LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 1, 1999

• 1535

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order.

The other joint chair, Mrs. Finestone, will be a few minutes late. I would point out, dear colleagues, that now is the time to adopt motions that are favourable to New Brunswick, because we are welcoming witnesses from New Brunswick and there are six of us around the table from New Brunswick.

Senator Simard, I don't believe that you want to have a motion adopted regarding the elections, and I wouldn't either, for that matter.

Senator Jean-Maurice Simard (Edmunston, PC): I'd like to ask the people of New Brunswick to elect a Conservative government.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I'd like to welcome Gino LeBlanc, Micheline Doiron and Paul-André Baril. Gino, this isn't the first time that you have appeared before our committee. As usual, you will give your presentation and we will then proceed to the question period.

In the second hour of this meeting, we will be welcoming the president of ACFO, but there may be a vote in House of Commons before that.

Go ahead, Gino.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc (President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Before beginning my presentation, I'd like to introduce Mr. Paul-André Baril and Ms. Micheline Doiron, who both work with me at the FCFA. Both of them work on matters related to sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act. Please feel free to ask them more specific questions on any points that are of interest to you.

First of all, let me thank you for providing us with this opportunity to discuss the implementation of sections 41 and 42 with you. These provisions set out the federal government's commitment to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and to supporting and assisting their development.

We have always found your committee to be interested in this issue and felt a willingness to help us ensure that this commitment is translated into effective support for the development of official languages communities throughout Canada. As you know, this is an area where results have to date not met our expectations.

Although we are disappointed with the results obtained, we are well aware that the implementation of these provisions posed very special challenges, one of which was the horizontal co-ordination of government action. Secondly, all of this was happening during the government program review, in a time of substantial budget cuts. However, thanks to partners like your committee and the Official Languages Commissioner who took up our representations, the government now has a road map that may help us correct the situation.

Initiatives such as the creation of an interdepartmental fund, called the IPOLC (Interdepartmental Partnership with O.L. Communities), appear to indicate that the government wants to move forward. Our understanding of the government's obligations has also been increased recently: the report by Yvon Fontaine pointed out the importance of a strengthened federal role for the development of official language minority communities, and the report by Donald Savoie provided a detailed analysis of the issue and suggested a number of ways to reach objectives.

Let me also mention the clarification brought by the Supreme Court decision on linguistic rights and the communities. In the recent Beaulac judgment, handed down a few weeks ago, Justice Bastarache ruled, and I quote:

Linguistic rights must, in all cases, be interpreted on the basis of their object, in keeping with the maintenance and enhancement of the official language communities in Canada.

He also mentions the need to interpret linguistic rights as an essential tool in maintaining and protecting official language communities.

• 1540

Thanks to these contributions, the government now has a road map. It is able to better comprehend the difficulties. It has in hand some recommendations for changing the situation.

Today we'd like to speak to you about some of the main conclusions of Donald Savoie's report. In the first place, Mr. Savoie notes that the federal government's approach in this area has been based essentially on projects of all kinds. He talks of unrelated, isolated initiatives. In his opinion, acting in this way is equivalent to trying to meet unbounded needs with limited resources. As he mentions, almost any project imaginable may be considered. In other words, if you don't know where you're going, you can choose any road to get there.

The distinction that Mr. Savoie draws between communities in rural areas and communities in urban areas illustrates how important it is to gain a good understanding of communities and their needs. On this subject, he says that there are at least two francophone minority communities, one rural and the other urban, each with very different needs and requiring policies and programs that are tailored to their needs.

He also speaks of the need to promote a coordinated approach—and this is a very important concept to which I will turn later—with a view to enhancing the vitality of official language minority communities. He believes that federal government policy-makers and decision-makers must step back and take a fresh look at what the government should be doing to promote the development of francophone communities outside Quebec.

Too many departments draw up their action plan by taking up a kind of collection, by going around to the various sections of the department, asking them to contribute something to francophones outside Quebec. The Savoie report deplores this kind of approach and instead suggests strategic plans having clearly identified objectives and strategies for meeting them.

Earlier, I said that the results fell well short of the expectations. There have naturally been difficulties, but we must realize that major milestones have been achieved. We have achieved some successes that show the way.

First, the framework agreement in the cultural sector identifies a number of projects and allocates resources to them over a three-year period. Although this agreement does not contain what could properly be referred to as a comprehensive cultural development plan, and although the negotiations leading up to the agreement were unnecessarily difficult, it represents an achievement that serves as inspiration to go further.

Second, the creation of an interdepartmental fund, as announced in the last budget and proposed in Donald Savoie's report, ensures that resources will be available to support the implementation of sections 41 and 42. This interdepartmental fund has the potential to become a powerful tool in developing strategies and programs targeted at the communities; however, here again, the funding will have to be channelled to support for clearly established strategic initiatives, rather than spread around to support a whole string of completely unrelated projects. We are presently holding talks with officials from Canadian Heritage to develop guidelines for this fund so that it can become a powerful tool, and not simply be considered as spare change to be added to existing funding. One of the points we are raising is the fact that the $6 million fund that was announced now appears to have shrunk to $5 million, supposedly to cover administrative costs.

Third, there is the committee concerned with human resources development for the Canadian francophone community. This committee is composed of an equal number of representatives from the francophone communities and the nine departments which signed a memorandum of understanding in March, 1998. The committee has adopted a specific process for defining a strategy in the fields of economic development and vocational training. It has carried out an in-depth analysis of the situation and the needs. It has also set up a mechanism for community-government collaboration. It has formulated an action plan and received significant—although still inadequate—resources to carry it out. For example, the Human Resources Development Department freed up 5, 7 and $9 million for the next three years for three specific projects.

• 1545

The approach adopted by the Human Resources Development Committee, with all the elements that I have just mentioned, could be adopted in other sectors such as new technologies, health, international development and community development as a whole. The health sector could be used as a control case to gage the commitment of the government and its officials to ensure effective implementation of sections 41 and 42.

When the Honourable Marcel Massé appeared before you on March 9, he acknowledged that, if there is a time when people really feel the need to express themselves in their first language, it surely is when they are being cared for at the hospital or when they are at school.

Professor Donald Savoie identified three causes behind the concern in the health sector: the aging of the population, the deep-seated desire to have access to health services in one's language, and the widespread impression that achievements in the field of health have fallen far behind those in the field of education. These concerns were also echoed in the most recent report of the Official Languages Commissioner, who raised them in the first few lines of his report.

The major changes currently taking place in the health care system are threatening the very slight gains that our communities have made, but they also open up opportunities to innovate in areas such as the organization of community services, the delivery of home care and the use of new technologies to serve remote communities.

It will be said that health is a provincial responsibility. Education is too, but that has not prevented the federal government from supporting the provinces and communities in developing French-language education networks across the country.

Health Canada administers many programs that could make a direct contribution to improving conditions and allow it to show political leadership, thereby encouraging the provincial and territorial governments to do more.

The federal government plays an important role in the field of health. It also has an obligation, almost constitutional in nature, to use its programs and resources to support the development of official language communities. An initiative in the field of health could bring together other federal departments besides Health Canada: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and its rural partnership, Industry Canada, Human Resources Development Canada and Canadian Heritage.

The FCFA has made representations to the provincial governments. That is why the ministers who attended the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Conference of Ministers Responsible for Francophone affairs in Whitehorse, in July 1998, agreed that they would examine, in collaboration with their counterparts responsible for health and training, the situation with regard to French-language training for health care professionals and the delivery of health care services in French in each province and territory, so as to identify opportunities for co-operation.

Can we count on Health Canada to help us develop a genuine health strategy that will contribute, with the co-operation of the provinces and the community-based partners, to the "maintenance and enhancement of official language communities in Canada", to use Justice Bastarache's words?

Health Canada's most recent annual action plan has not been updated since 1996. The Savoie report describes it as not very ambitious, and its objectives and initiatives are half-hearted.

We hope that the time is ripe for providing a fresh impetus. The year of the Canadian Francophonie, the holding of the Eighth Summit of the Francophonie in Moncton and the Games of the Francophonie in Ottawa in 2001 provide an opportunity to get things moving again, to infuse new energy into our efforts.

Canada's ability to assure the development of its French-speaking community, both outside and inside Quebec, is a key element in the national unity debate.

