LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 2, 2000

• 1542

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)): Please take your seats, ladies and gentlemen of the committee.

Good afternoon. Today is Tuesday, May 2, 2000. This is the 10th meeting of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)(b), we are resuming consideration of official languages policies and programs.

Today, we have invited the Honourable Senator Jean-Maurice Simard, who is accompanied by two other witnesses, to talk to us about the report he tabled last fall in the Senate. Welcome, Senator. I would invite you to introduce the individuals who are accompanying you, and then we will give you 15 minutes to make this presentation. We will then allow the members of the Official Opposition, followed by the members of the Government, to ask questions. If we have enough time, perhaps we will go back to other aspects of the presentation. We do, however, have enough time since several members are absent, but they may be joining us later on. I know that the Senate is sitting right now and that it will take the senators a few minutes to get here.

Once again, welcome, Senator. The floor is yours.

Senator Jean-Maurice Simard (Edmundston, PC, Individual Presentation): Madam Chair and dear parliamentary colleagues, first of all I will introduce you to Pierre LeBlanc, President of PRAXIS Management Consultants, who contributed a great deal to the drafting of my report, and to Mr. Jean Poirier, a former Liberal member of the Ontario Legislative Assembly and President of ACFO for Prescott-Russell, a real patriot.

[English]

You have to realize that I have a speech problem. I will not answer your question.

[Translation]

I have difficulty speaking and therefore I will not be able to answer your questions. Pierre LeBlanc will read my text. Both Mr. Poirier and Mr. LeBlanc will answer your questions.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Senator.

The floor is yours, Mr. LeBlanc.

• 1545

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc (President, PRAXIS Management Consultants): Madam Joint Chairs and dear parliamentary colleagues, I want to begin by thanking you for this opportunity to appear before you and follow up on my study Bridging the Gap: from Oblivion to Rule of Law, which I tabled in the Senate of Canada on November 17, 1999.

I would like to remind you that my work began 17 months earlier, on June 17, 1998, when I tabled a motion of inquiry in the Senate. Its purpose was to make my colleagues aware of the serious erosion of the foundations of our linguistic duality, which was, and still is, of the greatest possible concern to me, and to invite them to debate these issues of vital national importance.

At that time, I announced my intention of undertaking an in- depth study of the issues and of holding hearings across the country to determine what could be done to rectify the situation.

My analyses and my quest for practical solutions have convinced me more than ever that the fate of official language minority communities in Canada and the fate of the Canadian Federation itself are intimately linked. They also convinced me that the development of francophone and Acadian communities constitutes a fundamental responsibility of Canada, of the State and of civil society.

What worries me most is the indifference of so many of this country's leaders to their fundamental responsibility toward Canada. It also happens that the English-language media, inadvertently, treat Canada with contempt. They threaten its future by their lack of interest in this crucial question and their indifference to the other half of the Canadian linguistic duality, which they do not comprehend.

Here is an illustration of what I mean. As you know, I was determined that my study would be launched in Fredericton, the capital of the province that is officially the most bilingual in this country. I invited Government and Opposition members and a number of Cabinet ministers, in particular the Minister for La Francophonie. Not one of them came. I also invited the English- language press, radio and television. Not a single journalist from the English-language media, including the CBC, showed up. Oddly enough, only one federal official was present, Ms. Jeanne Renault, the Commissioner of Official Languages representative in the Atlantic Region, who came in from Moncton.

Sometimes indifference smothers life bit by bit.

[English]

Although it was hardly an encouraging beginning for my collaborators and me, given the considerable effort we had devoted to the study, the wind has changed and the people who have expressed their interest since have made us forget the indifference of the others.

First of all, representatives of the official language minority communities from one end of the country to the other unanimously applauded the quality of our analyses and the relevance of our recommendations.

The media coverage was also very favourable, as you can see from the press clippings I have appended to the statement on the table somewhere. The editorial by Murray Maltais, for example, in Le Droit was particularly gratifying. Senator Hébert, whom I cannot thank enough for having lent his voice to introduce the study in the Senate on November 17, has given a dozen interviews to the electronic media. The interest sparked by Bridging the Gap exceeded my expectations. To respond to the demand we had to reprint the report even after more than 1,000 people had read it on the Internet. The second printing has been completely distributed.

Many organizations invited me to make a presentation on the report and discuss its conclusions and recommendations. I've been able to accept a number of those invitations, but unfortunately I've had to refuse the rest. I have received many telephone calls and several dozen letters of congratulation and support. People I have never met and do not know have told me how much they appreciated its lucidity and made a point of thanking me for having had the courage to say out loud what they had been thinking for a long time, but were prevented from saying because of social pressure. They thanked me for having restored critical thinking and for giving them back free speech.

• 1550

[Translation]

Madam Joint Chairs, let me be frank. The Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages can play a vitally important role in the progress towards the equality of French and English, which section 16 of the Constitution Act of 1982 sets out. However, the effect of the witnesses who appear, one after the other, before your committee, whether they be Cabinet ministers or ordinary citizens, is fleeting. You can deliberate for months and for years and your proceedings may have little in the way of consequences. The impact of this committee's proceedings and its members' efforts can be judged only by the follow-up that the government gives to the reports and recommendations you make to it.

In November 1996, this committee presented a report on implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. The resulting protocol, signed by the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, made it possible to better integrate this key portion of the Act into the planning process of departments across the government. Without your report, nothing would have changed. It is a feather in your cap that no one can ever take away from you.

In my report, I make a number of recommendations. In my opinion, they are all sufficiently important that none should be ignored. Community development is multidimensional: acting on only one sector will do little to change the situation. But I know that this committee traditionally limits itself to a few key recommendations.

I pondered this for a long time, and I decided to urge you to focus on a few fundamental issues, on the basis of which your committee could present the government with a short, forceful report.

[English]

The first of these issues involves the right to instruction in the language of the minority, guaranteed since 1982 by section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I urge you to read the text of the speech the Commissioner of Official Languages, Ms. Dyane Adam, made to the French-Language Early Education Summit in Toronto on January 29.

You will also recall that the Supreme Court of Canada said in Arsenault-Cameron that the purpose of section 23 was to correct on a national scale the progressive erosion of minority language groups and to give effect to the concept of the equal partnership of the two official language groups in the context of education.

The next thing to bear in mind is that almost half of those with the right to attend French-language schools in Canada are being educated instead in the English-language system. The worse thing about this phenomenon is that there has been almost no progress.

Finally, 10 years ago already the Supreme Court ruled in Mahé that section 23 represents a linchpin in this nation's commitment to the values of bilingualism.

With these facts in mind, you will agree, I am sure, that the Government of Canada has a fundamental responsibility under section 23, and that it may be time, 18 years after the coming into force of these constitutional rights, that it articulate a plan for implementing these rights that is sufficiently robust to achieve the aim of this section, and this before the charter celebrates its 25th anniversary.

[Translation]

The second issue involves immigration. The reason for this is very simple. The magnetic appeal of English to Canadians whose mother tongue is French, an appeal that leads to their assimilation, is well known. With a birth rate that is among the lowest in the country, the minority francophone community has stopped growing. However if immigration outside Quebec benefited francophones to the same extent it benefits anglophones, in proportion to their respective demographics, anglicization's effects on the number of francophones in this country would be neutralized. The systemic discrimination that currently prevails when it comes to promoting, welcoming and integrating immigrants undermines the demographic vitality of francophone and Acadian communities, and must be corrected most urgently. It is a historic injustice that the Government of Canada must remedy with your diligence.

• 1555

The third issue involves the application of Part VII of the Act, which the Commissioner of Official Languages described as inappropriate in the opening pages of the most recent annual report. There have been some improvements since, but they are not enough to overturn this verdict.

