LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 3, 1999

• 1533

[English]

The Joint Chair (Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I see a quorum.

[Translation]

We have a quorum. I would ask Ms. Lynne Bouchard, from the Table féministe francophone de concertation provinciale. to please come forward with her group. Is that your support group behind you? I see. Do you have a presentation to make? Please proceed.

Ms. Lynne Bouchard (Member, Table féministe francophone de concertation provinciale de l'Ontario): I thank the members of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages for agreeing to hear from us. We would particularly like to thank the Joint Chairs, the honourable Sheila Finestone and the honourable Rose-Marie Losier-Cool, and the representatives of the various political parties in the Canadian House of Commons and Senate.

The purpose of our presentation is to tell you about the needs and concerns of francophone women's groups in Ontario regarding the full development of the francophone community in Ontario.

Given that the Canada-Community Agreements are being renewed at the moment—and probably a number of you are following that very closely—the members of the Table féministe francophone de concertation provinciale de l'Ontario would like to see the agreement managed in accordance with the principles of transparency, democracy and equity; a substantial increase in funding for women's groups (which receive only 3.54% of the budget at the moment); and a framework that respects the diversity of the active francophone leadership in the province.

• 1535

In addition, since work on Part VII of the Official Languages Act has led to the well-known phenomenon of the inter-departmental approach, we would suggest that there be a pilot project involving francophone women's groups in Ontario that would establish a multipartite agreement similar to the one that already exists for arts and culture.

Our presentation will consists of a brief description of our group, our point of view, our work and our recommendations.

The Table féministe francophone de concertation provinciale de l'Ontario was founded in February, 1992, in Sudbury. It is the umbrella group for women's associations working in areas that have an impact on the lives of francophone women in Ontario. Its mandate is to promote co-operation among the various groups and to take political action.

The member groups of our association subscribe to a feminist philosophy—that is, they work toward a just, healthy and fair society that recognizes the experiences and values of all women, their diversity, their uniqueness and their struggle against all types of discrimination. In this way, our group also works to develop the francophone community in Ontario.

At the outset, we would like to emphasize that our approach is quite compatible with the points made in the evaluation report of the Department of Canadian Heritage done by the consulting firm Performance Management Network Inc. on February 25, 1999. We took part in this evaluation. The evaluation report points to the guidelines that already seem to form the basis of the negotiations for the renewal of the Canada-Community Agreement (Ontario).

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Just a moment, please, Ms. Bouchard. You mentioned an evaluation. Could you please reread the last paragraph of your brief? please?

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: Certainly. At the outset, we would like to emphasize that our approach is quite compatible with the points made in the evaluation report of the Department of Canadian Heritage done by the consulting firm Performance Management Network Inc. on February 25, 1999. We took part in this evaluation. The evaluation report points to the guidelines that already seem to form the basis of the negotiations for the renewal of the Canada-Community Agreement (Ontario). The report also includes quite a good summary of the principles and objectives as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the last Canada-Community Agreement.

We would like to speak particularly about these strengths and weaknesses today to get at their meaning and to show their concrete and negative impact on the dynamism of francophone associations in Ontario and, ultimately, on the development potential of the francophone community. We would also like to suggest some things that could be done to improve the situation.

Until June, 1997, our group was involved in the work leading up to the negotiation and signing of the first joint Canada-Community Agreement. However, our experience with that Agreement made us decide not to participate for the time being in the renewal of the Agreement. Given the present situation, the ideal would be to have a multipartite agreement managed collectively by women's groups in co-operation with the Department of Canadian Heritage, Ontario Region.

Having made that clarification, the Table acknowledges the relevance of the principle of the agreements as one of the ways the government can ensure the development and enhancement of the francophone community in all its diversity. These agreements are tangible evidence of the Canadian government's recognition of the francophone minority. They give the community visibility in its dealings with the government of the country. They also force groups to adopt a new type of governance based on the principles of equity. Strangely, the agreements have not been grounded in accountability.

• 1540

As regards governance, the Canada-Community Agreement (Ontario) has so far required that there be a spokesperson from the minority community in charge of the negotiations and of managing the agreement. In this regard, the current Agreement was a real can of worms. Perhaps the government did not realize that there were many types of associations in Ontario. In any case, the Agreement led to a real crisis within the community regarding the issue of political representation. That crisis has still not been settled.

In addition, the Agreement, which was negotiated at the time of budget cuts, forced the communities to manage the downsizing. This had a significant effect on the ability of women's groups to continue their activities and to have representation within the community.

Under these circumstances, we sometimes wonder whether the impact of the Agreement was not contrary to the principle of the development and enhancement of the francophone community in Ontario. Let me give you a few examples to illustrate what I mean. We will give you six cases to highlight the problems that resulted from the agreement.

First, women were one of the development focusses of the agreement, and was decided on without consultation with the community. They are described as a group “needing equity”. However, women's needs were excluded from community activities such as arts and culture, co-operation and representation, the economy, quality of life and human resources.

Women were also excluded from the effort to integrate racial minorities. Of course, these are general categories that could include women. However, the lack of explicit integration of women in the development process meant that rather than having their needs recognized, women were marginalized. The proof is that women's groups got only 3.54% of the 1998-99 budget. This corresponds to the amount they received when the Agreement was signed in 1996.

Second, the Agreement provides for a transitional mechanism to ensure parity in representation. The start-up committee and the community component of the joint committee were each supposed to have an equal number of men and women. This mechanism was designed in accordance with a nomination procedure based on a committee of six appointed by the executive of the Coalition for the development and enhancement of the francophone community and the francophone racial minorities of Ontario, which was established in 1994 for the purpose of negotiating the agreement. The organizations on this committee were supposed to work together to suggest to the coalition executives the name of one or several individuals in their respective fields.

Moreover, the executive was supposed to ensure that the groups needing equity were well represented. To date, this process, which is still transitional in nature, has not been followed. The members of the start-up committee and the joint committee, for their community component, were appointed by the board of directors of the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, not by the executive of the coalition. This happened in the months following the signing of the agreement. At the moment, the members of the joint committee are themselves choosing their own replacements.

Third, the Agreement was managed without any concern for the other obligations of the federal government in the area of gender equality, particularly the Federal Plan for Gender Equality introduced in 1995 when the Honourable Sheila Finestone, the current Joint Chair of the Standing Committee, was the Secretary of State for the Status of Women.

Under the Federal Plan for Gender Equality, economic changes are supposed to be possible by changing the impact of the government on women's lives in developing programs and policy and implementing legislation that takes women into account.

Fourth, the criteria established for assessing grant applications from groups were never made public. Not only should such criteria be made public, they should also have been discussed before the Agreement was signed. To the extent that the criteria remain private or subjective, we have every reason to think that criteria used in the past were used again. This cannot help but further marginalize women's groups.

• 1545

Fifth, there is nothing in the agreement to prevent conflicts of interest among members of the community on the joint committee. There's no definition of community conflicts of interests within the agreement, nor any indication how such a conflict should be handled. At the moment, we think there is a conflict of interest in the management of the Agreement, to the extent of the members of the joint committee are the main beneficiaries of the funding under the Agreement.

Sixth, in the area of inter-departmental activities, the Agreement is a real disappointment for women's groups. We did not enjoy the benefits of the Agreement in this regard, even though our needs are great. More specifically, the woman responsible for inter-departmental matters for the Franco-Ontarian community never contacted or consulted us to help us make progress in this area. Naturally, we are familiar with the Savoie Report. However, it has not been analyzed or debated in community and political circles.

As far as racial minorities go, the government, the Department of Canadian Heritage, showed an unfortunate lack of impartiality in choosing its interdepartmental officers. The racial minority organizations had no opportunity to consult each other or work together to devise a development and action plan with the officers. Like us, racial minority women's groups and possibly all other groups, had to negotiate alone, directly with the various departments when they presented their needs.

From our experience, the inter-departmental approach was something we learned through trial and error, without ever knowing which door to knock on. There is genuine co-operation between the government and the minority community in this area, particularly between the government and women's groups.

We would also like to mention the constructive dealings we have had to date with Status of Women Canada, which has supported our activities from the beginning. However, our dealings with the other departments have been quite limited.

Finally, the Table thinks the government showed a lack of consideration for the parties concerned in its desire to have a single spokesperson for the community. We understand that the government would like to talk to a community unified behind its directors. However, when it makes a connection between administrative matters and political representation, it cannot help but exacerbate the tension and power struggle among the groups in Ontario.

That is a brief summary of several examples that show that the last Canada-Community Agreement (Ontario) had a significant impact on the development and enhancement potential of the francophone community. The Agreement did not always promote the development and enhancement of this community. Moreover, this fact made it difficult for us to be committed to this issue, as in the case of the inter-departmental approach, which was supposed to make up for the reduced funding received by various groups.

Ms. Roda Muse (Member, Table féministe francophone de concertation provinciale): Since our group realized that the government has tied the negotiation of the Agreement to the issue of representation, we insisted, from the very beginning of the negotiations on the renewal of the agreements, that the principles thereof be reconsidered in the case of Ontario. As a result, beginning in February, 1998, our group was involved in setting up a new political representation mechanism in Ontario. Its specific mandate, which was decided upon at a community forum in Sudbury, was to oversee the negotiation of the renewed Agreement.