Once again, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to you. We would like to co-operate with you in any way possible. We would also like to take advantage of this opportunity to say that our communities look forward to seeing you on your tour, which is planned for the fall. A trip to the regions will enable you to check out the situation on the ground.

• 1550

Members of the FCFA will be happy to welcome you and do everything possible to facilitate the work. May we also suggest meetings with the officials responsible for program management as well as the provincial authorities in cases where federal responsibilities have been devolved to them?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. LeBlanc, thank you for your presentation as well as your last suggestions. I think I can tell you that the steering committee of the Official Languages Committee has already noted some of these suggestions and expects to meet with federal authorities.

You mentioned the Savoie report on a few occasions. This year, the committee has the rather specific mandate of broaching all the topics set out in Part VII of the Official Languages Act. You must have met Mr. Savoie when he prepared his report. Is the Savoie Report silent about certain things the FCFA would have liked to see it contain, especially regarding Part VII of the Act?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Mr. Savoie's report makes quite specific recommendations. If these were fully implemented, it would already be a major step forward. Mr. Savoie recommended a myriad of things, amongst others, an interdepartmental fund that was established by Ms. Copps in the last Martin budget. But Mr. Savoie recommended a much larger amount, in the order of $20 million if memory serves me, for this interdepartmental fund. Six million dollars was announced for that and now we're talking about $5 million because we're told that $1 million is needed to administer this program.

Another very important recommendation made by Mr. Savoie was the creation of a permanent secretariat to co-ordinate all this. The FCFA was very much in favour of the creation of such a secretariat. Back home, when we try to implement Part VII in the departments, we see that there is no single place to co-ordinate the federal government activities. There's the Department of Canadian Heritage that administers programs and funds to help institutions carry out activities for the promotion of official languages communities. However, as you know, this is a vertical department, whereas Part VII imposes a horizontal obligation: it must be implemented by the 26 targeted departments. This secretariat recommended by Mr. Savoie and that we are actively demanding from the Prime Minister and his officials would be a crucial element for the departments to achieve concrete progress in the implementation of Part VII. You asked us if there was anything missing in the Savoie report. I would answer that if these recommendations were implemented, that would be a major step forward.

There is one other thing that is important to us. Mr. Savoie refers to it, but I want to emphasize this in my presentation here today. We must avoid getting into all kinds of different projects. There's project A, project B, project C, and here's $10,000 from such and such a department for this project. In the long run, this leads us nowhere in terms of development and actions that produce important structures for our communities. Mr. Savoie refers to this to some extent, and it seems to me to be critical.

Right now, there are people deciding how we will spend that $6 million, that has become $5 million, and the officials in the departments are preparing their action plans that they have to table in Parliament. We must convince them to set out a strategy that will lead to significant structural facilities.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you. This is not the first time you have appeared before the committee and I believe you understand the process. The Official Opposition will ask the first questions, then it will be the Bloc Québécois' turn and after that the Liberal Party.

Mr. Goldring.

• 1555

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thank you for your presentation.

Mr. LeBlanc, I'd like to ask about your organization itself, which began in 1975 and now has 16 member associations—nine provincial, three territorial, and four national sectoral associations. Could you explain to me what a sectoral association is? How many member associations did you have in 1975, when it was first formed?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Sure.

[Translation]

As you said, the FCFA brings together the political representatives of francophones outside Quebec. Each province and territory has a political spokesperson group that is federated with the FCFA.

You asked which sectoral groups are members of our federation. Right now, there are four sectors. There's the youth sector, namely the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française; there's the women's sector, which is the Fédération nationale des femmes canadiennes-françaises; there are the lawyers, which is the Fédération des juristes d'expression française; and there's the APF, the Association de la presse francophone for the Canadian francophonie. There are other national sectoral groups, such as the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, with which we work closely.

You also asked me how we were structured in 1975, when our organization was created. At the time, we were called the Fédération des francophones hors Québec. At the outset, we only brought together provincial groups where they existed. There were some very old ones. For instance, the Société Saint-Thomas d'Aquin in Prince Edward Island goes back to the 19th century. This is an Acadian group that was formed over 100 years ago. Other organizations are newer, such the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, which also dates from the 70s, when the Official Languages Act came into effect in Canada and New Brunswick.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: It says here your federation defends the rights and provides legal consultation services. How is your federation funded, and how much funding does your federation receive on an annual basis? On this legal consultation services and defending the rights, are there any specific instances you could mention as examples of what that might be?

[Translation]

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: We are funded by the federal government, by the Parliament of Canada pursuant to the Official Languages Act, through the Official Languages Support Program which used to be administered by the Secretary of State Department and which is now under Heritage Canada. We receive a subsidy of approximately $500,000 a year. This is what's known in English as core funding.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: You're involved in international cooperation projects. Are there any specific examples that might be included in that?

[Translation]

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: I will first answer your question about the legal support that we provide. On the one hand, there is the Fédération des juristes d'expression française which includes associations of francophone lawyers that already existed, notably those in Alberta and New Brunswick. Within the FCFA, we also have a lawyer who can provide legal advice on all kinds of things, such as language rights issues. One example would be school governance in Prince Edward Island. The francophone community in Prince Edward Island is about to go before the courts to demand the right to have French schools in Summerside. The FCFA is a partner of the Summerside parents' team, in Prince Edward Island, to prepare this file.

You asked a question about international development. That's a very recent file, one which is emerging. I was elected two years ago. Since my arrival, this has been something that I wanted to emphasize. The international development that takes place in French is based mainly in Quebec. Ninety-nine percent of the funding may be granted by CIDA or by other agencies. The expertise was centred mainly in Quebec. I thought that our communities had the ability to be players on the international scene. So a year ago, we established the Bureau francophone de la coopération internationale, which will be included in the international development strategies for the francophonie on the eve of the francophone summit in Moncton in September.

• 1600

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: If there's funding allotted to international cooperation projects, do you not feel this would be an uncompetitive...? Is there similar funding on international cooperation for the other major language group in the country, the English? How much of the funding you receive would be devoted to this international cooperation project area of your operation?

[Translation]

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: In fact, there are all sorts of very specific programs within CIDA. I won't go into detail, but I can tell you that the Aboriginal community participates, for example. If you're talking about various groups in Canadian society, I can tell you that Aboriginals have specific international development programs. Obviously, anglophones are present in all CIDA programs. I wanted to highlight the fact that in the Canadian francophonie, Quebec has the expertise. For over 20 years, it has acquired expertise in international development. In our communities, we hadn't gotten very involved in that sector, and that seems to be the way for the future for a society where globalization will be a significant factor.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: How much of the funding would be devoted to that area of the project? Can you guestimate how much? You receive $500 million. Would 10% of it be donated to this international cooperation project? What would the percentage be?

[Translation]

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: It's not $5 million that we receive for that, but $500,000. If it was $500 million, we'd be much better organized.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: How much money would be devoted to it?

[Translation]

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: For the BFCI, we got co-operation from the Department of Foreign Affairs. I must admit that up until last year, it was $50,000. That was peanuts compared to the Foreign Affairs budget. The Canadian francophonie received $50,000. With that amount, we established the Bureau francophone de la coopération internationale. From that point on, we hope to be able to join in projects presented to the Agence de la Francophonie.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: It's $50,000.

[Translation]

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Since I'm not the director-general, I'm not familiar with all the figures, but I'm sure that until last year, it was $50,000.

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

Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. LeBlanc, it's a pleasure to see you again.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Thank you.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I'd like to take this opportunity to mention that two weeks ago, I went to Vancouver and then to Calgary, where I had an opportunity to meet with people in francophone communities. It's incredible how dynamic they are and how determined they are to enhance their language and culture. I'm sure that your organization contributes a great deal to that.

Earlier, you were deploring in a way that there is no strategic plan of attack for a number of issues that are dear to the hearts of the francophone and Acadian communities. You also deplored the fact that some of these approaches were mere sprinkling, or meagre alms. This means that some things emerge, but there is no critical mass being created. Therefore, the results remain well below expectations.

You did however point out that in certain cases, concrete and very significant things have been produced, which led you to suggest certain approaches. One of them caught my attention, and that was health.

I believe that Mr. Justice Bastarache recently indicated that being judge in one's own language was an inherent right, and I believe that he would not need to be pressed for very long to add that being cared for in one's own language is also an inherent right.

