of our country.
.1555
Because of that, there is somebody who is to look at how that piece of law is implemented and report directly to Parliament without the risk of interference by departments. But, other than that aspect, the way in which the law is applied is reasonably similar to the way in which other laws are applied.
Mr. Breitkreuz: So what really is the role of the commission? The commission is unique in the whole operation of the federal government. There aren't many commissions serving departments or, in your case, the Treasury Board as well. You mentioned that the heritage department had a budget of about $200 million.
Mr. Massé: For this program.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Okay. Then what's the cost to the Treasury Board for this whole official languages operation?
Mr. Massé: If you are looking at our total cost for making sure that service is given to the public and so on, we have a branch. The cost of these 37 people would be $3.7 million, more or less.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Of course a lot of departments, even in their regional offices, have their own official languages coordinator. Some editorialists and commentators call them police. Is each department's budget for official languages included in Treasury Board or Heritage?
Mr. Massé: I'll give you a specific answer. In my case, when I was a civil servant - and of course I'm bilingual - I never got the bilingual bonus of $800, and therefore it cost the government nothing to have a bilingual employee serving people in both French and English. But there are people who receive the bilingual bonus because they are bilingual. The last time I looked, the cost of that bonus was $53 million. It was $86 million in the last budget because the RCMP settlement had to be taken into account.
Basically, the cost of the bilingual bonus is about $53 million. If you made the assumption, which is not entirely correct, that the additional cost of having a number of employees that are bilingual in order to serve the public is that cost, then you would have to add $53 million. That's the specific one. You can add a few expenditures here and there, such as the $3.7 million in our case.
When I myself asked what is the total cost of the programs, I was told that it's about one-quarter of one percent of the total federal budget.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Yes. Of course that's a pat government answer. I have mentioned before in this committee that the only detailed, comprehensive research on official languages in this country puts the total cost - which includes private sector compliance, labelling, and all the rest of it - much closer to $4 billion, rather than whatever percentage you gave. In fact, it's added almost $50 billion to our national debt.
You certainly haven't convinced me that there isn't a lot of duplication in enforcing the Official Languages Act.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): You could answer that question of so-called allegations of costs.
Mr. Massé: It's always very difficult in any specific circumstance to determine absolutely correctly the exact cost, but I've been involved in the game of costing things for a long while.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I believe that.
Mr. Massé: I have here a list of all the costs, starting with governmental services, translation office, Public Service Commission, Treasury Board Secretariat, the various departments and organizations, the crown corporations, parliamentary institutions, and so on. They have the whole list. The total forecast expenditures in 1995-96 are $284 million.
.1600
So when you talk about $4 billion - and that's another field I know reasonably well - this is too large. $4 billion does not correspond to the cost.
I can state that, but you'll say you're not convinced. All I can do is look at all the aspects of the Official Languages Act and try to ascertain their costs, which is what has been done here.
But I would argue something perhaps more important. Whether the cost is $260 million, $284 million, or $500 million, which I do not believe it is - it's certainly not $4 billion - you are looking once again, and I'm speaking as a Canadian, at a country where the nature of the country is to represent two fundamental groups. This is why we have two official languages in our constitution, French and English. That's the nature of our country; and our federal government has to reflect the nature of our country.
It is because of that that we have the Official Languages Act. It is because of it that we have a program that tries to implement it and to give the services of the federal government in their language to citizens of minority languages whenever numbers warrant. That obligation of the government, it seems to me, is essential to the survival of the country.
Mr. Breitkreuz: It sounds to me as if you're willing to accept that the cost of official bilingualism in this country is up for auction, whatever the bid is. I'm certainly going to stick with numbers that represent the only comprehensive research done, rather than accept figures that obviously are buried away in the bureaucracy somewhere and that of course will never be revealed.
I've mentioned here before the real reasons why the Official Languages Act was enacted in 1989. Certainly we know it just isn't working. It has just developed into a big industry.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I might use a couple more minutes of your time,Mr. Breitkreuz.
That having been said, do you have any cost-benefit analysis for what the true benefits are, in your estimation? We're quoting $4 billion and $50 billion. It's quite a spread there. Do you think the manufacturers are using gold-plated labelling, if those are the costs? I would like to know what the overall benefits have been since 1971, since you've remarked that was when you arrived here in Ottawa, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Massé: In a program like this it is difficult to define the costs and benefits as actual ascertainable costs and benefits in terms of money, because what you're talking about is the basis on which you can build a sense of community in Canada. What are the bases that permit you to create a community where the various members feel at home rather than alienated? What are the bases on which we have to build a society that will be stable, that will last, that will create the employment and the quality of life we want in a country? As soon as I say that, of course, I get out of the bounds of the small projects where you can measure the costs and benefits, more or less.