This working group was made up of organizations from various sectors of the community. The group was based specifically on the principle of acknowledging the many leaders of our community in Ontario. This process more or less fizzled out, because apparently, the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, with the support of some elected representatives, set the rules of the game itself, and ignored the work that had already been done by the groups. It is now well-known that ACFO got the steering committee for the negotiations to state that any group wishing to participate in the renewal of the Canada-Community Agreement would have to sign a document requiring confidentiality, on penalty of disciplinary action.

• 1550

Our group refused to do this, judging that the requirement was undemocratic, authoritarian and based on mistrust, rather than on a collegial, mutual spirit as set out in the document. It suggests disciplinary measures that could force groups to support decisions with which they might not agree.

Thus, the renewal of the Agreement has become the catalyst for a larger conflict in the area of political representation. The current Agreement imposed a political structure on the community that groups at odds with ACFO see as a straitjacket. Our group never recognized ACFO as the spokesperson of the francophone community of Ontario. We exist independently of this body, not as one of its affiliates. We do not want ACFO to speak on our behalf in the negotiations on the Agreement or otherwise.

When the issue of managing the Agreement is linked to that of political representation, our group and a number of others are in a power struggle with ACFO, an association that no longer has a mandate and has been trying, unsuccessfully, to restructure for the last 20 years. It is true that ACFO has the support of Liberal members of Parliament, in that the association is hand in glove with, and depends on, political parties and experts of all sorts. Nevertheless, ACFO is not synonymous with the francophone community of Ontario. Moreover, since the early 1990s, francophone associations, including ours, have been working to establish a more flexible representation system than that advocated by ACFO, and a less elitist, less white network for the associations. Unfortunately, this effort has been compromised by the renewal of the agreements and the issue of a single spokesperson for Franco-Ontarians, under the current or a revamped ACFO.

Under these circumstances, we have so far refused to take part in the current negotiations to renew the Canada-Community Agreement (Ontario). Nevertheless, we remain concerned about this situation. We are also concerned about the inter-departmental approach, in that we think a pilot project between the federal government and our group for a multipartite agreement similar to the one signed on June 6, 1998 with the artistic and cultural community would be desirable to compensate for the fact that funding for women's groups is almost non-existent. This would allow us to focus on a number of important projects for our groups and for all francophone women. We already have programs and projects in health, in the struggle against violence toward women, sponsorship of women and economic development for racial minority and rural women. The members of our Table do local economic and social development work and we would like more support for it through closer co-operation with the various departments involved and women's groups.

We have prepared recommendations that express the concerns we have just described to you.

Firstly , you will recall that in 1994, the federal government acknowledged its responsability in furthering the development of official language minority communities by announcing the implementation of sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act.

In addition, the federal government also recognized the challenges facing Canadian women in the area of equality, particularly francophone women, and also acknowledged their contribution to Canadian society. The introduction of the Federal Plan for Gender Equality in 1995 illustrated that fact.

Whereas francophone associations in Ontario have experienced various crises since the end of the 1980s regarding the representatives that the federal government chooses to acknowledge;

Whereas the first Agreement disregards our group's requirements for transparency, equity and democracy;

Whereas the evaluation of the Canada-Community Agreement (Ontario) of the Department of Canadian Heritage by the Performance Management Network group states both the strength and weaknesses of the Agreement;

Whereas the federal government, though the Department of Canadian Heritage, established a precedent on June 6, 1998, by signing a multipartite agreement on culture and the arts;

We recommend, first of all, that the Canadian government, through the Department of Canadian Heritage, ensure, with the entire francophone community, including the Table féministe francophone de concertation provinciale de l'Ontario, that an agreement is negotiated that takes into account the specific nature of the francophone community, rather than imposing a single spokesperson on it. The agreement should contain a substantial increase in the funding for all women's groups. The management of the agreement should be based on the principles of transparency, democracy and equity. The agreement criteria for providing funding to groups must be decided collectively and made public. Steps should be taken to see that the people responsible for managing the agreement are not in any conflict of interest.

• 1555

Second, we recommend that the Canadian government, through the Department of Canadian Heritage, ensure, together with the Table féministe francophone de concertation provinciale de l'Ontario, that a multipartite agreement is negotiated, separate from the Canada-Community Agreement (Ontario), with the objective of establishing a co-operation framework for women's groups in Ontario with the minister and other federal departments and agencies to which sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act apply.

Third, we recommend that the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages ensure that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Honourable Sheila Copps, makes a commitment to reconsider the principle of the Canada-Communities agreements to ensure greater accountability, more respect for the diversity of Ontario's francophone community and a possible multipartite agreement with women's groups under Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

Last March, the federal government announced the Year of the Francophone Community, thereby demonstrating its renewed commitment toward linguistic duality and the development and enhancement of francophone minorities in Canada.

In this year in which we are celebrating the vitality of our communities, we think the issue of minority representation for the funding of activities should be considered seriously by both the administrative and political branches of government. We would invite the members of your committee to take an interest in this issue and we would ask you to let the Minister of Canadian Heritage know how important it is that francophone women have fair representation and receive proper funding for the activities of women's groups.

Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): That's a long list. Thank you, Ms. Muse.

[English]

Mr. Mark.

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

I certainly thank our witnesses for being here today. I can certainly agree with you. Your wishes are no different from mine in terms of the management of the umbrella group, and for me the management of government—that transparency, equity, equality, and democracy always be exercised.

In terms of your concerns about the umbrella organization, who should be accountable? Where does the buck stop right now when you have problems?

[Translation]

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: Would you like me or Ms. Muse to respond?

[English]

Mr. Inky Mark: Either one.

[Translation]

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: We are not necessarily suggesting that it be an organization, but rather a consortium of people who would manage the agreement.

There are already several federal programs, including some at Health Canada; there is also the Court Challenges Program which is funded by the Canadian government. These programs are funded in co-operation with the community.

It works this way: the people who manage the Agreement are at an arm's length and do not receive the funding for the Agreement. They are the experts in the field. They are often members of various institutions or universities. So they work in the field, but they do not receive the funding. I could not sit on a committee; someone from the private sector or from an organization which has not signed on to the Agreement may do so; we are talking about people who do not benefit from the funding.

[English]

Mr. Inky Mark: If I may ask another question, your role certainly is one of advocacy for the francophone women of Ontario, and that's what I want to ask you about. How do the francophone women in Ontario compare to non-francophones, generally speaking, in the area of equity or equality?

[Translation]

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: I'm afraid I don't understand your question, Mr. Mark. Could you please be more precise.

• 1600

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): She's asking you.

Mr. Inky Mark: If we could become more specific, I just mean financially.

[Translation]

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: That's precisely what our problem is. It's hard for us to get socio-demographic data about our situation. We have some data. For instance, we have just completed a study on French services in the fields of health care and social services. We often get our data through research. We don't have any statistics. It's very hard to get data on the income of francophone women, for instance, from Statistics Canada. It's very hard for us to get that kind of information.

Our groups are relative newcomers; we've only been in existence for 20 years, and not 50 or 75. We're lacking certain data and it is hard for us to make breakthroughs on the labour market. Roda could tell you a bit more about the situation of immigrant women who come to live here.

How can we help women enter the job market? It's hard enough to get a job when you are of supposedly Canadian extraction. There is a reason we have the Federal Plan for Gender Equality. It's because the government itself recognized that there is inequality between men and women. Francophones have the same problem, in that they are not a really powerful group.

Many women living in Eastern or Northern Ontario do not speak English; if they want to find a job, it's that much harder, and, on top of that, they are isolated. There is work in those areas, but the women who live there basically can't find a job.

[English]

Mr. Inky Mark: I can certainly empathize with you. I grew up in a family in which my mother could not speak English, and she never did speak English. She could understand it by listening to it.

In your opening remarks you indicated that more money from the federal government was one of your wishes. If I may ask you, how much are you currently being financed now by the Status of Women, and how much do you want?

[Translation]

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: Status of Women gives out about $8 million a year in funding for the women's movement throughout Canada. You talked about your party, but it's an issue which concerns us as well. We are francophone women. The two words are inextricably linked. We are not only women. We work with anglophone women because we are part of the whole movement, but we also work with our francophone brothers and sisters in Ontario in other areas because we are also francophones.

Ms. Roda Muse: In fact, for now, the department which supports us the most is Status of Women, which falls under Heritage Canada.

The problem is, under the agreement, we only receive about 3% of the envelope.

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: That's 3% of the envelope. We receive about $125,000 for the entire movement.

Ms. Roda Muse: For the entire group of women. We represent 52% of the members of these groups which receive funding under the Agreement. That's very little. We would like the amount to be adjusted. But for now, we can't tell you how much we want.

We are mainly here to tell you about our concerns.

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: We can't tell you today how much we need because we don't have the means to find out. The group we represent receives $14,000 a year from Heritage Canada. Our organization has no infrastructure; indeed, we are basically a virtual organization which relies heavily on volunteers. We can only cover long distance calls and one meeting a year with $14,000. We do what we can, and each group we are involved with has its own particular needs.

• 1605

You can't ask us what the needs of francophone women living in Ontario are, since we have very little money. We don't know what the vision of Ontario's francophone women is, and nobody can tell you what the needs of Ontario's francophone community are. I challenge anyone to find out, because there are no studies on the subject. A few sectoral studies have been done, but it's very difficult to get a global overview.

However, by the year 2000, we want to find out what the needs are of Ontario's francophone women. We want to take part in the Marche mondiale des femmes 2000 to protest against poverty and violence, which has been organized by many people, including our sisters from Quebec. We want to increase the public's awareness by visiting schools, but we also want to travel across Ontario to find out what the needs are of Ontario's francophone women and families. That's how we want to collect information. Unfortunately, you are asking for an answer we can't give you.