But between this very well-founded concern, which I share, that is to provide access to health care in French to francophones in Canada and how to deliver all that, there are a number of unknown factors to be resolved. You pointed out one, and it is significant: health care is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. I'm sure that a number of provinces would be less reluctant than others to see the federal government get involved in this area, but then again, it would all depend on how it's done. We all recall the case of the Montfort Hospital.

• 1605

Do you have any suggestions for us about how the federal government could cooperate with the provinces to give the francophones of Canada access to health care in their own language?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: I'm pleased that you've asked me this question. I'm glad to have with me Paul-André Baril, who devotes most of his time right now to the issue of health care. You've raised the problem in a very specific way. That's the nerve point in this battle.

This requires effort from the federal Department of Health in an area of provincial jurisdiction, but certain very concrete things could be done. We've just undertaken a study on the delivery of services, to determine which delivery mechanisms are the most appropriate. We can't build a hospital in all francophone communities. That's not realistic.

I will let Mr. Baril answer your question. He will explain some interesting approaches in an area that is starting to emerge for us.

Mr. Paul-André Baril (Head, Interdepartmental Affairs, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada): As Mr. LeBlanc said, Health Canada offers programs that it administers itself. That department does not deliver health care services as such, but is involved in the area of prevention.

This department is involved in various other fields that have a direct connection with the public. First of all, we could ensure that francophone minority communities have access to Health Canada programs. Unfortunately, that's not always the case right now. There are many provinces where communities are trying to gain access to Health Canada programs in their language and are not successful in doing so.

Another way would be for Health Canada to play a leadership role to encourage the provinces to be more active. In some cases, we don't need to convince them. For instance, in July, a community health centre funded entirely by the province of Manitoba will be opened officially. In Prince Edward Island, there's a pilot project for a French-language community health centre. There are already provinces which are prepared to do this. In the case of those that are not ready to do it, I think that Health Canada could play a greater role to motivate them to do more.

One way to help us from a community standpoint would be that Health Canada, in co-operation with us and the provinces, try to plan a strategy specifying where we want to be in five or ten years on the issue of French-language health care delivery.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Of course, we can talk about it here, around this table, and this will undoubtedly be useful to sensitize some people to these issues, but when the time comes to take action, we need a little bit more than that. Would you suggest that this subject be on the agenda at a federal-provincial health ministers conference?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Earlier, when I made my presentation, I listed a number of principles that could help communities achieve gains in different sectors.

One of these elements would be to build partnership structures between the communities and the government. I gave the example of the human resources development committee, which gathered nine departments around a table. There is a plan of action and resources allocated specifically to francophones in these areas. That's a structure where both the community and the stakeholders participate.

Should the subject of health care be on the agenda at a federal-provincial conference? I will let you answer that question. If you can help me establish a structure that would bring together communities and the Department of Health regarding issues of interest to francophones, that would be much more productive right now, given the phase we are in.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I do appreciate that answer because it does clarify things for me. I imagine that it also clarifies things for our colleagues around the table. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you. Senator Louis Robichaud.

Senator Louis J. Robichaud (L'Acadie—Acadia, Lib.): Madam Chair, I have no specific question to put to Mr. LeBlanc or the staff. I would like to congratulate them for the courage they display day after day in their struggle to defend the cause they believe in. It's an old cause that goes back many years. We started with nothing and we've created things. When we began, generations ago, there was nothing. Today, we've come to this point that you've inherited. You are continuing a very beautiful tradition, and we're proud of you.

• 1610

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Denis Paradis, I would invite you to use the time that was given to Senator Robichaud.

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): I would like to welcome Mr. LeBlanc and the members of his delegation. Your federation has a weighty task that it carries out very well and that consists of representing one of the two official language communities. I like the terms that Mr. Justice Bastarache used in his decision, namely one of the two official language communities in the country. We may still have some way to go to ensure that everyone recognizes that this French-speaking official language community exists not only in Quebec, but also in other provinces.

I remember a test that our colleague Don Boudria used to give to Quebeckers not so long ago. He asked them: "How many francophones live in Ontario? Five thousand? Fifty thousand? A hundred thousand? Two hundred thousand? Three hundred thousand? Five hundred thousand?" Virtually no one was able to answer his question. Nobody realized that there were 500,000 francophones in Ontario. That's an important reality, but it seems to be unknown, particularly in Quebec. We have to make people realize the number of francophones who live in all provinces, from coast to coast. That could be part of the mandate of your federation. You could place more emphasis on this fact and disseminate it. In addition to having this fact known, its significance has to be emphasized. The Sommet de la francophonie which will take place in New Brunswick may give us an extraordinary opportunity to explain the fact that in our country, there is a francophone community whose majority is in Quebec, but whose members can be found throughout the country.

That may be a good forum where your federation could be active and inform all 52 countries and governments that are members of the international francophonie of that fact. That organization may not know all the facts about this. Many countries undoubtedly believe that we speak French in Quebec and English in other provinces. That is an image that has been disseminated and that does not reflect reality accurately. I therefore encourage you to take part in the Sommet de la francophonie and make sure that the face of both official languages in our country is better known, including in the United States.

I'm assured that if you were to give this test to Americans tomorrow morning, they would tell you that we speak French in Quebec and English elsewhere. I believe that the dissemination of this Canadian reality should be added to your mandate. It has an enormous, intrinsic value in our country. You would also help us to make sure that when we travel on Air Canada or Canadian Airlines, the crew is really bilingual. You would thus contribute to the advancement of many issues like that.

The Joint chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Do you have a question?

Mr. Denis Paradis: I'm getting to it, Madam Chair. My question is about the Sommet de la francophonie and other international events that will take place this summer before the Sommet. How will your federation be participating?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne will be highly visible and present at the Sommet de la francophonie. There will be the meeting with heads of government, but our participation will be more at the community level, that is in all the activities that will take place in the area. Our annual general meeting will in fact take place in late August in Moncton and it is recognized as one of the activities peripheral to the Sommet de la francophonie.

• 1615

I would say that we want to be very present. It's one thing to be seen and known, but if we want to have an influence on activities, the FCFA has to be included in the Canadian agenda that will be adopted at the Sommet de la francophonie. I was telling your Reform Party colleague that the BFCI, the Bureau francophone de la coopération internationale, was established so that we could be participants not only at the community level, but so our resources and projects can be part of the Canadian agenda that will be adopted at the Sommet de la francophonie and then put into effect over the next two or three years. In our communities, we have institutions that can engage in international development within the institution that is the Francophonie.

We will be there to ensure that Canada's linguistic duality is well reflected. It would not be sufficient that we be there only to represent the other side of French Quebec, of this linguistic duality. We are very serious and we want to be involved in this Canadian programming. We submitted projects which we hope will be accepted by the Agence de la francophonie.

Madam Chair, this gentleman has brought up a number of points that I would like to address; I don't know if I have the right to do that.

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

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: We would like to become more widely known both in Quebec and in Canada. I think that Mr. Paradis is quite right, and that is one of the things we are actively working on. Ms. Doiron is working on a project called "Dialogue", which focusses on the willingness of francophones in minority communities to integrate into what I would call the Canadian mainstream, where major Canadian issues are concerned.

We were talking earlier about health. It is no accident that this issue was selected; it is something Canadians are concerned about. Why would it not be of interest to francophones in the minority setting? It is as if we are supposed to get involved only in constitutional issues and language rights; that seems too narrow to me.

To become more widely known, we have to do promotion, marketing, etc., but we must above all get involved in the major debates of Canadian society. That is why health is a priority for the FCFA. Twenty years ago, Mr. Robichaud and other Acadian and francophone leaders said that education was a priority and decided to build schools and develop school administration structures. Twenty years later, we can build into new areas. I think that the health issue is part of our development. This is quite new. We are only starting to explore these areas.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Thank you.

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

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest (Stadacona, PC): I would like very briefly to emphasize what seems to me to be the central issue for the future of Canadian francophones, but this probably also applies to English-speaking Quebeckers.

In the area of language rights, one of the major problems is that there is no boss. The problem is probably not the goodwill of ministers or the often heroic efforts of officials within the various government departments on certain specific projects. The problem is that no one is responsible for anything; each minister is responsible for his or her own program. Mr. Massé is a nice person, as is Ms. Copps. They come here to talk about what they are doing; it is all wonderful and there are projects being carried out.