I'm convinced, because I've lived there, you need an act like the Official Languages Act in a country such as Canada in order to permit the country to survive. I know one thing for sure. If at the beginning of the 1970s, when I was coming from work at the World Bank in Washington, where I was dealing with all the countries in the world and I was feeling one among many but I was living among my peers...if I'd had to come into the federal government in Canada and live uniquely in English and feel like a second-class citizen, I would not have stayed in that country.
.1605
So there is no doubt for me - I'm profoundly convinced - that the Official Languages Act is one of the pillars on which we have created our Canadian identity and that Canada would not have survived as a country without that act.
Therefore that act is essential to us as Canadians. It expresses our true nature, which is not to be a homogeneous community in terms of languages. It reflects reality, and it permits all its citizens to feel like first-class citizens everywhere in the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Serré (Timiskaming - French River): Welcome before the committee, Minister. I'll try to stay away from money issues, because I know that a member of the Bloc québécois would like us to throw money at everything. But that's not how things work. There's also a Reform member who would like us to abolish the Official Languages Act altogether. So as a good Liberal, I'll try to find the middle ground. I do have some criticisms, however.
Your report paints a somewhat rosy picture. However, when I read the Official Languages Commissioner's report, and see the positions taken by groups representing minorities in Canada such as the ACFO, the Fédération des communautés francophone et acadienne, Alliance Quebec, and even myself - I live in an Ontario linguistic minority community, and I'm somewhat disappointed with what's being done. We are talking about two years. In fact, it's been exactly a year and a half since the commitment made in Moncton, in New Brunswick, during the Congrès mondial acadien. I was present with the then Minister of Heritage Canada. At least you could admit we're dragging our feet.
We don't necessarily need to give more funding to institutions. But I do believe - andMr. Marchand was talking about this too, the leadership issue - that institutions and department officials lack the real willingness that's necessary to make this work. Part VII doesn't necessarily involve the delivery of services. I know that your department's role is to provide services in both official languages, to ensure that bilingual staff are available, and so on. But Part VII goes much further than that. It provides for enhancing the vitality of minority language communities.
I don't often agree with Mr. Marchand, but he may be right in saying that leadership is somewhat lacking. No one seems to be in charge. Nothing is really clearly defined in the institutions or departments. We know that Heritage Canada and Treasury Board have an important role to play, but no one wants to say: "The ball is in my court, I'm the one whose responsible for implementing Part VII, and I will ensure that it's properly applied."
The commissioner prepares reports; organization and committees like ours examine the issue and demand more. Don't you think, Minister, that Canadians would be better served if Treasury Board or Heritage Canada were simply given a clear mandate to implement Part VII?
Mr. Massé: That's a difficult question. It is the Prime Minister's prerogative to organize government as he wishes. If I have any advice to give him in this regard, I will give it directly to the Prime Minister and we will come to some decision together.
The primary responsibility is Heritage Canada's, which implements the substantive aspects of Part VII. Heritage Canada has fulfilled that responsibility through contributions amounting to almost $250 million a year. Activities funded by these contributions have made it possible to set up many programs in francophone communities. You have seen the use to which this funding is put in your own province, as well as in other provinces, including New Brunswick. The funding has contributed enormously to promoting activities in minority languages across Canada. I'm putting minority language in the plural, because the contributions have also served to promote English in Quebec.
.1610
Could things be better? Yes, of course. We have gained a lot of experience in these first years. We had to establish francophone and anglophone centres. In many cases, that took time.
Take New Brunswick, for example. The centre established in Fredericton for francophones was only ready in 1976-77. It took years to plan. But now it's there, and a whole community of francophones in Fredericton - I was there at the time, have a chance to meet, get together, have classes in French for pre-schoolers, and engage in many other activities. In other words, the centre provided a forum leading to considerable changes in the francophone community.
I'm sure we could have done better, and there are still deficiencies in the current program. We can all say we would have done better if we were in charge. But in practice, the results have been quite extraordinary. Communities have developed enormously.
I bring up New Brunswick once again, because I was there when the Official Languages Act was implemented by the government.