[English]

Mr. Inky Mark: I find that difficult to comprehend. You tell me you've been in business for twenty years and still at this time you don't know what the needs of your clientele are. In fact, until you set the terms of reference for your organization....

[Translation]

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: I said, sir...

[English]

Mr. Inky Mark: My concern is there's too much overlap in the system perhaps already. Status of Women Canada speaks for all women. You're saying you will speak for francophone women of Ontario and also non-francophones. Then there's also the problem of immigrant women—francophone, non-francophone, and otherwise. Everybody wants to do everything. Sure, if we have lots of money, we can all do everything for everyone. Unfortunately, we have restraints. Therefore I think all organizations need to be more specific and targeted, in terms of what their roles and jobs are, to advance the causes of women and men.

[Translation]

Ms. Roda Muse: You're giving me the impression that we are repeating the mistakes we hold against others. We want a multipartite agreement, as Lynne Bouchard said; this multipartite agreement would give voice to several francophone groups.

You talked about immigrant women and francophone women. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding, but...

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: Listen, Mr. Mark, I don't think you understood what we were trying to say. I can tell you that we are speaking to the needs of all of these groups. There are perhaps between 25,000 and 30,000 women in the 22 or 23 groups we represent. I can easily tell you what their needs are. That's not a problem. We can tell you whom we represent: these are people, women, children.

What I can't talk about now is the needs of francophone women living in Ontario. There are more than 30,000 francophone women living in Ontario. Our organization cannot tell you what the needs of other women are. I hope that has clarified the situation.

[English]

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

Mr. Plamondon.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): I listened carefully to your presentations. Perhaps you can give a copy to the clerk who will make copies for every member of the committee. It's the end of the session, and many committee members have to sit on two committees at the same time.

You talked about something which surprised me. It's the relationship between the ACFO and the Department of Heritage Canada, and the relation of the department with your organization. You said that ACFO does not adequately voice your concerns. You've been very critical towards the organization and you don't trust it to negotiate on your behalf. You even said that it was subject to political influence, that it was topheavy with Liberals who are more Liberal than francophone. That's basically what you said in your brief. Strong words.

• 1610

I've been watching the way the Department of National Heritage works for the past two or three years and it seems to me that this department wants to get hold of each of the francophone organizations and manage them in its own style, in other words to install people who are easily led and will do the department's bidding rather than serve the interest of francophones. We've seen, for example, how they've taken over Francophonie Week, the Francophonie Games, how they control the Francophonie Summit and how you are refused any direct discussion with the department in spite of the fact that you represent about 20 organizations.

The fact that you publicly raise this serious problem of political control over organizations representing francophones strikes me as quite alarming. It's very dangerous to let things continue this way. But how can you make the department understand that you are on to their game? Have you attempted to arrange any direct meetings with representatives of the Minister and have you been consistently turned down? Have you been given the runaround in an attempt to make you disappear you within an organization more interested in serving the powers that be than francophones themselves?

Ms. Roda Muse: We have had an opportunity to meet with people from the Minister's office on two occasions. These people were very attentive to our concerns. There is of course a distinction between listening to concerns and acting upon them. Everyone is stuck in this agreement. The process is underway and they are unwilling to bring it to a stop to take a look at what is happening and see how it can be corrected. So there are the politicians who have their view of the agreement, the administrators, who have their own view of the agreement, and then there are the community organizations. We find ourselves caught somewhere in the middle.

Quite recently, we met the Regional Director General of the Official Languages Support Program. It was a breath of fresh air. Changes will take place but they may not be radical ones. For example, we expect a change to occur with respect to conflict of interest. As for the exercise required from the negotiating committee, there will probably be new requests from the department and the community relating to its operation.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: ACFO sent you a document telling you basically to take it or leave it. They mentioned the consequences of the failure to respect the basic rules of negotiation. ACFO claims to be your representative and says that you can come under their umbrella, they will negotiate and give you what you require as they see it. You reject this outright.

In the meantime, there is a new committee we will be hearing from shortly, known as the Comité de renouvellement de l'entente Canada-Communauté (Ontario) with Mr. Comtois as president. I'd like to know whether you consider this committee to be an improvement on the representatives you had as part of the former agreement or whether these people are also people you do not trust? Or is it more of a breath of fresh air, as you said a while ago?

• 1615

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: We are members of this committee that has become the negotiating committee. As Roda explained, there was a community forum bringing together all the associations to determine how... As we explained in our presentation, the government wishes to deal with a single body. We can understand there is some need for a coordinated and united approach; otherwise, there would be some degree of anarchy with 2,000 groups.

Starting in 1994, with the Coalition pour le développement et l'épanouissement de la communauté franco-ontarienne, the community had set up a process that was starting to work. It's only since 1994 that the different elements in the community have been talking to each other. ACFO is an organization that's been in existence in French-speaking Ontario for the past 70 or 75 years and it is recognized by the federal government. On the federal government's Internet site, in reference to the spokesperson for provincial organizations in Canada, only one association is named for Ontario, namely ACFO. The ACFO may represent perhaps half of the various associations and groups, perhaps a bit more, to be generous.

We do not want to find ourselves under a federation, some sort of paternalistic system. I use this expression, it may not be the right one. We do not want to be under an organization that will tell us what to do and what not to do. We want to represent ourselves and we are asking you to pay attention when we request parity or equity.

Heritage Canada already provides sums of money to the community. We can start complaining and say that there isn't enough but the funding that has been allocated to the community is very badly distributed when you take into account what the organizations are doing in terms of development. That is where we come to a parting of the ways with ACFO. We cannot accept its claim to represent us. We are not a member of the ACFO but it speaks on our behalf. I know that you heard from its representatives the day before yesterday and they told you about projects that were led by groups that are members of our organization. This information got around and people were not happy because it was an instance of taking credit for work that had been done by others.

We have a lot of trouble accepting the fact that we are considered to be under some other group. We represent ourselves and we want to sit down at a table with all the other partners in the community to work in a coordinated way on negotiations. As a matter of fact, an attempt is being made. Mr. Comtois will probably explain to you how the negotiating committee works and I don't want to get involved in this issue. I think that they are probably acting in good faith but we had to leave them because of the scheming to improve the position of ACFO. The last time the negotiations were strictly limited to the ACFO and officials from Heritage Canada and it resulted in the Agreement we had for the past several years; it wasn't easy for anyone in the community and we had no choice but to withdraw.

The negotiating committee has asked us to revise our position. We have done so and we sent them a letter at the beginning of the week informing them that we would perhaps be willing to return to the committee but on certain conditions. First of all, we want the committee and the negotiator to be made accountable and in addition to this, there are a number of other elements. I don't want to get involved in the details because it is after all an internal community matter.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Thank you. Mr. Robichaud, please.

Senator Louis J. Robichaud (L'Acadie—Acadia, Lib.): I'm rather surprised to see the lack of co-operation between your group and the ACFO. It's news for me, I never heard about it before. I thought that the ACFO represented lots of francophone movements in Ontario. I'm surprised and rather disappointed. I'll make an effort to study this issue and to understand not necessarily the existence of your movement but understand the conflict between you and the ACFO.

• 1620

You say that last year, you received $14,000 for your efforts.

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: Only our group.

Senator Louis Robichaud: That's what your group received. Did you receive this money directly from the Department or from ACFO?

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: From the Department.

Senator Louis Robichaud: On what was this amount of $14,000 based?

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: We don't have the assessment criteria.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You received the money from Status of Women, didn't you?

Senator Louis Robichaud: Then it didn't come directly from the Department?

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: Yes, it comes from Heritage Canada.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: From the Status of Women Branch.

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: No, no, no.

Ms. Roda Muse: We received $14,000 from Heritage Canada under the Official Languages Support Program. It relates to the fact that Heritage Canada supports organizations that advance the cause of the French-speaking community. We are one of these organizations. We make our contribution to the French-language community by taking action in various fields relating to women. We are recognized by Heritage Canada as a functioning organization bringing together a number of organizations. There is no reason to question that; there's nothing mysterious there.

However, I would like to come back to the point about us not being affiliated with ACFO. ACFO has done its job. It is still made up of a lot of organizations, but in view of the existing diversity, women do not really have a platform where they could express their views. That is where we come in. We enable women to express their views and deal with the problems that they face. Those are issues that have never been of concern to ACFO.

Furthermore, we do not believe in the principles of the ACFO. We are in a democratic system and we do not have to go along with these principles. Our principles are parity, equity and transparency and we are under no obligation to be represented by ACFO.

Senator Louis Robichaud: So you are claiming that ACFO does not respect the principles of parity and equity.

Ms. Roda Muse: In our case, yes.

Senator Louis Robichaud: That is serious.

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: Just take a look at—

Senator Louis Robichaud: It's a rather serious accusation that hits me hard.

Are you affiliated to some parent association, like the Fédération nationale des femmes canadiennes-françaises?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): The Fédération nationale des femmes canadiennes-françaises on Dalhousie Street.

Ms. Roda Muse: They are members of our organization.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Are you speaking on their behalf? Are you speaking on behalf of this federation of francophone women?

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: The federation of French Canadian women of Ontario is a member of our group.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Sheila Finestone): Of Ontario.

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): And not the umbrella organization for the whole group whose office is on Dalhousie Street.