However, there is hope. A new consensus, more respectful of the rule of law, seems to be emerging as regards Canada's linguistic duality. I am delighted by the sense of responsibility and leadership that seem to be emerging from the activities of the committee of Deputy Ministers of Official Languages. I urge that Committee to add the three issues I've mentioned to the four priorities already in its action plan. The government's response to the recommendations by the Commissioner of Official Languages about French on the Internet, and the bill on the transformation of the airline industry, suggest that the government can chew gum and walk at the same time. This is a good sign. The President of Treasury Board inspires more confidence and the Canadian Heritage Minister is more heavily supported by her Deputy Minister.

It is high time we moved into action. The three areas of intervention I have described all centre on the government's implementation of Canadians' fundamental rights. The repeated violations of our country's statutory cornerstone cannot continue to remain unpunished and without consequences, as this would endanger the very foundation of the social order.

I am happy that you have accepted the invitation of the Commissioner of Official Languages to study my report and its recommendations, with a view to inducing the government to follow up on it.

Madam Joint Chairs, the ball is now in your court.

[English]

Thank you for your attention.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc and Senator Simard. I would simply like to state that although we are meeting you so late in the year, it is certainly not because of a lack of interest. On the contrary, it is simply because we have, as you know, an extremely heavy agenda. I apologize. Senator, we know that your report is extremely important, not only because of the analysis it contains, but also because of the recommendations made.

I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Hill who will be given seven minutes, including question and answer. Mr. Hill, please.

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Thank you for your testimony, Senator.

On page 6 of the press cuttings that we have been given, we read: “Ottawa should impose official bilingualism”. This was an article written by Denis Gratton that appeared in Le Droit. Is this the message that we should be getting from your report?

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: May I ask you, Mr. Hill, to specify where we should be imposing official bilingualism in your opinion?

Mr. Grant Hill: This is the headline of this press clipping. I would like to know if this is the message that the Senator is trying to convey in his report.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: The Act is clear about that issue: the two official languages are an integral part of the foundation of the country and official bilingualism therefore applies to the entire machinery of federal government. In our opinion, if the provinces are to comply with the fundamental principles of the country, they should also assume the status of being officially bilingual.

Mr. Grant Hill: You are, therefore, saying that Ottawa should impose official bilingualism.

Senator Jean-Maurice Simard: Yes, that is the law of the country.

• 1600

Mr. Grant Hill: The law of the country clearly states that official bilingualism is to apply where numbers warrant. That is the law. It is not up to Ottawa to impose this law on the provinces. This is difficult to understand for the people in the West, where there aren't any... In my riding, fewer than 1% of the people speak French. Should Ottawa be imposing official bilingualism in this area?

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: I would like to point out two things to you, Mr. Hill. First of all, I am a Franco-Saskatchewanian. Do you know what a Franco-Saskatchewanian is? A Franco-Saskatchewanian is a francophone from Saskatchewan. So, I too come from the West.

Mr. Grant Hill: There are areas where it would be reasonable to have a bilingual status.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: The wording “where numbers warrant” is part of section 23 of the Charter, which applies to the right to education. This is very different from the Official Languages Act and official languages policy which applies across the country.

Mr. Grant Hill: That's fine.

I have another question. In the province of Quebec, .6% of the employees in the public service speak English, are anglophones. What are the views of the Senator with respect to this situation which, in my opinion, is a problem for the minorities in the province of Quebec? What is his position?

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: Mr. Poirier, do you want...

Mr. Jean Poirier (President, ACFO Prescott-Russell): You talked about .6 or .7% of the public servants. Are you talking about federal or provincial public servants who speak English?

Mr. Grant Hill: These are the public servants of the Government of Quebec.

Mr. Jean Poirier: First of all, we are talking about the federal government. I think that we should limit ourselves to discussing the federal government today. I am certainly not here today to talk about official bilingualism within the various provincial governments because of the short amount of time we have. But as far as the federal government is concerned, I believe that in Quebec—correct me if I'm wrong—the percentage of federal public servants able to serve the English-language minority community in Quebec is much greater than .6 or .7%.

Mr. Hill, if I could, as a francophone outside Quebec, have as many services in French than the anglophones of Quebec receive from the federal government, I think that it would already be a good start. We must not compare oranges and apples. Let us be happy with comparing the services provided to official language minorities in Canada outside of Quebec to the services provided to the English- language community in Quebec. The comparison will be fair at that point.

I do not know why you are bringing the Quebec provincial government into the discussion, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: The way I see it, the problem is that one province of Canada wants there to be only one language of work whereas in the rest of Canada, we want the people to be bilingual. This is a problem for the people living in the West because, obviously, this isn't fair.

Mr. Jean Poirier: I don't know how we could define the word “fair”. Perhaps we each have a different interpretation, Mr. Hill. Nevertheless, when you talk about the federal government in Quebec, there is no need to worry about the quality and quantity of services provided to the English-language community. You can't make any comparison.

If you go out West, I think that the francophone is going to find it much more difficult to obtain services in French from the federal government in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, in the Territories, or elsewhere, than the anglophone Quebecker will experience in trying to obtain services in English from the federal government in Quebec, Mr. Hill. There is no comparison.

But if you're talking about respect, I fully agree with you that the anglophone community in Quebec should obtain, both in terms of quality and quantity, services in English from the federal government in Quebec. I am convinced that they do receive them, unlike the francophone communities outside of Quebec which, most of the time, do not obtain services that are adequate in terms of quality and quantity elsewhere in Canada. There are still some shortcomings hence the recommendations made by the Commissioner of Official Languages and her predecessors.

Mr. Grant Hill: Fine.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. Hill. Mr. Plamondon, please.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Thank you.

• 1605

First of all, I would like to congratulate you, Senator. I know that you received the Ordre des francophones d'Amérique last Friday. Receiving such an award is rare indeed. All of the members of the committee may join me in congratulating you on receiving this award.

Your report clearly establishes the difference between bilingualism and linguistic duality. In the five or six years that I have sat on this committee, I have noticed that the approach taken by the department in charge of the official languages, be it Treasury Board or the Department of Canadian Heritage, has become an anthem to bilingualism: everything is going well, more and more people are bilingual. This is the response that we always get from the Minister in charge, the Honourable Sheila Copps: more people are bilingual. When we point out to her that in her riding, the assimilation rate was 80% last year, she responded to us by saying that this was not serious, because there are more bilingual people. That is always the line she gives.

However, the spirit of the Official Languages Act, which you have clearly understood, is not to promote bilingualism, but to promote linguistic duality and, as you stated in your report, to ensure that a francophone or an anglophone feels that his or her rights are being respected in both parts of this country.

However, after 30 years of this Official Languages Act, after spending billions of dollars, we have come to the realization that the francophone community is weaker and that the assimilation rate is very high. Charles Castonguay talked about the trend whereby six minorities were disappearing according to the analysis presented in the most recent Statistics Canada Report. This is a serious situation.

I would like to read two short excerpts from your report. Here's what we read on page 28:

The linguistic and cultural continuity of the Francophone linguistic minorities in Canada clearly is not guaranteed. The renewal, development and vitality of these communities is not a given, any more than full recognition and equality of use of English and French in Canadian society.

You even go so far as to say the following, on page 54:

Linguistic duality is not synonymous with individual bilingualism. Linguistic duality means that Anglophone and Francophone citizens can live in their country, see themselves reflected in their symbols and rituals, be served, live, be educated and work in their language. The two concepts should not be confused.

You also add the following and I think this could answer Mr. Hill's question:

A distinction must also be drawn between state bilingualism and individual bilingualism. Linguistic duality clearly includes bilingualism in our government institutions. And our governments have a considerable amount of work to do before their institutions are effectively bilingual in accordance with the terms of our constitutional and legislative system.

This paragraph is a good summary of your thinking throughout the report. Could you elaborate a bit further? It seems to me this message is neither understood by the committee nor those who are in charge of applying this Act throughout our country and when I say “our country” I am wondering if I'm using the proper words.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): “Our country” are the proper words.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: Thank you, Mr. Plamondon. Fortunately, you haven't confused erotic with erratic.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Did I confuse “erratique” with “étatique” in French?

Voices: Ah, ah!