At the beginning of the 1970's there were substantial problems between French-speaking and English-speaking communities. You no doubt remember Mayor Jones of Moncton. At the beginning of the 1980's a constitutional amendment was passed, stipulating that New Brunswick was a province that accepted both official languages. Polls showed that 86% of New Brunswick citizens agreed, among them 78% of anglophones.
In the space of about 15 years, significant progress in New Brunswick had been made concerning the respect of both communities, their integration, their acceptance of each other. We recognized that both could contribute to social stability and social welfare.
That could be ascribed, in part although not completely, to the fact that there was a clear desire on the federal government's part, which indicated how official languages were to be set out in Canada. Money was granted to that end.
Presently, we must settle the problems concerning service to the public, which is my responsibility, and the linguistic abilities of public servants. Concerning the Treasury Board, my first priority is to make sure that services to the public, in the 4000 offices which have been designated bilingual, be provided not only correctly, but perfectly. Secondly, I want to make sure that public servants in bilingual positions are bilingual in most instances.
These are things that the Treasury board must improve.
Mr. Serré: Do I still have time to ask another question?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): You can ask another question.
Mr. Serré: My next question may be out of order, but I'd like to give an example of the problems we still must deal with. I don't know if this is your department's responsibility or whether you can answer this question, but I was made aware of a problem concerning the collective agreement that has just been signed between the CBC and its unions.
Members of the union informed me of this and I communicated with the Commissioner of Official Languages, who is presently holding talks with the Chairman of the CBC and the union.
The collective agreement was only signed in English. It was condensed into a small eight page report, and that was what was given to francophones. They're being asked to vote on a collective agreement with an eight page document, when the official English text may be 100 or so pages long. It's a very complicated agreement.
.1615
I know that the commissioner asked the unions to put off the vote, which is to be held in two days, but the union does not want to budge. The commissioner explained to me that he is responsible for the CBC, but that he has no authority over the internal governance of the union.
In actual fact, we are asking our francophones, employees of a Crown Corporation, to vote on a collective agreement, the text of which they do not have. For some of them, it's a matter of principle because they understand the English text quite well, but for others, it's a matter of understanding.
There are still injustices. I would like you to send a message to the Prime Minister. If I have the opportunity, I'll do it myself. I would like someone, be it the Prime Minister himself or the Treasury Board, to take direct responsibility for everything having to do not only with official languages, but also with the application of official languages, and that he have a very strong mandate.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Senator Rivest.
Senator Rivest (Stadacona): Mr. Minister, please remember, from your appearance before this committee, the two essential things that Mr. Marchand and Mr. Serré have just brought up.
It's quite surprising, in the two, three or four years that I have been coming here, I keep noticing the ambiguity of the situation concerning the reading of Ministers' reports, and yours is no exception: there have been positive results, but there are still problems; the situation is satisfactory, but far from perfect; we are aware that problems exist; there has been progress and there will be further progress soon. That is basically what we hear.
On the other hand, as Mr. Serré told you, in a perhaps less direct and much more diplomatic fashion than I will, federations of minority groups come and tell us that the système is no working.
The Commissioner of Official Languages, last weekend in Montreal, said bluntly that there was an assimilation problem. When ministers appear before this committee, that word is never used, even though it is the reality for minority communities.
I don't deny what you say concerning the progress and efforts made by the government, the ministers and the administration to try and fill in the gap the commissioner identified in the area of communication in the minority language. They are efforts carried out, no doubt, in all good faith. However, all that is miles away from the reality experiences by these communities, particularly the francophone minority in Canada.
Every minister comes here and tells us: "My job is this". Last year, the Minister for Canadian Heritage came to tell us: "It's true that that is my responsibility, but I'm our department amongst others and each of the ministers is free to manage his department as he sees fit".
Is there someone somewhere in the government, who takes an interest in the assimilation problem of francophone communities?
Mr. Massé: The traditional response, and my colleague has just suggested it to me, is that assimilation is the Canadian Heritage Department's problem. I'll give you the answer of somebody who has lived in the province, who has worked as a public servant in the province and who saw it develop over the years.
Senator Robichaud (L'Acadie): Who saw the province or assimilation develop?
Mr. Massé: It's the province that developed; assimilation, much less. There are two answers to that. I'm answering as a citizen, but one who has had considerable knowledge of these events.
First of all, in a majority society, be it in Canada, in India or in Malawi, the same sociological process occurs: the majority tends to assimilate the minority, and the greater the numbers of the majority compared to the minority, the swifter and more complete the assimilation.