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: The only organization of which we have been active members from 1994 to 1997 is the Coalition pour le développement et l'épanouissement de la communauté franco-ontarienne. We were also a member of the post-Sudbury work group created after the Sudbury forum in 1998.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Robichaud, just a second. I'd like to have a clarification relating to your question, if I may.

Are you receiving any money from the government of Canada and if so, through what government organization?

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Let's start with Status of Women Canada, an integral part of Heritage Canada. How much do you receive from Status of Women?

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: I would say that this year we received some $40,000.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Some $40,000.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): For specific projects.

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: It's always for projects.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): It's always for projects everywhere.

• 1625

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: Except in the case of Heritage Canada. The Official Languages Support Program is for our programming and not for specific projects.

Ms. Roda Muse: The $14,000 we mentioned—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You are speaking on behalf of 22 groups representing 20,000 women who... That's what you said, and Mr. Robichaud's question is very relevant. I gather that you do not receive any money from ACFO in relation to the welfare of francophone women. I'd like to know whether or not you receive other funds from the federal government.

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: We have some very specific health programs. As we were saying previously, we have conducted research. We asked for funding in Ontario from the Ontario department, for the second part, which consists of a forum. We also knocked on the door of Health Canada, Ontario division. We worked on the design of an Internet site on women. For this we requested money from Industry Canada. We also asked for funding from the Canadian government under section 41. We knocked on a number of doors, including Industry Canada, Status of Women Canada, Multiculturalism and the research fund on the status of women. In this way, we've been able to obtain some funding.

Ms. Roda Muse: There's also Immigration.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): And Industry Canada?

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: Yes, for the Web site. It's a pilot project.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I hope that you also looked for funding at the provincial level because lots of your responsibilities relate to the province, don't they?

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: We did receive some for health, but very little.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Senator Robichaud, please.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Your association goes under the name of Table féministe francophone de concertation provinciale, does it not?

Ms. Roda Muse: Yes.

Senator Louis Robichaud: You are the parent association of several groups such as Action Éducation Femme Ontario—I won't name all of them—and the advisory committee on the status of women in education, the AEEFO. You are the parent association of all these associations. Do they all have the same policy and the same outlook as you with respect to the ACFO? Do they think that the ACFO does not have an equitable vision?

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: As a matter of fact, we are not a parent association. In my case, I come from a group. Roda comes from another group. We are a group that is made up of groups. If these groups did not exist, we would not exist. We do not even have an office. We are not a federation. It's a different concept. It's a coalition of groups that get together around a table and that chose this name to go under. They have the same outlook as we do because the brief that I'll be handing to Ms. Burke was submitted to the 23 groups. I think that we are made up of 23 groups.

Senator Louis Robichaud: I know that my time is coming to an end. I'd like to discuss this at greater length and perhaps I will do so. You tell us that you did a study on health. I'm surprised that you were able to do that with the meagre sum of $14,000 you received. You answered that question. What were the conclusions and the highlights of this study you did about health in Ontario?

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: We were a team of independent researchers from the University of Ottawa and Glendon College examining the anthropological dynamics of women. We studied their behaviour in relation to their activities relating to their own health and the health of their children and families.

We also examined the political dynamics in existence for the implementation of French-language services in Ontario under the existing Ontario French-Language Services Act often cited as Act 8. We studied the dynamics of these services, that is the way in which the directors of health and social services implement such services and maintain them.

• 1630

We carried out this study when the Conservatives came to power; there was a considerable political movement at the time. Now we see that there is devolution of French-language services. There was a series of recommendations so that women could be closer to service orientation in view of the fact that they are the intermediaries between their families and the appropriate services, but they request these services individually, there is no collective demand for such services.

We are in the process of working on the creation of a forum. It will take place this fall. Decision makers will be invited to a community forum to set up a network—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You have about a minute left to conclude your remarks, please.

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: We are in the process of setting this up. There will be some follow-up. SOS Montfort and the University of Ottawa will be involved in following this project up.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Did your organization get involved in the Montfort Hospital issue?

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: Like just about everyone else in the francophone community, we took part in saving the Montfort Hospital.

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

Senator Beaudoin, you have about seven minutes. Then Mr. Scott will have five minutes. Is that all right?

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): Yes, fine.

First of all, I'd like to ask you what it is exactly you disagree with. We don't all have the same views, we don't always express ourselves the same way, we don't necessarily have the same ideals, and even if we do, there are many different ways to achieve a given ideal.

We see dissent every day in the law and in the courts. Why are you dissenters? Is there a reason? You surely have a reason and I'd like to know what it is. Basically, what is it?

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: Are you referring to dissidence with regard to be members of the ACFO? Is that what you mean?

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: That's it, with regard to the ACFO's behaviour.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: With regard to the ACFO. If there is dissent, and there is because it's quite obvious, can you tell me why?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: She gave her reason in her brief.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Well, I missed the reading of your brief.

Ms. Roda Muse: I'd just like to say one thing. To be a dissenter, you have to have been part of the group that you're dissenting against. We've never been part of it.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I'm not sure I agree completely with that. Someone can express their ideas, someone else may not share that idea; one is a dissident in that sense. In any event, that's a question of interpretation. That's not important.

I'd like to know why you're dissidents. Is it a matter of philosophy? Is it a matter of objectives? Is it the way to achieve a given objective? One can be a dissident for many different reasons.

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: I think you have to look at this from an historical stand point. I will try to explain it briefly.

The ACFO and all the other organizations representing minorities, both anglophone minorities in Quebec and francophone minorities outside Quebec, were created many years ago. If I'm not mistaken, the ACFO goes back at least 75 years. The ACFO has done an awful lot for the French community in Ontario, and nobody can deny that.

In the past few years, mainly in the late 80s, something was imposed. Through the Department of the Canadian Heritage, there was an imposition by the government that the entire francophone community come under the same hat, have a single line of thought, and not rock the boat too much. That's what we think, but it's a matter of opinion.

• 1635

Women's groups have existed for a long time, but we were created in 1992. The people in the ACFO say they represent us, but that's not the case. They do not represent our interests.

We have a network of researchers. One may do research in the field, when there are public statements made, they tell us: "That's not what the people in the community are saying, the people back home." We say that we want our own representation because there has been dissent about the way things are said. The ACFO does not represent us, that's all. It's not complicated.

There is still freedom of association in Canada. We feel that we can associate, come together. We have no problem with the ACFO; as long as they don't claim to speak on our behalf, they can do whatever they want. What we're telling the government is that the francophone community is not just one organization.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: There are two facets to your presentation.

You call yourselves the Table féministe francophone; the ACFO is an organization for francophones; you have a different focus, that of feminism. We have a lot in Canada, and that's a very good thing. They represent a viewpoint that others do not.

My impression is that your dissent involves this particular aspect of representation. If that's the case, it is possible to come to an agreement at some point. If you're telling me that their views are not sufficiently feminist in certain areas, I can understand that. Your raison d'être is to be a francophone feminist group and I can understand that very well. That doesn't mean that you disagree with their objectives regarding the francophonie, but rather the emphasis that should be placed on francophone representation. In other words, you're telling me that essentially, you share many of their views, but there is one element missing, namely that feminist focus. Is that right?

Ms. Roda Muse: No, not at all.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: It's more than that?

Ms. Roda Muse: It's much more than that. What we're calling into question is the type of relationship that the ACFO wants to maintain with the federal government.

To our minds, it's an under-development model. We get the impression that we're back in the days of decolonisation in Africa. You set up a pawn, the colonist leaves but it's that same colonist who left who continues to control the puppet government that is in place. It's exactly the same thing.

The women's groups of the Table féministe currently feel that the ACFO exists first and foremost to justify its actions to the Department of Canadian Heritage or the government of Canada. The ACFO is more concerned with its relationship with that department that it's relationship with the community. The proof of this is that we're sent a profile of the community to be filled out within six weeks and that supposedly comes under the ACFO.

These are things that we refute. If the ACFO represented the community, and wanted to be representative of the community, if it looked after the needs of the community and tried to find some way to concert its efforts with those of the community, if it had proper consultation mechanisms, there would be no problem. But right now, as things have been going in the past 20 years, we cannot join because this would go against our principles.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I can see the problem.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): We can leave that information on the table for the time being.

[English]

Last intervention, Andy, and then we'll move on to our next witnesses.

Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I support state-financed and state-sponsored advocacy as a concept. I think it's healthy in a democracy. And when you engage in that activity, you're ultimately going to run into the problem where people employ strategies they don't agree on. I don't think it has to be feminist or non-feminist or francophone or non-francophone.

I've been more involved with disability, and some members of the disability community are more inclined to have one strategy and someone else another, and so on and so forth. This happens.

• 1640

I'm curious as to whether there are other jurisdictions in the country. I presume that the nature of the way the funding is organized is across the country, and I presume that these same strategic tensions, if I can call them strategic tensions, would exist in every other place. Are there other examples of the same problem that you're aware of in your network, and how were they resolved if they're resolved?

[Translation]

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: We have heard about various problems in other provinces. However, one must understand that the more complex minorities in Canada are found in Quebec and Ontario. In the other provinces, the numbers are sometimes smaller. In Acadia, there is better co-operation because it's a somewhat more homogenous community, which does not mean however that the Acadian community is monolithic. In Ontario, the francophonie is incredibly diverse and has been on the increase in the past few years, because of immigration and migration among other things. We know that there is a great deal of migration in this country.