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: The distinction has indeed always existed, be it in Saskatchewan or in Ontario... I remember that in the 1980s, when we were working very hard to establish francophone high schools in Ontario, this distinction was not always made. The concept underlying Canadian policy then, and Ontario policy in this case, was that for people to be bilingual, institutions had to be bilingual. We hadn't yet understood that the best way to turn unilingual francophones into anglophones was to put them through bilingual institutions.

• 1610

It wasn't then understood that what really mattered was that individuals and communities be given the means to speak their own language.

The distinction between State bilingualism, that is the federal government's responsibility to promote both official languages and to enhance the vitality and support the development of minority communities, and the linguistic duality of Canadian citizens, that is their ability to speak their language and to live out their cultural identity, is still not understood. The two concepts are still confused.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Do I still have time, Madam Chair?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I'll grant you all the time you, want today.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: You wanted to add something, Mr. Poirier?

Mr. Jean Poirier: Yes. I was a provincial member of Parliament at Queen's Park in Toronto for more than 10 years. Being a Franco- Ontarian myself, I can tell you that people sometimes have a hard time agreeing on the definition of bilingualism. What does bilingualism mean?

Different people have different ideas of bilingualism. I don't consider myself a true bilingual. I am a bilingual francophone. And I'm proud of that. But for those who belong to the majority in Ontario, being bilingual does not mean the same thing as it does for me as a Franco-Ontarian, that is being able to speak my mother tongue.

I have met numerous persons who are bilingual and I think it's a great thing. They of course speak English and French because being bilingual could mean speaking any two languages. Some of those people do not understand a thing about our specificity. They do not understand that we francophones need to be able to receive services from our government in French and to live in an environment that allows us to develop while continuing to speak our language.

As I often had to explain it to my Queen's Park colleagues in response to the famous question “What do the French want?”, if you look closely, it becomes easy to see that our needs are directly linked to our specific circumstances. If I were still sitting as a provincial member of Parliament, I might tell my colleagues that we are a distinct society, so that they would understand that our needs and our linguistic and cultural expectations are different from theirs.

Bilingualism means meeting the needs of the francophone and anglophone communities in Canada although those needs might be different. Bilingualism means taking into account differences between people as well as commonalities.

As regards this bilingualism policy, as you have stated, people of good faith who want to help and who believe in bilingualism don't always go about helping us to remain francophones outside Quebec in the most useful or realistic way.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I want to ask you a question which is not intended as a trap or as a way of changing the topic. I often ask this question and I have never gotten a satisfactory answer to it.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: We are here to answer those types of questions.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Each time I have discussed the matter with spokespersons from the francophone community outside Quebec even if we don't like to use that term anymore, or rather from Canadian and Acadian francophone communities, they have always linked the issue of minority rights to the issue of national unity. I find this a bit tiresome. If francophones outside Quebec believe in Canada, the Charter and the Constitution, why do they believe those rights could be extinguished if Quebec were to separate, as you state on page 74 of your report?

Is it not time to start saying that your rights are there to stay and that you are one of the founding peoples of the other provinces also? You were a majority in the western provinces when they were created, and since your rights are recognized in the Constitution, they should continue to exist even if Quebec were to separate.

Sovereignists say that the rights of anglophones will be maintained and even protected in a sovereign Quebec. That statement is also found in the Parti Québécois's political program and is repeated in all official speeches. As you stated earlier, the rights that the anglophone minority in Quebec enjoys are envied by the francophone minority outside Quebec as well as by many minorities around the world.

• 1615

Would it not be possible to talk about the rights of francophones outside Quebec, to education, to health and to social services without linking them to the issue of national unity? I don't see the link between the two issues. To my mind, there is no link between sovereignty and the rights of Quebec anglophones. Quebec anglophones do not doubt that they will have the same rights if they live inside Canada or outside of it. Why wouldn't it be the same for you?

Maybe this is a question that the Senator will take under advisement as Madam Chair is suggesting. He could give me a written answer to this question.

Mr. Jean Poirier: We can give you an answer right now. We deliver to homes, like a pizzeria. There's no problem.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jean Poirier: The motto of ACFO is Nous sommes, nous serons. We're here to stay. It doesn't matter much if those two issues are linked or not, because we already have enough problems living our everyday lives. We are being asked to develop our community and to ensure that our rights are respected. What we are debating today is the extent to which there is a difference between the rights that are recognized to us on paper and the rights we really enjoy. If the rights we have on paper were really being respected, we wouldn't be appearing before you today.

No matter what direction Canada goes in in the future, whether it be left or right, no matter what the people of Quebec decide, when you are a francophone living outside Quebec, my dear friend and member of Parliament, we know what it means “to be a pawn in a political chess game”. We are always used as part of a bargaining ploy. One of my colleagues in Queen's Park used to say, when I was sitting on the Administration of Justice Committee:

[English]

“When Quebec stops doing that to the anglophones, maybe we shall think of treating you better, the French in Canada”.

[Translation]

How many times have I heard that! We are always used as bargaining chips. When you are trying to survive and flourish, it is very tiresome to always have to put out fires that are lit by language pyromaniacs. It is very difficult to think about the future of our rights when you're having a hard time having them respected today, no matter where you are and no matter the order of government you are dealing with. Respect is nobody's monopoly. Everybody should respect statutes and legal instruments. It is not enough to put them on paper; people should respect their provisions and implement them. We must respect the spirit of the law so that we, francophones in our communities, should not have to come before your committee to tell you that there are problems regarding the implementation of these much vaunted rights, charters, constitutions, etc. I hope to see the day when we will no longer have to tell you that there is a big gap between these two things. Whether this is related or not, we have rights and needs that our governments should take care of.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I like your answer.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Plamondon, if I may, I will give you a second round.

Mr. LeBlanc, you wanted to respond to Mr. Plamondon?

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: I was going to add a few comments.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Please do so. I shall then give the floor to Mr. Godin.

Please, Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: Regarding the respect of our current rights, there has indeed been some slippage. There is a gap between our rights on paper and reality. There have also been some set- backs which were felt regarding our rights as such and the expression of these rights. So, in a way, I agree with you that we should in no way negate or weaken the substance of those rights.

I would also like to bring up another factor which is related to this matter, namely the support that Quebec can give to francophone communities outside Quebec. Unfortunately, that support was not always there in the past, due to the various agendas.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would first like to welcome the Senator, especially since he is from my province, New Brunswick. I recall that when I was a little boy, I heard the Senator talking about the rights of francophones. I admire all the work he has done for francophones in New Brunswick and I wanted to say so for the record.

• 1620

When I read his report and some other things, I understand his concerns regarding francophones in Canada. Judging by the way people are treated, we still have a long way to go, especially since we are not even ready to acknowledge that the City of Ottawa is bilingual. We still have a long way to go.

That is one thing. When you look at all the fighting surrounding Montfort Hospital, and it is not even over, you have to pause and reflect. New Brunswick is a bilingual province, the only one in Canada, and we don't even know if the RCMP will provide us with services in French. We still have concerns regarding bilingual services, and we had to file a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages. That made the headlines, and that is not yet settled. With regard to the closing of French schools in Saint-Sauveur and Saint-Simon, the government sent in the RCMP with dogs, baseball bats and tear gas. We know how francophones have been treated in Canada and we can give examples of that.

Your recommendation says:

We recommend that a Minister of State for the development of the Official Language Communities be appointed.

You also recommend the following:

We recommend that a Secretariat for the Development of Francophone and Acadian Communities be established within the Privy Council Office.

If the government were really serious and wanted to settle the problem of official languages in Canada, don't you think that we could do without a Minister for Official Languages and that we wouldn't have to play ping-pong anymore with either Treasury Board, the Minister of Heritage or the Minister of Justice, without anyone ever answering our questions? That's one of the problems we have. Why not create a department whose role would be to take care of the officially recognized languages of our two founding peoples, that is French and English? At last we would have only one department to deal with and that department couldn't pass the buck anymore to someone else. What do you think?