.1620
By the way, this phenomenon also occurs in Quebec. During my college years, I met people with names such a Caponi and Macdonald who didn't speak a word of English or Italian. They are people who have become part of the majority group.
In Canada, particularly in the more isolated Francophone communities, we've tried to preserve the characteristics of the French-speaking culture. Of course we won't succeed 100%, because the majority has a huge capacity for assimilation. We must therefore always define our results in relative terms.
Secondly, to prevent total assimilation, you would have to avoid contact with all the other groups, particularly if you define assimilation as the acquiring of not only linguistics but also cultural characteristics of neighbouring groups.
There's no question that in Canada - I'm speaking of all of Canada - , we are dealing with considerable pressure from the American culture, because we are under the same cultural influences, via film, television, and so on. We tried to stop this assimilation through Canadian cultural programs, Canadian content, and so on.
As to language, in Quebec, for some time, during your youth and mine, many words were borrowed from foreign languages, specifically English.
When you go to Paris and you talk about the "fin de semaine", people do not understand what you are saying, because they use the word "weekend" instead. I can give you a whole series of words that you have undoubtedly seen and hear. Instead of calling it assimilation, we call this importing foreign words.
Look at the French that is currently spoken in Quebec and New Brunswick. I see a very clear difference between the French I spoke when I was young, in the street, and the French that is currently spoken by the majority of Francophones. I think there has been considerable improvement. And it has happened because we have had the means to protect our language and culture.
I now see considerable improvement among francophone minorities, whether they be in Vancouver or Toronto, as compared to what existed in the late seventies, and I was in federal-provincial affairs and travelled throughout the country and met with these communities. Is this due to the fact that the federal government helped these communities have a cultural centre, classrooms for young Francophone children, etc? There is no doubt that the answer is yes.
I was recently in the Yukon and met Francophone communities. There is no doubt that those communities would have been assimilated long ago without these programs. I am expressing my personal point of view, because this has nothing to do with my responsibilities as President of the Treasury Board.
So, our conclusions have to be relative, because assimilation is a normal and natural phenomenon that occurs everywhere. There are francophone communities throughout Canada which, despite the natural and normal risk of assimilation, have been preserved, because they benefited from federal programs.
Senator Rivest: I do not want to ridicule what you have just said, but you can say that there was an improvement if someone who is supposed to die at age 40 does not die until age 50. However, he still dies at some point.
The Official Languages Act, especially Part VII, is supposed to support communities to defend... It is not the only means, as there is also Radio-Canada, the services set out in Part IV and the services in French throughout the country. There are also national institutions that help the communities.
However, Part VII focuses directly on providing support to communities, and these communities have come before us and told us that it is not working.
.1625
The commissioner repeated it, and today, both Mr. Serré and Mr. Marchand have emphasized. My committee colleagues know that the problem is that no one knows who the boss is. The commissioner knows that too, because he made specific recommendations which are more or less questionable in terms of public administration.
Not knowing who the boss is, the departments are all flooding us with reports and statistics, like 80%, 74%, etc., but in the field, the poor minority communities, whether they be in Quebec, New Brunswick or the rest of Canada, are sounding the alarm. They are going to great lengths to indicate to the political leaders in Canada that the way the departmental responsibilities are divided is not working, because there is no boss.
One minister cannot say to another: "That is not right. You'll have to change your attitude". Memos are written, directives are sent out in the Public Service, and finally, everything gets lost in the maze of annual reports. We come and spend an hour here, in committee, and then we move on to something else.
In the meantime, the Francophone and Acadian communities in Canada are telling us that this part of the Act is a failure. I'm hardly exaggerating. I know that you are not the Prime Minister, but you are yourself perhaps personally aware, Mr. Minister, of the problem of linguistic equality and the importance of linguistic duality for the future of Canada. We have a problem. We must put an end to the parade of associations representing minority groups or the committee parliamentarians, who talk and talk and hear the minister say that the situation is satisfactory, but not perfect and that it will be improved.
With stories like that, the alarm is ringing, Mr. Minister.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Senator Roux.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Minister, I would like to start by thanking you for having taken the time to appear before the committee.
I would like to thank you for not having ducked Mr. Rivest's question. You answered it honestly, like a Canadian citizen.
Mr. Massé: It is his job to contradict me.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Okay. I would also like to thank you for the vibrant plea that you made earlier on the Official Languages Act which, as you said, reflects the very essence of our society in Canada.
