LANG Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, March 18, 2002

1530

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu, Rougemont, Lib.)

Mr. Jean Léger (Director General, Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse)

1535

1540

Ms. Maria Bernard (President, Société Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin)

1545

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

1550

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux (President, Société des acadiens et acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick)

1555

1600

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin (President, Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario)

1605

1610

1615

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Brent Tyler (President, Alliance Quebec)

1620

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Reid

Mr. Brent Tyler

1625

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.)

1630

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

1635

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Jean Léger

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Jean Léger

Ms. Maria Bernard

Mr. Brent Tyler

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

1640

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

Mr. Jean Léger

Ms. Maria Bernard

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin

1645

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)

Ms. Maria Bernard

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

1650

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Jean Léger

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

1655

Ms. Maria Bernard

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Maria Bernard

Mr. Jean Léger

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin

1700

Mr. Brent Tyler

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Viola Léger (New Brunswick, Lib.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Herron

Ms. Maria Bernard

Mr. John Herron

Ms. Maria Bernard

1705

Mr. Herron

Ms. Maria Bernard

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Brent Tyler

1710

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Jean Léger

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Jean Léger

The Hon. Gauthier

Mr. Jean Léger

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Brent Tyler

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Brent Tyler

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Brent Tyler

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

1715

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

1720

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Brent Tyler

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Brent Tyler

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Brent Tyler

1725

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Brent Tyler

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Brent Tyler

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin

1730

Mr. Godin

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

Mr. John Herron

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Brent Tyler

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

1735

Mr. Brent Tyler

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

1750

Mr. Daniel Cuerrier (coordinator, Association des francophones du Nunavut)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Daniel Cuerrier

1755

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Claude Provencher (President, Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique)

1800

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Daniel Lamoureux (Executive Director (Fédération franco-ténoise)

1805

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Ms. Jeanne Beaudoin (Executive Director, Association franco-yukonnaise)

1810

1815

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

M. Raymond Lamoureux (Executive Director, Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta)

1820

1825

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Denis Desgagné (Executive Director, Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise)

1830

1835

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Denis Desgagné

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Denis Desgagné

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

1910

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Claude Provencher

Mr. Daniel Lamoureux

1915

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1920

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Jeanne Beaudoin

1925

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Jeanne Beaudoin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Jeanne Beaudoin

Mr. Daniel Cuerrier

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Daniel Lamoureux

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Claude Provencher

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Viola Léger

1930

Mr. Denis Desgagné

The Hon. Léger

Mr. Denis Desgagné

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Yvon Godin

1935

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Claude Provencher

Mr. Daniel Lamoureux

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Daniel Lamoureux

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Mr. Yvon Godin

1940

Ms. Jeanne Beaudoin

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

1945

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Claude Provencher

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Binet

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Gérard Binet

1950

Ms. Jeanne Beaudoin

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Gérard Binet

1955

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Daniel Cuerrier

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Daniel Lamoureux

2000

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Denis Desgagné

2005

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Mr. Binet

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Gérard Binet

2010

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Denis Desgagné

2015

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Claude Provencher

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Claude Provencher

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Denis Desgagné

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Denis Desgagné

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Daniel Lamoureux

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

2020

Mr. Godin

Mr. Daniel Lamoureux

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

CANADA

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 029

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, March 18, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1530)

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu, Rougemont, Lib.): I see a quorum, so I will call the meeting to order.

[Translation]

Today, our guests are Ms. Bernard, Mr. Léger, Mr. Rioux, Mr. Aubin and Mr. Brent Tyler from Alliance Québec. Welcome. I believe our clerk has told you you could each start with a five-minute presentation.

[English]

For members of the committee there will be a five minute maximum per person on the first round; that includes the answer. We will do another round after that.

[Translation]

Today, we will discuss the action plan of Minister Dion, who is responsible for the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, or any other subject of concern to you.

Mr. Léger, you have the floor.

Mr. Jean Léger (Director General, Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse): Good afternoon everyone. On behalf of Mr. Stan Surette, President of the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to present the perspective of Nova Scotian Francophones and Acadians on section 41 of the Official Languages Act of Canada. In future, I hope we will be invited regularly to speak to you on behalf of our communities because this is an excellent way to take the pulse of the Francophone and Acadian population of Canada on this matter of prime importance.

First, allow me to say that the Act here in question today is of crucial importance for our communities' survival. Without it, the Acadians of Nova Scotia would find it much more difficult to live and, especially, to grow in their language.

It is our fervent hope that the Honourable Stéphane Dion's action plan will ensure full implementation on all fronts, not just in cultural matters, and that all departments will be involved in the development and vitality of the official language minority communities.

We fully support the demands the FCFA made with respect to the Act in its talks with Mr. Dion. Our organization is proud to be able to rely on the Fédération to present the Francophones and Acadian communities of Canada. I invite you to give serious consideration to its views, among others the idea that the Treasury Board president should be designated as the person responsible for the official languages program and for implementation of an overall development plan.

In addition, for information purposes, we have thought it a good idea to append to this presentation the Nova Scotian Acadian community's comprehensive action plan for the period ending in 2004.

Allow me to describe some of the community's concerns with regard to the Official Languages Act and its implementation in our region.

First, the Act is still all too often shunted to one side, even disregarded, by the various levels of government, including the Government of Canada. We believe the federal government has a great deal of work to do to change its organizational culture to ensure respect for the language rights of the Francophone and Acadian communities.

The act is too often interpreted vaguely and, at times, is not given all due consideration in crucially important fields such as education and health.

Organizations such as the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse still spend far too much time ensuring the Act is complied with. This prevents them from actually working on community development, which should be their real mandate.

In the course of their work, our organizations must constantly be vigilant, even in the context of federal initiatives and programs, where one might think the Official Languages Act should guarantee services in the minority language.

Only a few weeks ago, for example, our organization had to file a complaint with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages concerning the Voluntary and Community Sector Initiative, which is a Treasury Board responsibility. We expressed our dissatisfaction that no consultation and training sessions had been scheduled for Francophones in the Atlantic region. In other words, the Francophones of four Canadian provinces had been completely ignored. Without the vigilance of an organization such as FANE, or SAANB, the SSTA or FTTNL, the Acadian community would not have been able to take advantage of this initiative, whereas the volunteer sector forms the very basis of our organizations and especially our communities. And to add to government officials' negligence of official languages, our organization was given three weeks to organize a consultation and training session for the entire Atlantic region.

What can we say about the federal programs administered by the provinces. In this area, the Act is often disregarded, or else the provisions of the Act are not complied with at all.

¹ (1535)

In dealing with certain provinces, our organizations must go to extraordinary lengths to obtain basic information. These things do not help the situation and exacerbate the climate of mistrust between our communities and the provinces and governments.

It is high time the federal government ensured that the Act is complied with comprehensively, NOT on an ad hoc basis, guided by arbitrary considerations and measures that are merely easy to implement.

I also invite the federal government to foster a spirit of partnership, not confrontation, with the minority language communities. Cases before the courts afford an opportunity to advance issues, but society as a whole would benefit much more from a spirit of cooperation, and our organizations would be able to work harder to develop and strengthen our communities for the benefit of Canadian society as a whole.

Furthermore, the federal government must not only ensure compliance with the Act, but also foster the vitality of the official language communities because the Canadian provinces often do not have the funds or the desire to work to this end.

If citizens' equality rights are inalienable, minority language Francophones and Anglophones are entitled under the Act to receive services and programs and to enjoy all federal initiatives equally, wherever they live in the country.

The Government of Canada must find the resources to enforce the Act because, in my view, it is not fully complied with, and an appropriate degree of coercion is the only measure that will change that situation.

We should nevertheless mention the work of a number of federal agencies, such as the department of Canadian Heritage, particularly its regional office in our province, and the Moncton office of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Without these agencies, the minority language communities would very often be left to their own devices without the necessary resources to cope.

However, the human and financial resources of these two key agencies must be maintained and enhanced to the extent that is possible. We encourage certain efforts by the Canadian government with regard to the Act and the vitality of our communities, although progress in this regard is painfully slow. We have recently been granted a federal council in Nova Scotia which is just now beginning its work, whereas other provinces have had similar committees in place for a number of years now to support the development of their minority communities.

We hardly need to remind you that, when it comes to the survival of the minority language communities, every minute counts. Please act now. In closing, we support Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier's efforts to amend section 41 of the Official Languages Act to read:

Under subsections 16(1) and (3) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the federal government shall take the necessary measures to ensure the development and vitality of the Anglophone and Francophone minorities of Canada and to promote full recognition of the use of English and French in Canadian society.

Thank you.

¹ (1540)

Ms. Maria Bernard (President, Société Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin): Joint Chairs, members of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, I would like to thank you for inviting us to present the viewpoint of the Acadian community of Prince Edward Island regarding the official languages action plan. We hope that our comments and suggestions will be helpful to you in drafting recommendations and suggestions to the Minister responsible for official languages co-ordination, the Honourable Stéphane Dion, as part of setting up an action plan for official languages.

We would appreciate it if you would bear in mind that, in a presentation as brief as this one, it is not possible for us to give an in-depth description of the breadth of our activities. We can only touch on some points which are most significant for our community. Therefore, we ask you to look at the PEI Acadian and French-speaking community strategic plan, which is the tool we have adopted to ensure the vitality of the French language on PEI.

Yes, our Acadian community has been devastated by assimilation, which was carried out in one giant step over a period of about thirty years. In 1961, there were 7,958 French-speaking people on PEI, as compared with 5,750 in 1991. But it is important to note that from 1991 to 1996, our French-speaking population remained quite stable and we are impatiently waiting for the figures from the last census to see the current state of our community. We hope that in spite of a decreasing birth rate and a population that is growing older, we have maintained the vitality of our population.

What we have accomplished over the past few years was not by magic. If the Francophone community has progressed in this, the smallest of the Canadian provinces, it is because the Island community put much effort and energy into it. We have only to look briefly at the achievements over the past decade, when we set up, in co-operation with government, a series of infrastructures and new tools to ensure the survival and the development of our community.

For example, the Fédération culturelle de l'Île-du-Prince-Édouard, the Musée acadien de l'Île-du-Prince-Édouard and La voix acadienne, a weekly paper. We have had two decisions by the PEI Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada, in January 2000, in favour of the parents in Summerside-Miscouche; the establishment of the Commission scolaire de language française, the Société éducative de l'Île-du-Prince-Édouard and the Fédération des parents de l'Île-du-Prince-Édouard that provides services to the entire community. We have also had the establishment of school-community centres in the five Acadian areas; the opening of the Centre provincial de formation pour adultes in Wellington; the opening of preschool centres in the five Acadian areas; the emergence of new community voices, such as Chez Nous, les Francophones de l'Âge d'or and others; lastly, the proclamation of the Prince Edward Island French Services Act.

All these past achievements give us hope for the future, but there is still work to be done. Allow me to give you some examples.

I would like to point out that if the Acadian population in the Évangéline area has remained the same, it is because this area has had a school and community centre since 1961. The areas which experienced assimilation are those which had not received education in their own language since 1968. In January 2000, the entire Acadian and French-speaking community on PEI joyfully welcomed the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in favour of the French-speaking parents of Summerside, who had been asking the PEI government for six years for the establishment of a homogeneous French-speaking school in their community. In the unanimous opinion of the Court, it was recognized that the French-speaking community of Summerside has the right to a school providing French-language instruction, on its territory. This decision is based on section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, whose objective is to remedy past injustices and to ensure that the official linguistic minority has equal access to high-quality education in their own language, in circumstances which will support the development of the community.

¹ (1545)

This Supreme Court judgment has had a major impact on our community. The dream of French schools in Acadian areas such as Prince-West, Summerside and its surroundings and Rustico, is coming to pass. Over the past year, we have seen new schools and community school centres in these areas: however, even if we appear to have won, it is important that the federal government realize that when a battle of this kind concerning the right to French-language education goes on for more than 30 years, we have lost much more than we gained. There is much work to be done in repairing past wrongs.