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: If I understood you correctly, Mr. Godin, you are suggesting that a department be created that would take charge of the two major segments of the Canadian population that speak the two official languages.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: This department would have all the responsibilities of government, including the legal ones among others. Its minister could be more powerful, in principle. We recommended that the position of Minister of the Francophonie be created, because we had nothing. We thought it would be a valid and feasible step. In our report, we wanted to make feasible recommendations that would at the same time generate specific and immediate results.

We decided to add a functional unit at the level of the Privy Council, because the Privy Council is supposed to oversee and lead the government apparatus insofar as policies and priorities are concerned, but not at an operational level. We chose to establish it within the PCO in order to give the Privy Council the command posts that would ensure it will guide and oversee the consistent application by federal institutions of linguistic duality policies and responsibilities.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That is all for now.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I now give the floor to Mr. Bélanger.

My apologies, Mr. Bélanger. Mr. Poirier, please go ahead.

Mr. Jean Poirier: Thank you. I only need a few seconds.

What Pierre LeBlanc was saying is very important, because it is important to give key positions to the right persons and that these persons have decision-making power.

But there is also something else. We sensitized all the elected members, on both sides of the House, to the fact that it is not enough to create positions. It is important to change attitudes in the year 2000. Even if you created all sorts of positions with all the necessary powers, if attitudes don't change and if those who have the decision-making power over the fate of communities, particularly those in a minority situation, don't have the will to understand the specific needs and circumstances of the francophone and Acadian communities in Canada, the situation will become intolerable, particularly for those who form an official language minority.

Hence the two levels of changes that are necessary, since the status quo cannot be maintained. Madam Chair, Senators and ladies and gentlemen, those who, like us, fight to keep their mother tongue alive in the francophone communities outside Quebec are tired of trying to explain, to justify, to beg, to push, to recommend, to ask. We are fed up with all those forms we have to complete and with having to explain who we are and why we have specific needs. Attitudes must change once and for all. Enough is enough.

• 1625

Mr. Yvon Godin: Let me come back to my first question: in order for attitudes to change, do we not need a department which would be responsible for the whole issue and which could not throw someone else the ball? That department could not shy away from its responsibility and say that it is the mandate of Heritage Canada or of Treasury Board or of the Department of Justice.

That minister would have the ultimate responsibility according to a mandate given to him or her by the Prime Minister and according to which he or she would ensure the observance of the two official languages of Canada.

Mr. Jean Poirier: There are two conditions attached to that. First, the Minister must have at his disposal all legislative, technical and physical tools that are necessary for the implementation of what he wishes to impose and, second, he must have a clear, precise and unequivocal political mandate. This ministerial mandate must be different from that of the Official Languages Commissioner and her predecessors who have all stated in the past that they did not feel supported in their mandate. A ministerial team should feel that all of Parliament is behind it, that there is political will from the Right and from the Left, from the opposition and from government, in order for it to succeed. Without political will, even with the best of tools, it will not succeed.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. Poirier.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): If I may, Madam Chair, I have a comment rather than a question.

I too wish to thank Senator Simard for the work he has done. I am limiting my praise to the recommendations, since I sensed some partisanship that went a bit too far, to my taste, in the text.

Aside from the text, I must admit that generally speaking, the recommendations reflect the aspirations of the francophone community outside Quebec, as it is widely known. They certainly reflect the direction in which those communities would like to see their country go. And I believe that most of us can agree on that, at least I hope so.

In his presentation this morning, I was happy to hear the Senator talk about a new consensus. I think that we can feel a new wind blowing within the machinery of government. I think it can be felt that there is now a recognition that was indeed necessary. There is still some work to do, and I am very happy to hear that the Deputy Ministers' Committee on Official Languages has resumed.

I think that we can be very hopeful that the Deputy Ministers' Committee will be doing a good job. Some results have already been seen, as the Commissioner of Official Languages told us the last time we sat to discuss the bill on air transportation in Canada. That illustrated very well the type of contribution that can be expected from the Deputy Ministers' Committee on Official Languages. I hope that we will witness many more other contributions of the sort.

As for what my colleague was saying, does the option of giving specific tools to a minister rather than imposing them generally throughout the machinery of government illustrate the fact that the government has pulled itself together? Personally, I would prefer that the obligation to maintain linguistic duality be integrated to the whole machinery of government. But that solution would probably be more difficult to implement than simply creating a department who could in the short term impose the observance of the duality for a while. But I still think we should debate the options as far as the longer term solutions are concerned. What is the best approach in the longer term? Would it be integrating the mandates and responsibilities of departments? I have to admit that certain departments fare rather well on that front. Others, on the other hand, are not as aware of the situation as they should be and a few of them are totally blind to the duality. That was my first comment.

As for the longer term measures, I have to agree 100% with what was said about immigration. I am one of those who favour immigration to Canada. There are reports which prove that receiving immigrants has been helpful to our country. The Minister of Immigration stated a few months ago that Canada should perhaps increase the level of immigration to 200,000 or 300,000.

• 1630

If there were a percentage or a proportion that reflected Canadian demographics somewhat, I would be less concerned than I am. But we don't have that. I would like to know what type of incentive you would consider suggesting publicly in order to get the country thinking about this problem, since it is a problem. If, in the long term, the effect of immigration were to polarize the country even further and even reduce the presence of francophones in relation to anglophones, I do not think that would be beneficial.

I would like to hear comments on this subject from the Senator's representatives, if they don't mind.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: First, as to the federal government's commitment on the way to plan in order for all the nice words to be in agreement with reality, we have to see that the awakening of some departments and the renewal in others are often contradicted by certain events. This renewal is not always reflected in reality, far from it, and that is worrisome.

Would creating a special department in charge of this matter, as suggested by Mr. Godin, have been preferable to dispersing the matter throughout departments in order to integrate it in each one of them? In the long term, one of the solutions could always be to have a complete range of francophone ministers and of anglophone ministers having specific files for each of the two communities.

As Jean said, I think the most fundamental problem is one of political will. What needs to happen is for Cabinet, Parliament, etc. to be truly committed and to make available the means towards the end. It is essential for us that the Privy Council be fully committed to this responsibility and that they steer this issue far more actively than they do now. It is also essential that they give themselves the means to order that it be done and to run the necessary audits in all departments.

Of course, we know that technically Treasury Board is in charge of audits, but I am talking about the political responsibility insofar as decisions, expectations and deputy ministers' performances are concerned.

We are also quite pleased with the work of the committee. Finally! We are happy to see that there is something of a turnaround at the deputy ministers' committee. However, we believe that this committee is very far from having accomplished all of its tasks and we believe it still has a lot of work to do.

I would also like us to broaden the debate a bit. Up to now, we mostly spoke about languages, but we would also like to deal with the issue of culture. We not only want to speak of bilingualism, we would also like to speak of biculturalism. We would like to speak about francophone culture and ensure that the federal government's commitment towards francophones truly encompasses culture as well.

Insofar as immigration is concerned, true, there are several things that could be done about the mechanisms for immigrants' reception. However, at the starting point, the federal government has to knowingly decide that minority language communities will be peopled with new immigrants. That could be done through policies which would be communicated to our overseas offices in charge of selecting immigrants. It could be done by designating people, Canadian officers who would be appointed overseas and who would be committed to this policy.

• 1635

It could be done with quotas and through all types of mechanisms. It is not anything new. We have mentioned it in the report. It was done in reverse by the Minister in charge of immigration in 1896, Mr. Clifford Sifton, who clearly applied this policy in reverse. It is done. In its immigration policy, Canada already has quotas and standards of all types. It is just a matter of changing the mechanism. First and foremost, it is a matter of political will.

Moreover, the Quebec government is a good example of the exemplary work that is possible.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Madam Chair, I would like to talk about culture. I had not yet mentioned it, but I would like to do so since you are raising the question.