My question is akin to the ones asked by Senator Rivest and Mr. Serré. Section 41 states:
41. The Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development...
It is no longer simply a case of delivering services in both official languages where numbers warrant. The legislator commits the government to enhancing the vitality of minorities and supporting and assisting their development.
The program is of course laudable, but extremely ambitious and difficult to implement in practice, in my view. I will not repeat everything that was said around this table, but the fact is that the situation is not ideal, it is not perfect and there are improvements to be made everywhere to varying degrees.
My question is as follows, and I would like you to answer it as an honourable citizen. What would you say to the creation of a centre, a commission or a committee which would be responsible and which would be very close to the Prime Minister, and located, for example, at the Privy Council level? The Privy Council does not oversee implementation of the Act, but this centre would ensure that each of the 27 departments, Crown corporations or agencies involved would take the necessary steps and implement the act so that the objective set out in the Act will be met in the not so distant future.
.1630
Do you think that will be a better solution than the existing one?
Mr. Massé: I cannot find the figures I wanted, but you have asked me a question to which my only response can be that I am willing to consider a different structure. Once again, I would be but an advisor on the matter, as the organization of government is the Prime Minister's prerogative. I am prepared to examine options that arise as well as their advantages and disadvantages.
That is the direct response to your question. But I would like to play it down. When we talk about enhancing the vitality of communities and supporting and assisting their development, we are talking about an obligation of means. In a situation like that, where you have linguistic minority communities and linguistic majority communities, the assimilation Senator Rivest mentioned is still a threat.
That is why the Official Languages Act exists. The obligation of means for the government means putting into place structures to enhance the vitality of communities. Supporting and assisting their development means putting into place structures, means to act and activities which will support and assist their development.
When you have an obligation of need, you have to put in place as many structures as possible, taking into account your means. That is normal, and that is what we will have to continue to do on a permanent basis.
I mentioned what happened in the Francophone community in New Brunswick. I was there, and I know that the Acadian soul and culture in New Brunswick was enhanced during that time, which is in part the result of the ongoing and considerable support of both the federal and provincial governments. The federal government funded a good part of the Centre culturel de Fredericton, which enabled the Francophone community in Fredericton to develop, ensure its survival and increase the percentage of Francophones who felt part of a Francophone community.
Changing the decision-making structure or having a boss is not necessarily the ideal solution. Ministers do indeed say: "We are fulfilling our obligations in this regard, but there are shortcomings". That is exactly what is happening. When the Commissioner of Official Languages said the public service had an unsatisfactory performance and that services were being actively offered in only 53% of the cases at the time of evaluation, we took steps to improve our performance, and, in September 1995, we had reached 88%.
Yes, 53%, is a poor record; 88% is better, but it is not a perfect score. Assimilation is still rampant. There is also assimilation into the Canadian culture and we must always guard against that. With every new generation, it becomes increasingly difficult. It is not something you do once and for all.
Indeed, the Official Languages Act did not produce perfect results. For instance, there was an active offer of services only 53% of the time. That percentage did increase fairly rapidly to 88% and will hopefully reach a 100%, but that will require constant effort on the part of the federal and provincial governments. If we don't make a conscious effort, we will regress instead of progress. Development requires constant effort.
.1635
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): I don't want to prolong the discussion, Mr. Minister, but the example you gave of active offer pertained to services. In other words, services can be quantified, but growth and development cannot.
That is why I think it would be a good idea to have some authority who could tell departmental officials - I am not even talking about the ministers, because I now realize officials have a lot of power when it comes to public management - ; "You are not implementing the measures required to ensure the growth and development of our country's linguistic minorities".
If that authority was at a fairly senior level, he or she would have a lot of clout. God only knows I have a great deal of respect for the Commissioner of Official Languages, but the authority I am thinking of could have a lot more impact than recommendations that appear in the Official Languages Commissioner's Report. There! That's what I wanted to say.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon); I don't think we talked about assimilation rates and I understand you are rather short of time. It is true that many factors come into play. As you know, we have a low birth rate.
Even the data from Statistics Canada and the way they were compiled are somewhat suspect in some cases. Take my situation as an example. My wife is Spanish-speaking and we speak English at home. According to Statistics Canada, we are therefore assimilated, which is totally wrong.
I think it would be a good idea to clarify the Statistics Canada data. We could have a heated discussion with the people who compile the publicly disseminated data.