It is important that the federal government adopt a program or a clear policy on financing school-community centres which are often a cornerstone for minority French-language communities.

In the second place, with the population growing older, we consider it essential to receive health services in French. It is also just as important that these same services be provided at the early childhood level and to the children who attend our French-language schools. Some of our older people have difficulty expressing themselves in English! Moreover, in growing old, people tend to come back to using their mother tongue.

Our older French-speaking residents have the right to be served in their own language, especially since they made such an enormous contribution to building our country. For many of them, quality service means service in their own language.

As for young children, services in French are essential in order to ensure that French-speaking children receive high-quality services in French so they can enter their first year of school on the same footing as their Anglophone neighbours.

It is crucial that the federal government be sensitive and react positively to this difficult situation. In this regard, we will not measure the results by reports or studies, but rather by the number of additional services that are available to us in French.

Finally, the tool which could be extraordinary for us if it had the hoped-for results is Part VII of the Official Languages Act. Each department has a responsibility to support our community. They must be compassionate, open and flexible in relation to the Acadian and French-speaking community by supporting the communities in their development. Even today we must fight with certain departments for their support, which means that there remains much to be done in terms of sensitizing the departments. The fact is that, unfortunately, the communities are penalized because public servants are not sensitive to the Official Languages Act.

It is important that departments put forward mechanisms to facilitate the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. The tangible results awaited by our community include support by the departments in the implementation of their strategic plans and an increased number of partnerships between the Acadian community and the government.

The Acadian and French-speaking community of PEI could be used as a model for the rest of Canada as regards the level of respect for Canada's two official languages. We have made progress and we are ready to continue moving forward. In the future, we have to strengthen our schools and community centres and we must have a health system that reflects our needs. In the economic field, we must continue to concern ourselves with creating jobs for our own.

The Act was passed in order to help us in our development and the strategic plan is the tool we will be using to ensure our development. It is now up to the federal government to be proactive in terms of services to the Francophone community and to be still much more flexible in setting Part VII of the Official Languages Act in motion to help us accomplish our action plans.

Together, we will manage to perform our mission, which is to work so that every French-speaking Acadian can live and flourish (both individually and collectively) in French in Prince Edward Island.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Ms. Bertrand.

Mr. Rioux and Mr. Aubin, unfortunately, we did not receive your briefs early enough to have them translated. May I ask you to summarize them in approximately five minutes?

¹ (1550)

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux (President, Société des acadiens et acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick): Yes, Madam, but I wish we had had as much time to make the presentation as was needed to pass through security. We will try to be brief.

The text and documents will follow because the last two weeks have been very, very busy for us. Last week, I did 88 hours of volunteer work and drove 2,000 kilometers. That amounted to quite a bit of work for one week.

In any case, we are pleased to be here, senators and members of the House of Commons. At the outset, I wish to thank you for inviting the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick to give you our views on the official languages action plan currently being prepared by the Honourable Stéphane Dion, federal minister responsible for the coordination of official languages.

I congratulate Mr. Dion for his interest in the Francophone communities of Canada, of which the Acadian community is a part. We are well aware of the scope of the task before him and we wish to confirm our unequivocal support for the adoption of any measure that may foster the full development of our communities.

Having said that, we are also well aware that, with regard to the development of a vital linguistic area that can truly meet all the needs and aspirations of Canada's Francophones, the issues are complex and the challenges enormous. However, the reality of the French fact in Canada is an essential given of this country's very identity. The Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick believes that the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments must all work together to ensure it remains so.

For Acadians who are preparing to celebrate, in 2004, the 400th anniversary of the birth of Acadia, not of the founding of Canada, but the birth of Acadia, and, in 2005, the 250th anniversary of the Deportation, this is a matter of justice and fairness in which there must be no procrastination, dilution or turning back.

As you are all aware, New Brunswick is an officially bilingual province which has its own official languages act. It is also the only province that has a statute acknowledging the equality of its two official language communities, the Equality of the Two Linguistic Communities of New Brunswick Act, some of the principles of which have been entrenched in the Constitution of Canada.

This means that the part of Acadia in New Brunswick in particular has considerable development tools for protecting language rights. As a result of those statutes, we have specific remedies for preventing our rights from falling victim to arbitrary decisions by the political authorities governing us. However, between the reality as proclaimed in the statutes, be they as prestigious as those passed by the Parliament of Canada and our Legislative Assembly, and the reality as experienced in everyday life, there are still inequalities, distortions and deficiencies which the federal government has a moral duty to help us resolve through the role it has adopted in Canada as trustee of the French fact.

As president of the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, I am delighted to see that your committee, a committee of the Parliament of Canada, is taking a serious look at an action plan for the Francophone and Acadian communities of this country.

Many things have been said and written about our situation. Innumerable reports of all kinds have been patiently and carefully drafted about the Francophone reality of Canada and submitted to the various levels of government of our vast country. They always make a splash and they make the headlines, but they generally last only a brief time. They finish their existence forgotten on a shelf. We have examined every aspect of them and we are currently... [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...the aspects in order to study others.

In short, the situation of the Francophone and Acadian communities of Canada is well known. Even the most minor detail of our existence has been considered, analyzed and classified. What we lack the most now is not another report. It is genuine political will on the part of our various governments, in particular our federal government, to take that existence into account and to make an active contribution to it. It has a duty to do so through statutes because the situation makes this necessary. But the onus is also on it to do so by adopting concrete, pragmatic, visible, credible, sound, effective and fair measures.

On this point, I wish to emphasize that a starting point has already been submitted to the government regarding the situation of Canada's Francophone minorities. That was the report by the late Senator Jean-Maurice Simard, published in the fall of 1999 entitled Bridging the Gap: From Oblivion to the Rule of Law, which was tabled before the joint committee.

¹ (1555)

That report, which was written by an eminent former member of your committee, if my memory is correct. The SAANB and other organizations working for the welfare of Canada's Francophones welcomed it with considerable interest because, not only did it paint a realistic picture of our situation, it also outlined a range of measures to correct inequalities and injustices which we are still suffering.

I invite your committee to study it in depth and draw on it without reservation. Among other things, the report brings evidence to establish that, with regard to the protection and advancement of the language rights of the Francophones of Canada, the federal government, while proclaiming its attachment to those rights, indirectly offloads them, in particular through the devolution and transfer of federal responsibilities to the provincial and municipal governments or to the private sector, while failing to compel them to comply fully with the Official Languages Act.

One need only think of the last transfer of authority to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which ultimately has no control mechanism. I don't think that did a service to the Francophone regions of Canada.

This situation is in urgent need of correction, otherwise we will be condemned to spend the rest of our lives as Francophones filling in the gaps in the very foundation of our rights. As we have often said and acknowledged, Francophones in Canada, and Acadians in particular, have protection of their linguistic rights, but the precarious nature of that protection spurs us to exercise the greatest vigilance. Based on this finding, Senator Simard offered no less than 42 recommendations, of which 10 main recommendations form the framework for a recovery plan proposed for our communities. I very much encourage you to read the report, particularly the 10 main recommendations.

I will cite one of those recommendations, which, among other things, clearly states the federal government's firm and clear commitment in the development of our communities. It is recommendation 23 of the report which I take the liberty of citing. That recommendation reads as follows:

We recommend that a Minister of State for the Development of the Official Language Communities be appointed. This Minister of State will have executive responsibility for this statutory horizontal policy which is the official languages policy. In particular, he or she will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the Constitution Act, 1982 and for orchestrating the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act throughout government, in addition to championing and overseeing the development and implementation of support programs for the development of the communities and promotion of full recognition of French and English in Canadian society.

This recommendation is clear and realistic and also offers the benefit of restoring the French language to a political status which it lacks, since, notwithstanding an act, constitutional entrenchment, regulations and policy measures of all kinds, it is constantly undergoing an insidious form of erosion caused by the lack of a generous and equitable vision and will on the part of the federal government.

In a related area, recommendation 7 of the Simard report suggests that the Minister of Canadian Heritage:

...give her department a wake-up call and issue a clearer and proactive vision of the purpose of section 41 consistent with Parliament's intent, together with clear instructions and a process for the thorough transformation of that institution's corporate culture.

The development plans which our communities have had to prepare in order to continue receiving federal funding should, in exchange, benefit from federal government contributions, a concerted approach and substantial support for our continued vitality. As we said in our initial public reaction when Senator Simard's report was published, we cannot say there has been progress because the Canada-Acadian Community Agreement which we have accepted takes us back to what we were receiving 10 years ago, not to mention that it compels us to devote our energy to looking for new funding sources and reorganizing our personnel, thus undermining our ability to take an active part in the public life of our regions. And I would add today that the proliferation of finicky administrative measures in granting these public funds does not in any case enhance our ability to intervene.

We are not, and we do not intend to be, branch offices charged with accounting for the federal government's vision, since our mandate, above all, is to be frontline players in the development of our communities.

The new control measures imposed on our Francophone and Acadian communities by Heritage Canada last year were far from generous and positive.

º (1600)

Although the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick has always been utterly loyal to the federal government, faultlessly determined to cooperate in a spirit of partnership in the well-being of our fellow citizens, we can only deplore the federal government's current withdrawal with regard to us. That withdrawal, which dares not speak its name, gravely undermines the plan for the development of our communities.

Our collective future is at stake, and the federal government must make a turn. The necessary mechanisms must be established for a genuine partnership to be forged between the federal government and the Francophone and Acadian communities: our future depends on it. And when I say future, I don't merely mean the future of Acadia. I mean the future of Canada, because Canada's strength stems from its linguistic and cultural constituent parts. We are the ferment which characterizes this country, its essence, its identity. We are in a way a cornerstone of the structure of this Confederation, whose democratic virtues have been hailed around the world.

In closing this Week of International Francophonie, I will take the liberty of quoting the words of Mr. Roger Dehaybe, General Director of the Agence internationale de la Francophonie:

Dialogue in a manner respectful of cultures, languages and religions--that is the Francophone vision! La Francophonie is based on recognition of difference as a value, not as something negative. In other words, others enrich us because they are different. This issue, which has been our own for some time now, is now that of the entire world.

As Francophones and Acadians, it is this trust, this generosity and this openness that we want to share with the other linguistic community and other cultures. Is it unrealistic to ask the Government of Canada, our government, to be a full-fledged partner in this marvellous social vision of a Canadian society which recognizes the equality of its founding peoples and which also contributes generously and positively to its development and vitality?

We hope that perhaps one day the reality will exceed and confirm our most legitimate dreams. It is up to us to light the way. For that, as Senator Simard said in the title of his report, we must make the effort to bridge the gap.

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages of the Government of Canada, the ball is now in your court. Make your play.

Thank you for listening.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Aubin, it's your turn. May I ask you to speak less quickly? The interpreters cannot go at your speed, Mr. Rioux.

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin (President, Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario): Thank you for inviting me to contribute to the future of the linguistic minorities in Canada. Having gone through many struggles, I know personally that it is important for us to continue to move forward. Today you afford me the opportunity to do so as representative of the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario.

First, I would like to emphasize that, when I agreed to run for this position, I identified three positive signs which gave me a little hope for French-speaking Ontario. The first was the report by Dyane Adam, the Commissioner of Official Languages, who said it was high time the federal government took action.

The second positive sign was the reaction of the Prime Minister, who assigned Stéphane Dion to the matter. At that point, we saw that the Prime Minister's office was paying attention, since it had assigned a high-profile individual to the debates on this country's languages.

