LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 3, 1998

• 1544

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): Good day, ladies and gentlemen. I bid welcome to my joint chair, Mrs. Finestone; it is a pleasure to see you again.

We have a quorum and we will begin with the adoption of the seventh report of the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure that you have on hand. If we did not adopt it, we would have to thank our visitors and tell them to go home because that report recommends that we invite them as witnesses before this committee.

Senator Louis J. Robichaud (L'Acadie—Acadia, Lib.): I will propose that it be adopted if someone answers my question: what is the Association des Townshippers?

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Those are the Anglophones outside Montreal, for example in Sherbrooke.

Senator Louis Robichaud: In the Eastern Townships?

• 1545

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes, in the Eastern Townships and in all the cities where there are small groups of Anglophones.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): OK?

(The seventh report of the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure is adopted—see minutes)

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I don't know if all members of the committee have become acquainted with the procedures we adopted last year, especially those dealing with the allocation of time. We do not have to adopt them again, since they are still in force. Our clerk will distribute a copy of these directives to the members of the committee.

We are now ready to hear our witnesses.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.)): Madam Chair and members of the committee, while we are waiting for the witnesses, I would like to bring to your attention the presence of Canada's Commissioner of Official Languages, Dr. Victor Goldbloom. I would like the committee to know that it was due to an unfortunate conflict of timing that we were not able to accommodate the Commissioner of Official Languages at this moment. As soon as the agenda is completed, we will see where he can be fit in.

[Translation]

Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Gino LeBlanc, I invite you to introduce the two people with you and to begin your presentation.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc (President, Fédération des communautés francophone et acadienne du Canada): Madam Chair, thank you. I have with me Ms. Manon S. Henrie, who works with us at the FCFA of Canada, and our Director General, Mr. Richard Barrette.

Mr. Richard Barrette (Director General, Fédération des communautés francophone et acadienne du Canada): Good day.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: We are pleased to appear before you today. I also have with me a delegation of Canadians who are Francophone. In the coming days we will be meeting with more than 40 ministers, MPs and senators to talk about Francophones and important moments for us, in other words about Mrs. Copp's renewal of the Official Languages Support Program, as well as the resources that support our development in a number of areas, including education.

I thank you for giving me a few minutes so that I can present the current concerns of Francophone and Acadian communities regarding the implementation of the Official Languages Act. I come here heading a delegation of about fifty people from these communities. We are in the nation's capital to make the Canadian Parliament aware of the challenges we face in renewing the Canada-community agreements, which is the financial mechanism for all of Francophone Canada. As you know, it is under the terms of such agreements that the Department of Canadian Heritage supports the development of our communities. I will be discussing this in a few minutes.

It is true that the Francophone and Acadian communities have developed significantly in the last 30 years. The Official Languages Act and the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms have something to do with that. Those measures have allowed French to be recognized outside Quebec.

Our communities have taken this opportunity to develop an important network of infrastructures for schools, culture, communities and the economy. They have shown both courage and determination. They have not hesitated to go to court, unfortunately, more often than not, to have their rights respected. As far as I know, no one has challenged these accomplishments, but I still worry about the future.

• 1550

I see a gradual erosion of what we have acquired, unless the federal government immediately changes its tune. Take the study by the Commissioner for Official Languages, who is present, on the effects of the changes to official languages programs; that study was published last spring.

Among the changes noted by the Commissioner we note devolution, the development of partnerships, privatization, restructuring and the implementation of cutbacks. The conclusions of the Commissioner's study are troubling. First, these changes have created a subtle but cumulative erosion of linguistic rights. Then they have weakened the Official Languages Program within the federal government. Finally, the federal government has not given enough weight to its commitment to encourage the expansion and development of minority official language groups. Here are a few concrete examples of the changes that have adversely affected Francophone communities in Canada.

The minister of Human Resources Development Canada, Pierre Pettigrew, is to sign an agreement shortly with British Columbia. The province will then inherit responsibilities for developing labour markets, financed by the employment insurance fund.

The Fédération des Francophones de la Colombie-Britannique has asked the minister to pay special attention to the linguistic obligations that would thus be transferred to the province since Glen Clark's government has shown little sympathy for its Francophone population.

Minister Pettigrew answered:

The linguistic clauses of labour market development agreements are all relatively different and reflect the specific situation in each province.

He also states that upcoming federal-provincial agreements related to labour market development will ensure the availability of programs and services in both official languages "where numbers warrant".

If there is a phrase that gives all Francophones in Canada the hives, it is that one, "where numbers warrant".

By using it, Minister Pettigrew mocks the spirit of the Official Languages Act and the federal government's commitment to encouraging the development of our communities.

During that time, in Whitehorse, in the Yukon, the management of the local general hospital was transferred from Health Canada to the territorial government. There was no linguistic clause in the agreement. Other Health Canada programs were also transferred to the territory without regard to their availability in French.

These examples, among many others, show that here and there we are losing our access to federal services that used to be available in our own language. In so doing, it is also the visibility of French everywhere in Canada and the loss of bilingual jobs that is at issue.

Why did we fight for the right to have French language schools if in many areas of the country we won't be able to guarantee to our children that learning French will be an asset in the labour market?

We have to say that Treasury Board responded quickly to the Commissioner of Official Languages' study. A few days after it was tabled, the Board set up a working group to look at the application of the Official Languages Act in federal institutions in the light of these cutbacks and privatizations.

At first blush, this seemed to us like a good idea. The working group is made up of people who are well known in the official languages communities. The group's good will and integrity are not in question.

On the other hand, we have to note that the Board gave it very few tools to accomplish its mission: a tight deadline—its final report is to be delivered next month, perhaps after Christmas—, a rather brief consultation period, very little time and resources to do serious research and at most half a dozen face-to-face meetings.

All that seems to indicate that the Treasury Board did not take the Commissioner of Official Languages' observations as seriously as we would have wished. After all, is the Board not responsible, among other things, for the restructuring and the cutbacks that have contributed to the erosion of our linguistic rights?

• 1555

In addition, these days our communities have to live with the budget cutbacks made by the Department of Canadian Heritage in its Official Languages Support Program. In this manner the Department has cut its support to our communities by 20 to 40 per cent in the last few years.

Our organizations and institutions now spend more time trying to get "special projects" to make ends meet than they do on their primary mission, which is the development of our communities.

But I see some solutions. First, the notice of the Supreme Court on Quebec's right to secede included important observations for our communities. I will quote only one excerpt:

"...a constitution may seek to ensure that vulnerable minority groups are endowed with the institutions and rights necessary to maintain and promote their identities against the assimilative pressures of the majority."

That is what we are claiming in our request that the Official Languages Act be adhered to.

Secondly, the federal government must give itself a mechanism that ensures the respect and implementation of the Official Languages Act in all its endeavours. There are precedents in this regard, especially in Ontario, where the Office of Francophone Affairs is called upon to comment on departmental initiatives to ensure that they adhere to the French Languages Services Act of Ontario.

Thirdly, the federal government must adopt an overall policy supporting the development of official languages communities. We sometimes blame our communities for their lack of vision in talking about the future. However, each one has its own overall development plan. At this point in time, it's Ottawa that is dragging its heels. We would be pleased to help it now in its thinking about the development of an overall development support policy.