According to our information—and I urge you to invite other groups, including governmental organizations as well as other organizations in the communities to come and talk to you about their experience—certain francophone women's groups elsewhere in the country no longer get any funding. They did get some before these co-management agreements. Now, they don't even have funding anymore because everything is decided by the organization that is the main administrator.

In Ontario, things did not work exactly like in the other provinces because a start-up committee was established. In the case of Alliance Québec, the situation was similar.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Alliance Quebec obtains its funding from an umbrella organization of which it is a member. It is on the same footing as the other groups. There are 17 organizations in Quebec and the decision is taken by an association similar to the ACFO. It is a fact that there are dissident views as well as a number of difficulties. It is not easy to allocate money to the satisfaction of everyone. But that does not mean that the entire group belongs to a political party that the members are at the beck and call of the political parties or that there is ill-will. That is not the case.

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: I think that's part of what I was trying to get at. If there were some institutional motive or if there were some institutional exercise here, I think it would manifest itself in other places. If in fact it is the challenge of having to deal with the changing nature of a certain part of the country, then it means that the problem is in the challenge, not in some sort of strategy that's being employed by Heritage Canada or anybody else.

That was what I was really trying to get at. I think it's a reasonable thing to happen that you would have these kinds of tensions, although I think I heard you say you understood that the government, in terms of organizing the way it would deal with these things, would not want to deal with hundreds or thousands of organizations but would want to try to....

If you were the government, and recognizing that as you do, how would you structure this? And I apologize for the fact that you may have already answered this question; I was late at another committee. But knowing that the government does not want to deal with a large number of organizations, if you were in their place, what would you do?

[Translation]

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: In February 1998, the francophone community met in Sudbury and established the terms of reference for a working group known as the post-Sudbury task force. The mandate of this group was to examine a new model of political representation. The idea of having a single person is something that is no longer acceptable to people but of course it doesn't make any sense to have 2,000 different groups. So a model was proposed. This exercise came to nought because of the negotiations and all the agitation surrounding them. Still, I know that the working group will be holding a consultation in the community quite soon. It's something that we have been expecting since 1990 at least. As Ms. Finestone mentioned about the Quebec system, it is our desire to restructure this kind of group so that we have access to government at both the federal and provincial levels. There would then be internal consultation among the various group members. That is what is about to take place.

• 1645

Senator Louis Robichaud: May I ask a supplementary question?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): We have other witnesses, but you could ask one short question.

Andy, have you finished?

Okay, go ahead.

[Translation]

Senator Louis Robichaud: I do not remember how you referred to this group.

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: The post-Sudbury task force.

Senator Louis Robichaud: Who will be present? Will the ACFO be there?

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: The ACFO was not present, but it will be a member among the various groups, just as Alliance Québec is a member of the grouping.

Ms. Roda Muse: There will be a provincial executive bringing together 14 different sectors or 14 groupings?

An hon. member: Including the ACFO?

Ms. Roda Muse: Yes.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Andy, have you finished? Okay.

[Translation]

I'd like to thank you. What you have to say is interesting and we will convey it to the appropriate authorities. We shall certainly hear comments from other groups during our travels this fall.

I'd like to thank you for coming.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I'd like to know whether the texts that were distributed at the beginning will be sent to everyone.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes, that is part of our plans, as you know.

Thank you, Ms. Bouchard.

Ms. Lynne Bouchard: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Good luck.

Our next witness will be Mr. Jean Comtois from the Comité de direction de la négociation sur le renouvellement de l'Entente Canada-Communauté (Ontario). We are looking forward to hearing what you have to say.

Mr. Jean Comtois (President, Comité de direction de la négociation sur le renouvellement de l'Entente Canada-Communauté (Ontario)): Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Do you need a couple of minutes break, or are you all right to go ahead?

[Translation]

The floor is yours.

Mr. Jean Comtois: I hope we'll have a chance to discuss certain points raised in the presentation of the previous group because I think it is worthwhile to clarify certain things in order to have a good understanding. I think that we have to set the record straight. I think it is only right to correct a number of things and I hope that I will be able to do so even if it is not part of my presentation.

Madam Co-Chairs, Honourable Senators and Members of Parliament, first of all I'd like to thank you for giving us this opportunity to present this short reflection of the members of our steering committee on the negotiation of the renewal of the Canada-Communities Agreement (Ontario) with respect to the implementation of part VII, section 41, of the Official Languages Act.

Before getting to the heart of the matter, I will introduce my colleagues on the executive of the steering committee. They are Ms. Trèva Cousineau, Vice-Chair of the negotiating committee and President of the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario; Ms. Judith Charest, committee member and coordinator of the Fédération de la jeunesse franco-ontarienne; Mr. Éric Dubeau, committee member and Vice-president of the Assemblée des professionnels de la chanson et de la musique franco-ontarienne, and also a very skilled guitarist; and Mr. Joseph-Alphonse André, committee member and President of the Regroupement ethnoculturel et afro-francophone.

I'd like to share a few comments about the committee.

• 1650

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): How was the committee established and how were the choices made?

Mr. Jean Comtois: I don't understand the question.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I'm asking you to tell us how you were appointed and in what way you are representative of the community.

Mr. Jean Comtois: Would you like me to do that immediately?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): That would help us follow, given what we have just heard.

Mr. Jean Comtois: The members of the executive were elected at a meeting of members of the negotiating committee. I think that was done at the second committee meeting. They were elected by all committee members.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Who are the members? What does that mean?

Mr. Jean Comtois: At that time, it meant the members whose names appear on page 3 of my presentation, with the exception of Mr. Joseph-Alphonse André, who was not there at that time. If you count them up, you see that there are 12 people.

Does that answer your question, madam Chair?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes, thank you.

Mr. Jean Comtois: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that these people represent various sectors of the community. They play a role within a specific organization, but they represent a sector. For example, Ms. Diane Ellis represents education, but she is involved with the parents' federation. She belongs to a parents' organization within the education sector. She was chosen by the education sector to be on our committee. Does that clarify things?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes, but you don't have a group that represents women?

Mr. Jean Comtois: Would you like me to comment on that right away?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes.

Mr. Jean Comtois: The Table féministe was...

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): With the exception of the Table féministe, is there any other group representing women on your committee?

Mr. Jean Comtois: We have no women's group on our committee. However, there are many women within all the organizations involved. You are right, we do not have a women's group representative with us. The Table féministe was invited to join the group, but turned down our request.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): That is the clarification I wanted.

Mr. Jean Comtois: Thank you. May I continue?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Please.

Mr. Jean Comtois: One of the commitments contained in the Agreement signed in 1996, which was referred to by Ms. Bouchard, and which some consider official and others non-official, was that Ontario francophones would think about their representation structure and its effectiveness. We retained the services of a research and consulting firm to help us in this process. The firm prepared a report that was presented to the community of Ontario francophones at a community forum in Sudbury in February, 1997.

After considerable discussions, many proposals and counterproposals, a process was devised to further pursue consideration of this matter and to come back before the community with a new proposed structure. A committee was established which is now called the Groupe TPS, which in French means the post-Sudbury task force. This task force had two mandates: first, to think about and devise a new structure; second, to direct the negotiations for the upcoming agreement.

Committee members have not completed their work regarding the structure, given the lack of consensus on the one hand and the need and urgency to prepare for the new negotiations, on other hand. In addition, the results of these negotiations, and I would like to stress this, should enable the community to have a representative management infrastructure.

In order to manage the negotiations effectively, representatives of the various sectors of Ontario's francophone community were invited to attend a meeting in September, 1998. At that time, a negotiating process and management protocol were presented and discussed.

• 1655

Last December, we were invited to attend a meeting to begin the preparatory work for the upcoming negotiations. I would like the members of the Standing Joint Committee to take note of that fact. I am referring to the protocol mentioned by Mr. Plamondon earlier when he said that it came out of ACFO. The protocol did not come out of ACFO. It is a document that was presented to all members of the negotiating team and was adopted by all members of that team. It had to be signed in order to adhere to it and to continue to be part of the negotiating group. Earlier, there was a reference to the issue of confidentiality. I could come back to this issue later and clarify it further. I would be pleased to do so.

Consequently, any member of the team that wanted to continue working on it had to support the protocol in question.

I mention the names of the members of the committee in my text. I will not read them out to you.

We are proud to emphasize the fact that our group is representative of all sectors of our community. However, we always hope to be joined by those who, so far, have decided not to take part in the committee's work for reasons we respect, but which are their own.

What is at stake in the negotiations as far as we are concerned?

Under section 41 of Part VII of the Official Languages Act, the federal government is committed to fostering the full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society and to enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities throughout the country.

I'm sure you've read that a number of times before. It is the introduction to Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

The government's commitment is designed to achieve the active participation of 28 federal departments and agencies key to the development and vitality of official language minority communities. Section 42 gives Canadian Heritage a mandate to encourage and promote a coordinated approach to the implementation by federal institutions of these commitments.

The evaluation reports on the implementation of the most recent agreement, the 1996 Agreement, were unanimous in describing the fact that francophones in Ontario did not get what the Agreement suggested they would get in order to develop effectively. In addition, the co-management approach referred to in the previous presentation—that is, a committee made up of representatives from the Department of Canadian Heritage and of the community to analyze the latter's demands—requires a complete reworking. That, we recognize. Indeed, that will be part of the negotiations for the new agreement. The 4,000 hours of volunteer work spent managing grant applications are hours the volunteers did not spend working for the association. This total does not include the number of hours spent on managing the Agreement as a whole. In practical terms, that is the equivalent of five full-time government employees that the community devoted to the implementation of the Canada-Community Agreement (Ontario) over the last two years. We find that unacceptable. It takes up a tremendous part of the community's time.