The third sign was the turn the Montfort case was taking at the time. For the first time, we were beginning to see that the provincial French-Language Services Act had teeth. Arguments were being advanced in court and parties were relying on unwritten principles of our Constitution. The Province of Ontario was told that it was not logical to argue that Francophones in Ontario were in fact entitled solely to education in French since that same province and each of its members had passed the French-language Services Act. Logically, a French-language hospital provides services in French, but the province had hitherto given its statute declaratory status, just as the federal government has done to date with section 41. Finally, at that point, the Ontario French-Language Services Act grew teeth.

These three phenomena led me to believe that positive things were happening and induced me to run for this position because it was not an easy position to obtain.

First, in our brief, we have identified ACFO's missions and objectives for the development and vitality of the Francophone community. We had them for 92 years. Since 1910, we have been working in virtually all areas of activity for respect for the collective rights of the province's Francophones. We act jointly with 22 regional associations and 26 affiliated organizations.

I won't read the entire text of this section. Suffice it to say that the Franco-Ontarian population has a new face, one that is often identified. The various levels of government still ask us to consider the fact that more people in Ontario have learned French as a second language than Ontarians of Francophone stock. The last statistics we have, those from 1996, show that there were 542,000 Francophones and 800,000 French speakers, in addition to those whose mother tongue is French.

More recently, new arrivals have been included, and they represent a very significant share. Many new arrivals to Ontario already speak French and often quite educated. They have particular needs which have not been met to date.

º (1605)

The second part of my presentation addresses strategic planning. In this strategic planning, we have identified the objectives of the Official Languages Act: to make equitable use of English and French in Parliament first, in the federal government and in the associations and institutions subject to the Act; second, to maintain and enhance the vitality of the official language communities in the country, and, lastly, to ensure the equality of the official languages in Canadian society. To date, for Ontario Francophones, this has only meant a little translation from time to time. This is far from equality.

In the last Throne Speech, the government outlined promising actions for linguistic minorities: first, the appointment of a minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, whom I identified a moment ago, and also, more recently, the proposals of the President of the Treasury Board. These are really two steps in the right direction. But this does not mean that the train has left the station, although it does indicate the government will to do things.

ACFO provinciale encourages the government to use these two authorities to implement some of the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We appear to have the tools and the political will to move forward. The actions proposed by ACFO provinciale for a basic strategic plan come under three headings: first, initiatives to strengthen the Official Languages Act; second, proposals to improve services in French in the communities; and third, the advancement of la Francophonie in immigration.

With respect to reinforcing the Official Languages Act, section 41 gives us a chance to do this. As an individual and a Francophone, I find it hard to understand why the Department of Justice spends so much time and energy telling us that this act is declaratory in nature. Francophones in Ontario and elsewhere believed in these acts and went to the barricades when the country wanted to separate. To date, we have been cheated by these types of promises. This is harmful for a minority.

When our premiers run to Montreal with their families and tell us that this country is good and we should believe in it, and, a few years later, the Department of Justice does its utmost to tell us that that was only declaratory, that's a political game. The government must stop doing this kind of thing. It's better to do nothing than to do these kinds of things. When I say reinforce the Official Languages Act, I mean correcting these kinds of things.

As for French-language services in the community, as a result of devolution, virtually all French-language hospitals disappeared in the Province of Ontario on the pretext of restructuring. Now we see the government on line phenomenon coming. Here's how we are experiencing this government on line phenomenon in Ontario. We select 2 for services in French, and we do that four or five times. Ten minutes later, someone answers us and asks: “Has anybody taken care of you yet?” This is coming at the federal level. It's obvious this is coming.

Doing this kind of thing must be avoided. What we have must be protected when devolution takes place. When a contract is awarded to someone, whether it's a province, municipality or business contractor, this must be the first condition of the partnership, not a condition that is forgotten or the last condition, but the first. This is the raison d'être of our country, where tolerance is advocated.

º (1610)

When we talk about improving French-language services, that's what we mean. This kind of thing must be stopped.

For citizens, bilingual status for the City of Ottawa is a subject that is really, really hard to understand. When you believe in this kind of country and you have a capital, you expect the federal government to be much tougher than it has been on this question. It's important for the country. It's important to stand up for our capital if we believe in it.

There is no end to what we could list when we talk about French-language services. There are organizations subject to the Official Languages Act. In that connection, Graham Fraser wrote in a newspaper yesterday that, when our Prime Minister was starting out, he had insisted on the name “Air Canada” so our airline would have a bilingual look. We know what is happening today. We also know Bell Canada, in the large 705 region in northern Ontario, can no longer provide bilingual services for budget reasons. Our plan must address all these things.

In the middle of this fiscal year, ACFO provinciale's funding was cut by $93,000. ACFO is now operating out of a Toronto office on a sum of $300,000 which it received from Heritage Canada, whereas it already had $700,000.

With the challenges facing us, be they government on line or all kinds of other challenges, I wonder whether the time has not come for a little stability in funding for linguistic minorities.

º (1615)

I hope there will be stability in Stéphane Dion's plan regarding our rights and funding.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Mr. Aubin.

Mr. Tyler

[English]

Mr. Brent Tyler (President, Alliance Quebec): Thank you.

Alliance Quebec is the largest regional association of English-speaking people in the province of Quebec. It includes the entire island of Montreal, areas in the Abitibi, the St. Maurice, the Saguenay, and other places.

I would like very much to provide a written text for your deliberations, but we were only invited to attend to give our advice and counsel to Minister Dion last week, and so you'll have a more comprehensive brief in the next few days, when we've had a chance to prepare it.

I'll start by talking about the situation of the English-speaking community in Quebec now. Since the early 1970s we have had a quarter of a million English-speaking people leave the province of Quebec, and it's higher, depending on how you calculate who is an anglophone. If you include a certain factor for parents of child-bearing years, it's closer to 400,000. There's been, in the same period, since the early 1970s, a 60% decline in our school enrolment.

The common wisdom is that the English-speaking community is not deserving of any particular protection or deference, because we're part of the national majority of Canada, but look at what has happened to the community I represent in the period of time I just described to you. The conventional wisdom is, of course, that the French language is in danger, not only in North America, not only in Canada, but in Quebec. In order to counter what we consider to be a big lie, we have commissioned a report from Jacques Henripin, who you could describe as the grandfather of Quebec demographers and upon whose assumptions Bill 101 and the Charter of the French Language....

There's a gentleman over here who is crying. Have a little respect, sir, when people are addressing you. I'm talking facts, and if you want to counter my facts, I invite you to do so.

Mr. Henripin was the chairman of the demography department at the University of Montreal. He prepared a number of studies in the 1960s, and it was on his assumptions, on his model, that Bill 101 was based. The fear at the time was that the francophone population in Quebec would decline, and so legislation was necessary to impose what is the language of the majority on all people residing in the province of Quebec. This report that we've commissioned from Professor Henripin points out that the statistical information upon which he based himself turned out to be erroneous. He has since changed his mind, and he says in his report that it's now the English language that is in danger in the province of Quebec, not the French language. That would go against some orthodoxy that you no doubt will hear in this room, but those are the demographic facts.

When I hear my colleagues here talking about the plight of the francophone communities in the rest of the country, it's hard not to be very sympathetic to their situation. We in the English community at least have the benefit of density. We've had enough people living together in enough density, in areas like the eastern townships, the Outaouais, Montreal, that we've been able to sustain institutions when our colleagues in the rest of the country have not.

One of the pieces of advice we'd like to give to Stéphane Dion is, as inspiration for your official languages policy in Canada, why not look at international human rights and minority language rights situations? For example, there is the Helsinki process, where civilized countries in the world get together and talk about appropriate standards of enjoyment for minority language rights in civilized countries. That would be something I think could inspire the minister in his elaboration of this new program.

What are the principles? I'll just summarize.

º (1620)

Governments must do everything they can. They have minority language rights treaty obligations to give their national minorities, their other minorities, protection, with legislative measures commensurate with their status as minorities. That does not mean, because of our practical financial realities, equality in every circumstance, but the idea is that this is the target government should try to achieve.

A very important principle in the Helsinki process is that belonging to a national minority must be voluntary, and this I will quote.

To belong to a national minority is a matter of a person's individual choice, and no disadvantage may arise from the exercise of such choice.

I hear Mr. Aubin talk about the French Language Services Act. We would be delighted to have ane English Language Services Act in the province of Quebec. Instead, what do we have? We have Bill 171, which is a recent amendment to the Charter of the French Language. You're going to have to be in the majority in an area to get services in the language of the minority. Whereas, I understand, in Ontario the benchmark is anywhere between 10% and 15%, in Quebec, under the Charter of the French Language, you have to be a 50% plus one majority before you're entitled to English language services.

So we would like to see a little more symmetry in the application of the Official Languages Act and in the application of other federal legislation. It has to start with the recognition that the English community in Quebec is an official language minority community. The only time, to my knowledge, that's ever been recognized by the federal government was when Dyane Adam intervened in the merger litigation and argued the ratchet principle of minority language rights under subsection 16(3) of the charter.That was the first time a federal agency had ever participated in court proceedings in Quebec making that very important assertion that we constitute an official language minority, and therefore we're entitled to the legislative treatment commensurate with that status.

Obviously, the two minority language communities are not in the same position, so it would not be wise to force Minister Dion to try to come up with rules that are of totally symmetrical application when it comes to such things as funding. But one of the things we will insist upon is that to the extent that rights are created under this legislation, they be applied with equality, because that is something we have too often been told we are not entitled to.

I'll just give you one example, equitable participation in the federal public service. Right now the participation of English-speaking people in the federal public service is half what the proportion is for francophones in the rest of the country. So we would like that to be addressed, and I'll just talk about one specific instance, Canada Post Corporation. Alliance Quebec is helping a young man right now who made over 100 complaints under the Official Languages Act--I'm glad Madame Beaudoin is here, as she'll confirm this. Only one or two were not found to be well-founded. He was eventually fired. After he was insisting on his rights under the Official Languages Act, he was fired. So there's no protection for whistle-blowers. In fact, the post office hung him out to dry, and so did the Commissioner of Official Languages.

One of the things we would like Minister Dion to stop doing is calling the Charter of the French Language a great Canadian law. It is not. It is arguably, demonstrably, a violation of several human rights standards, so please, Minister Dion, stop calling it a great Canadian law.

I look forward to your questions.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Mr. Tyler.

Scott, do you have questions?

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Thank you. I'm hoping there will be time for two rounds of questions. I would like, in the second round, to ask the same question I'm asking in the first one. Let me, if I could, direct my question in the first round to Mr. Tyler. It's simply this.

We've been asked to comment on the minister's action plan, but I'm wondering about the status quo, as it is administered under the Official Languages Act. Do you find that there is symmetry or asymmetry in the application of the Official Languages Act with regard to francophones outside Quebec and your own community within Quebec?

Mr. Brent Tyler: I want to start off by saying that I am not a fan of nivellement vers le bas. I see too much of the logic where some people say, the English-speaking community has a certain level of enjoyment of rights, so we have to reduce their level of enjoyment of rights, because the Francophones do not have the same level of service. I would say that we find an asymmetrical application, not only of the Official Languages Act, but of the court challenges program. We get a fraction to fund what we consider to be important human rights and minority language rights litigation in the province of Quebec. Over the last three years we have got anywhere between $15,000 and $20,000 out of a $2.75 million budget. The rest goes to administration and the francophone communities outside the province of Quebec. I am not saying we should reduce the funding that is available to them. What I am saying is that we would like to have a fairer share of the pie. I will give you one example on that score.

The court challenges program refused to fund The Lyon and the Walrus, which is pending in front of the Supreme Court of Canada. In that case the Supreme Court of Canada will be asked to decide whether it is in accordance with our charter that a citizen can be prosecuted for having Canada's two official languages equal on a sign. That case was refused funding from the court challenges program. There is no recourse, you just have to take no for an answer.