I think that you pointed out very clearly in your brief that there is no one within the Canadian government who has an overall vision of the progress of minority rights in our country and that, secondly, there is no one who is really responsible. Ms. Copps, Mr. Massé and other ministers have responsibilities for francophone affairs or for talking about francophone issues, but since they are responsible for a lot of other things in their department, they do not wake up in the morning thinking about this aspect.

Canada's linguistic duality—it is too bad that the Meech Lake Accord was not passed-is a fundamental feature of our country, and no one is responsible for it.

• 1620

I want to insist on that because it is what the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Goldbloom, should be remembered for. He did excellent work in a number of areas. He said that one of his greatest disappointments was that there was no political leadership on the issue of linguistic duality. He said that at one of his press conferences.

In the years that I have a been a member of this committee, it has boggled my mind that we have been unable to make someone responsible at the political level. What the Official Languages Commissioner does, whoever the person happens to be, is all very nice. He publishes a report every year, the report is discussed, he addresses shortcomings, he takes action, etc. The ministers always tell us the same thing; "Yes, we have made progress. We have achieved many things, but there is still a long way to go." Every year, a minister comes to tell us the same thing. Each one speaks for his or her sector. It is interesting and often very good, but no one is in a position to take charge of the linguistic duality issue in this country.

Two or three years ago, a suggestion was made in this regard. There is only one entity that can do something: it is the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada, in Ottawa, but he has other things to do. There is one organization in the federal government that strikes fear in everyone's hearts. When the telephone rings in a department and it is the Privy Council calling, there is someone somewhere in the department who thinks that it is important. I wonder why, with respect to linguistic duality in our country, each department could not keep its privileges and programs. There needs to be a boss somewhere. It needs to come under the Privy Council in order for there to be political leadership. The Privy Council is the Prime Minister.

That way, there would be responsibility, general accountability on the part of the Canadian government, for this fundamental characteristic of linguistic duality. At present, everyone has a little piece of the duality pie, which is all very nice and everyone has some. I do not want to leap to any conclusions about the government's intentions, but one of the reasons that we do not see the progress and the plans for the future that you mentioned is that no one in the whole government has responsibility for this.

The concern that I am raising this afternoon is one that you have experienced. I think you asked that question two or three years ago. What answer did you get? You were told that everyone was doing their work somewhere. We need to continue to raise this problem. I believe that it is vital and central to the issue, otherwise our efforts are unfocussed.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: You are absolutely right. You have put your finger on the problem. You have many years of experience in the federal government. I have only been in the FCFA for two years and I can tell you that the problem becomes evident very quickly. There is no central coordination. The Privy Council is in charge.

If you reread Donald Savoie's report, you will see that there is a recommendation to create a permanent secretariat within the Privy Council that would spearhead a global vision for all these vertical and sectorial efforts that are being carried out. That seems vital to me. Otherwise, I believe that we will continue to see initiatives that are good or less good, but there will be no overall development.

You are right when you say that linguistic duality is a vital issue. Since I became president, there has been a reference to the Supreme Court. Last week, there was the interpretation by Mr. Bastarache of the meaning of language rights. This is a fundamental value and one of the cornerstones of Canada as a nation.

It would therefore make sense to have the Privy Council in charge of this issue. We are in discussions with the deputy clerk. We met with Mr. Cappe the week following his arrival at the Privy Council, and the first thing I told him was exactly what you said, Mr. Rivest: there must be better coordination.

I think that there is a will within the Privy Council to go in a positive direction. For example, there is a deputy ministers' committee that is looking into official languages issues. The vitality of that committee varies. It does not meet very often. Up to now, we have never appeared before the committee. There is no interaction between the communities and this committee.

• 1625

I felt a certain openness on the part of Mr. Cappe to the idea of revitalizing this deputy ministers' committee. It is also worth noting that there is a new deputy minister at Heritage Canada, and we hope that Mr. Cappe will take the initiative and breathe new life into the committee. We feel that would be essential. We have 10 or 15 issues we would like to move ahead on, but if we could make progress on that one, if the Privy Council set up a secretariat to coordinate all these development issues, as Donald Savoie and Yvon Fontaine suggested, it would be well worth $70 million, which is the increase that Ms. Copps received this year. There is no doubt about that.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you very much, Mr. Rivest, for having brought up this point. I also feel very strongly about this, and I hope that in the committee's final report, where we talk about implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act, we will raise this issue of coordination. Whether it comes from Cabinet or elsewhere, someone needs to be in charge.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: If a deputy minister was responsible, that would be a thousand times better than a committee of deputy ministers.

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

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Just a moment. When a deputy minister is responsible and that person can be called and named, things work. It has to be at the Privy Council level, where the boss is, because the departments are too... That is the way things are. That's just the way things work in government.

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

Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): I would like to thank you for your presentation. I might correct Mr. Robichaud, who said that in the beginning there was nothing. I can tell you that there are Acadians that survived. People were saying that they started with nothing. There were Acadians that were very determined and that had survived the 1755 deportation and there were also Acadians who survived the 1905 expropriation of their land when the Kouchibouguac National Park was created. So we are very strong people, but we must not give up the struggle.

This morning, I took part in a rally for Franco-Ontarian rights at the Montfort Hospital. It was my first visit to that hospital. The francophones who were present mentioned that only the NDP had committed itself to making Ontario a bilingual province. That is interesting when one looks at the number of francophones. I learned that there were more francophones in Ontario than in Atlantic Canada. It is obvious that these francophones need their hospital.

We received action plans from some departments, but Health Canada has not submitted one since 1995. I find that unacceptable and I believe that you agree.

I would like your opinion on that and I would also like to know what pressure can be brought to bear on the government to make it understand that Health Canada must abide by its commitments and play a role in our official language communities.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: That relates to some extent to those who have successfully implemented Part VII of the Official Languages Act. At the beginning, as you know, Heritage Canada had that responsibility, but since it is a vertical department, we were not satisfied with its ability to persuade the other departments to comply. Then, Treasury Board assumed part of the responsibility, but we know that Treasury Board holds the purse strings. It can check the departments' action plans and assess them, but it is not in a position to convince other departments or reinforce their commitment to implementing public policy.

You said that Health Canada had not submitted an action plan since 1995. I thought it was since 1996. In any case, it is three or four years since the department has submitted an action plan, and that is unacceptable. As Mr. Rivest said, everyone is working in a silo, people work within their departments and they all have their own programs. As I said in my text, some officials are saying to themselves: “I will go around my department. What can you do for francophones outside Quebec? What can you do for francophones outside Quebec?” All that is put together and ten little things are done for francophones outside Quebec. They come before the committee and say: "There, we spent $100,000 on ten little projects and we promise to do even more next year."

• 1630

That approach lacks coordination and vision. Health Canada is a glaring example, and you are right to point it out because it seems to me that health should be a priority for all Canadians and also for francophones in minority communities.

If there was something from a central agency like the Privy Council, in partnership with Treasury Board and Heritage Canada, there would be real energy and coordination. There would be an overall vision of what was being done in terms of development, and that would make all the difference, in my opinion. It would be like night and day. As Mr. Rivest said, when the Privy Council wants to implement federal policies, it is amazingly efficient, because it is the central agency. If there was a secretariat within the Privy Council, it would make a great difference.

Ms. Angela Vautour: On the education aspect, Mr. Justice Bastarache was mentioned. I think we are very lucky to have an Acadian who has his experience and who knows the Acadian situation, but you cannot become a judge without education. There are many cuts being made to education. There are cuts to the provincial transfer payments, and all the French schools that we built in rural communities are being closed. These cuts have a long-term impact. In regions where unemployment levels are very high, families have to leave and there are fewer children born. That is another reason that the schools are closing.

Do you play a role in this area? What do you think about what we are seeing happen, especially in rural communities? Small schools in Kent county have been closed, and kindergarten children are being put in the same school with grade 12 students. Five year olds and those finishing high school are using the same bathroom. When young children hear the language that our teenagers sometimes use, it is not good for them. There is a serious problem when small schools are closed. I feel that there is an impact.