We acknowledge the co-operation of Heritage Canada through direct support, but we deplore the fact, which is confirmed in the detailed arguments set out in the evaluation of the 1996 Agreement, that the department gave so little to Franco-Ontarians, at a time when government cutbacks were at their worst. Francophone community associations in Ontario did not all die as a result, but all were affected by this policy.

• 1700

Moreover, we deplore strongly and categorically the lack of a genuine partnership to support the various initiatives in the area of inter-departmental co-operation. We would like to enter into partnerships and agreements with the various federal departments and agencies that operate in Ontario, but this time with proper resources.

On the basis of the federal government's commitment outlined in the earlier quotation, with the new agreement, we intend to equip the francophone community of Ontario with more adequate resources to ensure it develops fully.

We should add that the Treasury Board Secretariat, in a press release issued on January 19, 1999, stated that the Honourable Marcel Massé favourably received the report entitled “No Turning Back: Official Languages in the Face of Government Transformations”.

I would like to draw your attention to three recommendations made in the report:

That the government take the necessary measures in order to:

reiterate its formal commitment to linguistic duality in Canada as a fundamental value of our society, and reaffirm its role as a steward and promoter of this value enshrined in the Constitution;

clearly establish the measures to be taken further to this undertaking with regard to principles, structures and funding, to the point of discussing linguistic duality in Canada in Cabinet at least once a year.

Respecting the language rights and commitments set out in the Constitution and the Official Languages Act appears as an essential and primary consideration in cases where the government transformation relates to a function for which the federal government is responsible.

I think this is an extremely important point for our community.

That more rigorous criteria be set out in the Framework with regard to support for the development and vitality of minority official language communities.

We consider this an extremely important recommendation because, when we submit our requests or demands to officials or when we ask them for clarification, they should be more aware of the provisions of the policy. We know they are working tremendously hard, but there is still room for improvement.

This commitment to Ontario's francophone minority must be confirmed with assurances that it will get proper financial resources, both for direct support to organizations and for inter-departmental or inter-governmental co-operation. The survival of our community depends on this.

In conclusion, Madam Chair, the members of the committee got involved in this process because they are convinced that the demands being made by Ontario's francophone community as a whole are valid. We are negotiating on behalf of our whole community, for its various sectors, whether or not they are members of our committee. The respective issues of concern to each of these sectors remain the sector's responsibility, not that of the negotiating committee. Our mandate is to ensure that these sectors, through the direct support programs of the Department of Canadian Heritage and through inter-departmental and inter-governmental co-operation, get the support they need to develop and enjoy a promising future.

I thank you for the time you have given us, and I hope this brief presentation will give you a better idea of the issues facing our community in the current negotiations.

That is my presentation, Madam Chair. My colleagues and I will be pleased to answer committee members' questions.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much. With your permission, I would like to invite Ms. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool to ask the first question.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you for a very well developed presentation.

• 1705

In page 3 of your notes, you deal with the recommendations of the Fontaine report, which had been drafted at the Minister's request. This recommendation dealt specifically with the implementation of provisions of Part VII of the Official Languages Act, which corresponds specifically to the mandate that our committee received this year.

I would like to hear your comments on the point of view expressed by the FCFA (Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada) at our last hearing last Tuesday, as well as by some committee members, with respect to a recommendation that is also found in Donald Savoie's study.

Donald Savoie recommended that an organization—if I recall correctly, Senator Rivest referred to a boss—agency or department be made responsible for project co-ordination, because projects seem to be happening here, there and everywhere. I would like to hear your point of view as the Franco-Ontarian representatives. We know that the FCFA is going to hammer in this point. I don't recall the exact words used in the Savoie report, but this is exactly what it meant to say.

Mr. Jean Comtois: Madam Chair, since I already had the opportunity to speak when I made my presentation, I will give my colleagues who are with me the opportunity to comment on this subject.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Ms. Cousineau.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau (Vice-Chair, Comité de direction de la négociation sur le renouvellement de l'Entente Canada-Communauté (Ontario)): As you know, Madam Chair, in concluding its presentation the ACFO stated that it supported this recommendation. We believe this is absolutely necessary. One of your committee members spoke of the possibility that the agency responsible might report directly to the Privy Council.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I believe that it was Senator Rivest. Donald Scott also made this recommendation.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: I think I can say that we all support this recommendation.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I clearly remember Senator Rivest's idea. He proposed that a member of the Privy Council could report directly... The Privy Council obviously holds a large part of the power.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Could this be a spokesperson or someone with an active role?

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: He used a number of terms, including “deputy minister”, implying a person with some authority within the Privy Council.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): This person would be responsible for implementing the provisions of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

Mr. Jean Comtois: Madam Chair, may I make a comment?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Jean Comtois: Implementing this type of recommendation would be a very constructive step. However, having worked in a department at the provincial level where we tried to create this type of a mechanism, I would suggest, very humbly, that a caution is in order.

If this agency is not given the authority, the responsibility, some independence and the necessary tools, creating it will not be very useful. We will face problems that are as serious if not more serious than those we presently face.

If such an agency were to work in co-operation will all other departments, we wouldn't be further ahead because there would still be problems in inter-departmental relations. We are talking about something like Heritage Canada, an agency to provide direct support, or something like that.

I don't want to be flogging a dead horse, but before such an agency, department or association is created, careful consideration will have to be given to the structure, functions and tools that it will have to have in order to meet its objectives.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Last Tuesday, some members of the committee mentioned the possibility that it report directly to the Privy Council.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I must admit that this would appear to be a top-down approach, whereas I would prefer a bottom-up approach. The grassroots should say what they want. After having examined all the facts we will be able to determine a general policy and a vision.

I have already discussed this with Ms. Cousineau. I hope that you will be able to present a community plan that we can adopt and then implement rather than waiting for the government to impose its plan on you.

• 1710

Mr. Jean Comtois: Mrs. Finestone, may I make a comment about the preceding presentation?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes.

Mr. Jean Comtois: We have started a process that will enable us to do this type of work. To negotiate, you still have to start with some basic principles. We're working on a draft that will enable us to make some progress.

When we sent this questionnaire to the sectors and organizations, we clearly did not attempt to carry out a more complex task. We hope that the agreement that we will reach will make it possible for the entire francophone community in Ontario, and not solely the ACFO, the Fédération des aînés francophones de l'Ontario or the FESFO to collectively determine the vision and develop a community project.

The members of the negotiating committee, who are preparing for the negotiation of the next agreement, are genuinely working in this spirit. I have said this many times and this is what I told Ms. Bouchard in a telephone conversation two weeks ago.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Ms. Cousineau.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: I would like to point out that the letter in which we asked the organizations to describe their view of the community was not sent by the ACFO, but rather by the steering committee and the ACFO serves as its secretariat. The letterhead clearly states that it comes from the negotiations steering committee and that the ACFO is it's secretariat.

Mr. Jean Comtois: It is important to clearly understand this distinction. When the negotiating committee began its work, it decided, in order to avoid unnecessary expenses, to use an existing structure rather than create its own secretariat. Therefore it hired the ACFO to provide secretariat services to the committee.

The press releases and other releases are obviously distributed by the provincial ACFO office, but they are issued by the negotiating committee.

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

Mr. Mark.

[English]

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, let me thank you for appearing before the committee today.

I think the key to your comments is in the conclusion, when you said that the key to getting the job done is cooperation. From that perspective, I'd like to ask you how large is the francophone community in Ontario, and how many specific groups do you believe are not happy with the process that's in place? Do you know?

Mr. Jean Comtois: How many francophones, to begin with. I will ask Madame Cousineau; they have all of these—

Mr. Inky Mark: No, organizations.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: Pardon me?

Mr. Inky Mark: How many organizations are there, and how many of them are not happy with the current process?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: To my knowledge, there are three that are not happy out of.... Well, it's difficult to say, because for instance the education group represents about twenty groups. Culture, you represent—

Mr. Éric Dubeau (Representative, Ethnocultural Sector, Comité de direction de la négociation sur le renouvellement de l'Entente Canada-Communauté (Ontario)): Thirteen.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: Thirteen. You represent—

Mr. Joseph André (Representative, Cultural Sector, Comité de direction de la négociation sur le renouvellement de l'Entente Canada-Communauté (Ontario)): About twelve.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: Twelve. We have 21 regional offices and 20 member associations. Judith has how many?

Ms. Judith Charest (Representative, Youth Sector, Comité de direction de la négociation sur le renouvellement de l'Entente Canada-Communauté (Ontario)): Two major youth groups.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: And how many youth, is it 3,000?

Ms. Judith Charest: More. About 100,000.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: Oh, 100,000. There are only three groups that are not happy with what's going on.

Mr. Inky Mark: For these three groups, is there another process so they can re-enter the system, inside the circle?

Mr. Éric Dubeau: We've continuously been open to inviting other groups to participate in

[Translation]

the measures that we are starting.

[English]

We've always been open to having as many people around the table as humanly possible, because we understand that is the best way to get a grass roots approach and to present you with something that is truly representative of our community.

• 1715

Mr. Jean Comtois: Mr. Mark, may I add something?