I could go on and on, Mr. Reid. From our point of view, there is a very asymmetrical application of not only the Official Languages Act, but other federal legislation as well. In the brief I will send you in the next few days we will go into chapter and verse on how that is the case.

º (1625)

Mr. Scott Reid: Would other witnesses like to comment on that?

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin: I have a comment on that. In case you have a misperception that the francophones outside Quebec get a lot more money than anglophones in Quebec, this year ACFO got $300,000 and Alliance Quebec got $600,000. Last year it was $900,000 and $400,000. We're talking about all kinds of different moneys here. Some are for court challenges etc., but there are a lot of apples and oranges situations here.

Mr. Scott Reid: Actually, if I could ask a somewhat different question on the subject of funding to you, Mr. Aubin. One of the things I have noticed in reviewing over the years the amount of money that is given for the various minority communities is that it tends almost to be in inverse proportion to the size of the community. For the various francophone communities outside Quebec, the largest numbers are for the Association franco-yukonnaise, for example, and the smallest numbers would be for your own association and for the one in New Brunswick. I am not trying to put you in an awkward situation, but I do wonder if that seems to be a logical way of handling it, from your perspective.

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin: The funding of minority communities has taken all kinds of forms over the years. More recently, it has been through agreements with the provincial groups, and they vary a little from province to province. Usually, they reflect the needs, but in the case of Ontario, it's always the same story. Ontario is a richer province, but in the case of the minority group, where more than 50% of the francophones outside Quebec are in Ontario, we probably get a little less than 20% of the funding from the federal government. There are all kinds of angles to it.

Mr. Scott Reid: Would any of the other witnesses like to comment?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: There are definitely some differences because each province has signed a different agreement with Heritage Canada. All that depends on the negotiators' ability to sign the agreement and the quality of receptiveness on the other side. That has been very different.

Obviously, when you look at the agreement that was signed in New Brunswick, you see that requests were twice as high as what we had in the agreement. We are still feeling the effects of that today. Many things cannot be done because we don't have the money required. It's not always a question of money, however. It must also be determined whether, between the federal government and the communities, we will manage to build a true partnership in which there will be mutual trust and a show of generosity. It must also be determined how far we will go to be proactive and not reactive. These points are definitely more important than money.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Mr. Rioux.

Mr. Gauthier, do you have any questions?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon, Mr. Tyler.

I simply have a question to ask the five witnesses concerning their administrative budgets. I believe you have all suffered cuts in the past five or six years. Could you tell us about your budgets? What have you done?

I know Ontario, I come from Ontario. There are Francophones all across Ontario. The difficulty we have, in Ontario in any case, is in uniting these communities in northern Ontario with the south, east and west.

Mr. Aubin, tell me about your current problem bringing people together who are involved in official languages.

º (1630)

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin: Mr. Gauthier, I was elected on June 15 and took up my duties as president on July 15, and, three weeks later, I was informed of $93,000 in cuts. The board of directors subsequently had to take a position on what it was going to do with its budget. We had two options: finish the fiscal year, which is coming to an end by the way, and try to find money so as not to fall into a deficit position by the end of March, or lay off another employee.

We only had three employees left. If we had laid off another one, I believe we would no longer have had any credibility as a provincial organization. We anticipated a deficit in the order of at least $60,000, possibly $90,000.

Since then, we have changed offices in Toronto. We left the office that was costing $50,000 to $60,000 a year and we went to offices that cost $20,000 a year. When you want to be near Queen's Park, it's quite difficult to operate on less money than that. So that gives you an idea of matters. With actions like those, we spend virtually all our time trying to survive. When you handle questions of law, it takes a certain amount of time, and you need people on the spot.

We received a lot of complaints about French-language services, which are poor, and we do not really have the time to handle them well. We have fallen to too low a level to operate honourably. That's the story for the past 10 years roughly. The major cuts occurred when we were tightening our belts in the early 1990s, and people understood that. They were Canadian citizens: they understood that we had to tighten our belts.

We went to wage war on the barricades and our belts remained tightened and they have tightened since then. They have never been eased off. I have put on a little weight, but not la Francophonie. That's more or less what is happening to us these days.

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: In New Brunswick, the agreement provided that, from 1999 to 2004, $12 million would be put into the Canada-Community Agreement, $2.4 million a year. In New Brunswick, around the joint action forum of Acadian organizations, there are 28 provincial associations that draw on this budget, either for projects or for programming funds, basic programs.

Take the example of the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick. We have a regional office. It is not in the provincial capital; it is not in a major centre; it is in Petit-Rocher. Costs are very, very low, and we are doing our best to put as little money as possible into administration and rent in order to have more people in the field.

We have 16 sections at the SAANB which work everywhere, in all regions of New Brunswick, and those sections are very active. With the few resources we have, there is one section, that of Acadie--Beauséjour, which has two major files going. Last week, it published the entire history of francization in Moncton in French, following a fairly in-depth investigation which shows the level of French-language signage in businesses.

Its other file is the Regional Health Boards Act in New Brunswick. That's being done locally and it's a very big file.

º (1635)

At the provincial level, we currently have court actions under way, one against the RCMP which is taking an enormous amount of time. We have to monitor these files.

Partnerships are obviously established with other associations, but it's very difficult, with the little we have, to carry on with all the files we currently have at the same time. It's very, very difficult.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Excuse me. Mr. Léger, could you please answer fairly quickly? Time is already up.

Mr. Jean Léger: Of course, Madam.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: There are limits. We have them come and we don't listen to them. At least let them speak.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): We can have a second round, Mr. Gauthier.

Mr. Jean Léger: I would like to say that, as in New Brunswick, we have an agreement over a number of years which serves at least 15 to 18 organizations across the province. As Mr. Rioux said, they draw on a budget in an attempt to activate or develop community initiatives in our regions, but those organizations are often restricted to fairly limited funds which do not really enable them to develop large-scale things. I would say those organizations only have the chance to develop things at the cultural and educational level at this time. But many areas of the community are neglected because of limited funds, particularly health and other federal government departments. I believe sectors such as those should be more developed.

Ms. Maria Bernard: In Prince Edward Island, we have five regions, but it isn't hard for us to get together because we are very small. We have funds in order to operate. Culture is well developed, but it's a little like in Nova Scotia: mainly as a result of the ravages of assimilation, we are trying to go after our Acadians who have been assimilated. The other sector, as I told you in my presentation, is health. We have very few health services, and that is a major need for us. So we're lacking funds for health. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Brent Tyler: Several years ago we had a budget of $2 million and over 25 employees. Since then there have been successive budget cuts. In the last fiscal year alone we've absorbed a budget cut of $300,000. We have 11 employees. Mr. Aubin's figure for our annual budget at the moment is correct, it's $634,000.

The challenge for Alliance Quebec is that not only do we service the Montreal area, we also service areas like the Abitibi, Rouyn-Noranda, Val d'Or, St-Maurice, the Saguenay. These are areas where the English community is very similar to the French communities elsewhere in the country, in that there's no institutional presence, or very little. And of course, those communities take more money than servicing the Montreal community does. So if I had to point to one thing I regret having to cut back on because of our budgetary constraints, it would be service to our outlying chapters, because they need the money a lot more than the metropolitan area of Montreal.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Mr. Tyler.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Thank you.

First, thank you all, Madam, sirs, for being here and for accepting our invitation to come and tell us about your respective associations and about Mr. Dion's action plan and perhaps a little about Part VII of the Official Languages Act. With your permission, Mr. Tyler, I will reserve my questions for you until later. We're going to divide this in two. I will do this side first, then you.

We are awaiting Mr. Dion's action plan for March, or April, if it is a little late, but he had promised it for the month of March. First, I would like you to tell us whether you are satisfied with the consultations that were held for the development of his action plan.

My second question concerns the theory which appears to come out of the action plan. To solve the assimilation problem, Mr. Dion talks about manufacturing bilinguals. That's his expression, not mine. He used it in Bathurst when I was there with Mr. Rioux. I would like to hear you on this concept of manufacturing bilinguals.

I would also like to hear you on what you would like to see in the report, in concrete terms, and which could help the situation. For example, I know there is money, but there isn't just money. I believe it was Mr. Rioux who spoke about Senator Simard's report, which recommended that a minister of state responsible for Francophone affairs be appointed, or perhaps that sections 42 and 43 be amended to make the President of the Treasury Board the person responsible for the Official Languages Act. So I would like concrete recommendations on these points to improve the report.

Those are my three questions or comments. Thank you. I'll come back later, if possible.

º (1640)

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: I'll take the floor first.

I believe the work Minister Stéphane Dion is currently doing has evolved considerably since last September. I believe that, having had the chance to go and meet the communities again, Minister Dion has perceived that the communities' priorities were not necessarily heading in the same direction as the one he wanted to take, that is to say of making Anglophones bilingual so that they become francophiles. I believe he has evolved in that respect.

We have informed him of our concerns. Our concerns were much more serious with regard to support, protection for Francophones' current gains and the need to build on those gains. I saw that, in subsequent speeches, Minister Dion compared our vested rights to a ratchet. He said that, if you move it up a notch, you cannot go back down; you must always go up another notch.

However, we are all aware that, with regard to Part VII of the Act, we must begin regular consultations of the communities for each of the federal institutions. It is important that the officials of each department are aware of the impact their programs have on the Francophone and Acadian community. It is important that each institution have its services evaluated by the Francophone community in order to determine whether they meet the needs and expectations of that community.

I believe that something else is also very important. Every government reorganization, national or regional, and every new program should take into account the needs of the minority communities. Discussions and consultations should therefore be conducted with the linguistic communities.

Then there are the boards of directors of the various institutions. Be they Telefilm Canada or the National Film Board, I believe that positions should be automatically reserved for minority Francophones, which is not currently the case. It's not true that such positions exist automatically: it depends on good will.

Next, section 42 concerns Heritage's coordination role. That coordination carries no authority with it. No one has the authority to monitor the actual implementation of the government's commitment to the development of our community. I believe it is important, and this is where we agree with the Simard Report and the work that is being done now, that a mechanism should be in place to make it possible to go further.

I will close by saying that it is important that the government aim to tell all departments that they have a responsibility for the advancement and development of the linguistic communities, that it is not the role of a few departments, but of all departments. So that must be part of the government culture of all departments. The directive is far from being clear and understood by all departments.

Mr. Jean Léger: I'll try to answer your three questions systematically.

First, I'll discuss Mr. Dion's consultation. I have not yet met Mr. Dion in Nova Scotia. So I await his visit. We, like the Acadian community, await his visit. If he wants to become the champion of minority language rights, we will welcome him with open arms.

I believe the Canadian Francophone community needs a champion. At the moment, I believe we need to identify that champion. With your permission, I would rally to the FCFA, which wants to make the minister responsible for the Privy Council the minister responsible for language rights in Canada.

As to the question of manufacturing bilinguals, I have nothing against bilingual Canada from sea to sea, but I wouldn't like the funds to be given to Anglophones for them to learn French to the detriment of the Acadian and Francophone communities of Canada, which are already having a great deal of trouble surviving.

Thank you.

Ms. Maria Bernard: I agree with Jean: we wouldn't want the funds to be given out for bilingualism.

I'll add another point. I met Mr. Dion recently, in September, and I realized that he is very much interested in education. However, we have a problem with health. So we would like him to make an effort to support language rights in health.

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin: Mr. Sauvageau, this question of manufacturing bilinguals is interesting. What comes to my mind is that, in the course of my life, nearly every year, I believe, I have met Quebeckers who came to live in Ontario and who absolutely did not want to send their children to a French-language school. They usually came to Ontario to improve their economic position. They did not come to spread the language gospel. When we Francophones from Ontario tell them that their kids will “catch” English in the streets, that they can send them to French-language schools, they don't believe it. I get the impression that Minister Dion--and I say this in all respect--has not yet understood that Francophones in Ontario “catch” English. You don't have to manufacture bilinguals to ensure French-language services. Experience shows us that French-language services absolutely must be offered if we are not to disappear from the map.