I think that the federal government has a role to play in all this. Our children are suffering because of these cutbacks, even five years later. What is your opinion on that?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: School closings come under provincial jurisdiction. In New Brunswick, it is the SAANB, which is a member of the FCFA, that deals with those matters.

On our level, we have been very active on section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom, which applies nationally. We have played a watchdog role in ensuring that the provinces meet their obligations under section 23. It is at this level rather than at the level of provincial administration and the closing of schools that we operate, but I can tell you that the members of the FCFA are involved in that issue.

For example, school boards in New Brunswick have been abolished in order to centralize authority. The SAANB, which is very concerned about this situation, raised the matter, saying that there may be lack of compliance with section 23 of the Charter, and New Brunswick Minister Bernard Richard has referred the matter to the courts for clarification.

In your question, you raised the particular problem of rural areas. In the Savoie report, that distinction is also made with respect to sections 41 and 42. The report says that measures must be taken for urban areas, but that other measures are needed for rural areas, that have their own needs and their own characteristics in terms of health and other sectors. It would therefore be important to have an urban-rural strategy, as Mr. Savoie recommends in his report.

Ms. Angela Vautour: How did we get involved in the Acadian flag problem for the Francophonie Summit? How did the situation get so serious, given that people should understand the significance of the Acadian flag of New Brunswick? I do not understand the problem that has come about.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: It is a matter of tension over protocol between community organizations and the political structures.

• 1635

The community is satisfied with the compromise reached by Bernard Thériault, Diane Marleau and the federal government, which consists in having another series of flags off to the right, including the Acadian flag.

How did we get into this? I do not want to judge the intention of the Summit organizers or the governments involved, but I can say that the problem was dealt with quickly. I think that it shows the willingness of Acadians, of average people, to take part in an event that is very official and involves a great deal of protocol. I am pleased that the problem has been resolved and that the flag will fly. It will be very important for the federal government, among others, to support the activities taking place outside the official Summit. Otherwise, the Summit will be a meeting of 52 heads of State, with a few senior officials, and it will not have the impact that it could have if the community had been more involved.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I believe that this community involvement will be something that sets the Moncton Summit apart from the previous summits.

Senator Fraser.

Senator Joan Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): I would like to come back to the health issue.

If I understood correctly, your research looks mainly at the future. Could you give us a brief overview of what exists at the moment in terms of health services in French? We know the sad story of the Montfort Hospital, but besides that, what is there?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: It varies a great deal. I will ask Mr. Baril, who is involved in this issue every day, to give you more specific information.

Mr. Paul-André Baril: The level of public health services in French varies widely. In some provinces, such as British Columbia, there are simply no health services offered in French, except in the private sector by francophone doctors, whereas some other provinces offer only minimum services. There is very little in Alberta and nothing, I believe, in Saskatchewan. In Ontario and New Brunswick, however, where there is a larger francophone population and greater concentrations, a somewhat higher level of service is provided.

I would like to point out that the availability of these health services and certain other services comes under federal responsibility. If you decide to study the situation of minority francophone groups with respect to health or other issues, you find that the information is insufficient, if not totally lacking, because when the Statistics Canada people do their surveys, they do not ask for that information. That is quite an important point that I wanted to bring to your attention and that Mr. de Savoye has raised as well.

It is not possible to come up with effective strategies without having analysed the situation. The necessary data are not always available. Health is an example of an area where it is almost impossible for us to identify existing resources in many provinces or do an analysis relating to public health.

Senator Joan Fraser: Regarding the possibility of a more active role for the federal government, have you had contacts with the Minister of Health? Have you asked him to increase his role and, if so, what was his answer?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Mr. Rock invited us to take part in health conferences that he had organized, and we met with the then Deputy Minister, Michèle Jean. She was open to the idea of more concrete measures. This year, Health Canada did in fact take a more concrete step by asking the FCFA to begin a study on availability of services and prepare recommendations. So there is some openness. I don't know whether Paul-André could give us other examples in the health field.

• 1640

Mr. Paul-André Baril: No. However, I would like to stress that we must recognize that this really is just the beginning, and that we are very far away from having an action plan and a development strategy.

Senator Joan Fraser: At least, people are keeping an open mind.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: The project is just getting off the ground; we have not yet established any structure, programming, partnerships or action plan.

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

The Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Thank you very much. Welcome, Mr. LeBlanc. I'll try to ask my question in French and I will be very brief.

What is the nature of your work with the provinces? I am particularly interested in discussing the labour market agreement between the federal government and Alberta, for example, regarding an infrastructure to provide services in French. I believe that the provincial government does not offer the same kind of services. What do you think of this labour market agreement?

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: If I understand your question, you are referring to the devolution of labour force training?

Mr. Andy Scott: Yes.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: That was a very hot issue, and actually it still is a very hot issue. Some provinces still have not signed the agreement, and we are facing a huge challenge. I believe that Ontario has not yet signed it, although the community is doing everything it can—Ms. Cousineau can tell you about this—to convince the province that it has responsibilities for labour force training for francophones within the framework of this devolution.

The situation varies greatly from one province to another. Some provinces have clauses relating to language, while other provinces don't have anything of the kind, and all the clauses are different from each other. In my opinion, this is a good example of the lack of coordination at the federal level for the millions of francophones who live outside Quebec, as was pointed out in Yvon Fontaine's report. When profound changes, privatization or devolution occur, the deputy ministers and the directors general meet, and boom, it's done: French for Quebec, English for Canada. There is no filter, no little flag raised. No one at the table says: "OK, you have adopted a new policy and you are giving the provinces responsibility for manpower force training. What impact will this policy have on Franco-Manitobans and the Acadians of New Brunswick?" That question is never asked until after the agreement has been signed.

I have met with Mr. Dion on several occasions because he is the Minister responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs. We have also met with the other ministers involved in this issue. I believe this is an example of the federal government failing to meet its responsibilities toward minorities. It was a difficult situation.

On the other hand, I would say that the Department of Human Resources Development has established an interesting mechanism. The Human Resources Development Committee that I was referring to earlier includes partners from the Department of Industry, the Department of Human Resources Development and the community, and is trying to establish programs for francophones. In terms of the devolution, the problem is determining who will be responsible, and advocate, for francophones. At the federal level, language rights are very strongly protected, thanks to the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As soon as responsibilities are devolved to the provinces, there is less protection. In Alberta, for example, there is hardly anything. The Acadians of New Brunswick may enjoy greater protection than others because they are protected by section 16 of the Charter. To a large extent, it's a question of good will.

When the federal government introduces major changes such as this one, it should establish a coordination mechanism. We are going right back to the discussion that we had with Mr. Rivest a few moments ago: someone has to assess the impact of these changes on minorities. This will require a sudden, dramatic change of direction and a mechanism that I think should be established within the Privy Council. Otherwise, we will be doing piecework for many years to come.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you. One last question from Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): I would like to ask you a question about Part VII of the Official Languages Act. What is your reaction in relation to all of Canada? Are you pleased? Were the promises that we wanted to become true actually kept? The sections found in Part VII seem to be fine to me, in and of themselves, as long as they are actually implemented. I have heard various comments here and there during the past few months on this matter. I have the impression that more could be done with the provisions of Part VII. You are out there working in the field, so I would like to hear your opinion.

• 1645

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: I remember when it was decided to implement the provisions of Part VII. It was when the government was cutting the budget. We told ourselves that sections 41 and 42 could make up for these cuts somewhat and that we could get funding from other departments. But in the final analysis, there has been very little movement. You can ask me for my opinion, you can read the Commissioner of Official Language's Report, or you can talk to people in the field, they will tell you that there is a great deal of inertia when it comes to actually implementing the provisions of Part VII. The departments have submitted action plans, but these plans do not match the intentions that we saw. Furthermore, we can now base ourselves on the Supreme Court's new reading of language rights. I believe that this broad rather than restrictive interpretation of the obligations stemming from language rights is a rather useful tool.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: The ruling that the Supreme Court just handed down totally turns the previous situation around, and that is a good thing. I am utterly delighted with this ruling. The court was nearly unanimous; I believe that only two justices were opposed. In my opinion, this is one of the Supreme Court's very good rulings on language matters.

Mr. Gino LeBlanc: Now we must convince departmental officials that they have responsibilities toward communities. We mustn't restrict ourselves to counting on one person's goodwill; this responsibility has to be an integral part of the structure. When public policies are being developed, officials should always consider its impact on Francophone and Acadian minorities. So all in all, I would say that we are still waiting for results.