Finally, as I mentioned at the beginning, we will shortly be starting negotiations with Heritage Canada to renew Canada-community agreements. We hope the department will be able to increase the budgetary envelope for these agreements to catch up on lost time and repair some of the damage. If necessary, we will oppose any additional cuts or ceilings on the budget for the Official Languages Support Program for 1999-2000 and beyond.

I would like to end my presentation by quoting the Quebec writer Micheline La France. She says that "to contemplate the future is to invent it" ("contempler l'avenir, c'est l'inventer)."

I hope that now we will be able to work together and find the elements of a vision that we can share and implement for the well being of all official language minority communities. Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): That was a very nice presentation and I thank you very much, Mr. LeBlanc. I am sure it will lead to an excellent discussion.

As I told you at the beginning, dear colleagues, we will follow the established procedure and I will therefore first yield the floor to the official opposition for seven minutes. Mr. Mark.

[English]

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, welcome, and I thank you for coming to the committee.

Perhaps I should preface my comments. Contrary to popular belief, the Reform Party does believe in the bilingual nature of this country. We do believe federal institutions need to adhere to that ruling and live by it. I should say that in my own riding I have two communities that speak French as a living language. At the same time, it is important to me closer to home. My wife is French, so I realize it is important that French be sustained throughout the country.

Just to comment, you indicated the Supreme Court's ruling on language. I believe it should be adhered to throughout the country, not just from province to province. It should be consistently followed through and followed up by the federal government in order to ensure that the Supreme Court's rulings are abided by.

• 1600

On the issue of fiscal support, I get requests both from constituents and people from outside Manitoba asking for my continuing support for the whole issue of French immersion and the school process. I know there's never enough money, so I'm going to ask you this question: How much money is enough in order to make sure all the programs are in place and that we move positively, in the right step, regarding the whole issue of language?

[Translation]

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Thank you, Mr. Mark. One thing is certain: the decrease has been significant. It has hurt a lot. As you know, our communities are developing. The Act was adopted only 30 years ago and so we often find ourselves in a catch-up situation when we try to create institutions for ourselves that will allow the Francophone community to act in fields such as health, social services, the economy, youth, etc. The cutbacks are doubly hurtful since we did not have the network of institutions that we should have had in order to be fully active in society. We are talking about cutbacks of 20 to 40 per cent. It is obvious that we will have to find much more acceptable levels of financing.

In their relationships with Heritage Canada our communities have prepared overall development plans. The Canada-community agreements are really betting on a partnership between the departments and the communities. The financing will be done according to a priority list set in the provinces and at the national level.

Those agreements are in fact coming to an end and we are about to start an evaluation process without delay. We are about to finish that exercise. The FCFA's board will meet at the end of November and in a few weeks we will be able to quantify the needs of the communities and justify them. One thing is clear: we need at least what we had before the cutbacks. The amounts should even be increased since during that time we have grown. Since the beginning of the cutbacks, in 1992-93, we have created other institutions and developed other poles of intervention. We therefore hope to discuss this with Mrs. Copps and the decision-makers in this process to make them aware of our needs.

The envelope for the Official Languages Support Program is much broader than the financing of our organizations. It includes all the transfers to the provinces for education, training, exchanges, etc. That is also very important to us. We hope that the entire envelope will be increased significantly because all those things are obviously related.

[English]

Mr. Inky Mark: I have one more short question, Madam Chair.

For these partnership agreements with the provinces, is the process the same, or are they all different from province to province in terms of their needs?

[Translation]

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: That is a good question. We at the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, are not part of the negotiation process between the department and the provinces. I really don't know what the process is between the provincial governments and the department, although I am sure there is a strategy of demands and requests, as is the case for community organizations. Unfortunately, we are not aware of those numbers. We support the requests of the provinces that the department have enough funds to meet the provinces' needs, which is very important, but unfortunately we are not party to the discussions.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Okay, Mr. Mark? Maybe next round.

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you. I welcome all our witnesses.

You talked about negotiations and new agreements scheduled for March 1999. In the end, you seem to be hoping you will be given a budget equivalent to that of 1993.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: No, that is not quite correct. I was giving you the example of the 1993 budget as the turning point where the cutbacks really started to hurt. As far as we are concerned, for community institutions of Francophone minorities, we were talking about a budget of $28 million in 1993. That budget had been decreasing constantly and is now at $21 million.

• 1605

I cannot foresee the level of needs that all the evaluation processes of each province will provide to me. However, in my opinion, taking into account the development that has taken place since 1992—community radios, post-secondary education, etc.,—it will be much higher. It seems obvious to me that our communities have not stagnated since that time and that the needs must be reevaluated on the basis of the 1992-93 level. We have grown since then. In my opinion, the order of magnitude will have to be well beyond those 1992-93 numbers if we want our communities to accomplish what their dynamics dictate.

I think that the question of what you want the francophonie outside Quebec to be is still relevant. What should be its vitality and its drive? Is it interesting, from the Canadian Parliament's point of view, that there be a vital French presence outside Quebec and that Francophones be well equipped?

Remember that in many cases the provincial government is not the best place for us to go to get help for our development. There is a lot of reluctance. We have had to fight before the courts for many years—you know it, Mr. Plamondon—to get to manage our schools. Currently, in most cases, we have gotten it, in a more satisfactory manner in some provinces compared to others.

I would say that the 1992-93 level of financing is only a reference point and must absolutely be improved upon. At the end of the evaluation process of the partnership between Heritage Canada and the various francophones communities for each agreement, which should end very soon, we will be able to determine a number, to set an order of magnitude on our needs.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I sometimes wonder if you are not too soft in your negotiations with the existing governments in terms of your demands. We feel that you have a number of meetings, that the Francophone and Acadian communities generally vote for the Liberals. The Liberal government is by and large assured of your votes and therefore does not fear your demands.

It is true that Acadia woke up to other realities in the last elections and broke with its long-standing voting traditions, and that was a nice exception. But it is not really an issue of partisanship. I don't want to stay that one has to vote for the Liberals or otherwise. I am saying that the facts are there and that faced with these facts, your demands may seem easy or soft. That's how it seems to me sometimes.

On the other hand, you have pulled off some very good ones. I am thinking for example of SOS Montfort that is putting up an extraordinarily good fight; it is demanding, it's a bulldozer and it has to work. It is almost only in those moments when you have bet the bundle and made a lot of noise that you have won great victories.

What I see now is the upcoming negotiation, which has actually started. I see Mrs. Copps' attitude when she comes here to answer our questions before this committee. You know, going back to 1993 is going back about $100 million, I believe. You say your hopes are even greater than that. I am telling you you will have to move heaven and earth to accomplish that.

Don't forget that the current government cut 15 per cent from the grants to your associations. And when it did that, all the MPs of the party in power, including all the Francophones, voted in favour of that decision. I therefore wonder if you don't need a stronger lobby, a more public and more demanding one.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: I believe that the nature of your intervention reflects the nature of your platform very well, that of the opposition, and I believe that it is quite legitimate.

• 1610

As for your first comment about the vote of a linguistic group that would go to a specific party, I have enough data to contradict what you state, that the Acadians vote en masse for the Liberal Party. It is true that at that time Mr. Robichaud received good support from the Acadians, but the vote of Francophone Canadians in general is sufficiently diversified and does not go only to the Liberal Party. I think that is clear enough.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Those are bygone days.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: It is more diversified than the vote of Anglophones in Quebec.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: The other comment I would like to make is about what you said regarding the fact that we only win when we scream and shout. Well, that is one of the strategies we can use. I believe that a social group such as ours can take a conciliatory approach. Whether it is the New Democratic Party, the Conservative Party or the one that is in power, we approach it by making our needs known, and the obstacles we face, and ask for help in overcoming them. As soon as a partnership develops, everything is fine. As soon as there is conflict, where no agreement is possible, we can go up a notch and become demanding. Neither our community nor the other official languages communities have been afraid to raise their voices and become demanding.