The other question is that the action plan, in our view, should include a network of links between the country's various levels of government. The federal government's obligations toward the linguistic minorities must be met in any devolution and transfer of any kind in order to prevent what has happened to us in our recent history, with Montfort, for example. And there are many other cases. Many more are coming, as I said a moment ago, on the government on line issue.

º (1645)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Madam Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for being here.

In your presentation, Ms. Bernard, you said something that I would like you to explain to me. What happened between 1961 and 1991 for the Francophone population of Prince Edward Island to lose approximately 2,000 inhabitants? Now, French-language schools have returned, but there must have been schools before that, parish schools perhaps, where your children could study in French. From a demographic standpoint, then, are we talking about a decline in births? Explain that to me briefly.

Ms. Maria Bernard: Until 1961, there were French-language schools in the parishes. In 1961, the schools were amalgamated. So the little French schools were put together with the English schools. The difference of 2,000 may be explained by the assimilation of the Acadians. In demographic terms, we did not lose a lot of people, but assimilation did damage because the small French-language country schools, where people speak French, were put together with the English-language schools.

There is only one region in Prince Edward Island, Évangéline, where we have kept our French school. We went to see the government and we said that we did not want an English-language school, that we wanted to keep our French school. That's the only region that has retained its language. In the other regions, we've almost gotten to a generation where only the grandparents speak French. But there has been a renewal in recent years.

Families are a little smaller as well, but assimilation is the main reason.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you very much. We don't have the time to go further. It's unfortunate because I find this fascinating.

In the Atlantic Provinces in particular, you seem to say that the services provided by the federal government leave something to be desired. You mentioned certain departments or client services in particular. It seems to me, Mr. Rioux, that you didn't mention this problem in your province. Is that due to the fact that New Brunswick is a bilingual province?

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: We have the problem, but it depends where you live in New Brunswick. I live on the Acadian Peninsula, and I obviously believe that, on the Acadian Peninsula, all federal government services would not last long if they only spoke to us in English. In the Moncton area, however, the fight still has to be fought.

Signage, in the federal government or at Canada Post in Moncton, is still an unfinished fight. That's why there was a retreat on linguistic development in New Brunswick last Friday evening and Saturday.

º (1650)

We are establishing a commission on linguistic development with various stakeholders to see how we can improve the situation. But it's present.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you.

Mr. Jean Léger: If I can try to offer some answers to your question, Madam, I would say that the problem is recurrent in Nova Scotia.

I would say that, in most departments, we experience situations which are distinctly difficult and dangerous to a certain degree. I was in Baie Sainte-Marie, a known Francophone and Acadian region, and I had a parking problem. A car was blocking the entrance to the place where I worked, and it was dangerous for the people who were going to work. I called the RCMP, which transferred my call to Yarmouth, where no one spoke French.

Geographically speaking, Madam, Yarmouth is between two very large Acadian communities in Nova Scotia: Baie Sainte-Marie and the Argyle region.

As regards the RCMP, imagine a child who needs a service, who needs help, who cannot get along in English. However, the calls are nevertheless transferred to Yarmouth during the night, for example.

So Francophones have no rights at night. It's crazy. This is the kind of situation we experience regularly. The issue of “where numbers warrant”, or of I don't know what other federal government administrative consideration for providing services in French, is dangerous, harmful, and it frustrates me constantly. We file complaints with Official Languages regularly, regularly.

So there's really a lot of work to be done with regard to the federal public service in Nova Scotia, and I hope this committee will see that the message is clearly sent.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: And in Ontario, how do things work?

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin: I just wanted to add something to what the two previous speakers said. There must be a kind of increased awareness among senior public servants. We have to get rid of the concept associating French-language services strictly with the Department of Canadian Heritage. That's not what French-language services are. To date, however, that's more or less how the thing has been promoted. What that has produced is that, after so many years, there are very, very few Francophones in the senior levels of the public service because that's not the solution of all the departments. It's rejected. We have to get rid of the concept that it's only Heritage Canada's responsibility. I believe that will rectify a lot of situations.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Do you have any questions? Mr. Godin, are you ready?

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, I would like to say hello to you all and to thank you for the good work you are doing. That's for both languages as well. I believe people take their language to heart, and it's good to see people who have pride in their place where they were born.

There are things we do not choose in life. We don't choose our parents or our language. So, if we could one day respect each other, especially here in Canada, where there are supposed to be two official languages, things would be better. Now that I've made that brief comment, I'll ask you the following question.

In his first appearance before the committee, Minister Dion did not even know what his mandate was. It is to be hoped that he knows it now. Don't you think that, if the Minister's recommendations to the government were clear, that is to say that both official languages should finally be recognized in Canada and that the machinery will be started up to make it so, it would not be costly to operate organizations such as yours?

We would have a political will, rather than leave you for years in a situation which you are required to take cases one by one, to go before the Supreme Court or before another court and spend money, as was the case, for example, as just happened in Moncton and with the Hôpital Montfort. And this is still happening here, in Canada, after all these years: we have trouble accepting the idea that the City of Ottawa, the capital of Canada, should become a bilingual city.

I would like to hear what you have to say. Do you think that Minister Dion should come back and say that the Government of Canada recognizes the two official languages and that it will do what is necessary for both languages to be official and respected?

º (1655)

Ms. Maria Bernard: I agree completely.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you.

Ms. Maria Bernard: We need the political will. In Prince Edward Island, we fight all the time. We fought for the administration of our French-language schools and we fought for a French school in Summerside, where there is a large Francophone population, and we need a political will. We don't want to fight all the time. We want it to be recognized that there are two official languages.

The other day, as president of the Société, I received a letter from a federal minister in English. To me, that's a lack of respect. So there is work to be done.

Mr. Jean Léger: I believe there is a political perspective on that, but that there is a legal perspective as well. What is often said is that the Official Languages Act is officially declaratory rather than binding. In this case, I believe it is time that a change was made, that it was binding.

On the weekend, the following comment was made at our FCFA meeting here in Ottawa. The Francophone and Acadian communities of Canada are like a bull, and the bull is fighting against the toreador, the toreador being the system, the government, the majority. The bull is being stabbed, stabbed, stabbed, and is losing strength, losing strength, losing strength. But does the bull have a chance?

Someone has to come and remove the bull--us, the Francophone communities--from the arena and begin to give us the rights that are ours. Thank you.

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: I believe I would go along with that. I mentioned it too: I think it is time that a genuine partnership was established here in Canada. If you are partners, that means that you deal between equals. It is time we trusted each other, the Canadian government and the linguistic minorities, so that we can move forward.

I don't believe we have gotten to the point where it is up to Ottawa to decide what is good for us without consulting us. There really must be good consultation and a sharing of information and responsibilities. In New Brunswick, for example--I mentioned this briefly--the quality of the two linguistic communities and the two official languages is entrenched in section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but neither the provincial government nor the federal government appears to believe that act exists.

We have the RCMP in New Brunswick. We are in Federal Court right now. There are going to be hearings in May because, in New Brunswick, the RCMP--and this surprises me because the RCMP is supposed to enforce the act--is above the law. In other words, the RCMP is not required to comply with the act. And we still have to carry on these struggles which take up enormous amounts of time, enormous amounts of money, enormous amounts of energy. I believe mechanisms must be put in place to consult with the communities so that we can operate on the positive side of the act, not the negative side of the act, because we often think that acts are there to prevent us from moving forward, not to make us move forward.

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin: Mr. Godin, you obviously live in an ideal world. We already have a lot of tools, and I still believe that it is a positive sign that Stéphane Dion has been assigned to this file because he is a high-level minister and this is a very important issue.

There may have been a lot of mistakes so far, but he is a determined minister. I believe we are going to get things done. The first thing to do is to correct what is being poorly done now, like devolution.

It's as though no one knew it. Consider the simplified example I cited a moment ago, when I spoke about a hotel in Toronto that gave me services in French in five seconds so that I could make a reservation at the Courtyard by Marriott or at the Delta Chelsea. Any government with a political will can do the same thing. How is it that they don't do basic things as simple as that? It's not major action plans that are going to solve the problem of political will, of political will on the front line.

I shared the story of the hospitals I know along Highway 17. There was a French-language hospital in Mattawa, there was one in Sudbury, there was one in Elliot Lake, there was one in Hearst and there was one in New Liskeard. Now there are none. There is only Montfort. Our demographics have changed. French-language religious orders provided services to the entire public without asking any questions, and suddenly, because the demographics are different, we have to fight for things we had in our communities for hundreds of years.

So major action plans are not necessarily what we need. It's a question of political will and of the message you want to send. The message you want to send when you give us the English-French option should be “right away”. There are hundreds of people who can play roles at all levels, but there has to be a political will, and I believe it is there, that it is possible.

» (1700)

[English]

Mr. Brent Tyler: We are also hopeful. We look at the minister's record on the dossier of secession and the rule of law. He did a very good job, in our view, on that particular dossier, and we're hoping he will do a comparable job when it comes to recognizing official language minorities in this country.

All the intervenants here have talked about the lack of political will. We couldn't agree more. It is a problem of volonté politique, and unless you have that, you can build castles in the sky, it will not make a difference. It takes political will from the top down. All we ask at this stage of our history is that we be treated and recognized as an official language minority community, allowing that the two official language minority communities are not in the same situation. The francophone communities outside Quebec will always require more funding, because they're more disparate, they don't have the density required to sustain institutions, and so forth.

That being said, asymmetrical funding does not mean asymmetrical rights. We want to have the same rights for official language minority communities across the country, and we're hopeful that Stéphane Dion will be able to deliver. I hear Mr. Aubin talking about the hospitals that closed, but we experienced the same thing--the Jeffrey Hale Hospital in Quebec City, the Sherbrooke Hospital in Sherbrooke, I could go on and on and on. The only way to answer that is political will, and we are optimistic.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): You can come back in the second round, Mr. Godin.

Ms. Léger, do you have any questions?

Senator Viola Léger (New Brunswick, Lib.): No, not really. I simply want to say that I am very pleased to see you here today. Thank you very much. I have experienced everything you've talked about. Yes, minor progress has been made. I live outside Quebec. So we understand each other. With the new situation in Quebec, there is definitely a minority.

Ms. Bernard, I would like to pursue the matter of the letter in English that you received from the minister. If you wish, we'll talk about it later. In my opinion, we must not let the government get away with it. It happens too often. If we were always completely bilingual in New Brunswick, at least, that would be a good start. That's all I wanted to say.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Herron.

[Translation]

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions. The first is for Ms. Bernard.

In your presentation, on page 3, you say the following:

Since we live in a federation, education issues are often difficult for us.

Is there other action that the federal government could take on education issues in the province of Prince Edward Island?

Ms. Maria Bernard: I was talking about health at that point.

[English]

Mr. John Herron: But just above you were speaking about your students who received health services in French.

Ms. Maria Bernard: It won't help.

» (1705)

Mr. John Herron: To go down the educational route, are there services the federal government could provide to actually help the Acadian population in P.E.I. that would not get into a constitutional quagmire?

[Translation]

Ms. Maria Bernard: We are asking official languages officers and Heritage Canada to help us with our community school centres. We are developing community school centres, new schools in new areas, and we need financial support. That's where they can help us. There is already an agreement with the government on the OLEP, the Official Languages in Education Program. Things are going rather well as far as education goes. It's on the community side that we're having problems. That's not funded by OLEP. So the community is trying to have its community centres funded. The community must meet at a school because we don't have a centre. Our centre is our school centre. That's where we have a problem.

From the health standpoint, the Government of Prince Edward Island, which is responsible for health services, still tells us that it does not have the funds to provide services in French. So we need money for that in the context of official languages. We don't want just studies. We need basic health services. When I go to a hospital, I want to be served in French. That's where we need funds.