However, the government did establish the interdepartmental fund. It appears to stem from the goodwill of the federal government's central agencies, which are facing a greater commitment. You can rest assured that this is a priority for me, both personally and as the president of the FCFA. As I was saying earlier, this willingness to do something is worth several million dollars.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc, and I am quite sure that your presentation will help put us on the right track. Micheline, it's always pleasant to see a former student again. Mr. Baril, I thank you too. I am looking after my own interests.

We are going to recess for a minute so that our next witnesses can come to the table.

• 1648

• 1650

The Joint Chair (Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, please.

[English]

Ladies and gentlemen, the vote will be called in 15 to 20 minutes. I would appreciate it if people would take their seats so we can continue with l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario.

I wonder, Madam Savard and Madam Cousineau, which one of you wishes to start. I just want to thank you for your patience. It's been a long wait for you. I hope a lot of the issues you wanted to address may well have been addressed.

[Translation]

Thank you for being so patient. I don't know which one of you is going to begin the presentation.

Ms. Cousineau, please go ahead.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau (President, Association canadienne française de l'Ontario): Madam Chair, honourable senators and members of Parliament of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, I would like to begin by thanking you for your invitation to appear before you and present the goals of the Franco-Ontarian community. You have heard Mr. LeBlanc speak to issues at the national level; we will present the goals of the Ontario francophone community with regard to the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

First of all, allow me to introduce Ms. Linda Savard, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Chambre économique de l'Ontario. She is also responsible for the provincial co-ordination mechanism for economic and human resources development of Ontario's francophone community. It's a long title, which shows just how important the job is.

I would like to make a few remarks about ACFO. Our association is a political advocacy and community development organization that has served the Franco-Ontarian community since 1910.

In 1994, Michel Dupuy, the Minister of Heritage Canada, announced a policy and a work plan to involve federal institutions in the development of official-languages minority communities. At that time, the Franco-Ontarian community developed a number of expectations in two areas: first of all, the community hoped to see federal agencies working in a broader field of endeavour, and secondly, the community expected more funding for its activities.

In December 1996, the Franco-Ontarian community signed the Canada-Community agreement, which dealt with the interdepartmental fund in an appendix. Once again, expectations were raised.

In March 1997, after the memorandum of understanding was signed between the Treasury Board and Heritage Canada in order to begin strategic planning to encourage federal departments and agencies to take on greater responsibility in terms of section 41 of Part VII of the Act, our communities' hopes were raised once again.

I am going to allow myself two quotes. The first comes from the Savoie report which, as you know, was commissioned by Heritage Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office. According to Mr. Savoie, “our consultations reveal that the situation is not ideal.”

I would also like to quote Ms. Rolande Faucher, one of the consultants that the Franco-Ontarian community hired to do interdepartmental work as part of the agreement that we signed. Ms. Faucher said:

Although many federal and community players involved in the development and expansion of the Franco-Ontarian community talk about interdepartmental dialogue, few practical measures have been taken in the past four years to ensure that federal programs other than those of Heritage Canada are making a contribution.

I am going to let Ms. Savard continue with the presentation.

• 1655

Ms. Linda Savard (Chief Executive Officer, Chambre économique de l'Ontario): Please allow me to give you an overview of the interdepartmental initiative in Ontario. The agreement signed with Ontario provided funding to hire three resource persons to develop approaches and co-operation strategies with more than 20 different departments. We saw the initiative as an opportunity to find other sources of funding and services for Ontario's French-speaking community. These three people worked for nearly one year, and all three of them produced regular reports as well as a final report on their work and on the results.

My comments today are mostly based on their report, for they're the ones who experienced the year of the interdepartmental initiative. They are the experts in this area. Unfortunately, none of them were able to appear with us today, but we will present their main recommendations and findings.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): What year was the group of three set up in?

Ms. Linda Savard: They began in February or March 1998, and they just finished.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you.

Ms. Linda Savard: We see that the needs of the Franco-Ontarian community are great. Often our communities are small and isolated, and needs vary from community to community. As you know, we are present in northern, southern and eastern Ontario, and each community has its own diversity.

As well, we have a large ethnocultural component and a racial minority in Ontario that distinguish us from Canada's other provinces.

The reduction in grants since 1990 have hurt the community a great deal. The francophone racial minority communities see the interdepartmental initiative as a specific way of ensuring recognition of the special nature of their existence and as a way to underscore the need to identify and become more familiar with existing barriers in certain programs for what we term the micro-communities.

The interdepartmental initiative is an opportunity to create a stronger partnership between federal institutions and francophone ethnocultural communities. The associations are continuing their respective activities, but with far less funding, which leads to all kinds of cuts within the associations.

With very few exceptions, francophone associations always tend to turn automatically to Heritage Canada, and on occasion, to the federal government in general.

As I am sure you know, the provincial government has made large cuts, particularly to health care, social services and culture. I should also point out that the only ministry that mentions services in French in its business plan is the Ministry of Education and Training. None of the other provincial ministries talk about French-language programs or programs for francophones in their action plans.

All in all, francophone agencies are not hooked into federal programs. They are unfamiliar with these programs, and federal departmental officials do not tell them about these programs.

The main gateway to the federal government, other than Heritage Canada, is the Department of Human Resources Development. In a few moments, I'll be telling you about what they have succeeded in doing.

The community has high expectations for the interdepartmental initiative, as Ms. Cousineau was mentioning to you a few moments ago, but the community is frustrated and even skceptical about the results that have been obtained since the agreement was signed.

The racial minority and ethnocultural communities would like to make departments, administrators and program managers more aware of their presence and of the chronic lack of funding for their community organizations. They would also like their reality included in government departmental policy.

Ethnocultural and racial minority groups have specific needs, partly due to their weak infrastructure, their lack of experience and their shortage of volunteers and paid staff.

The three people who were hired as part of the interdepartmental component prepared reports for us and gave us a number of results. Here are a few of them.

The initiative allowed francophone ethnocultural groups to develop partnerships between the various sectors and the various regions of the province, as well as to work together.

• 1700

The departments are starting to become aware of the needs of racial minority and ethnocultural communities, and in most cases, they have shown willingness to work in co-operation with these groups.

The interdepartmental initiative has allowed program and project managers from the various departments to consider the special nature of francophone minority groups in the development and implementation of their various programs. For example, at the Canadian International Development Agency and the Department of Foreign Affairs, we are starting to see a realization that francophone racial minorities have expertise in the implementation of certain development assistance programs.

Human Resources Development Canada's plan has been improved, as have the integration policies of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Allow me to mention the example of Human Resources Development Canada, which is the only department that has quite actively consulted the community this year regarding the preparation of its sections 41 and 42 plan. Indeed, we have congratulated the Department, and we recommend that all the departments follow their example.

Several successful models for interdepartmental dialogue have been developed with community coalitions. Let me mention a few: the employment support service that our London office offers, in co-operation with Human Resources Development Canada—you'll note that this Department is often mentioned—; the orientation centre for adult training in Hawkesbury, also with Human Resources Development Canada; the same Department's support for the business service at the Cité collégiale for francophones who want to start their own business; the projects run by our Timmins chapter and Human Resources Development Canada to stop con artists defrauding seniors; the economic development forums in three Northern Ontario cities organized by FedNor, the Union culturelle des Franco-Ontariens and the Conseil de la coopération de l'Ontario; the donation of used computers by Public Works Canada to community organizations; and finally, the establishment of a consultation committee, which I chair, for economic and human resources development, in conjunction with the federal and provincial governments.

I am going to let Ms. Cousineau finish the presentation.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: Linda gave you some examples of successes with the interdepartmental initiatives, and there were some, you can believe us. Even though we have criticisms, some good things have come out of it. But they are only projects, there was no long-term vision nor was there any planning. Nothing in the action plans that were presented show practical measures for the development and expansion of the communities. There are only projects. That is not satisfactory to us.

Once again, the Savoie report says that many departments do not recognize the distinction between Part IV of the Act, which deals with Communications and Services to the Public, and Part VII, which deals with Advancement of English and French. For many executives, the whole issue of active offer of service represents additional work.