Rather than say there are three groups that may have some reservations concerning the work of the committee, I would rather say there are 13 members of the committee who think the work of the committee is getting somewhere, and hopefully we can convince those who are not members of the committee that our work is transparent, inclusive, etc., and that at some point in the future these groups will decide to join the group and benefit from it. Members of the committee will greatly benefit from their expertise and ideas concerning the negotiations.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

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

Mr. Plamondon.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I don't have many questions.

How do you view the participation of women in the negotiation that you will undertake? What are your views on the distribution of the money? You told us that there were many women in your movements, on an individual basis, but that you did not have a women's association. So we can say that women are not represented by an association within your structures. However, as everyone knows, women represent 51 or 52% of the general public, be they francophones or anglophones.

What direction will you adopt in your negotiations? When you receive an amount of money, will it be shared out according to the number of organizations? Will it be allocated in proportion to the number of men and women? Are you particularly interested in changes? We believe that there has been frustration in a number of areas. Are you very interested in changing things, and how do you view the participation of women?

Mr. Jean Comtois: There were many frustrations. Moreover, as president of the Fédération des aînés, I would certainly have liked the federal government to give us an amount equivalent to that received by women's groups. We could have done a lot, but I don't want to go back over that again; I just want to point it out.

As for your question, the negotiations that we have started will have to comprise two elements. The first is to obtain as much money as possible for the entire francophone community in Ontario.

Secondly, we will have to negotiate a process that will allow for much better management than was the case with the previous agreement. We fully agree with the women's spokespersons that the last agreement was not properly managed. It was the first time: we did what we could, but it is clear that the negotiating committee that I chair has neither the task, responsibility nor the authority to do what you are describing, namely to allocate funds to the various organizations. It is not up to our committee to do so. The agreement will be managed on the basis of the funds that we get. How will it be done? This remains to be negotiated.

For example, will the agreement be managed entirely at the community level? Will it involve a partnership between the officials and the community or, as you have said, Madam Chair, will the Department of Canadian Heritage determine who will manage the overall agreement? I cannot tell you how it will be done. This remains to be determined.

• 1720

Mr. Louis Plamondon: It is clear that the women's representatives do not receive the same amount of money as your association. A little while ago, I heard the women's representatives tell us that the amounts they received were used for projects, specifically, a study on health.

Also, throughout Canada, women's resources are much more limited, be they francophones or anglophones. We know that there are many poor women, particularly immigrants and refugees. These are the women who often find themselves in very difficult situations.

It is hard to compare them to your association, which includes many comfortably-off retired people—

Mr. Jean Comtois: Oh, wait a minute.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: —but also ordinary people. I don't want to debate this point.

Mr. Jean Comtois: No.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: What I want to say is that there are people with yearly incomes of $74,000.

I understand your point about the principle. You say that you are going to negotiate and that after the fist part of the negotiations, you will be able to decide how the funds will be divided. Nevertheless, you are not setting an objective at the outset. Who will be able to decide between the overriding claim of the women's groups—that we look at equal rights for women and a fair distribution between men and women—and a group that wants to negotiate in good faith? It will surely not be possible to divide the amount in equal parts. Who, in your opinion, will be able to determine the question?

Mr. Jean Comtois: There are a number of points in your statement.

Ms. Judith Charest: I merely wanted to say that the women's representatives are not the only group who was generally dissatisfied with the agreement.

Many associations and groups had major complaints, such as the Fédération de la jeunesse franco-ontarienne, which I represent. The community was not simply given the response for direct support; they were also charged with managing funding cuts, and the realities of the last 10 or 15 years were not taken into account. For example, there was an increase in the number of groups and community sectors and an increase in the number of institutions that were asking for financial support.

All of this was not necessarily taken into account, and it was not only the women's representatives, the Table, who were dissatisfied with the amounts granted and how this was managed. We all had to deal with cuts. A number of groups received no funding whatsoever, even though they deserved it.

We are part of a process. A distinction must be made between supporting a process and not supporting broad ideas.

We agree that major changes must be made to the way the agreement is managed. The Franco-Ontarian community must be compensated or be paid arrears; the Table féministe agrees with us on that point.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I believe that was Mr. Plamondon's final comment.

Ms. Judith Charest: Joseph André would like to make a brief comment.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): OK, go ahead.

Mr. Joseph André: I apologize, madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Please go ahead.

Mr. Joseph André: My comment is along the same lines as the previous one. The Regroupement ethnoculturel et afro-francophone could say a lot about the way that the agreement has been managed recently. Many of the organizations representing the afro- francophone minority have been forgotten about, pushed aside and excluded. That is one of the reasons why I personally got involved so that we would be made part of the new agreement.

• 1725

With respect to satisfaction, I think the problem is quite widespread, but I think that if the steering committee becomes inclusive and welcomes all organizations and francophone sectors that want to participate, these organizations will be part of the negotiations.

With respect to how we will share the resources, Mr. Plamondon, I think that everyone at the table will have an opportunity to discuss their requirements, and that these requirements may also be distributed or shared based on the projects that the sectors are presenting. So a sector will introduce projects that will be examined by the group.

Under the former agreement, there was a conflict of interest, that was raised by the Table féministe, in that the committee that decided whether or not to accept the project was made up of the same members as those organizations represented by the Table féministe. As I said in my letter to the chair of ACFO, next time, there will have to be an independent organization to study the projects, and not a committee made up of members of the same organizations that must assess the other organizations' projects.

I was not involved with that agreement, but I was told that one person was asked to leave the room so that the group could discuss his project. I find that quite ridiculous, because this is a group of people who take over from and support each other. I think we are there to participate fully in all matters and that it is possible to share one's point of view while sitting at the table.

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

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I would like to ask one final short question that will require a short answer.

My question deals with the negotiations that you will be undertaking. We always have a sword of Damocles hanging over our heads. The most recent Statistics Canada report states that the rate of assimilation is extremely serious, if not dangerous. According to some analysts, it might be virtually the end of the Francophonie in some provinces. In British Columbia, the rate of assimilation over the past few years has been 72%; I think that it is 28% in Ontario; I do not remember the exact figures.

You receive money to promote the Francophonie in Ontario, but we know that there are fewer and fewer francophones. Would you have a role to play as part of this large committee to try to put an end to this assimilation? For example, in the home town of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the rate of assimilation for francophones is 82%. That fact cannot be overlooked. Can you comment on that?

Mr. Jean Comtois: You are well aware that that is the question of the hour. It is an extremely important issue, and several organizations are studying it. The issue has been identified and it is undoubtedly something that society will have to take a look at in order to reduce the assimilation rate, and if possible, put an end to it.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you. I would like to ask you a question, Mr. Joseph André.

The membership list for the Table féministe francophone de concertation provinciale de l'Ontario includes the Coalition féminine des Afro-francophones. Is the coalition part of your group?

Mr. Joseph André: Yes, of course.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Fine; thank you.

My last question will be for Mr. Comtois or Ms. Cousineau. Do you not have a form that is somewhat similar to the one used by the United Way/Centraide to distribute the money you administer?

Mr. Jean Comtois: Madam Chair, we are currently not administering anything.

• 1730

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Who is doing the administration now?

Mr. Jean Comtois: Ms. Cousineau.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: Under the agreement, two committees were set up: a start-up committee responsible for the general administration of the Agreement and a joint committee made up of 12 or 16 members of the community and members—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Elected or appointed members? Who decided there would be 12? I want to get a handle on this. I do not understand.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: I apologize, but I was not there. Judith, how was the joint committee struck?

Ms. Judith Charest: The joint committee was struck—

Mr. Louis Plamondon: By whom? That is what we would like to know.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: As far as I know—

Ms. Judith Charest: Organizations in the various sectors were contacted, and it was ACFO that took responsibility for that at the time.

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: With members from the community and staff from the Department of Canadian Heritage, the joint committee was responsible for accepting requests for funding, analyzing them and deciding who received what.

The committee is continuing its work now, because some interim funding was made available. Obviously, since April 1st, we have not had an agreement. This committee continues to work. As someone said, the situation is not ideal. The committee should really be fully independent, but we have to live with what was agreed to in the last agreement. ACFO does not give out the money. As Ms. Bouchard said, it is not ACFO.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): We understood that, and you should not feel guilty, because we are talking about volunteer work that requires a lot of commitment. It is very difficult. I understand that. I have sat on committees that were responsible for distributing money, and I know that distributing money is not easy.

Mr. Scott.

[English]

Mr. Andy Scott: Thank you very much.

I think we're starting to get a sense of it. I'm curious as to whether there is a dispute or disagreement as to the kinds of activity that bring value. In some other areas there are some who would advocate for service and those kinds of things, and there are others who advocate for advocacy and those kinds of things. Sometimes we put more value on one than the other, and that then becomes the problem, when you say they get money because they're doing these kinds of things. Is it about that? Is it about the pressure that happens when there's not enough money and there are too many good things going on? Every member of Parliament is going to understand that. We deal with that every day. I'm trying to get at the nature of the disagreement. I think we understand.

Another question: Is this all project funding, or is this also about core funding?

Mr. Jean Comtois: It's core funding.

Mr. Andy Scott: It's all core funding? So when they say projects, they're referring to core funding for the organization.

Mr. Jean Comtois: That is correct.

Mr. Éric Dubeau: It's a bit of both, actually.

Mr. Jean Comtois: But it's more core funding than it is project.

Mr. Andy Scott: Okay. So there was an interim period to figure out how to do it under one set and then there was the decision that we're going to change the way it's done, and that's been ongoing, but there's a transitional period when the old rules applied to interim funding that was put in place to get you to the point where you're going to have a new system. Certain parties to this whole arrangement have stepped aside of the process right now for reasons that were articulated to us. Does that capture it pretty much?