Have I answered your question?

[English]

Mr. John Herron: Oui. Merci.

Mr. Rioux, you referred to Senator Simard's report on at least two occasions, and in particular his 23rd recommendation. You thought it should be a minister of state who would help communities to ensure that the Official Languages Act was actually followed. Could you, from a New Brunswick perspective, explain to me how you would see that working on the ground?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: I believe the Simard Report recommendation on the Minister of State is one way. It may not be the only way, but the basic idea behind all that is nevertheless that there is a minister responsible for enforcing the Official Languages Act, which we do not currently have. We have the existing act, but we have no mechanism for enforcing the act. There has to be someone who is really responsible for monitoring. Is it the President of the Treasury Board? It is a minister of state? Is it Minister Dion? I believe we have to find a mechanism that guarantees that the communities--I'm referring here to New Brunswick--will not always be forced to go to court every time their rights have been violated. There can be no doubt that lawyers make money, but that's not the remedy we would like to have.

We are currently preparing to go to court with the Province of New Brunswick over the regional health boards. Why? Because the act is not being complied with. If we had a minister responsible in the federal government who would say that this is the act and this is how it's implemented, I believe we would save an enormous amount of time. Whether it is a minister of state, the head of the Privy Council or someone else, there has to be a mechanism guaranteeing that the act is enforced. That's all we're asking.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): We are starting a second round of three to four minutes, if we want everyone to be able to ask questions.

[English]

Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would return very quickly to Mr. Tyler. In his earlier career as an academic our current Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was probably the leading exponent in this country of the doctrine of asymmetrical bilingualism, the notion that in order to achieve an equality of outcome, it was necessary to apply different sets of rights to francophones outside Quebec and to anglophones inside Quebec. When he appeared before this committee several months ago, I raised the question of whether he still supported that point of view, and he indicated that he no longer felt that way. But I notice that in articles he's written and in speeches he's made he has made reference to the Supreme Court. He makes the argument that it's beyond what he wants at this point, that the Supreme Court effectively mandates a form of asymmetry, or at any rate permits it and would appear to be countenancing it. I'm just wondering if that's your take on the Supreme Court's rulings.

Mr. Brent Tyler: I have read, as you have, Mr. Reid, pronouncements made publicly by the minister, and the latest one I saw was April 2001, an article in the Gazette, showing the position of the minister before he assumed responsibility for official languages. In his view, the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society had already been made by the courts: in successive court judgments the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized Quebec as a distinct society. In my view, that's legally wrong, and I think it's irresponsible for a federal minister to be writing public articles about what the Supreme Court is doing. I have clients in front of the Supreme Court who would suffer a prejudice if his position were to be upheld.

It's important that members of this committee understand what the import of the minister's position is. It would mean that the Supreme Court of Canada has implemented a constitutional amendment that has failed not once, but twice in this country, the second time through a national referendum. So I take great exception to those comments by Minister Dion. I think they're out of place. Let the Supreme Court decide in the various cases before it now whether that is in fact the case. Don't tell the Canadian public that is what the Supreme Court believes. I suggested to him in private correspondence that he ask the Attorney General of Canada to intervene in these various cases and subject that kind of reasoning to judicial scrutiny.

So on that particular issue, we take huge exception to the comments of the minister. They're out of place. They espouse a vision of rights like that in George Orwell's Animal Farm, where some animals have more rights than others. The Official Languages Act, for example, talks about the official language minority communities. We are one, these gentlemen in this wing represent others, and they're supposed to be, at least in principle, treated in the same way. On the ground there may be huge problems, and the less populous a francophone area, or an anglophone area in Quebec, the harder it is, but in principle, the equality of the two official languages is what must be asserted by ministers, especially a minister with this important responsibility in the area of official languages.

» (1710)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I'm sorry, Mr. Scott, I'll have to stop you at four minutes. We have seven of you, and there's another group coming in at 5:30.

Senator Gauthier.

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you, Madam.

I have brief, specific questions for the people from Nova Scotia. There are 200 Francophone families in Cheticamp. There is no French-language school, as far as I know.

Mr. Jean Léger: Yes, we have the Conseil scolaire acadien pour...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Explain the situation to me.

Mr. Jean Léger: There has been a French school in Cheticamp for a short period of time now. The purely Francophone schools are...

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: For how long?

Mr. Jean Léger: For two or three years now. Before that, there were so-called Acadian schools.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I went to Cheticamp three or four years ago, and there were no schools then.

[English]

Monsieur Tyler, why is it that every province except yours, Quebec, has signed the community Canada agreement?

Mr. Brent Tyler: I believe we have. As far as I've been briefed, Senator, we have. You may have better information than I do, but my understanding is that Alliance Quebec is part of an umbrella group for funding purposes known as the Quebec Community Group Network, and that the QCGN, on behalf of all regional associations and sector groups like us, has entered into a community agreement with Canadian Heritage. If you have information to the contrary, I'd love to know about it.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I didn't invent that. We were told that by a witness from the province of Quebec who spoke for the other group--

Mr. Brent Tyler: The QCGN?

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Association des... The whole group.

Mr. Brent Tyler: The umbrella group. That frankly surprises me because, according to my information, we have entered into such an agreement. I believe that all the minority communities of the country have signed such an agreement, unless I am mistaken.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: My question is for Mr. Aubin. In Ontario, there is the Canada-Community Agreement. There is a steering committee or a leadership committee in Ontario which is currently travelling around the province to consult the various communities. Does ACFO feel threatened by this parallel group put in place by Heritage Canada which is taking up a lot of space in the communities right now? Let me tell you that a lot of people told me that ACFO was getting hauled over the coals in that matter. Is that true or false?

» (1715)

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin: It's absolutely correct, senator. For a long time now, as a result of the changing situation, there have been a lot of family disputes in Ontario. The nature of those family disputes concerns the fact that certain groups have told the provincial court that it no longer spoke for them. That's understandable.

ACFO provinciale might not have been taking care of all interests as it should have been doing, such as those of the feminist groups and Francophones in northwestern Ontario. ACFO did well to separate and take care of its own affairs because things are going better for it that way. But when you separate like that, there is a growing tendency to believe that the other party may perhaps disappear. ACFO has been in existence for 92 years and is not ready to disappear. It will continue to make political demands, as it has always done. But there is also at times another tendency to want to continue telling the organization how to operate. We don't want the organization to speak on our behalf, but we want to continue telling it how to operate. That's the nature of the beast, in my view. When a people evolves, you shouldn't use any disputes that may arise to weaken that community. You have to be able to stick to the high road as far as possible and to take care of language rights and the people's changing needs.

Yes, it sometimes seems to be a threat. Sometimes it's a real threat, but the Ontario community is nevertheless diverse and needs political mouthpieces such as ACFO.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Mr. Aubin.

[English]

Sorry, there are only ten minutes left, Senator. I have to go on.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We had with Air Canada and its compliance with the Official Languages Act. Two or three weeks ago, we filed the report that we had prepared. One of the recommendations of that report was that an audit be conducted in order to obtain exact figures. We proposed a complaint form that would be accessible to everyone. That's a concrete, verifiable, applicable and economical solution. I proved it.

As for the Official Languages Act, it seems to me that, even if you change the words “is committed”, “shall take” or others, it will not be enough. Coming back to the action plan and the revision of Part VII, how do you see the tools or the process for administering that act?

I'll give you an example. Should the role of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages as watchdog of the Official Languages Act be enhanced for when you file a complaint? I'm trying to eliminate or reduce all the amounts that are spent and the time wasted in legal challenges. Could the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages be included in the revision of Part VII or in the action plan for enforcing the Official Languages Act, or could there be a panel, for example, to resolve conflicts, problems of interpretation and implementation of the Official Languages Act between the federal government and the minority communities? Panels like this are provided for to resolve conflicts under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement. Let's say we change it, that we improve it. After that's done, there will have to be a consultation principle, a principle for solving problems. How would you see that principle?

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: I don't want to be the spokesman of Ms. Adam, the Commissioner, but I know that she has suggested mechanisms in the reports she has prepared and tabled. She has previously conducted a serious study on the way to resolve conflicts between various government bodies and clients. There should definitely be a mechanism for resolving conflicts. Ultimately, we perpetually have to start over again. That consumes an enormous amount of time and energy, and there are very often clients who no longer take the trouble to complain because they feel it serves absolutely no purpose.

Ultimately, as Jean said, they just wear us down. It's like the bull in the arena that flees everywhere. They're going to wear us down. So I believe there really has to be a conflict settlement process. If my memory serves me, this was mentioned in the reports the Commissioner recently tabled. I believe we are headed much more in this direction with Ms. Adam than with the other commissioners.

There are conflict resolution processes, and that's very important. Now Air Canada is nevertheless a Canadian government agency. Fundamentally, whether it's Air Canada or any other institution, they should comply with the Official Languages Act. That's why we're asking for a mechanism to be put in place.

I'll answer you by giving you another example. Currently, under the Canada-community agreements we have signed, our groups are asked to bear the burden of the lack of money. Under the Canada-Community Agreement, we have funding requests and a committee for evaluating those requests. There are requests for $3 million and we have $1.4 million to allocate among the organizations. Who makes the decision? It's the community. Who are the bad guys? It's the peers, the other associations.

In the same way, I believe there must necessarily be a mechanism for resolving conflicts. We'll get nowhere without that.

» (1720)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Mr. Rioux.

Ms. Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Mr. Tyler, I didn't want to ignore you earlier when we talked about services provided by the federal government. In many cases in Quebec, it's definitely very different because we have Anglophone population concentrations. In my riding, 25 percent of constituents are Anglophones, and I assure you it is a very, very rare occurrence that someone comes and complains that no one responded in English.

When you mentioned this type of problem in your presentation, you were mainly talking about the isolated regions, were you not? Did I understand correctly?

Mr. Brent Tyler: Yes, you understood correctly regarding the language of service, but let's consider another matter, the participation of Anglophones in the federal public service.

For example, in the case of Canada Post, we followed the complaint process provided for by the Official Languages Act, and Ms. Adam prepared a nice report recommending that Canada Post implement a formula. There were strict deadlines and steps that had to be taken to increase the percentage of Anglophones in the federal public service. Canada Post was required to respond on November 16 stating the specific steps to be taken to implement that on January 1. We haven't heard about it since.

How many reports, how many complaints, how many recommendations from the Commissioner of Official Languages do we need before the agencies do something?

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I must be very lucky, Mr. Tyler, because, since the fall, the person who has delivered my mail to my riding office is not only bilingual, but of Anglophone origin. Perhaps the process has started.

Mr. Brent Tyler: Yes, but the percentages are the same. We can always find anecdotal evidence, but I can tell you that the percentages are in the report and that the percentage of Anglophones at Canada Post is currently lamentable.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: With regard to customer service, do the people in your association feel there are a lot of problems or that everyone can get an answer in English?

Mr. Brent Tyler: Especially in the Montreal area, it would be hard to claim that there is a major problem, but there is one in Abitibi and in the Saguenay, for example, as there is in the isolated regions where Francophones represent a small percentage of the population. In our view, it's not the language of service that is the problem. That's perhaps the problem of the Francophone minorities. I know that Air Canada was sued for several millions of dollars because it did not comply with the Official Languages Act. That's not our big problem. We have other problems to which we are obviously looking for solutions.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you very much.

» (1725)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Tyler, I really sympathize with you because I understand how you can feel in all that. We studied the situation at Air Canada. When we asked how many unilingual Francophones worked at Air Canada, we learned that there were none, and, when we asked how many unilingual Anglophones worked at Air Canada, we learned that there were a lot. So I can understand how you feel. We're not talking about a percentage. We're talking about a whole figure.