A few moments ago, Mr. LeBlanc was pointing out that all of this happened when the departments were downsizing. Everyone was very busy with the restructuring, and this was an addition to their responsibilities.

We do know that 25 or 26 action plans were prepared. Mr. Savoie says that most of them are anemic, and that's true. Some mention is made of French, but the plans are very much lacking in substance. The francophone community would like this to be a normal part of offering service and that the departments remember that each time they talk about providing a service to anglophones, they should also talk about a service for francophones. That does not exist, and a great deal of work remains to be done.

Now I would like to tell you about the five major issues that are currently facing the Franco-Ontarian community. The departments' regional offices must take on responsibility for implementing Part VII of the Act. People are starting to understand at the national level, as Ms. Savard was pointing out, but the message has not gotten out to the regional offices.

• 1705

It's a pity that Ms. Guindon has left. The regional office of Heritage Canada must have the necessary financial and human resources to develop its infrastructure.

We in Ontario have seen many cuts in the Department of Canadian Heritage. First of all, there were problems because of a lack of leadership; one person was in two different positions. Now a new regional director has been appointed. There are hardly any officers left in the regions to help our organizations prepare their plans and get organized. We would like to see an increase there.

The devolution of responsibility for labour force training to Ontario is of tremendous concern to us. All the other provinces have signed, and a study by Dr. Goldbloom, the Commissioner of Official Languages, shows that not a single one of these agreements is truly satisfactory. Since we haven't signed yet in Ontario, we think that it is important, even crucial, for the agreement to reflect the Official Languages Act and respect the gains that francophones have made.

I would like to digress for a moment. We have been trying to meet with Mr. Pettigrew since April to talk to him because we think that the federal government has a very important role to play in the signing of the agreement between Ontario and the federal government, which will be happening soon, we hope. So far, we have not been very lucky. If Mr. Pettigrew has friends in the room, we are asking for their help.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): There are a few here.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: That's what I thought.

The creation of a regional development agency in Ontario, similar to the one for western Canada and for Acadia, would help support the economic development of francophones throughout the province. We have seen good results in western Canada and in Acadia. We think this would be very important for Ontario.

Finally, people are talking about Health Canada's action plan. You talked about this with Mr. LeBlanc. This is one of the weakest plans, and yet it is one of the most important ones for the Franco-Ontarian community; we certainly could talk about this for a long time. You are familiar with the issues and so are we. In Ontario, health care services in French are truly suffering, and need a blood transfusion.

We have a few recommendations that may help us. First and foremost, we fully support the recommendations in the Savoie Report. I will read a few of them, but, at any rate, you must all be familiar with them:

To create a separate process within the central body, perhaps within the Privy Council [...]

This is what the gentleman was saying earlier.

[...] responsible for informing Cabinet and its committees of measures that federal agencies take to enforce section 41;

To appoint a Minister of State for official minority language communities.

To hold an annual Cabinet meeting on the issue;

To add a new source of funding to be administered jointly by Heritage Canada and Treasury Board;

To develop new ways to raise awareness in the public service.

In addition, ACFO is recommending that a real partnership be created between the various departments and the Franco-Ontarian community. Ms. Savard talked to you about Human Resources Development Canada, which developed this partnership. The departmental action was prepared in consultation with the Franco-Ontarian community; consequently, the action plan reflects our requirements. No other department has done this and we find that this is absolutely essential.

I would also like to emphasize Heritage Canada's responsibility when it comes to official language minorities. Statistics on assimilation are worrisome. The threat of our country separating is still present and our associations are starting to get worn out. When we can't even count on our provincial government, we obviously look to the federal government, which has a responsibility to ensure that our communities grow and develop. Please, don't abandon us.

Thank you for your attention. We will try to answer your questions. I was warned that we would be hearing the bells signalling a vote in the House, but we won't let that bother us.

• 1710

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): First of all, thank you for your good presentation, which was very concrete. With the co-operation of our senators, I would like to give the floor first to the members. You will be able to continue without us if we have to go to vote.

Mr. Goldring.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for your presentation.

I have a comment to make about your opening paragraph and regulation 17. I think we all find it rather unbelievable that this type of policy could have been initiated in the early part of this century by any provincial government. Having travelled through northern Ontario rather extensively myself, I've had many experiences in Sudbury, Lively, and Timmins, and I know there is a very large and vibrant francophone community throughout that area. It's rather unbelievable that regulation 17 was even considered. So it's good to see the work that was done to overturn that.

I notice also that in 1969 you had a rather dramatic shift in your organization. I'm reading into this and assuming that your organization worked primarily in linguistic efforts up until 1969, when you say that you shifted your field of action toward cultural, political, and social levels. Am I right in assuming that your organization was primarily linguistically based up until that time?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: Up until that time the association was called ACFEO, Association canadienne française d'éducation en Ontario, and most of its effort was toward education and therefore linguistic rights in education. But as our community evolved and ACFO helped to form.... Why am I speaking English? Excuse me, I'm looking for words.

[Translation]

I am sorry.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): It's very nice of you to respond in the language Mr. Goldring used.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: Then I will continue to do so.

ACFO formed a number of associations—for example, the association of francophone teachers. The school boards were all formed by ACFO. Once these associations were in place, ACFO withdrew from education and then went more toward the development of the community in general.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Along with the 21 branches, what are the 20 affiliated organizations? What do they comprise of? What do they make up?

[Translation]

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: There is the Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens and the Assemblée des centres culturels de l'Ontario.

[English]

There are various provincial associations that are members of ACFO.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Your association consists of these branches and the affiliates. Does the funding from the federal government also fund the affiliate organizations, or does it just fund the branches and the operations? How much would that funding be on an annual basis?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: ACFO receives approximately $380,000 from Patrimoine canadien strictly for the provincial association. There are some funds that go through our provincial association for some of our regional offices, which are called cogérés. So we get the money for it, and then give it back to them. We don't have anything else to do with them.

Of the affiliates, some do get funding from the government and some don't. For instance, the teachers' federation does not get any funding from the federal government, and they are members of our association. For those who do receive funding, it goes directly to them. It does not come through our association.

Mr. Peter Goldring: With the efforts your organization works on, would you have any approximate breakdown on what the linguistic component would be as to the political, social, and cultural levels? Would there be any type of effort breakdown on that?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: I don't think I could answer that, sir, I'm sorry.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Could you give some rough percentage? What would the political effort be comprised of? What type of political work would you be funded for and engaging in?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: Just about everything we do has a political connotation, obviously. It's speaking to ministers at both the provincial and federal levels about our need for funding and recognition. A lot of discussions go on between the executive director of the office and des fonctionnaires, the civil servants at the provincial level.

• 1715

Mr. Peter Goldring: So lobbying might be—

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: Absolutely.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Could you identify a number of institutions where your action plans have had a particularly good impact on the Franco-Ontarian community?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Could you identify institutions you've had an effect on where their action plans have had a particularly good impact on the Franco-Ontarian communities? What have been your successes?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: TFO is one of our successes. It is a French television network and part of TVO. ACFO was instrumental in getting that started in the first place and has continued to lobby for its survival. You may not know that recently our premier was considering privatizing TFO. ACFO went to work with all of its regions and members to lobby to maintain TFO, and we have been successful in that endeavour.

A few years ago there were only English colleges in Ontario. ACFO and its member associations went to bat, and we now have four French-language colleges in Ontario, and soon we'll have a French-language university, I hope.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Okay. Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Goldring was good enough to hold it to five minutes, and we would have just under fifteen minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. de Savoye, you have five additional minutes, with the permission of our kind Conservative senators.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: We're always kind.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You are more than kind when I ask you to give four minutes to Mr. de Savoye and four minutes to Mr. Paradis. Mr. de Savoye, please.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will ask short questions and I hope that the answers will be as short, as that will enable us to cover the issue.

First of all, how many members does ACFO have?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: ACFO states that it represents all francophones in Ontario. According to statistics, there are between 546,000 and 800,000.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Did you understand my question? How many members do you have? I know that there are certain women's groups that do not belong to ACFO.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: The feminist groups.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: There are also cultural associations, other francophone associations. I'm trying to understand who you represent and who you don't represent out of these 500,000 people.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: We represent the entire French-speaking community. When we take action, when we do lobbying, we do it on behalf of the entire community, even if there are groups that I would refer to as dissident groups. That is their privilege.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I understand your answer. You will appreciate the fact that, as far as democracy goes, you're stretching things out a bit, but you are in the best position to decide on this, I'm sure.