That is a comment I also make.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you. Mr. Plamondon, you still have two minutes.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I will speak again later on.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Agreed. Senator Robichaud.

Senator Louis Robichaud: One question about something that intrigued me during Mr. LeBlanc's remarks. You have claimed your rights—let's say our rights—before the courts on a number of occasions. On many occasions you have succeeded, but not in all provinces.

You have said that some provinces were still reluctant. That's what I understood. Could you tell us which provinces and territories follow the Official Languages Act and which ones do not?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: I can give you examples that are more flagrant than others. For example, I know that my colleagues in British Columbia would be the first to come here and say that they have a bill on the school issue but that the proposed structure and even the resources are very far from perfect. I would prefer to let them talk to you themselves about the details. The Commissioner would no doubt be in a better position to talk about it.

There are other cases, for example in Nova Scotia, where there is a law—it was in the news recently—, but where the meaning of that act has not been respected in some areas in terms of homogeneous French schools. There are other cases where the structures are still being set up. In think that most provinces have gone forward by proposing bills. They are at the stage of setting up the structures. There are areas where there is more goodwill than elsewhere and where the resources are sufficient. In others, the structures are in place but there are not enough resources for management, for the institutions, for the teaching staff, etc.

I can give you the example on Newfoundland and Labrador, which, under Mr. Tobin, has reached an agreement with Mrs. Copps. A school management system is being set up that seems, up to now, to satisfy the francophones of Newfoundland and Labrador.

My answer isn't as cut and dried as your question. It is more a comment about resources than about management structures and intentions that are better in some areas than they are in others. In general, it is an issue that requires a lot of time, and we deplore that fact. It is deplorable that it has been almost two decades since the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and section 23. Spending so much time and money on court cases has taken the wind out of the sails of many communities.

In short, 20 years later, we are still setting up structures like those in New Brunswick. You understood a long time ago that a dual structure with two homogeneous systems was important and you set it up when you headed the government.

Senator Louis Robichaud: There is no case pending before the courts at this time.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Yes. For example, in Prince Edward Island there are certain technical problems regarding one institution we are demanding and the government is alleging that the students could be bused to another institution one hour's drive from there.

• 1615

You see, in the end, where the core of the school management issue lies, and the importance of homogeneous institutions.

Senator Louis Robichaud: In cases like the one you have just mentioned, is it your association that is taking the government to court or is it the local school authorities?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: I work at the national federation. In most cases, in each province outside Quebec, there is a political group, a group of representatives that normally lead the fight against the provincial government, either with parents' committees or with the school board. It is mostly provincial representatives.

Senator Louis Robichaud: And the court costs are covered by the federation?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: No. There is...

Senator Louis Robichaud: You are not asking for a budget to...

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: The first reflex is to go to federal government's legal claims program. If the project is allowable under the criteria—sometimes they are, in other cases, less—financing is granted. When it is not, we often have fund-raising drives in the communities where we use the resources granted by the Francophone and Acadian institutions to lead those fights.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Robichaud, have you finished? You still have two minutes of allotted time.

Senator Louis Robichaud: I will pick up another theme later.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Agreed. Mrs. Finestone, you had a question. Can it be dealt with in two minutes? Do you wish to use senator Robichaud's two minutes?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I'm very curious. Gino, you're quoting figures in support of the reason you're here today. Are you strictly addressing the support to official language community organizations and institutions, which is now at $21.8 million? You're not calculating the $207.2 million accorded through the allocation of funds to all the institutions, are you?

[Translation]

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Specifically, we are affected by the column where the total is $21 million, but we cannot grow without the rest of the envelope, which goes to the government, to support programs for school management. In our view, it is the total envelope that must be improved. It is an indivisible whole.

The Joint Chair (The Hon. Sheila Finestone): That is exactly the reason for my question. You don't want to increase only the amount granted to organizations that provide the leadership, but also what is used to finance everything that allows the minority language community to function and receive services in French. It is not a question of official languages. It is a question of services in your language.

I only want to ask one question. Do you believe it is also the families' responsibility to ensure that their children and their environment can live in French as much as possible? Let's say that when we turn on the television, it's usually a French channel; when we look for a school for our children, we look for a French school first. How do you see the merger of culture and language for the whole thing to be alive?

[English]

Don't worry, Mauril. I was waiting, because you're going to pick up all the mistakes I make. That's going to be perfect.

So although the financing dollar goes into the pot you're looking at, it's really divided right across the country. The need, however, is for all parts of the services and the institutions so that the services in French are available and the linguistic content and lifestyle is available. Is that an accurate assessment?

[Translation]

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: If I understand you correctly, Mrs. Finestone, what you are saying is that we are here to claim our $21 million. We are aware of the importance of the overall amount of $210 million. We see it as a set of measures. The blitz we are making, today and yesterday, that we call Team Francophonie, is to bring up the issue of the envelope because everything is interconnected. That is money that must be used to incite provincial governments to offer services in French, school management, etc.

• 1620

You also asked if we encouraged families to live in French as much as possible. I would tell you that we have no choice. We know that the assimilation phenomenon occurs more readily in certain places. The school, for example, can be an important place for assimilation. So having a homogeneous French school is very important. If the school is not homogeneous, it becomes a place of assimilation. If French is not spoken in the family, the family becomes an important place for assimilation.

According to studies on assimilation, television is one of the most important factors. That is why the FCFA strongly encourages the CRTC to favour the coming of French television and favours TVA's project of becoming a national chain. We view getting compulsory distribution last week as a victory.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you. It is now Mr. Muise's turn.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would first like to thank our witnesses today. As an Acadian from Nova Scotia, I would like to make a comment about Mr. Plamondon's statements. I think it is more because of a way of thinking if Acadians seem to do things more calmly, and not as visibly. But I also think, as Mr. LeBlanc said in his comments, that when we are needed we are there and we make our presence felt vigorously enough.

That is my first comment. I understand what you are saying, but I at least wanted to present the argument.

I would also like to ask you, Mr. LeBlanc, what the FCFA thinks Heritage Canada's role should be in the context to the Canada-community agreements.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: The department's role is very important. Obviously that is where most of the direct financing comes from for organizations. In addition, one of the interesting things that the communities appreciate, I believe, is the allocation mechanism. The idea that is at the heart of the Canada-community agreements is that of partnership. It is no longer only a question of money allocated by Heritage Canada. The communities divide the funds. Each community, in Nova Scotia, in Acadia, has an overall development plan and funds are allocated on the basis of established priorities. Heritage Canada plays a role within that structure.

There is another element on which there is to be a report shortly, which is the interdepartmental level. Heritage Canada is to help the FCFA set up a mechanism whereby, as required under Part VII of the Official Languages Act, in sections 41 and 42, departments other than Heritage Canada should normally inject funds. The Privy Council has asked Mr. Donald Savoie to prepare a study on this matter. We are expecting it shortly and we hope that Heritage Canada will be in a position to help us.