In this regard, I must applaud the government's efforts. We must acknowledge that the notion of cultural diversity is very present and very current. The government of Canada has worked very hard to create a national coalition, which now includes about 40 countries, to take a stand in the world using international means that aim to protect the possibility for countries to have, practise and experience their own culture instead of a single culture.

In that regard, it is undeniable that initiatives have been put in place, including a completely bicultural Pan-Canadian coalition. Mr. Robert Pilon, who is the Executive Director, has also joined the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française. It is a coalition that is truly representative of linguistic duality in Canada.

Then there is the order in council that Cabinet recently issued for the CRTC, asking it to do its homework, to examine the state of broadcasting in French throughout the country and to report back by the end of December, I believe. The government wanted the CRTC to be more aware of the importance of the role it plays in this area.

I would like to point out that a forum was held at the end of last week, last Thursday or Friday, in Montreal, on francophone culture in Canada, and it was attended by about 100 people. I must admit that I left the forum full of enthusiasm in light of the comments several people made, the recommendations they made and the will, at least as I perceive it, of the government to follow up on them.

In that regard, many things have been done strictly on the national level, without talking about the various ad hoc community projects throughout the country. So the track record is pretty good. Some work remains to be done, but the situation is not all that bad.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: I agree with you that a lot of things have been done. That is where the problem lies. Things were done. We must think in terms of a country-wide systemic approach.

We could talk about past cuts to CBC, cuts that decreased all programming in the regions. I know that, because I am from Saskatchewan; it was cut almost 100%.

We could talk about the complete lack of appropriate programming for pre-school aged children, as well as the cultural dimension, cultural reintegration and cultural enrichment so that these people can enter the school system. Let's talk about needs that were created... There were in fact some good things done with respect to cultural expression, and goodness knows how rich francophone cultural expression is outside Quebec and in Acadian communities.

However, and here I am going to make a link with Heritage Canada, there is no systemic approach. In fact, the approach is paradoxical or contradictory, and involves operating on the basis of projects, or events, which makes things difficult for us and which is even counterproductive for fundamental community-based cultural development.

• 1640

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: With all due respect, we may have to agree to disagree on that.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: It would not be the first time.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Exactly.

Mr. Jean Poirier: If I may, Madam, I would like to make a comment.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Go ahead, Mr. Poirier.

Mr. Jean Poirier: Yes, we can draw up a list of accomplishments. Some of the things are good.

For example, I saw that the Canadian Heritage Minister asked the CRTC to make some suggestions before December 31. That's good news because I don't have any room left in my filing cabinets for CRTC files. The ongoing struggles of the Francophones against the CRTC is such that I don't have any more room left in my filing cabinets. I get the impression that the joists in my house wouldn't be able to take the weight of one more filing cabinet reserved for the CRTC alone. I've had it up to there with having to fight the CRTC to get it to serve Francophones better.

So if Madam the Minister of Canadian Heritage demands that the CRTC cease, once and for all, its harassment of the Francophone community and do something to find ways to serve us better, then all the better.

To get back to your initial question, the answer is C, in other words A plus B. Should we have a minister in charge or should we require the 128 organisations to serve the Francophone community directly? The answer is that we should have both. We Francophones outside Quebec don't want to hear people telling us to go and knock on one door only on pretext that Heritage Canada's mandate is to serve us. For the others, we know how it works: when we go and knock on the 3,292 other doors we'll be told to go and knock on the door that's there just for us little Francos. In the past, that allowed the officials and the politicians to squirm away and not offer the quality services we were entitled to.

I told you last month, dear colleague, that one of the federal departments which, for once, had started working in cooperation with the Francophones was the Department of Agriculture and Agri- Food. Better late than never. They shone by their absence in the past, but when we had our first national convention of Francophone men and women farmers in Alfred, not so long ago, we got great cooperation from this department because, finally, there is a group of officials within Agriculture and Agri-Food that understood that they had the mandate to work hand in hand with us. But that's just one department. There are many more.

As for the other aspect of operations you're suggesting, I have no doubts about the good faith of the politicians who actually want to serve the Francophone communities outside Quebec. The question I have and that I'd like you to look at is whether you're doing everything you can. Are you doing the basics to maintain the situation? It's fine to have a policy to defend culture and it deserves all my admiration, but the question is which culture are we talking about. It's fine to have a policy to encourage the immigration of more and more Francophones whether it's to Quebec or outside Quebec. Congratulations! But will there be a Francophone community remaining to welcome those people coming from other lands?

The same thing goes for my English-speaking colleagues from Toronto who say they're taking courses in French as a second language. That's fine, but I do hope that when they have enough knowledge of the French language to have a conversation, there will still be a Francophone community left. Otherwise, they're going to have a round table at the Alliance française where they'll have cocktails and practice their second language, French.

As for the last policy concerning projects at Heritage Canada, it's fine. It's fine to add projects to what you normally have already, but it's less so to say that you'll only work on a project basis and that our permanent activities won't be funded. The Francophone community doesn't only deal with projects. Madam Chair, honourable members, Senator, we spent last fall putting out fires. We helped TFO in Quebec, but now we have to drop everything because the provincial government has said that it wants to close down Alfred College. We also had to drop that to come to the defence of Montfort Hospital. We also let everything drop because the Ontario provincial government hasn't even deigned grant the official status of bilingual city to the federal capital, Madam Chair.

We are certified as volunteer firefighters. We will put out fires. The government is asking us to do community development and we want to do that, but our boots are full of water from fighting fires lit by arsonists who do not want to see things working in the communities. We are dealing with very difficult situations and we would like the federal government, the House of Commons and the Senate to try and better understand what is going on and help the communities more to develop their potential so that they do not take one step forward and two steps back.

• 1645

So, yes, we are in favour of defending culture, but as far as integration goes...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, Madam, but I...

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I will give you time to answer that, but then I would like to continue the rotation, Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I accept the criticism directed...

Mr. Jean Poirier: It is constructive criticism.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, yes, but I absolutely do not want anyone listening to us or reading the proceedings of this sitting later to think for a moment that I accept this criticism that should be directed to the Harris government. The Montfort Hospital issue, the question of whether Ottawa will be declared a bilingual city and the Alfred College situation, Madam Chair, all come under the responsibility of Mr. Harris, and that should be made clear.

Mr. Jean Poirier: Yes. That is why we are counting so much on your help; there are no longer any doors open to us at the provincial level. The federal government's assistance is even more important for those of us who are members of the Francophone community outside Quebec. When there is a government like the one we have...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Our friend, Mr. Plamondon, will tell us that we need to keep in mind the division of powers.

Mr. Jean Poirier: While respecting the provinces' jurisdiction, we will be pleased to go to Queen's Park as well to tell Uncle Mike that the assistance we are receiving is far from adequate and that he should work in cooperation with you. But that does not mean that you people at the federal level can pat yourselves on the back and say that you have done your job. That is not the case.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No one said that.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Poirier.

Mr. Jean Poirier: No one said that, but we have come here to tell you to continue your work because, although we recognize your praiseworthy achievements, there is still much that needs to be done.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. LeBlanc, would you like to add something to what Mr. Poirier has said?

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: In response to what Mr. Bélanger said, I just wanted to point out that there is a Canadian policy on official languages and that it must be maintained. Although there is a division of powers between the provinces and the federal government, not only does the federal government have a responsibility in this area, but also it has tools to work with. It can use these tools and it does so in other areas when it wants to. Even if the government did not use them and refused to transfer money—which it could do and has done—it could review the messages it is sending out on this issue. The messages are extremely weak. When we talk about political will, it comes down to the body politic, the Canadian political psyche and the Canadian media psyche.

The federal actors, whether we are talking about members of Parliament, the Prime Minister or members of the Cabinet, all have a responsibility to take action and to recreate the political psyche so as to reflect the Canadian policy on official languages faithfully. Only then will we have the political and administrative space necessary to make the decisions that are required. It is wrong to shirk one's obligations with respect to such fundamental principles. It is impossible to hide behind principles of jurisdiction and take a laissez-faire attitude as if it were 1899.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc. If I may, I will ask two or three questions before giving the floor to my colleague, Mr. Plamondon, so he can wind things up.