Mr. Jean Comtois: That is right.

Mr. Andy Scott: When will this likely be done?

Mr. Jean Comtois: We would like it to be done tomorrow, knowing how negotiations go. And all of you around the table know how slowly it can go sometimes, but it can go quickly. I have to say that all of those around the table, including the civil servants from Heritage Canada, are quite positive, and hopefully we can cooperatively come to a conclusion within the near future.

Mr. Andy Scott: Is there a problem that I mentioned, where some people believe that advocacy is of greater value or lesser value, and that's a bit of the tension?

Mr. Éric Dubeau: What problem exactly are you trying to narrow down there?

• 1735

Mr. Andy Scott: We deal with this in other areas. I deal with this in other areas, in terms of government funding for NGOs, independent of what it is organizations are pursuing. One of the tensions that exists has to do with the strategic approach to how you operate, particularly when you are in this somewhat conflicting situation, where you're asking from the government support that might in fact manifest itself in being very critical of the government. That's an obvious thing.

Strategically, some would say we should provide service and leave advocacy to others. There are others who say no, no, we have to do advocacy, that's what our job is. And then we would debate, and sometimes the schism becomes so great that the elastic breaks and people are not involved together any more. I'm trying to figure out if that's what this is.

Mr. Éric Dubeau: Maybe I can give you a little chunk of the answer. I don't presume to give the whole answer, because God only knows.

If there's a bit of a problem that is visible to all of you, I would imagine, and to us as well, it's probably originating from the fact that there's a great deal of frustration on all parts. With respect to the last entente that we got, the funding was insufficient, part one; part two, it was not necessarily distributed in an adequate fashion and distributed appropriately according the needs of each and every organization.

[Translation]

The organizations that I represent at the Alliance culturelle de l'Ontario did not sign the last agreement for several reasons, but we did sign the protocol for this agreement, because we strongly believe that we are committed to an exercise that is in good faith.

[English]

We believe in this procedure, and we're going with it simply because we think everybody here is in good faith, and we're not looking at the particular interests of each and every different sector. We're looking at the greater global picture. We're trying to get the best for the whole darn bunch.

[Translation]

We are not striving first and foremost to meet the requirements or needs of musicians, publishers or young people in particular; we are striving to meet the needs of the francophone community in Ontario.

[English]

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: If I could add something, one of our members once said the last entente was like putting a hunk of raw meat in an arena with hungry wolves. It's pretty strong, but that's part of the reality we had to deal with. The province of Ontario received less than 15% of the moneys that Patrimoine Canada gave out, and Ontario does make up more than 50% of the francophones living outside Quebec. That was one of our problems. We hope that's going to be much better this time.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Are you finished, Mr. Scott?

Mr. Andy Scott: As a New Brunswicker, I'll stop there.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Senator Beaudoin.

[Translation]

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I feel that an organization is missing; an agreement must be reached. It is all fine and very well to receive money and try to negotiate, but at some point, there is always a conflict. I come from a legal background, where there are conflicts on a daily basis; we try to anticipate solutions. The only way of coming up with a solution is by reaching an agreement or by entitlement, if I can put it that way. You receive the funding, and you have a very clear-cut mission and you must negotiate among you in order to distribute it properly.

What happens when there is a conflict? What rules apply? I see a problem, or a bit of a shortcoming there. As you said, Mr. André, an independent organization could perhaps be useful. On the other hand, I always say that what we call in constitutional law "the power of the purse" is such that the true power is where the spending power exists. We cannot forget that. Can you agree quickly enough among yourselves to resolve that problem?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: It took 25 years—

• 1740

Mr. Jean Comtois: The only thing that I can tell you, Senator, is that you have hit the nail on the head as to the main problem with administration and distribution. Without revealing our negotiating criteria, I can say that neutrality must be part of the entire process. That is what we are looking for.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: The power is in the hands of the one holding the purse strings.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I'm sorry, but our co-chair has to go to the Senate, on call, so please forgive her. I was just negotiating.

Was there a question here?

Senator Louis Robichaud: Yes, I had one.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes, please, ago ahead.

Did Senator Beaudoin finish?

[Translation]

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Senator Robichaud.

Senator Louis Robichaud: A group receives money from Heritage Canada. I imagine that the amount is sent via a cheque; who is the cheque made out to?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: The cheque is made out to the organization. For example, the joint committee recommends that the Table féministe receive $14,000 and a cheque is signed by Sheila Copps. That is another one of our problems. At present, many of our associations have not received any money and we are already in June. The cheques have been signed and the letters have been written by Ms. Copps, but the members of Parliament in some regions are waiting to distribute them, to get a bit more publicity. In the meantime, groups have had to put an end to their activities.

Someone called me today to tell me that he would be forced to go on employment insurance, because he did not have enough money to run the cultural centre where he was working. The centre must close down for a month, because he has not received the money he was promised, even though we are at the start of June.

Mr. Éric Dubeau: Earlier on, you talked about serious problems. I think that that is a serious problem.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Do you mean to say that members of Parliament are distributing the cheques?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: In some cases, members of Parliament are doing it; in other cases, organizations have learned about it through the newspapers, and some people have received a call from a public servant at Heritage Canada apprising them of the amount of money they would receive. What's worse is that the organizations that will not be receiving anything have not even received a letter; they do not even know that they won't be receiving anything. The cheques are supposed to be sent out within ten days.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Ms. Cousineau, the observations you have made before us here today are very valuable and important; first of all, we need some rules. The United Way formula could perhaps solve these problems, because volunteers should not have to deal with such a nightmare or such a complex situation.

Mr. Mark would like to ask a question, and then you can make some closing remarks.

[English]

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes, I just had one brief question. Money is always a problem, it doesn't matter what we do. Would you support proportional funding?

Ms. Trèva Cousineau: What do you mean?

Mr. Inky Mark: I guess your portion of the francophones in the country. You indicated Ontario has the largest francophone community outside of Quebec.

Mr. Jean Comtois: You're talking about the total in the country?

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes.

Mr. Jean Comtois: If we would agree with proportional for Ontario?

Mr. Inky Mark: Proportional funding.

Mr. Jean Comtois: By all means.

Mr. Éric Dubeau: If you feel inclined to grant us 52% of the funding that you'd like to grant to Canada, we'd be more than happy with that, I'm sure.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): No, I'd like to make sure that women get an equitable amount of the funding, and that sits around 53%.

Mr. Jean Comtois: We don't have any problem with that.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Ms. Cousineau's last comment about cheque distribution really bothers me.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I was waiting for you to pick that up. I knew you would.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Why are members of Parliament handing out the cheques instead of the department sending them to the organization? The MP can then go and visit the organization, pretend to hand out the cheque and get a picture taken if he wants to, but in the meantime, the cheque must be sent out. That is ridiculous! Madam Chair, I give you the responsibility of talking to Ms. Copps so that a different agreement can be reached within the caucus and so that the cheques are distributed directly. She's undoubtedly not aware of the fact that MPs are slowing down cheque administration. What we've just heard is completely unacceptable.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I can assure you that it is not her caucus; the cheque must be handed over within ten days, otherwise it is sent out immediately.

• 1745

Since some departmental officials are here, these comments will be reported back, and I can assure you that it will be sent by tomorrow and that action will be taken.

Mr. Comtois, some final words.

Mr. Jean Comtois: Madam Chair, I would like to comment on what you just said. You could perhaps also ask when the letters that we sent out at the start of April will be answered.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): The what?

Mr. Jean Comtois: I'm referring to letters that we sent to Heritage Canada that have not yet been answered.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Dating back to April?

Mr. Jean Comtois: Dating back to April, yes. If you have an opportunity to ask, you could perhaps cover that.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You have a question for the House tomorrow.

Mr. Jean Comtois: Madam Chair, I would like to thank the members of the committee for listening to us and for their relevant questions. I hope that the answers we have provided have shed some light on the information you already have, cleared up some other areas and provided you with new insight.

As the steering committee for the negotiations, our goal is to represent the entire community. Serving all francophones in Ontario is important to us. That is our objective and we hope to successfully complete our work and convince Heritage Canada that it would perhaps be a good idea to consider a proportional allocation for Ontario, which would be a good thing for the majority of our francophone communities. Thank you very much.

[English]

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

I would ask the members just to stay for one second.

I thank you all for your testimony. I found it extremely interesting. Thank you for sharing it with us.

I just wanted to tell you that we did send off two letters. One was to the Solicitor General of Canada, Andy, which you know about. This has to do with the observations of the Commissioner of Official Languages, who I'm pleased to see is here with us, and has been listening all afternoon—for which we thank Dr. Goldbloom very much. He had raised the issue of the complaints he'd received with respect to correctional services and language, service in language. So we sent a letter off to get an answer about that.

The other was with respect to Anne McLellan and the bâtonnier du Barreau du Québec, with respect to judgments in the Quebec court that are not translated into English, and we will hopefully get answers to both. So you know that on everything we do, we want you to be kept informed. We sent you copies to your offices.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. We will not meet again until September, or when the House is reconvened in October.

I'll just tell you the budget has gone through for the fall. It looks as if we'll be able to prepare our tournée to learn about how section 41 applies.

Mr. Mark, I want to thank you for working collaboratively with me as we helped your whip figure the whole thing out.

The meeting is adjourned.