Returning to the idea of partnerships, the department must also consult the communities. I talked about it a little in my presentation; it is very nice to have overall development plans to develop a partnership to set priorities, but Mrs. Copps is finalizing her new budget and we have yet to be consulted by the department on the nature of our needs.

We know the deadlines are coming up. The social union committee is to meet before Christmas. The new budget should be submitted to Cabinet before Christmas and we, both the FCFA and its members, are still waiting to be consulted on the results of the evaluations of these agreements.

These agreements have been in existence for three to five years, depending on the areas. We have evaluated them; we are in a position to say what our needs will be for the next five years but we have not been consulted yet. I am confident that Mrs. Copps and her civil servants will respect their partnership commitment and will come to see us before proposing new numbers to the social union committee and to Cabinet.

• 1625

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Gino, how do you know the minister has to have her figures in at the date you just outlined?

[Translation]

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: We imagine that the budget must be prepared...

The Joint Chair (The Hon. Sheila Finestone): You imagine, but you don't know.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: No, but I have received good indications that it should be before Christmas.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Gino, your comment leads me to another question. The vast majority of the organizations seem to be facing financing problems. Can the government do something else to help them, aside from granting funds?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: There may have an incorrect perception of the organizations. There seems to be a belief that they are completely dependent on the federal government, on public money, and that they lack autonomy. We have discussed this issue at length recently. For example, when we go into the community, at the local level, we see that organizations like the Francophone theatre in Baie Ste-Marie receives funds not only from Heritage Canada, but also from ticket sales, sponsors and partners. In the end, the closer one gets to the community, the more we see a diversification in terms of financing. One mustn't believe that we are 100 per cent dependent on Heritage Canada.

Montfort Hospital is another excellent example of diversification; we fought a battle, raised awareness in a community that is much broader than the government and raised a challenge in court without any recourse to public money. The close one gets to the local level, the more diversification we see in terms of activities and development.

I will concede, however, that it is perhaps more difficult for political groups and community representatives to find sponsors or financing. That is quite normal. The Canadian Parliament supports official languages communities and it must support them to ensure that they are represented in the governments.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you. Mr. McTeague.

Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr. Bélanger wanted to ask a question.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): The parliamentary secretary is last.

[Translation]

Mr. Dan McTeague: I didn't know he was a Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. LeBlanc, I very much enjoyed your intervention here today.

You have quoted examples of where the federal government could do more to promote the French fact in British Columbia. I seem to recall that you also talked about the Yukon. Am I to understand that in these regions more people could benefit from this to get bilingual jobs, people who are currently without work?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Government changes are more than in style; it is a federal government reality that it wants to transfer responsibilities to the provinces and privatize services to reduce the size of the State. At the federal level, we have specific rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under the Official Languages Act, we have recourse to the Commissioner of Official Languages if our rights are infringed upon. As soon as a responsibility does not come under federal jurisdiction, for example in the Whitehorse health case to which you alluded, our recourses are reduced, almost nonexistent. Who then becomes the trustee of our rights? Who protects our rights? It becomes less obvious. It may be a province or a private company. That is when we suffer real losses.

The Commissioner's report is excellent; it is a gem. It shows to what extent it is a very subtle loss of rights. I have given you examples to show that we do not necessarily have the resources to evaluate the scope of these changes and that we risk getting caught short. In the end, there is an erosion of our rights.

It is interesting to note that Mr. Massé, the President of the Treasury Board, has set up a working group headed by Mr. Yvon Fontaine that should soon present a report on the effect of these changes on the Francophone and Acadian communities.

• 1630

The federation and the millions of Francophones outside Quebec hope that once the recommendations are made there will be resources or something else that will allow us to analyse how those changes are made. In addition, there may be areas in our communities where we would have the ability to offer certain services in French in order to prevent the erosion of our rights and a loss.

I'm throwing this idea out to you. We see that there is a subtle erosion, but a real and significant erosion of our rights. We do not necessarily have the capacity to analyse all these governmental changes. They are enormous. But each time we leave the federal level to go to the private sector, to go to the provinces, there is a real danger of an erosion of our rights.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Are you aware of the problems or tensions in Quebec's minority Anglophone population caused by the budget cuts imposed by the PQ government? Is talking to the Quebec minority about its problems and its future one of your concerns?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: We have relationships with the minority in Quebec through groups such as Alliance Québec, or the Quebec Farmers' Association, of which Mr. Maynard is the President. We have good relationships with the members of the Anglophone community in Quebec. Obviously, if you are talking to me about provincial government cutbacks, it would be inappropriate for me to express political views on this matter, since I am the representative of the communities outside Quebec.

Mr. Dan McTeague: On the other hand, you have something in common, do you not?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Absolutely. I would say that we have many affinities. We fight common battles.

In terms of health, for example, in the Beauce region, in the Eastern Townships, there are real erosion problems. In addition, there are demographic problems. I remember having a discussion with Constance Middleton-Hope, who was telling me that many of the young people in our communities were leaving Quebec to go live elsewhere. Keeping Anglophone youths in Quebec is a real problem. The two examples I have just quoted are real problems and in that sense there are truly common points in our struggles.

On the other hand—and I believe the leaders of the Anglophone community in Quebec recognize this—we cannot point to a symmetry between the two. There remains an associative network, a network of institutions in the Anglophone community in Quebec that is somewhat more developed than in our communities. There are the McGill and Concordia universities, among others. They have first-class institutions whereas we are starting to get some. The Université de Moncton is almost 30 years old. That is the work of Mr. Robichaud. We are starting to get institutions, but we are not at the same level of development. In general, I think that it is agreed that there is asymmetry in the level of development in our two communities. We recognize that.

Mr. Dan McTeague: I hope there are no students here from Laurentian University or the University of Ottawa.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Or from the Université Sainte-Anne, etc. There are others.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you. Mrs. Vautour from the New Democratic Party.

Mrs. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): First I would like to thank you for your presentation. As an Acadian, I also want to thank you for keeping our language alive. Thirty years ago we could not be served in French in our own communities because everything was done in English.

We know that in New Brunswick the SAANB was forced to close its doors this summer because of a lack of financing. How many organizations like that one have been forced to do so across the country? . I think it is important that we see concrete examples of the effects of these cuts. The closing of the SAANB in New Brunswick is a concrete example of the effects of the cutbacks. Can you give us other ones like that?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Yes, I can give you other examples. In most of our organizations we have had to reduce the number of working men and women. Without going into the small details, we have had to reduce the number of hours worked, for example.

You are correct, this summer the SAANB had to close its doors. There are areas of activity we would like to develop but we don't have enough resources for development. There are situations where we would like to act or demand our rights when faced with a cutback, but we don't have the resources.

• 1635

That is partly the idea behind Team Francophonie. I could have sat down with the 45 people we have met in the last two days, told you what I am saying today and tried to convince you that we need an increase. The strength of the Team Francophonie, some of whose members are here, is that each has a provincial reality, a local reality. In the meetings we have had with many of you, we have been able to talk about real things, things that happen in our communities. Those cutbacks have really hurt. There is no doubt that there has been an erosion and a decrease in the level of activity that we might have had. There is no doubt about that. If we want to have linguistic duality as a basic principle in Canada, we have to commit a minimum of resources to keep the institutions we have. In addition, we have to start acting, as I was saying earlier, in new areas where we have not always been active.