Perhaps I did not quite understand your recommendation about a single service point, since it seems to me that there is a contradiction between creating a new department or secretary of State position and the horizontal mandate involved in a number of departments.

• 1650

I used to be the chair of the Conseil des communautés culturelles et de l'immigration du Québec. We asked ourselves exactly the same question. Although we were dealing with ethnic minorities rather than cultural and linguistic ones, we wondered how the minorities could be best served. Would it be better to take a one-stop approach, have a department, which would have authority over the other departments? It is not clear there either, is it? As Mr. Poirier said earlier, should we refer all these people to one department that would look after everything, with the result that the other departments would then say that they no longer have any responsibility in this area? Would it be better to assign responsibilities to each department, as is more or less the case now, and hope that each of them will work toward the same objectives and assume full responsibility for integrating and recognizing linguistic minorities?

I feel that this debate does not lead to any obvious conclusions. There is some black and some white involved; there are pros and cons with both options. Mr. Poirier told us that if we chose the one-stop approach, all the other departments would be relieved of any responsibility. That is where the danger lies, in my view. There are some positive aspects to the recommendation that you have made, Senator, to create a secretary of State position and bring responsibility under the Privy Council's authority, but I also see some dangers. Could you comment a bit on that balance and the dangers that I am concerned about?

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: I want to be sure that you have understood our recommendation properly. We do not see any contradiction, but rather complementarity. To begin with, if we had proposed appointing a minister responsible for the development of Francophone communities, with a department of 30,000 or 40,000 people, then we could say that we were creating a department of the Francophony and that all the other departments were being allowed to abdicate their responsibilities.

We made it clear that we were recommending that the functional entity be within the Privy Council so that it would not assume the responsibilities of the various departments. We wanted the leadership and imperative aspects to be located in the Privy Council. That entity, which would be relatively small, would maintain direct contact with the Cabinet; it would be responsible for directing and guiding the departments in their activities in this area. We are not talking about a parallel or substitute mechanism. It would be an entity that would impose how things would be done. I do not know if that is helpful to you, but we are talking about a minister to provide support for community development and not about a secretary of State.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): In other words, you are talking about a minister or a secretary of State responsible for a horizontal issue involving the other departments.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: That is right.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I understand better now. Thank you.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: That person would have authority at the departmental level as well as within the Privy Council, which would give him authority over the other federal departments and agencies.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Very well. Thank you for that clarification. I would like to ask you a second question. Here again, I am going on the experience I acquired before becoming a member of Parliament. I worked a great deal with various ethnic and cultural groups across Quebec and across Canada. I realized that there was a structural weakness in these groups, more specifically in the area of leadership. It is often, but not always, the case that the leadership is weak and that it is supposedly elected by the members of the community. In the light of my experience, it seems to me that few members of the community take part in the elections. In reality, a small group tends to elect one, two or three individuals to the executive of that group.

• 1655

Point 4.6.4 of your report deals with the federal government's coercive approach. You say essentially what I have been saying, in other words:

With few exceptions, the so-called representative organisations of the Francophone communities are totally isolated from their communities and their leadership is ineffective. In addition, they have stopped informing community members and making them aware of the crucial issues and of the forces which may have a decisive impact on their lives.

I have to admit that that does reflect my perception of many groups which are sometimes well-organised but where, in the end, only a small clique of people is really involved in making the decisions and discussing policies. I see that at recommendation 8, you recommend redesigning the funding formula for organisations dedicated to the development of the communities.

In light of the structural weakness of organisations representing Francophone communities throughout Canada—and I exclude Quebec here—, how do you think we could redesign the funding formula since funding is in the hands of NGOs and community groups which, in your opinion, do not represent their communities in their election process and do not take on their community responsibilities?

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: We have to take into account certain elements. I would first like to say that I am happy you raised that point. The senator's report was not aimed only at the federal government; it was also for the provincial governments and communities. He analyzed the reality of Francophone communities and identified what was needed to improve the situation.

Organisations acting as the spokesperson for their community generally tend to be weak—there are quite a number of pages on this in the report—; it is so in part because it was meant to be this way. We looked at the evolution of Canadian policies dealing with Francophone communities starting with the early 1970s. We saw that there was a change in direction in the 1980s in terms of federal policies. Since the first Official Languages Act, there had been full support for community development. The federal government was perhaps surprised when Francophone communities identified the federal government as an obstacle to their development and criticized the actions of certain departments. From then on, there was a change of direction and there was an attempt to try to use money to limit, control and supervise community action. The policy slowly changed and led to funding by projects, what we have today and which is very stifling for all. In terms of the envelope as well as approach, it's like connecting a corpse to a respirator. If we all had the same amounts of money and if we had a development- based approach instead of this piecemeal approach, it would be a big improvement.

Jean could tell you more about representation within Francophone organisations. But before we get into that, I would remind you that the President of the United States who is supposed to be the most powerful and democratic man in the world only has 20 or 21% of the popular vote. Representativeness always depends on the number of people who decide to use their democratic right to vote. That is how it is expressed.

• 1700

I don't believe that the concept of representativeness is that significant. The concept of leadership however is very significant and if the report recommends among other things that ways be found to create a new leadership, it is because we have seen that with a strong leadership within a given community—and there still are some in communities within communities, in various regions of the country—Francophones outside Quebec want to live, to fulfil themselves. They are waiting. They are waiting for information, inspiration and leadership. When we let their leaders be leaders, when they are not overwhelmed by administrative tasks—and I will let Jean tell you about the percentage of time devoted to negotiating the so-called Canada-Community agreements—we can have a situation very different from the one that now exists.

Mr. Jean Poirier: I understand what you're saying, Madam Chair, when you talk about your experience with community and ethno-cultural groups. I see it too. In our case it's probably more that the leadership has been worn out, drained.

To understand the past is to understand the present. If you look at the history of many Francophone communities outside Quebec, Madam Chair, you will see that in the past, there was not even a reason to hope. Today, we're faced with an “asp” problem: always the same people. People are tired and paperwork can be frustrating to the point where—and I can tell you this honestly, quite candidly and without wanting to be mean—I don't think I'll have the energy to make another application to Canadian Heritage next year. I will leave to someone else the joy of trying to get the peanuts, because it is only just peanuts. I have had enough of this race.

That is why I am asking you parliamentarians, to look at yourselves in the mirror and to ask yourselves if, even if you think you're doing things right, if you have found the best way to help us through these difficult times. It's hard to find people who want to get involved because a lot of people are tired out. There are others who find that after one step forward we take two step backwards. I am thinking more specifically of the negotiations for the renewal of the Canada-Community agreement in Ontario. As I was saying Friday on the Ontario 30 program, a lot of people are frustrated, Madam Chair, but won't dare say a word for fear—I'll admit it's only a perceived fear—that they won't get their small grant.

A lot of organisations will close up shop this Summer, including ours, Madam Chair, for lack of funds. We have no employees. We don't even have a permanent space. I sometimes volunteer 80 hours a week, sometimes 90 hours, sometimes 115 and even 120 hours a week because we have no employees and we just closed our office. And just at the beginning of this new fiscal year, on May 2nd, we're starting to use our credit line, Madam Chair.

It makes no damn sense, pardon my language. That's no way to help us. We need that support on April 1st. We have to know how much money we will get and when we will get it. I received the third and last part of my grant from Canadian Heritage on March 10th of last year. The fiscal year ends March 31st. Just like in Mao's China, I had to criticize myself and explain why my programs hadn't worked the previous year. They didn't work because I didn't know how much money I was going to get and because I had not the faintest idea of when I was going to receive it. I had to lay-off my employee and put certain projects on the back burner. But I have to take the blame. I wasn't able to do what I had told the Canadian Heritage Minister I planned to do in the last fiscal year.