Could you look at the other side of the coin? I mean awareness programs for Anglophones so that they might become interested in the French fact. What role does your department and others play in immersion schools? I visited a number of them in Western Canada. Fifteen years ago, there were 30,000 young Anglophones and allophones in French immersion programs, and that number is now nearly 350,000.
Shouldn't we be pleased about that? Isn't that promising? Shouldn't we encourage those people to take an interest in the other culture?
Mr. Massé: I do not think we have an official opinion on that, because those programs are implemented by provincial departments of education, which means they are exclusively of provincial jurisdiction.
Let me give you my personal opinion again, because I have seen what happened in New Brunswick and in the western provinces.
I think it is the best way to bring some bilingual flavour to Canada. I remember going to Fredericton in the early seventies. It was very Anglophone at the time. I spoke with some Anglophone students who were in an immersion program and who were doing all their courses in French, and then I spoke with their parents. The children felt the same way about French as they did about English, namely that it was a means of expression. Children pick up languages much more easily than adults do. What's more important, though, is that their parents, who used to be afraid of bilingual people taking over their job or who were weary of other cultures, now viewed Francophones as their equal when they saw that their children had learned French and could speak the language so easily. Fredericton has changed enormously in that regard since the early seventies.
.1640
So I believe immersion programs have been successful. I have been told that the Department of Canadian Heritage helps education departments fund some of those courses. I believe that is one way to change Canada's character and to encourage people to accept or at least recognize that Quebec is a distinct society.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Godfrey.
[English]
Mr. Godfrey (Don Valley West): I'd like to pursue the note of frustration that was sounded by several of my colleagues about basically who is in charge, who is the boss, who bells the cat. Here I'm not sure whether I'm asking you in your current function at Treasury Board or as a private citizen or as an expert on government, somebody who just undertook program review. You can pick the hat once you've heard the question.
First, do you find that this frustration we've expressed - and it's only been occasioned, as it were, by the issue of assimilation, but I think there's the larger issue of who is in charge - is a reasonable frustration on our part, or are we being unreasonable? In other words, having heard this discussion, does it strike you that perhaps there is a problem within the organization of government about the right political will behind bilingualism?
If you think it's a problem, then that will lead to my next question. Can you believe there's a reasonable analysis on our part, or are we being unreasonable?
Mr. Massé: I'll just give him back the problem.
I'm in two minds about it, because in terms of the programs themselves, how they have been applied and the results they've had, I am, as you can see, reasonably positive.
Yes, I also listen to all the various groups - not only francophone ones. In my riding I have quite a number of Alliance Quebec people and so on. I can see what criticisms these organizations make, and we usually try to solve them.
So when I hear a large number of people saying that the decision-making process should be different, which is essentially what you're telling me, I'm reasonable enough to say that we'll look at that, we'll see what the other options are, we'll see if the criticisms are fully justified, we'll see if there is a formula that will give us better results. So I'm open to it, but I'm not concluding right away that therefore you must change the locus of decision-making.
Mr. Godfrey: If after the analysis it seems as if there are things to improve in the locus of decision-making...
By the way, I suspect that in our other capacities we might find other examples. I would cite the fact of science and technology also not having a proper locus within the cabinet. I think that's a problem that has to be addressed. So I don't think this is an isolated case.
In wearing your ``experience in government'' hat, if I may put it in that way, can you think of useful options or models for establishing that kind of responsibility, analogies that exist where there's been a similar lack of focus and the problem has been resolved by doing various things? Could you discuss that abstractly?
Mr. Massé: Yes. I'll choose my words carefully.
Once we will have looked at the options and at the pros and cons, I will be in a position to make recommendations to whoever has the power to make the decision about what should be done.
Mr. Godfrey: Well, that's good.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Godfrey, Mr. Minister, I see it is already 4:45. I believe you were available only until 4:30. I would like to thank you for coming.
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Chairman...
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Marchand, I would like to point out that...
Mr. Marchand: We don't see the Minister too often. He could give us another 15 minutes. He arrived late and that's the least he could do.
Mr. Massé: Mr. Chairman, I was two minutes late and I have stayed 14 minutes longer than promised. I would certainly have given you another five minutes, but I must leave because I have another appointment.
.1645
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): We are fully aware of that, Mr. Minister. In fact,Mr. Marchand, we were able to give you some extra time with the previous witnesses.
That being, Mr. Minister, I would like to thank you for your appearance and I wish you a safe trip.
Mr. Massé: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): This meeting is adjourned.