Moreover, there are some rumours to the effect that the Department of Heritage Canada and ACFO are in agreement that ACFO will be the trustee of funds for Ontario's Francophonie. Is there any basis for these rumours?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: Not at all.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: That's clear.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: I'm being brief; you asked me to be brief.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: It's clear and I appreciate that. I asked a direct question.

Now, negotiations are underway and you have some participants in these negotiations. How are things going right now?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: You will understand that I am not free to talk about our strategy because we all signed a confidentiality agreement, but I can tell you that things are going very well.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: That answer is a bit too short!

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: We have begun the negotiations. We are preparing a profile of our community as requested by Heritage Canada, and we are confident that we will obtain the money we need this time around because, as you know, Ontario was the poor sister in the last agreement.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: You're telling us that everything is going swimmingly and the sole purpose of your appearance here today is to express your high level of satisfaction.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: No, my appearance—

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: You're going to lead us to believe that we are totally useless.

• 1720

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: I am appearing before you today to talk about Part VII of the Official Languages Act, but if you want me to talk to you about ACFO, I can go on all day.

Our negotiations are going very well. The members of the committee get along very well. Sometimes there is a difference of opinions, but the committee itself is working very well. Linda sits on the committee.

Ms. Linda Savard: Most of the sectors are at the table. There is, obviously, the economic sector, which I represent, as well as the other sectors, such as, for instance, culture and others. The only sector that is not sitting at the table is the women's sector. The minorities have been there since the last meeting.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: The feminists are not there because they—

Ms. Linda Savard: It was the choice they made.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I'm asking you this question because I am well aware of the fact that the parties involved in negotiations have made a commitment that they will not express their opinion to those on the outside. I am, therefore, going to ask my questions to the only intermediary or spokesperson who still is somewhat free to give an opinion.

I am pleased to find out that things are going well, however, I would have found it a little more normal, perhaps more democratic if, as is the case with NATO, where each party is free to express its opinion, each of the parties can either agree with you or express some subtle differences, which is sometimes a good thing because this enables us to have a more complete overview.

Thank you. As my time is just about up, Madam Chair, I will turn the floor over to you.

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

Mr. Paradis.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Ms. Cousineau, when we talk about official languages, as Gino said earlier, we're talking about projects, money, etc., and we talk about francophone communities in a minority situation. Mr. Savoie entitled his report Official Language Minority Communities. So we're talking about minorities. Personally, I think that we should talk about the two majorities in the country, the francophone majority and the anglophone majority.

What is your view of society with respect to what has just been said?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: I completely agree with you. In Ontario, there is a woman who promotes cultural activities in our schools. Her name is Lise Paiement, and she is very well known. She told the young people to stop thinking about themselves as a minority. She said to them: "You are not a minority, you are a people and you have something to share. You are full members of the community. Stop thinking about yourselves as a minority."

Mr. Denis Paradis: I'm happy to hear that.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: I think that I'm going to change my speech.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Senator Robichaud. No?

Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I'm pleased that your presentation deals with Part VII, because I am particularly concerned with this section. Am I to understand that things are progressing more in Ontario than elsewhere in Canada?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: Linda is perhaps in a better position to answer your question, but I do not believe that this is the case.

Ms. Linda Savard: I don't think so. You were perhaps given some more concrete examples of things that have occurred over the last year, given that we have just obtained the interdepartmental report from our three consultants. However, as Ms. Cousineau stated, everything is still at the project stage. The problem lies in the fact that we're talking about small amounts of money and small projects. We don't have a comprehensive vision of the direction the community is heading in. Each group manages to obtain funding from a specific department.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Part VII is a long-term objective. The important thing is that we make progress.

Ms. Linda Savard: My sector, the economic sector, is starting to progress very well, and this is probably due to the fact that the national Human Resources Development Committee is in place and we are preparing various mechanisms at the provincial level. However, I'm not sure that the other sectors, whether this be culture, health, education or manpower training, are advancing as quickly.

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

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Earlier, you stated, and this surprised me somewhat, that there were between 500,000 to 800,000 francophones in Ontario. That's not a very exact figure.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: I will tell you why this is not accurate.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: The difference between these is quite big.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: The racial minority communities and the ethnocultural groups have said that they are not included in the statistics because when they are asked to state which language they first spoke and still understand, there is no appropriate box.

• 1725

Accordingly, they have stated there are at least 200,000 or 250,000 of them in Ontario, and that is why I say that there are between 500,000 and 800,000 of us.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: There are several reports in Canada, especially in Ontario, that deal with the phenomenon of the assimilation of francophones. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: This is one of our biggest concerns. At present, our association is preparing a memorandum to Cabinet to come up with ways of halting the assimilation. This is a memorandum which is far-reaching. We consulted each of our 21 affiliated regional associations to get their ideas, and Mr. Cantin is putting the final touches on this report, which we hope to present very soon.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: To whom will you be submitting the report?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: To the federal Cabinet.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: [Editor's note: Inaudible]... but once again, I know that it's a question of statistics. It depends on the question that is asked.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: Exactly. I will give you the example of my own daughter, who married an anglophone. What language is spoken at home? Nicole does not say that it's French because her husband does not understand this language. Accordingly, she is included among the assimilated, but she is far from being assimilated. All of her children go to French school. The former spouse of my own executive director, Mr. Cantin, was anglophone. The language spoken at home was English. However, if there is someone who is not assimilated, it is Adrien Cantin. So you have to interpret this question of assimilation.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Why marry an English-speaking person?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: There's nothing wrong with that, but it does present some difficulties. We must bear in mind the fact that the generation that is now prepared to go to university is the generation that grew up with our French television. It is the generation that has gone through the French-language colleges. There has been a lot of development in our community. I am sure that the next census will be much more interesting than the last one. At that point, we will also have our French-language university.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: I am going to ask you a very Quebec-oriented question. I regularly drive between Montreal and Ottawa. As you know, we in Quebec have a long history and a lot of experience in the area of signage. I find it somewhat shocking that in communities that are 90% francophone and that are located between Montreal and Ottawa, commercial signs are almost entirely in English.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: I feel the same way. It is our provincial government that needs convincing.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: I know that it does not take legislation, but this concerns me and frustrates me. These are francophone communities with good French names, and almost all the signs are in English.

Ms. Linda Savard: There is also the issue that small businessmen thought for a long time that they would lose business if they spoke French or put up French signs. We are trying to change that.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: Your community action is at the grassroots level. Without having legislation or regulations that force people to do so, there should perhaps be a special effort made to encourage francophones to be more assertive and to put up signs in French.

Ms. Linda Savard: There is work to be done in making people more aware.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: I do understand them in a way. It is purely a business thing. They are no less francophone and no less proud of that fact. You are working on that, are you not?

Ms. Linda Savard: Yes, within ACFO and the Chambre économique.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: Attitudes need to change.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): The same thing is happening in New Brunswick, and the SAANB is trying to promote signage in French, especially in villages that are entirely francophone.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: There's a movement underway to change the names of places that used to be French and are now English. For example, French River in northern Ontario should be renamed Rivière-des-Français. It is coming.

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

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: You aroused my curiosity when you talked about dissidents. It is not about the French language, surely? Is it about how things are done? There are always dissidents.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: It is about the way things are done.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Not about the aims.

• 1730

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: No, not at all. I think that we all have the same aims. The dissident groups care as much about francophone culture and language as we do. They are working in their own way. There were disagreements in the past that, unfortunately, have been difficult to put behind us.

Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: That also happens within political parties.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: Yes, it happens, but we will get beyond it in time.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Ms. Cousineau and Ms. Savard, thank you for your presentation. Thank you as well for your patience and for having worked around the bells. We hope that we will see you again. Thank you.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: It was a pleasure for us, Madam. When my president is speaking, I am always ready to listen.

May I ask you one last question?

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

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: Will we receive a copy of your report to Cabinet, or is it private?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Are you talking about the transcript of this meeting?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: In the material that was sent to us, it said that you were going to be preparing a report.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): You will certainly receive a copy. All those who have come before the committee will receive a copy of the report.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: Thank you very much.

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

The meeting is adjourned.