You spoke about someone who lost his job at Canada Post. Well, the guy who was on Air Canada was taken off the plane by the police. And that's the situation. We'll see what happens later.

Once again, my question is this. Shouldn't the Official Languages Act really have teeth? In the report on Air Canada, I proposed that those who violate the act should be ticketed. I would like to have your opinion now that I have you here before me. Should there be tickets? Without tickets, people won't do it.

Mr. Brent Tyler: The act definitely needs more teeth. I believe all of us here agree that you need more than so-called declaratory provisions. The section 41 amendment proposed by Senator Gauthier will improve matters, but it's not enough. It still requires political will.

If we had the political will along with the present act, I believe that my colleagues would be more pleased than they are today. In the virtual absence of any political will, yes, we could give the act more bite and it would be better than before, but that situation would not be satisfactory for us.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Why?

Mr. Brent Tyler: As a primary condition, there must first of all be a political will. If there was political will in the federal institutions, the fact that the act does not have enough bite would be less serious. But in the absence of any political will, we need provisions that are much more binding than declaratory.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There has been no political will for 35 years. So don't we need an act with bite? In that way, when someone didn't comply with the act, we could resort to a mechanism to make him pay.

Mr. Brent Tyler: We agree 100% that the act should have more bite. We would not say no.

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: I agree to a certain extent. When you break the law as a citizen, you have to appear in court. If you are arrested by police because you're driving too fast, you get a fine.

Now I wouldn't like us to have to come to that because we would then have a state in which everything is controlled by legal action. The federal government must necessarily have a role to play with regard to the Official Languages Act. First it must explain the act and its scope to its officials and to the people who are responsible for implementing it in their departments. Then it must implement the necessary mechanisms to ensure action is taken. This should not be done once every 10 years because staff changes. Work should constantly be done in this area so that this becomes part of the department's culture, which is not currently the case.

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin: At page 7 of our document, which I read in full earlier, we talk about creating more restrictive action mechanisms and imposing coercive measures on institutions such as Air Canada or Bell Canada. That word was used by someone else before me here at the table. There are ways of applying the requirements of the act, and we have all kinds of examples of that.

For example, if you want to change telephone rates, you have to inform the public of the fact, hold public hearings and so on. Mechanisms are in place for doing certain things with regard to the price of natural gas in certain provinces, Bell Canada rates and so on. There are so-called coercive measures: if a person doesn't do such and such a thing, you do something to him in return. You compel someone. That's it.

I believe this is the approach that must be taken. There are a lot of irregularities in this way of operating, but it's better than the though love approach because that usually brings out the prejudices that exist in society against a minority that acquires rights. The first thing that's said is that it's too expensive. That's why the clear, legal method of creating fines is not always the best. However, since companies such as Air Canada and Bell Canada understand what a dollar is, I think you have to go in the direction of the coercive method.

» (1730)

Mr. Yvon Godin: A $10 fine.

Mr. Jean-Marc Aubin: It's an operating condition.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): : Thank you, Mr. Godin. I'm sorry, but your time is up.

Mr. Herron, do you have any other questions?

[English]

Mr. John Herron: There was a comment before that from a bilingualism perspective, by no means would you want to drain cash for preserving our linguistic minorities in order to promote bilingualism. I think there was a comment made to that effect. But from a New Brunswick perspective, the immersion programs we have right now in our province I think have really made a much stronger society. I think about a young woman in my riding who's in her second year at university doing education, and they did an interview with her on Leonard Jones. I think it's a marvellous thing. This is from from Sussex, the Anglo bastion of the province. We really have more of a mélange over there, and a better society in that regard.

Wouldn't you say that immersion, in promoting the linguistic duality we have in the provinces, accomplishes our greater objective, which is building a better society?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: I think you've raised a good point, and it's very interesting to hear. What we're saying, however, is that the money set aside to support the development and advancement of linguistic minorities should not be taken to be assigned to bilingualism, to immersion, because there has to be a fair share.

I'm delighted that more than 22,000 students are in immersion classes in Anglophone schools in New Brunswick. The effect of that is starting to be felt in the province of New Brunswick because we realize there is a better understanding of the question. As the Société des Acadiens, we are organizing a project under which we will meet those students to explain to them exactly what we do so that they are aware of it because we are becoming partners in this.

I believe that respect for the other culture makes us both grow. Where we object is when money set aside for the development of our communities--which is already not enough--is taken and put into bilingualism. In our view, bilingualism exists as long as we are around.

[English]

Mr. John Herron: I didn't have the advantage. I was schooled outside New Brunswick. I just think it's a very special treasure that the students have right now.

[Translation]

There are now 14,000 persons who are able to be able to speak English and French in my region. That's changing a lot in New Brunswick.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I would like to thank your guests for their presentations.

[English]

Mr. Tyler, I understand you're going to be sending us your brief.

Mr. Brent Tyler: Yes. I apologize for not having the time necessary to prepare it beforehand.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I wonder if I could ask you to add one little thing, your opinion on our mega-city. What's going to happen to rights when we no longer have 50% of the anglophones living in the mega-city? Could you just touch on that in your brief?

» (1735)

Mr. Brent Tyler: We certainly will.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you very much for being here.

We are going to take a 10-minute break before hearing the second group.

» (1736)

» (1749)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I call the meeting to order.

I would like to welcome our six witnesses. This time, we will allow our witnesses a 10-minute period so that they all have the time to make their presentations. Members and senators will then ask their questions.

We will begin with Mr. Cuerrier, from Nunavut. Welcome, sir.

» (1750)

Mr. Daniel Cuerrier (coordinator, Association des francophones du Nunavut): I hope to be the last.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Excuse me, Mr. Cuerrier. Before you begin, I would like to say that the members will have to vote at 6:30. The bell will start ringing at 6:30 and will ring for 20 minutes. I will stop this sitting when the members leave. Once the vote is over and they are back, we will resume the sitting, if that is suitable to you. There's only one vote.

Mr. Cuerrier.

Mr. Daniel Cuerrier: Thank you, Madam.

Since we are pressed for time, I will turn directly to the subject. I want to talk to you about comprehensive development plans, the needs of the communities beyond education and health care as well. In a community such as that of Nunavut in particular, everything has to be done because it is a brand new community, a community scarcely three years old. Nothing exists.

Farther south, in Ottawa or Montreal, people talk about infrastructure, organizations and many things. They also talk about rationalization. At home, we talk about creating, being born and learning to walk. We have to learn to do all that at the same time. We have to learn to educate our children, develop French-language services and engage in social and economic development. We also have to take our place because there are not a lot of us, and we have to do that in a manner respectful of our Inuit fellow citizens, who form the majority. They ultimately have the same aspirations as we do, except that they have fewer tools than we do. So we are speaking not only on behalf of Francophones, but also a little on behalf of the Inuit. We are doing so without pretension and with the feeling that, sometimes when you open a door, if you leave your foot there long enough, it will stay open and they can pass through and obtain certain services as well.

Earlier, I heard remarks on the Official Languages Act and comments on Air Canada and questions as to whether the act should have more bite and so on. I would like to suggest a brief exercise. Since I come from Nunavut and I have learned to have enormous respect for my Inuit fellow citizens, I would like to ask to alter your perspective on things for a moment, perhaps forget what you and I have learned since we came into this world and to see life in a different way. If you adopt that or a different perception of the world for a few seconds or minutes that may ultimately lead to a comprehensive community development plan or an action plan for the federal government which will be more respectful of the aspirations of all communities.

People often talk about asymmetrical development. They say we are all at different stages in our development or progress. That's still true in Nunavut.

I apologize to the clerk. Since he told me that all documents had to be bilingual, this is a working tool that I brought with me and that I will take away, and not a document as such.

The first thing I'll present to you is a bilingual map which I borrowed today. I took it down from the office of a federal employee who kindly lent it to me. It is a map of Canada like those everyone is used to seeing. Looking at it, you have the perception of 99.9% of the population of Canada. When I talk about a different perception and say that may help you find new ideas and new ways of addressing problems, this is the perception of Canada as seen by our Inuit fellow citizens.

I ask you then, please, as leaders of our country and of our community, to take the trouble, from time to time and when you develop your great plans, to adopt the perception of those who are addressing because that may be the way you will serve them best.

Thank you very much.

» (1755)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Provencher.

Mr. Claude Provencher (President, Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique) Madam and Mr. Joint Chairs, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, it is with pleasure that I find myself before you and with my colleagues from the Francophonie. I thank you for the opportunity given to me to talk to you about the Francophone community of British Columbia. I also wish to thank you for this excellent initiative of allowing us to present our recommendations on the action plan being prepared by the minister responsible for the coordination of official languages.

The Francophone community of British Columbia is, with its 61,000 people whose mother tongue is French, and some among you may be surprised, the third largest after Ontario and New-Brunswick. We represent 1.6% of the population of British Columbia. The members of our community are not grouped in a particular geographic area. They are present in most of the regions of the province and meet in an association and in a community centre.

The Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique was created in 1945 and is recognized as the advocacy organization of Francophones in our province. The federation achieves its mandate thanks to the support of its 35 associate members, who represent the Francophones of the various regions and who work in various sectors of activity, such as economic development, cultural development, education and many others.

Our community is proud of its roots and its numerous accomplishments through which it has tried to create an environment suitable to the development of the French language and culture in this corner of the country, far from the major concentrations of Francophones. Like many other Francophone communities in the country, if not all of them, it is because of the deep convictions and personal involvement of thousands of Francophones who took the future of our language and culture to heart and still do today. We are still there to defend them.

My intention is not to paint an all-black or all-pink portrait. The situation is not catastrophic. It is not easy either. We face many challenges to be able to truly say that our official language has a status equal to that of the other. For us, the federal government must be a faithful partner who must accompany us on the road of our development.

It is important to note here that I have not said that it must show us the way. We have the maturity and the tools to take charge of our development. the government must create the conditions, financial and legislative, that will allow action according to the priorities that correspond to our level of fulfilment.

In this context, taking into account what I have just said, your invitation is most relevant. Obviously we have thought long and hard on what the federal government should do to truly give our community the means to get the institutions necessary to its development.

Finally, we have produced our second global development plan, a document that contains a series of objectives identified by the members of our community. In that sense, we have done our homework. It's now up to the federal government to do the same and the idea of developing an action plan for our communities is welcome.

I would add that it is desirable that this approach finally allow the federal government to give itself a true global development policy for Francophones communities in the country. In fact, the federal government is constantly launching strategies in a number of areas such as economic development, research, scholarships. etc. Isn't it time that there be one for what it considers as one of the basic elements of our country? This plan should contain budgetary as well as legislative measures.

If the official languages issue is as important as what it is claimed to be, the means must be put in place for the government's actions to go beyond words. The official word from the government about the importance of our development must be accompanied by concrete measures. So I would like to make the following suggestions regarding the main measures that should, in our opinion, be in the minister's action plan.

¼ (1800)

First, financing for the official languages communities support program would need to be increased; it is often the main source of financing for the development and the implementation of the activities of Francophone groups and be maintained. The financing granted under the Canada-Community agreement is insufficient. This program, which distributes $30 million per year, is one of the least generous governmental programs if one takes into account the scope of its mandate.

Second, this lack could be corrected in a way if the government gave itself a real policy under section 41 of the Official Languages Act. I know that you are very familiar with this section since it has become one of your favorites.

On this point, two things are needed. The first is legislative: the minister's action plan must commit the government to specify the scope of section 41. The latter must be directoryand not simply declaratory, as the government seems to interpret it now. Second, the government must get the departments involved to sign development agreements with our community, just as Heritage Canada does. If necessary, the government must vote credits to these departments for this purpose.

Another issue that must be one of the first considerations in the action plan is health. To develop French health services in British Columbia, the federal government must become a partner, as it is in education. To do so, the government must put in place the financing to allow the creation of a program modeled after the one on official languages in education.