In many communities we are now concerned about health. People tell themselves that they fought in the field of education and got school management. Now they are telling themselves that what would be interesting is to have social services, health services, in French in their communities. It is not necessary to build hospitals or create infrastructures, but there need to be people who provide medical services in French. The health sector has probably been slowed down because of the cutbacks. I assure you that there are numerous examples of places where there have had to be staff reductions and reductions in the areas of activity. That obviously hurts a lot. Our ability to act has been reduced.

At the same time, as Canadian citizens we accepted that our fiscal load needed to be reduced. We aren't saying that there should not have been any cuts. We accept that there was a responsibility at that level. But at the same time, as a government, we have to choose in what areas we are going to cut and in which ones we are going to invest.

Mrs. Angela Vautour: What interests me is that you are ready to accept the cutbacks. In the context of national unity as part of a major concern, we try to demonstrate to Quebeckers that the French language is a real language that means something in the country, but then we impose cutbacks that directly affect Francophone communities outside Quebec.

I see that we are saying one thing and doing another. If I were a separatist, I would say that we have all the proof in the world that the Liberal government is not serious about saving the French language. It's important for the country and I believe you have given some very good reasons. I am worried because we say that national unity is a very important issue today, that it is important. We believe in a Canada that includes Quebec, but we give the separatists ammunition for them to say that Francophones outside Quebec are neglected. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that.

What I learned two weeks ago that surprised me is that in Summerside we are at the Supreme Court to get a French school there. Do you have any information about this? Could you enlighten us a little more about this case? I didn't think that we had to go that far to get a school. I would have thought that since there are Francophones, they would have gotten a school and people would have gone on to other things. Have we gone backwards over the years?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: You say the federal government is sending messages by not supporting us. There have been successes under all the governments, all political parties included. There have been cutbacks, especially since 1992-93. We cannot deny that, it is on paper. At the same time, there has been a political commitment from this government, and I am pleased to hear Mr. Mark say that the Reform Party also supports the concept of bilingualism. There were still some successes at that time, but at the same time there has no doubt been some erosion with the cutbacks that were made and that is why we are coming to see you today to tell you that we are in a new budget context, that there is a surplus on the horizon and that one of the priorities, from the point of view of Canadian unity and linguistic duality, could be that there be coast to coast mobility for Francophones. We could reinject funds that would allow us to maintain that vitality and to demonstrate to certain Quebec citizens that in fact, in Canada, there can be some vitality outside Quebec.

• 1640

The other question you asked me dealt specifically with Mr. Binns' government in Prince Edward Island, the situation in Summerside. I alluded to it briefly in response to Mr. Robichaud's question. They want to take buses to transport the students from that region to the Évangéline region, in the west of the island, where there is a homogeneous French school. The provincial government is challenging the construction of a new school on the grounds that it is reasonable to transport the children to the Évangéline region which, in some cases, is more than an hour away by bus each morning and evening.

Of course the FCFA deplores the fact that they are refusing to build the school. In fact, I believe the provincial government has spent a considerable amount of money in court to challenge the island's Acadian community's demand for its own school in Summerside. It is deplorable that so much money is being spent on a court challenge when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a priori, seems to say that the Acadian community is right. Yet there is a case before the courts. That is about where things stand.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): OK? Is that all?

An MP: Yes, thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I encourage the people of Summerside to hold on because I did that for four years when I was young. To go to high school we had to travel 40 miles. They were miles and not kilometres in those days; I'm not that old but they were miles. So, morning and night, we had to travel 66 kilometres to go to school. It wasn't easy, but it was worth it.

I would like to welcome Mr. LeBlanc, Mrs. Henrie and Mr. Barrette and congratulate them on their initiative. We had in fact talked about it. I have been quite happy to see this team circulating in the halls of Parliament during the last two days, meeting MPs, senators and ministers from all parties. I think it has been very useful and I am confident that it will bear fruit. At this time I would like to invite the opposition parties that are represented here to formally inform the government of their support for these demands, in writing. That would be most useful. That is what we are doing here.

When we were in a situation of cleaning up the finances—and Mr. LeBlanc said it very well—the minority communities, being part of the same country, agreed to sign these agreements. Now that the finances seem to be somewhat back on track—at least the deficit has been eliminated and we are talking about a small surplus—it would be normal to improve certain budgets, not only for the Canada-community agreements, but also for the envelope we are discussing. What we have been doing during the last two days fits quite well with the schedule leading to budget decisions that we will all hear about at the same time in February.

I am also happy to hear Mr. LeBlanc say that there have been interesting developments, even if we have lived through budget cutbacks during the last three years. In Ontario, there were certain issues that I took to heart. One of them was the issue of school management 15 years after the charter. In fact, since last fall we have been setting up, all over the province, Francophone school boards. The Canadian government is putting in $90 million over five years. We went to get that. Mrs. Copps went to get that.

And, during these years there has nevertheless been the fairly significant development in community radio that you alluded to, Mr. LeBlanc. We expect to have a national network of these radio stations soon. That is another infrastructure that will help our communities grow.

Like you, I applaud the CRTC's decision—perhaps I shouldn't, but I'm doing it anyway—to extend TVA all across the country and to make it a basic service.

• 1645

I hope the TFO channel will soon be broadcast in Quebec, as it is in New Brunswick. But there seem to be reservations at Télé-Québec and elsewhere; I hope we will be able to bypass them.

We must not forget to mention that there is a growing network of theatres growing outside Quebec. Although we agree that there have been cutbacks that have put the brakes on some efforts, those are now over and done with and we hope to increase certain envelopes. In the meantime, however, there has nevertheless been a continuing development of the infrastructure that supports the communities.

There are challenges to be met, and I have taken note of one in particular, the implementation of Part VII, sections 41 and 42, of the Official Languages Act. You are perfectly right in saying that although there have been efforts since 1988, when the amendment we have talked about was adopted, and 1993, they have not borne fruit. We are in agreement on this subject. In fact, the study you alluded to will soon be completed and will propose tangible ways of implementing sections 41 and 42, as the government did when it decided that the Treasury Board had to share the responsibility for section 42 with Heritage Canada. I recognize that there have been efforts in that area and they will soon be increased.

There is another challenge to be met, that of the colleges. We will have to look into it because Francophone colleges outside Quebec are facing financing problems and their infrastructures need to be fixed. I hope that in the coming years we will be able to make room to help them financially. Those are the challenges facing our communities. Health issues are also a challenge. I will not bite at the bait offered by Mr. Plamondon; we will let time settle things, as he will soon see. We have to be aware of what is going on in that area. We have to ensure that our communities have access to those services even if they are not enshrined in section 80(2). I am talking about "our communities" because I am part of them. I am not shy about saying this and if someone raps me on the knuckles, so be it. I am one of those who firmly believe in the linguistic duality of this country.

I insist on telling you that you are doing very well and that I don't blame you for anything. You are right in believing that we will consult you on the agreements. We are waiting for you to finish your evaluation exercise. You estimate that will be at the end of November. At that time, it is understood that we will consult you, just as the minister consulted you when she went to your annual meeting in Newfoundland, and just as there have been consultations last year in Ottawa or even in Winnipeg. Notwithstanding what might not please some people around this table, there is continuous consultation between the Canadian government and its communities, and, in my opinion, that will continue.