This is the kind of frustration, Madam Chair, which make you throw in the towel and say to hell with it. If this is the kind of help you want to give us next year, in spite of your good faith, I can tell you to forget it. I'll even tell ACFO not to ask for a single cent from Canadian Heritage. I'll tell them that we can make do with our own peanuts, among ourselves. The frustration has reached that point, members of the committee. And if you think this is only my opinion, do your own little investigation. There are a lot of people who have had enough, who feel that you're not helping us concretely in our community work.

• 1705

They may not say so straight to your face but that's what they tell us in private. For my part, I am not embarrassed to say so publicly because it comes straight from the heart. I am telling you what I think. If you want to help us, review your present procedures. The way you are now going about it is definitely not the right way and I am telling you so with all due respect for you both individually and collectively.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): All I can add, Mr. Poirier, for our three witnesses, is that we have not been members of Parliament all our life and that we did have a previous life. I personally worked with NGOs and I recognize the frustration you are giving voice to. I have already experienced it myself. This system of project grants is not limited to the minority francophone communities but applies to all Canadian community organizations. In my opinion, it is a way of requiring community groups to go through the same exercise that often strikes me as useless and spend their time applying for grants rather than doing their real job. In this respect, I quite agree with you.

Mr. Plamondon, you have the floor.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: They are not community groups, as far as I know. Francophones outside Quebec belong to one of the two founding peoples and they should have the trust of the federal government along with funding and be allowed to decide for themselves what they will do with it. You say that you have not been a member of Parliament for a long time, Madam Chair. I don't know whether it is considered a long time but I personally have been an MP for 15 years; it will be 16 years on the 4th of September, and Mr. Poirier's cry from the heart reflects the sort of thing that I have been hearing from francophones outside Quebec, not necessarily among the leaders. You mentioned this, Mr. LeBlanc, and it is unfortunate that certain leaders find themselves in a situation where they feel intimidated if they want to obtain a grant.

In your book, Senator Simard, I think you talk about allegiance, people who have given their allegiance. There is a danger here. They may be acting in good faith but there is a danger that these community leaders will become somewhat dependent on the vision of the federal government because of these goodies. You talked about peanuts, I'd be more inclined to talk about goodies. They eventually receive a payment that allows them to save their organization for a few months when they should be able to count on a more generous vision, as you say.

You are quite outspoken and I think that this is the way the francophone minority outside of Quebec should express itself in all forums, and in particular with elected representatives. Unfortunately, there are not many of us present to hear your message and unfortunately this is not the kind of juicy news that the press likes to serve up. So there won't be much coverage tomorrow. Still, there is no need to despair, it is something you will have to keep on repeating. At least you can feel that you have done your duty.

I'd now like to ask you a question about a recommendation that strikes me as rather spectacular, your recommendation for a compensation fund. In your report you talk about a compensation fund of $600 million.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Plamondon, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Would you please put your question directly because there are four people left who wish to speak after you.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I only had five minutes before, when Mr. Bélanger had seven or eight. You took seven or eight minutes.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I've only been speaking for two minutes.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Excuse me, but I think that you have had more than five minutes, Mr. Plamondon. Go ahead. I'm simply asking you to get to your question.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: That is what I was going to do, Madam Chair. I was simply engaged in the preliminaries.

I was going to ask about the $600 million fund mentioned in your report. This fund would be reserved—and here is where I see the principle of asymmetry coming into play—for the francophone and Acadian minorities exclusively as compensation for what the federal government has been making them go through for some time now.

• 1710

You also talk about indirect devolution in your report and this leads me to my question. I don't know whether you will have time to answer. I've written it down. I'll read it, Madam Chair, and then it will be finished. If you are able to give me a written answer or to give me some indication, that will be fine.

Am I to conclude from this request for a compensation fund that you are in favour of an asymmetrical policy with respect to the federal government's treatment of francophone minorities outside of Quebec and the anglophone minority in Quebec? If so, what grounds justify this asymmetrical approach and how far can it go?

You also say that the federal government has a decisive role to play in ensuring the survival and development of francophone communities. How far can it go in this respect? Can it conclude agreements with the communities to transfer professional training services, for example, that are refused to them by the provinces. What would be the prerequisites for entering into such agreements? Would it be necessary for the provinces to give their approval, for example?

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: Do you want me to answer in 30 seconds or less?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: As you wish. I am in no hurry. The chair is in a greater hurry than I am.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): You have two minutes.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: You have two minutes.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: Well, I'll attempt to give a quick reply. First of all, as far as asymmetry is concerned, I find the question rather funny. The present practice is already asymmetrical. In Quebec the federal government set up, health programs, for example, a number of years ago for the English-speaking minority, something that it never envisaged doing for French-language speakers outside Quebec.

When the matter of asymmetry comes up, funnily enough, it's usually a pretext to limit what could be done to render justice to francophones. This question of a right to compensation and a compensation fund is not a political matter. It's a question of justice. It is because rights were not respected. So whether or not this is recognized by the federal government or the Cabinet, it is quite possible that the courts may one day dictate to them that this must be done.

If we are forced to go to court, it will not be an intelligent way of proceeding. That is not what we want. What we want are political decisions recognizing that people were harmed, that the community was systematically weakened in the past and that compensation must be granted.

If the federal government decides to do nothing, I would be quite disturbed but at the same time I would realize that sooner or later, the courts of law will require action. So it is not a question of politics but rather a question of a right to compensation.

As far as professional training is concerned, it is obvious that the notion of oblique delegation is always a matter that must be dealt with very cautiously. People can attempt, and it is already being done, to transfer responsibilities to communities without transferring the appropriate resources and the ways of developing professional and organizational capacity to manage such responsibilities.

So in the case of oblique delegation, we want to make sure that we do not create a situation where people are being asked to manage their own resourcelessness.

But something of that type could be done. Ideally, it could be done within a tripartite relationship. That is something we asked for seven years ago at the ACFO provincial level.

• 1715

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Bélanger will be next, followed by Senator Beaudoin and Mr. Godin. I'd like to remind you that it is 5:15 and that the bell will be ringing at 5:30 for a vote. So I would like to ask the questioners to be fairly brief and the same goes for those giving answers.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'd like to make two brief comments on Mr. Poirier's plea.

I find it just as frustrating as you that the Department of Heritage and the community have not been able to reach an agreement for Ontario. You seem to put the entire blame on the department. I'd like to point out that there are nine provinces that signed an agreement as well as three territories. It is quite legitimate to ask whether the department alone if responsible for the present state of affairs.

Second, it is claimed in a rather cavalier fashion that this is only project money, nothing more than peanuts. First of all, let us get the figures straight. At the beginning, the amount was $3 million and it increases by 4.5% a year. Out of this sum, 10% is supposed to be used for projects and the rest for operational support. It is important to get the facts straight before making any such statements.

It's that hot latin blood, like you, Mr. Poirier.

Reference was made to the weak approach being taken by the government. I hope that the speaker who made this remark realizes that the government can speak in different ways and through different voices. For example, it can speak through its Acts. I'm thinking of a particular Act. I'm referring to the referral to the Supreme Court on secession. I'm referring to Beaulac and to the decisions on Summerside. Go take a look at the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and the decisions resulting from this Act. I think that even you, Mr. LeBlanc, would have trouble saying that this is a weak approach.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): If you don't mind, I would prefer going straight to Senator Beaudoin, and you may react at the end if you wish.

Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald-A. Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): You talked about asymmetry and certain principles. Now you're talking about a reference. There is a distinction to be made. The court may intervene to state what the obligations of the Government of Canada are. However, as far as money is concerned, the farthest it can go is to tell the government that it must spend money in order to fulfil its obligations.

My question is as follows: is this a question of principle or a question of money? If it's a matter of principle, of course, then it can be submitted to the courts. But if we are talking about a certain amount of money to be spent, then the courts will not normally take a stand on the matter. In other words, the court will tell the government that it must fulfil its obligations, whether they be political or constitutional, but I do not see how it could say that the government must spend 3 to 4 million dollars, unless you are suing the government, which is surely not the case.