It would be interesting, Mrs. Vautour, to go around the table and to ask if there is really a place for Francophones in Canada. Mrs. Vautour, you are a fine example of that since you come from a Maritime province, just like our colleague Mark Muise. I come from Ontario. Senator Fraser speaks very good French, just like Mr. Plamondon and even Mr. Mark. I learned today that his party now supports bilingualism across Canada. Bravo! You must admit that around this table there is an interesting image of Francophones in Canada.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Would you now like to respond to Mr. Bélanger's remarks, Mr. LeBlanc?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Yes, very briefly. I am delighted and I am happy, Madam Chair, to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that we will in fact be consulted, in this spirit of partnership, before Mrs. Copps tables numbers about the communities' needs before the decision makers in Cabinet. That reassures me and I am happy about that. We are open and very available to meet with the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister as soon as we have those numbers. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): We are ready to move on to the second round of questions. Mr. Mark, do you have any other comments?

[English]

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes, I do. They're just a couple of short questions. Thank you, Madam Joint Chair.

• 1650

I can certainly tell the parliamentary secretary that I have studied French throughout my public schooling.

Senator Fernand Robichaud: Your wife can teach you as well.

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes. In fact, beginning when I came to Ottawa last summer, throughout the fall, and right through till winter, I actually took French lessons. I found they were pretty gruelling. But I do plan to spend some time in Saint-Jean to get into the immersion part of becoming bilingual.

What I would like to do is agree with you, in that the grass roots is where the pitch is in terms of funding. Having been a public school teacher all my life, I'm very familiar with the immersion programs in schools. Where I come from, they began the immersion right up throughout the senior grades, but they found with the downloading of the provincial government that the local school board just could not justify extending immersion classes from grades 10 to 12. So they had to stop at grade 9.

As we listen to this debate today, I get more of the feeling that it's really about money. I come back to my original question in this whole business of arranging a partnership and agreement between the provinces and the federal government: What role does money have to play? Is that essentially the problem, or is it the use of the money that is allocated? Or is it the amount of money?

[Translation]

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: As I was telling you, when we spend money, we do so in a very, very tight framework. That is the case when we spend the monies allocated to Canadian Francophone institutions or organizations. We identify the priorities in cooperation with the Department of Canadian Heritage and we then go ahead with the unfolding of these projects or exercises to ensure the vitality of our communities.

The amounts granted to support official languages programs are not enormous; we are talking about 0.1 per cent, more or less, of the total federal budget. We are not talking about the Department of National Defence here, or about very, very significant amounts of money. We hope there will be a significant increase in the amounts given to us.

As for the accountability for the amounts spent, we are also very rigorous at the community level. We are confident that the same thing is true at the level of the provinces and that when the federal government gives them money they spend it in the areas of activity for which it is designated. We are not part of the accountability process at that level but it would be interesting to see where the money given to provincial governments by the federal government goes and ensure that it is spent for the intended purposes.

Following Mr. Mark's comments on his appreciation of bilingualism and the importance he gives it, I would like to tell him that the members of the FCFA would be happy to meet with him, and with members of his party, to talk about this issue. I sense that there is an opening there. Where we might disagree regarding the bill for a new Canada that was tabled by your leader is that we believe that the federal government plays a very, very important role in maintaining what we have in terms of linguistic duality. In this bill, you are proposing to transfer this power to the provinces. In our opinion, it would be very, very dangerous to have only exclusive provincial jurisdiction as is proposed in your bill on a new Canada. We could have discussions that might allow the Reform Party to understand better the stakes for the Francophone and Acadian communities. But I applaud your opening.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Mark, is that enough?

Mr. Inky Mark: That's fine, thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): On the departmental side, do either Mr. Bélanger or Mrs. Finestone have any questions? We are beginning the second round.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Is it my turn?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Yes, it's your turn. Go ahead, Mrs. Finestone.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I wonder, Mr. Barrette or Madame Henrie, if you have anything you'd like to add before I continue with my questions. We haven't heard from either of you. Where are you from?

[Translation]

Mrs. Manon Henrie (Liaison Officer, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada): I am from Eastern Ontario, from the region . . .

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You're allowed to speak bilingually.

[Translation]

I can also speak in French, but I chose to use my mother tongue.

[English]

Where are you from?

• 1655

[Translation]

Mrs. Manon Henrie: I am from Eastern Ontario, from the Rockland area, more specifically from a village that has a very Francophone name, Clarence Creek.

The Joint Chair (The Hon. Sheila Finestone): That is not very far from the riding of our Parliamentary Secretary.

Mrs. Manon Henrie: That's true.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Good. And you, Mr. Barrette?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Barrette: I was born in Montreal. I am originally a Quebecker, but I have lived a long time in the Northwest Territories and in Alberta. I now live in Ottawa.

The Joint Chair (The Hon. Sheila Finestone): You therefore speak both languages fluently, do you not?

Mr. Richard Barrette: Yes.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Good. So you feel much more comfortable coming here because you're talking about the issues concerning colleagues and citizens who are francophone, and your comfort level is in expressing yourself in French.

Isn't this a wonderful country, where you can do both languages with equal comfort, and depending on where you are and to whom you are speaking, you can adapt to that language. There are not many countries in the world where this can be done in peace and harmony and with goodwill. I think that's the beauty of this country.

Ms. Manon Henrie: We're very talented.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I beg your pardon?

Ms. Manon Henrie: We're very talented and virtuous.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): And virtuous—well that's...and virtuoso as well.

One of the things this committee is considering doing is examining the impact of the change with Treasury Board and its responsibility vis-à-vis heritage, and getting out there and speaking to the communities to see what is missing with the transfer of responsibilities, particularly in job training and health. Was there an erosion? Where is it? Where are the holes? Where are the gaps? What are the problems? This is so we can put together a report that might meet the concerns you're expressing but may not be able to quantify.

Would that be helpful?

[Translation]

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Yes, it wouldn't hurt if you challenged those changes. While it is up to you to determine your mandate, it might be interesting if you broadened it a little and looked at governmental changes without forgetting to look at financing issues and priority areas that may be coming up for Francophones and for the Anglophone community in Quebec. That is in your hands. The issues you have identified are no doubt very important. It would certainly be useful to go into the field and meet these communities.

I would also suggest that you broaden the scope of your study. It is interesting to see how the federal State has evolved. This program has only been in existence for 30 years and it would be useful to evaluate the Official Languages Act after 30 years.

The Joint Chair (The Hon. Sheila Finestone): Mr. LeBlanc, you have talked about the importance of consultation and shown your appreciation for the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary.

I will take this opportunity to ask you the following question. We are proposing a consultation with the Canadian population. We have drafted questions we would like to ask them so that we are well prepared when we meet them. As the federation that brings together a lot of Francophone organizations, would you be prepared to look at our draft and propose changes to it? Would you be prepared to work with us in a partnership?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Yes. I have no objection to that suggestion. Allow me to underline that the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne has already submitted a project to the department. During the last year, we did a study on what we were discussing as an organization. We asked ourselves what were the issues we were trying to fight for and how we were addressing them. We called that study "Le renouvellement du discours à la FCFA".

One interesting report, submitted by the PGF company, made a bit of noise this summer. That report goes a lot further than the discussions we have heard up to now. It discusses health, the economy, assimilation, the way we define the challenge of assimilation, etc. In the context of the second phase, we will take this discussion paper and will try to determine what will be the growth poles will be for the future, how we can improve the political discourse, how we can facilitate communications between Francophones but also with the Anglophones, how we can extend a hand and explain why we have homogeneous schools, etc.