I'd like you to enlighten me on this.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: You are the constitutional expert, not I.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes, but I am not as familiar with the facts as you.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: When I talked about a compensation fund, I was not talking about the funding policies for community groups etc. I was talking the federal government's responsibility to provide compensation for the wrongs and the omissions of the past.

As I understand it, following challenges or action in the Federal Court, under section 24 of the Charter of Rights, this federal body could, as is done in remedies in other areas, make calculations, consult experts and determine the amount of compensation.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Clause 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one thing. But here, you are talking about language rights. That is different. What clause are you talking about? Clause 24 applies when a fundamental freedom has been denied, in which case one goes to the courts. But here, isn't this first and foremost a matter of language?

• 1720

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: It is a matter of language but also a question of law under clause 16.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Ah, I see. For New Brunswick.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: For New Brunswick.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: And the equality of both languages.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: Yes.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Now I must recognize that the Court's role is greater because of clause 24 that does allow it to intervene in cases like that.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: Because of the link between clause 16 and clause 24.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Ah, so this is not purely and simply a matter of money. It is more than that.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: Yes, yes.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Fine.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Godin, if you please.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Madam Chair, I will try to be brief. I only have a couple of comments for my colleagues who are not from New Brunswick, especially those from Saskatchewan and Ontario.

I would simply like to have your comments on the Radio- Canada's responsibility and even more so as you represent French- speaking groups. Earlier, you mentioned the CRTC. You were afraid the floor would drop through. Maybe it would be better to put the whole file in the basement, because that is almost where it is anyway. In any case, that is my impression.

I simply want to quickly say that Radio-Canada, in my opinion, exists for all francophones everywhere in Canada. I once said that it was Radio-Québec and I was taken to task. In fact, it's Radio- Montreal. That's the contact point. A cat crosses the street in Montreal and it will make the national news. As far as we are concerned, no matter what happens, you would almost have to set the roads on fire for any of it to make the national news on the French CBC network. That is how the francophones outside Quebec are served here, in Canada.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The francophones outside Montreal.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You talk about francophones outside of Quebec, but let's say outside of Montreal. As for the CBC, Toronto is the problem there because everything comes from Toronto.

I would like to hear your comments on that. At the same time, in the cultural area, besides RDI, there's not much going on in Canada according to Radio-Canada. It could play a really big role in that area. The federal government's responsibility is to see to it that that television network promotes the French fact all across the country. I'd like to hear you on that.

Mr. Jean Poirier: There have been so many cuts at the Société Radio-Canada, Madam Chair, Honourable Members and Senators, that the government now, in its wisdom, has given us a mandate to create community radio stations. For us, the volunteers, the volunteer horses, we have to take $50,000 and get a community radio going because people think that Radio-Canada doesn't have the means or the mandate to do its work anymore. It seems to me that if Radio- Canada could do the work it is supposed to with the French-speaking communities outside of Montreal—and that's well put—at that point, we might actually have enough services both in quantity and quality.

Even though I'm a Franco-Ontarian, I'm not even given access to the Ontario news put out by the French CBC coming from Ottawa. My fellow citizens from the rest of Ontario have a special news bulletin for Ontario that all the Franco-Ontarians, all across the province, can tune into except for us in the East. We don't even have that. We get the newscast produced in Ottawa especially for Hull and Buckingham so that the poor people up there don't have to hear too much about Hearst and Kapuskasing.

So, France Beaudoin, at 6:00 p.m., does a local version of the Ce Soir program that is made for all Franco-Ontarians but that we never ever get to see.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I am sorry. Eastern Ontario?

Mr. Jean Poirier: In Eastern Ontario. We don't have the right to see the Ontario news. You did not know that, did you? Well, here is a big first for you. Instead of putting on a rerun of Détecteurs de mensonges for us at 12:30, maybe they could show us the Ontario newscast, on our national television network, which is there thanks to what's left of our taxes.

That is the poor quality of service we get because of the cuts. As a former executive vice-president of the CBC said, the whole community radio program, Madam Chair, resorts to cheap labour. To compensate for the CBC cuts, they are going to be asking a bunch of volunteer schmucks, somewhere, to set up a community radio program with $50,000 that they are going to be given and they will be wished good luck, especially since nobody is asking for extra money to ensure the operation of the thing. They are going to be helped to launch the program and then it's goodbye.

So, that is the kind of problem we are facing. I am sure that you are going to work all together to help us to settle those problems once and for all. Thank you, Mr. Godin, and thank you, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Think nothing of it.

Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: Has the time come to wind this down or are there any further questions?

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Yes, it is...

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I was going to ask you if you would be available to come here and put questions to the Minister when she appears before us as a witness.

Mr. Jean Poirier: With pleasure.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Actually, we do have two minutes left, and I was going to ask you both, Mr. Poirier and Mr. LeBlanc, if you had any closing comments.

• 1725

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: Yes, Madam Chair. I would like to tell Senator Simard that I feel privileged to have been able to work together with him in writing this report where we set out the reality of the French-speaking communities outside of Quebec and where the inequities and lack of will are denounced. It is shown in there to what point Canada is vulnerable because of this lack of will. The report suggests solutions that must be guided overall by an integral policy for the development of the francophone communities outside Quebec. I remember that in 1994, the Bloc Québécois had suggested a development policy for the francophone communities outside Quebec. There are all kinds of elements here and there like the Official Languages Act and the Supreme Court decisions, that are actually good decisions, in passing, but there is no firm will to commit to a clear direction with specific objectives that would allow us to hope for the full implementation of the policies set out in the Official Languages Act. All the elements we have spoken about, amongst others the 42 recommendations and all the analyses, must come under this kind of integral policy. I am sure that the Senator would be pleased to write out that policy for the federal government.

Mr. Jean Poirier: Madam Chair, I raise my hat high and recognize everything that has been done to date, but we cannot maintain the status quo. You are grinding us down. The whole thing has to be looked at. You can do even better and even more if you really want to help us. If the politicians, both the men and the women, had done their work properly, the reality of the francophone communities outside Quebec would be quite different. Although it does come down with good decisions, must we forever be taking our problems before the Supreme Court? Why don't you ask the Acadians from Prince Edward Island how much energy they had to spend to finally get a decision that is so striking in its reality. Why do we have to forever be climbing the barricades just to ensure respect for what we've already acquired? We can't even think about the future, because we are forever putting out fires just to keep what we already have.

If our elected representatives do their work well, we can actually get down to doing something other than showing up before the Supreme Court from generation to generation to ask it to interpret all these laws that have more holes in them than Swiss cheese. I actually love Swiss cheese, but I am not too crazy about the holes. These laws are often full of holes. There is a lack of goodwill, we miss the boat and then we have to spend all kinds of energy to defend our communities left and right. Please, look reality in the face and end the status quo. Do better and do more with what you have.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: A very brief word.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. LeBlanc, please.

Mr. Pierre LeBlanc: During our presentation, we emphasized the real impact that you can have with a report. Unless I am mistaken, you tabled your last official report in 1996. We are exhorting you to write a new official report and table it with the Canadian Parliament because, in our opinion, besides the education and research elements, that is the instrument that will allow you to help us and help Canada.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): First, I would like to thank you, Senator, Mr. Poirier and Mr. LeBlanc, for having come here not only to present us with this report, but also to explain to us the complex and delicate situation that lies behind that report. It was very important for us to meet you. I can tell you that our committee does intend to table a report when it ends its deliberations. Maybe we might even be able to present the document, which will not be an official report, before summer. It's a possibility the members of this committee will discuss.

• 1730

I thank you once again, all three of you. Senator, do you have a few words? Please.

Senator Jean-Maurice Simard: I would like to thank the members of the committee as well as Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. Poirier.

The Joint Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you very much, Senator.

I would like to remind the members of the committee that Ms. Françoise Bertrand, president of the CRTC, has confirmed she will be with us on Tuesday, May 9. We will have the opportunity to question her at length. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.