• 1700

This project has been submitted to the Department of Heritage Canada. We are pursuing much the same approach even though we are obviously not parliamentarians and do not have the same resources as your joint committee. We are pursuing this joint consultative approach and are speaking the same language. In fact, it would be interesting if you looked at the allocation mechanisms for financing during the last 30 years, at the changes within the federal government and their effects on Francophones. I am therefore answering yes to your question. We are prepared to work with you and to review these documents.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Will you share that document—not your project, but the document, the findings and the process?

[Translation]

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Yes, absolutely.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Very good. I would appreciate that very much. Thank you very much, Madam.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you, Madam Finestone. Monsieur Plamondon.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you. Mr. LeBlanc, after the comments of my friend Mark on the topic of Acadian dynamics, I would like to tell you that I am in complete agreement with you about your remarkable struggles for the survival of French.

On the other hand, I would like to point out that if my colleague Mark were a Nova Scotia MP and a unilingual Francophone, he could not do his job efficiently. In Quebec, during the second-last election, four members from the Equality Party were elected, of which three were unilingual Anglophones. They were able to do their work well because in Quebec there is really room for the English language minority.

I am coming back, Gino, to the answer you gave to Dan. You talked about comparisons and about cooperation with the Anglophone minorities in Quebec and the Francophone minorities outside Quebec. You were saying that some of their demands were common. I would like to know if you have made a detailed comparison of the rights of both minorities, for example in the field of access to health services. Education and health are the two major priorities of all governments in the world, of all peoples and nations. Have you evaluated how the monies the Quebec government has spent on health and education have been spent? If we had the results of such a comparison on hand, we might have an argument that would allow us to push the federal government toward a greater allocation of funds to the minority that is most in danger, the Francophone minority outside Quebec.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): When you're sick, you're sick. It doesn't matter what language you are sick in; you need service.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Excuse me, I did not understand because my earphone was not working.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Go ahead, I'm sorry.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I still have the floor, Madam Chair? Thank you.

From this comparison, and knowing exactly how much the Anglophones in Quebec have, the Francophone minority outside Quebec could say more loudly that it is claiming the same thing and is demanding more money so that it can get as much as the Anglophones in Quebec. I am not saying that we should set aside or abandon the Anglophone minority in Quebec; that is not what I am leading up to. When you answered Dan, you did not say that if the Francophones outside Quebec had the same thing as Anglophones in Quebec that would already be a big step forward. When he testified before the committee, the Commissioner of Official Languages recognized that. He believes that the Francophone minority is in more danger than the Anglophone minority. A week ago there was a rather dramatic and alarming headline in the newspaper Le Droit about an analysis of the most recent Francophone minority statistics in Ontario from Statistics Canada. I would like to hear you discuss this subject with me.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: What link are you making between health and the article in Le Droit?

• 1705

Mr. Louis Plamondon: No, there is no link. I am not saying that the Official Languages Act, when it was adopted, had to allow a Francophone or an Anglophone to live anywhere in Canada in his own language. It was, let's say, the ideal of Mr. Trudeau and it was a valid objective.

But I feel that since then, for a few years, we have transformed that objective to make the Official Languages Act an official hymn to bilingualism. The objective, at the beginning, was not to make Francophones bilingual so that they could get jobs. It wasn't that. It was that Francophones be able to live in their communities, outside Quebec, as Anglophones could in all communities in Quebec. If one moved from one area to another, one would have the right to the same services.

I wonder if we should not start insisting on the fact that the right to exist implies, in addition to education, the right to health services. I may be stretching these rights a little, but it seems to me that's the way it goes. When we compare the situation of Francophones in terms of the Montfort Hospital, that we see the struggle they had to undertake to challenge a decision by the provincial government, and compare it to the situation of Anglophones in Quebec, we see a great difference. That was the meaning of my question.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: I cannot stop myself from reacting to the comment you made to Mr. Muise, that he would not be able to do his job if he was a unilingual Francophone. In Acadia, it seems to me, a unilingual Anglophone could be the MP for Acadie—Bathurst and do his job. Perhaps the same is true of some regions in Ontario. The fact remains that I do not think that we would be able . . .

Mr. Louis Plamondon: It is a bit more difficult outside Quebec.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: I think that if Mr. Godin were a unilingual Francophone, he could still do his job. I do not see a link with the parallel you are drawing. I wanted to underline that it is not only in Quebec that a unilingual person can be an MP.

Let us go back to what you were saying about health. Yes, I believe that health can be an orientation that we should take in the future. You are completely right. Unfortunately, the federal health act does not impose, in its basic conditions, dual linguistic services for health or in the area of services specific to the Francophone community. We have recently made efforts to correct that. The FCFA has recently done a study on the health issue and it is clearly an important one.

As for your comparison with the Anglophones in Quebec, where you say that they have a fuller institutional status, to use that in order to get more does not strike me as a recommendable strategy. That could be turned against the other community or allow people to believe that we are not as advanced as they are. In fact, they have their own problems. I insist on saying that. There is a decrease in the Anglophone population in Quebec that is a real problem. In that sense, we don't want to live exactly like the Anglophones in Quebec. They have a demographic problem that does not interest us.

We have to pay attention to the comparisons we make. I do not think that Francophone communities everywhere want hospitals like those in Montreal. At least not of that size. In some communities we need hospitals, as the struggle for Montfort shows. That struggle is important and is a question of national unity. However, in other cases health services can mean setting up clinics, services in French, social services, etc.

It is very important to us and we would like to find a way of forcing the provincial governments to act on the health issue, which is their responsibility, obviously. For Francophones, it would be essential, in our opinion, to have that and we are working toward this end. That is why I say that with a significant increase of the resources allocated to our communities, it could be a significant pole for growth. That would mean setting up a new team to study how to deal with it.

As for your last comment that the Official Languages Act has become a hymn to bilingualism rather than a hymn to linguistic duality, some examples show the opposite to be true, including those on school management. It is not perfect and there are gaps, but the principle of homogeneous schools is an example of the application not of bilingualism but of linguistic duality, in the spirit of the law, as Mr. Trudeau wished to impart it. In any case, it is in the spirit of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission to implement linguistic duality.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I would not like what I said to be misinterpreted. Mr. LeBlanc, I was not saying that we had to take back the budgets for people in the Anglophone minority. I was saying that from the point of view of budgetary increases, a greater proportion should go to Francophone minorities—we would also increase that of the Anglophone minority—because the Francophones are in a tighter spot and their obliteration is a greater threat. That is what my comments meant. It was not to deprive Anglophones of their rights, of which we are quite proud in Quebec.

• 1710

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Yes, the federal department of health could, if the political will was there to do so, grant funds to develop projects to that end.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you. Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Chair, I would like to go back to this last exchange that I found most interesting. I wonder if we are not witnessing a fairly significant change in attitude; previously, we would have seen representatives of the Quebec government taking stands that were not always in favour of the rights of Francophones in certain cases, perhaps even before the Canadian courts.

Are we seeing a change in attitude that would allow us to believe that we could see a right to health services in French enshrined in the legislation, perhaps even in the some constitutional texts, a right that would be supervised by the Canadian government? I must say I find that very interesting. I hope that some day it will be possible to explore that possibility. I find it very interesting. It is a change that would probably be most welcome.

I would like to come back to something that should be coming up shortly. Unless I am mistaken, the committee has already agreed to meet, or at least to try to meet, the representatives or the president of Mr. Fontaine's group, which is to table a report this month I believe. That may be a little late.

The Joint Chair (The Hon. Sheila Finestone): In mid-January.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It would be in January. So the study will no doubt be postponed until after Christmas. I am not as convinced as you are that this report will be useless. You seem to have doubts about the usefulness of this exercise because the mandate had such a short deadline. According to you, they may not have had enough time for exchanges. But in any case I think we should reserve judgment until we see the report. If you have seen it, you are not much further ahead than I am; in any case, I don't think it has been written.

Last August, I expressed certain reservations about the devolution and the effect that it might have on minority communities. I now think we should wait for the report before deciding, if you agree with this suggestion.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Thank you. On that, in my initial presentation I underlined our reservations about the resources and the deadlines that had been set. Among other things, at one point we felt it would be advisable to explore certain avenues in a more in-depth fashion. We were told that neither the resources nor the time were available to do so.

Nevertheless, I agree with you that the report's recommendations could be of significant importance and scope. We hope they will be adopted by Mr. Massé and by the federal government. We hope that they will be implemented and that the resources will be allocated for a control mechanism, an evaluation mechanism. In fact, at this time when a department wants to go ahead with devolution or privatization, nothing requires that the senior bureaucrats of the deputy minister study the impact on Francophones.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would like to point out to you, Mr. LeBlanc, that three of the members at this table, Mr. Muise, Mrs. Vautour and myself, last year in a study of bill C-29 on the creation of an agency for Parcs Canada . . . Was that it?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I proposed an amendment, seconded by Mr. Mills or Mrs. Vautour and by Mrs. Tremblay, who then represented the Bloc québécois on the heritage committee. We amended the bill. Let's just say that some people were not very happy.

That is simply to tell you that some members of the parliamentary representation are concerned about the issue. At that time, we put in an amendment, which was adopted and is now before the Senate, stipulating that the agency to be set up had to be subject to the Official Languages Act.

• 1715

All that is to say that we are aware of the problem. As far as I am concerned, I am one of those people who are anxious to see the Fontaine report so that we can go in certain directions even if this committee becomes one of the means for its implementation.

That being said, Madam Chair, I would ask you to allow me another comment. I would certainly be remiss if I did not welcome some people who are here today. Since I was elected, it has been a duty and an honour for me to go to communities everywhere, especially those out West that I did not know as well.

I believe we should recognize the presence of the people from British Columbia, of our friends from Saskatchewan and especially of the people of Ontario who must obviously not be forgotten. We even have the President of the Fédération des caisses populaires. I believe it is a good sign that all these people have joined Team Francophonie.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you, Mr. Bélanger, for having welcomed all these people.

For those members of the committee that are still here, Mr. Fontaine's report will not be available until January. However, we are actively negotiating a meeting soon with these people, including Mr. Fontaine, please be assured of that. Thank you.

A voice: Before?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Before.

Mrs. Vautour.

Mrs. Angela Vautour: First, I would like to go back to what was said about the Acadie—Bathurst riding. It was said that Mr. Godin could do his job if he was a unilingual Francophone. I believe it would be very difficult for Mr. Godin or for me to do our work in New Brunswick if we were both unilingual Francophones. I think we have to recognize that. My riding is 50 per cent Anglophones. It would therefore be unfair for me not to be able to communicate in English with the Anglophones.

It would also be unfair for an Anglophone to not be able to meet with Francophones or not be able to answer them in French. Especially in New Brunswick, it would very difficult for me to do my job if I were a unilingual Francophone.

I would also like to ask you if you have any idea of the impact the cutbacks have had in the field of education. We know there have been cuts in the transfers to the provinces. So I am asking the question, because I do not know the answer. Do you know if Francophones and Anglophones have been equally affected by these cuts, or if certain communities were more hard hit than others?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: That's hard to say. Our association is not really part of the discussions between the federal government and the provinces. At certain times we have noticed that when we expected to receive a certain amount of money we got a little bit less. We can go to our provincial governments to see if the transfers were absorbed by the general budget and then transferred to Francophone school management. I have already noted certain situations where we have questions. But since we are not part of the decision-making process, it is very difficult to blame anyone.

To answer your question about equality in the way treatment of Anglophone and Francophone schools, I have to say that I don't know. We have not deemed it fit to do a study on whether Anglophones were more affected than Francophones. I know that there are federal funds that apply specifically to immersion, and to programs to train language instructors. Beyond that, it is difficult for me to answer because we are not really party to discussions between governments. I can only talk about funds that come from . . .

Mrs. Angela Vautour: Have you had complaints from Francophone communities saying that they were more affected than . . . Have you had any such complaints?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Yes, yes. There have been complaints. Our concern is to see that if the federal government granted additional funds for school management, would those funds be allocated according to the wishes of the community.

You are right in saying, Mrs. Vautour, that we sometimes ask ourselves questions. It is very difficult for us to say how the money is distributed and whether it should go to one program or another. It is almost impossible for us to do so. But you are right to say that some of our concerns are in that area and that we would like to be in a better position to identify how the funds are spent once they are transferred to the provinces. You are right in saying that is a process that should be improved.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): That is a question we can ask the provincial department that is responsible. I see that Mr. Bélanger may have part of the answer.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In fact, the representations that have been made have been fruitful.

• 1720

I quote as an example the agreement between the Canadian and Ontario governments this year on school management. That is a five-year agreement that says the Canadian government will provide, through the Department of Education, $90 million for the implementation of school management.

There are similar agreements with each province, with the exception that this one includes an implementation protocol, in other words a five-year schedule that includes specific objectives about what the money is to be used for and an evaluation mechanism to that end.

It is the first time such a detailed action plan has been integrated into a signed agreement. It is the result of representations that have been made and we hope to do the same thing when other agreements will come up for renewal with other provinces.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): It's tied funding.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's not tied funding. There's a joint agreement signed by both parties that this is what the money will be used for. It's not tied funding, in the sense. It's a joint agreement; it's signed by both parties.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): But I think in light of the discussion that has taken place, there are two sorts of funding. You have your block funding that is not tied.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: This is for official language spending only.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): If the question is whether or not you can judge the amount of funding that goes to English language institutions in Quebec vis-à-vis French language institutions outside of Quebec, I think you're talking about apples and oranges.

First of all, these are established institutions, which are in many cases bilingual. The English-speaking institutions in Quebec are all mandated and must serve in both official languages.

The amount of money that goes out through the CHST is a different kind of thing. If you're going to quantify the whole thing, you're in a pretty sad state of Canadian development.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Chair, I was making reference—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about him.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I was only making reference to the official languages programs of the Ministry of Heritage, in that each province enters into an agreement with the department for official languages support.

In answer to the question Madam Vautour was asking on whether there are areas where there's a sense that some groups may be treated less well than others, and to Monsieur LeBlanc's comments that indeed they had heard, those grumblings have been acted upon. The latest agreement that has been signed is the one with Ontario where there's an action plan, un plan de mise en oeuvre that specifies the three areas where that money is to be used within the mandate of gestion scolaire.

This does not in any way, shape, or form reflect on the CHST. This is strictly the official languages program of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you very much.

Dear colleagues, do you have any other questions or comments? Thank you for your participation. Thank you very much, Mr. LeBlanc. As for you, Mrs. Henrie, it is always pleasure to see you again. The same goes for you, Mr. Barrette. The discussion has been most interesting.

The meeting is adjourned.