Still on this issue, a legislative measure is also necessary for us to progress. That is why wee are recommending that the government commit itself to adding a sixth principle to the Canada in the Health Act, that of linguistic duality.

There are many other measures that remain important for our development, but time being limited, I will mention those that seem the most important now, given the state of our development. However, one thing is certain. We would be very disappointed if the minister's action plan was only a document with broad principles and no clearly identified measures for which financing would be guaranteed.

In addition, I want to emphasize that the application of the plan must be flexible. The action plan must take into account the real diversity of situations in the Francophone communities of the country.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): thank you, Mr. Provencher.

To you, Mr. Lamoureux.

Mr. Daniel Lamoureux (Executive Director (Fédération franco-ténoise): Good day, ladies and gentlemen. I will be very brief.

I come from the Northwest Territories. In 1870, Francophones represented 50% of the population there. Everything was done in French: education, commerce, culture, everything. Now we are 3% of the population. What happened between these two eras?

On the one hand, when the Northwest Territories Act was revised in 1910, the section that made all its citizens bilingual was abolished. and when, in 1969, the Official Languages Act was adopted, it did not apply to the Northwest Territories under the preamble in section 7.

In 1984, the federal government tried to correct that and proposed Bill C-26, which was presented for first and second reading. The territorial government opposed it, saying it would vote an official languages act that would recognize French, which was done June 28, 1984. The act recognizes 11 official languages, including French. The same day, an agreement was signed between the federal and territorial governments under which the federal government committed itself to assuming all expenses, without time or level limits, for services in French.

That was 18 years ago and, 18 years and $33 million later, there are still no services in French. The law is not applied and Heritage Canada, who is responsible for it, refuses to ensure that its obligations are fulfilled. It is a nice example of devolution. Heritage Canada has the mandate, unless I am mistaken, of seeing to the flourishing of Francophone communities in Canada. Development does not mean a decrease in absolute numbers nor a proportional reduction. It means protection and development. To my mind, that is equivalent to a taboo expression that is never used, fighting against assimilation.

Briefly, if we draw a 200-year curve, form 1900 to 2001 with a projection to 2100, we can see a decrease in both segments of the curve. We can also be sure of this decrease in French outside Quebec,which no one can deny. I believe that at a time when the territorial government is modifying its administration to move to management by results, we should force departments who deal with the French fact, plural or singular, to evaluate the assimilation rate in terms of results.

To reverse this trend, in my opinion, there are two possible intervenors: on the one hand the federal government--we will not count on the provinces--and the Francophone communities on the other hand. There must be a true partnership between the two. A joint long-term plan is needed--we are talking about 100 years--and a budget and a strong political will to implement that plan.

Thank you.

¼ (1805)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you Mr. Lamoureux.

Ms. Beaudoin.

Ms. Jeanne Beaudoin (Executive Director, Association franco-yukonnaise): Thank you for giving me the opportunity of coming before you to present my community this evening.

The Francophone community in the Yukon established itself at the very start of the colonization, I would say, even if the word is not quite politically correct; let us say rather since the arrival of the first Europeans in the Yukon territory. At the time of the gold rush, French Canadians were more numerous in Dawson City than the English Canadians. That being said, the Americans were the vast majority, 60% of the citizens of the Yukon territory.

The clerk is presenting a document that draws the profile of the French community in the Yukon. It gives you a summary--very summary--of what has been accomplished since the incorporation of the Association franco-yukonnaise in 1982. This year we are celebrating our 20th anniversary of existence or incorporation, and I can invite you to participate in our celebrations since the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne will hold its annual general meeting in Whitehorse.

A while ago I spoke of the Francophone majority during the gold rush. As the gold rush declined, so did the Francophone population. The Francophones dispersed. At the time, Dawson City was the capital of the Yukon and, through lack of institutions, the Francophones became assimilated. Now 14% of the Yukon's population has direct links with the Francophonie. Today 4% of the population states that French is its mother tongue. In 1980 it was 1.6%.

We can deduce from this that the fact of setting up a French association, services, a school and a nursery, and adopting an official languages act that has had a positive impact on our community. I know that the reality is different elsewhere. In our case, it worked. It may be because of the nature and demographics of our community. We represent 4% of the population but there are only 31,000 people living in the Yukon. So 4% equals about 1,250 people. These are people who live around Whitehorse. The assimilation rate is much higher in the regions because there are no services.

I will not speak further of the community because time is short and I would like to allow my colleagues to present their community. I will therefore talk about our major concerns and our priorities for the coming year. I will then share with you our perception of what Mr. Dion's action plan should contain.

A while ago Mr. Lamoureux talked about the question of devolution of powers. For us that is an extremely touchy issue because we have lived a very frustrating, traumatizing, discouraging and assimilating experience in the health field in 1993 and 1997. When Health Canada transferred its responsibilities to the territorial government, there was no clause to protect the rights of Francophones. As a result, today we find ourselves with a territorial government and a federal government who throw the ball back and forthe to each other in terms of official languages responsibility. So the fact that any agreement on the transfer of powers must include unequivocal sections on the protection of Francophone rights should to be taken into consideration in the global development plan

We are often given the argument that these rights are implicit and included in the Official Languages Act. We would ask you to sin by insisting rather than by omission. In fact, we have noticed that in the health field we have been spinning our wheels for 10 years; nothing is happening. We are now looking at judicial recourse against the government of Canada, which seems to us a waste of time and money. The money spent in legal fees could be invested in the implementation of front-line services. For us, that is an aberration.

¼ (1810)

The other main issue for the North is economic development. In the Yukon we have the department of Indian affairs and the North, which, according to its act, has the responsibility for supporting economic development north of the 60th parallel. There is a major problem, and that is that there is no money for this economic development program. There is no federal agency that supports economic development, like there is in the West, for example, with Western Economic Diversification.

We spoke about asymmetry earlier. What I would like for the Yukon is access to programs that would allow us to take charge of our affairs. There is the entire education sector that is under provincial jurisdiction. In fact, I would like to invite the federal government to ensure the accountability of governments in the transfers, in bilateral agreements in education between Heritage Canada and the territorial governments because a lot of those funds do not go directly to the development of the communities, are frittered away here and there an justified in any which way, and that is accepted by Heritage Canada. If Heritage Canada is pushing so hard for reasonable diligence towards French communities, the same obligation should exist towards other governments and itself.

I will make some small recommendations. We support the FCFA's recommendation as far as possible.You have received it and I will not repeat it. it is important to create a central agency with real power to encourage federal departments to uphold the law. The Official Languages Act cannot be considered just like any other act. It is an important law, and the federal government should have the courage of its convictions and take the necessary steps to get the desired results.

I believe we can develop creative approaches. It is important that the decision-makers in each department, all senior public servants in federal departments, adopt the vision that the Official Languages Act must be respected and is not an empty law. Departments must be obliged to support the development of communities. That should be part of Mr. Dion's plan.

I have here a global development plan for our community. If you are interested, it is only in French. I'm sorry, but we do not produce all our documents in a bilingual version when they are internal documents. I also have L'Aurore boréale, our bimonthly journal. We have given ourselves many sevices in the last 20 years but it is obvious that we need the support of the federal government to go even further so that in 10 years, if the planet is still alive, we represent 10 per cent of the Yukon's population.

Excuse me, Mr. Lamoureux, for having taken so much time. Thank you.

¼ (1815)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Ms. Beaudoin.

Mr. Lamoureux.

M. Raymond Lamoureux (Executive Director, Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta): Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, on behalf of the Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta, ACFA, I thank you for this opportunity to express our needs regarding support for the official languages. The ACFA has been in existence for 76 years now, but the Francophone community of Alberta is much older.

Historians say that French was the first European language spoken in our province. It is estimated that the first Francophones appeared in what would be later become Alberta in 1705. It is important to make this historical point because, even today, some believe Francophones arrived there quite recently. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Although our community has a rich and interesting history, it has had to overcome numerous obstacles in order to support itself and develop. The creation of the Province of Alberta in 1905 and the erosion and disappearance of language rights did much to promote the assimilation of our many communities. That is why the creation of our first two schools in 1984, then the judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1990, breathed new life into the Alberta Francophone community. Today we have 25 Francophone schools and five school boards.

Our infrastructures are new and still require additional resources. The Albertan economy's dependence on natural resource development leaves all Albertans open to sudden changes in direction by the government, the burden of which is often borne by education.

In Alberta, more than 33,000 students are taking French-language courses in Francophone and immersion programs. The financial support provided by the official languages program and the special minority education agreement go a long way to paying the additional costs associated with French-language education. However, they are insufficient to meet the needs caused by the lack of basic support services provided by the province and by the French-language school boards to very young children, children with special needs, for occupational training, parental support and even good basic programs.

The lack of support services for exceptional students in immersion programs, for example, means that a number of students are transferred to the English-language program when they experience learning difficulties.

For lack of resources, a number of Francophone school boards are only able to offer basic programs at the high school level in our schools. A number of school boards offering immersion programs provide few or no French-language courses at the senior secondary level for lack of financial resources.

With additional resources, we would be able to assist more students in becoming perfectly bilingual. It goes without saying that the range of courses provided in French at the high school level and in small centres does not meet the needs of all students, and a number feel obliged to quit the program. We must meet this shortfall in innovative ways in order to respond to the specific needs of young people in programs offered in French.

Except in the programs provided at the Faculté Saint-Jean of the University of Alberta and in a bilingual college business administration program, graduates, our 33,000 students, are unable to continue their French-language studies at the post-secondary level. Ways must be found to make French-language training accessible to post-secondary students.

Again at the post-secondary level, literacy, adult education, college programs in French are poorly funded, where they are funded at all. For example, the Société éducative de l'Alberta in Saint-Paul has a mere $20,000 budget per year to set up an adult literacy program.

¼ (1820)

In health, the federal-provincial agreements have made it possible to put in place services in French in one of our regions, Rivière-la-Paix. Today, other regions want to have the same type of agreement, but the infrastructure to implement these programs in place does not currently exist. A provincial health system has just been established and should shortly be receiving financial resources, we hope.

Tourist and economic development is just beginning in Alberta. We are also starting to get involved in historical and heritage development. Time is of the essence because, every day, with the loss of our pioneers and the lack of mechanisms to gather and preserve the elements of our history and heritage, traces of the French presence in our province's history are disappearing.

As you know, buildings in Alberta are not made of stone; they're made of boards, wood. Consequently, the old buildings are rotting. Things are disappearing. The old documents are disappearing. We really need to take care of our past, to preserve our past.

We need support to give this project a boost. For example, the national historic site of the Mission du Lac La Biche, the first place where wheat was planted in western Canada, the only unfortified trading post in the West, has not received a single penny from the Department of Canadian Heritage for its development, whereas the Province of Alberta has contributed several thousands of dollars.

The federal government should also put in place a mechanism to ensure that Crown corporations such as the CBC include in their priorities the needs of minority Francophones and its responsibility to provide access to its various signals so as to put an end to the isolation of Francophones in our regions. In Alberta, French-language radio is not accessible in certain communities such as Beaumont, near Edmonton, Canmore, Banff and even in the Saint-Paul region, where the signal is very weak.

To support community development, we're also seeking to increase the production of local programs. We want programs to be a mirror of the community. Support for the establishment and maintenance of community radio stations would also be a highly useful tool in community development projects.

The transfer of responsibilities from one level of government to another must include linguistic responsibilities. For our specific situation to be taken into account, it is essential that the community be able to take part in decision-making on the allocation of subsidies so that support can be provided for its advancement.

The federal government has made grants in various areas: human resources, health care, early childhood development. When that money is administered by the Anglophone sector, we often have to go on bended knee and prove that we have needs in order to obtain funding. If the Francophone community had been consulted in advance and if principles had been established for the distribution of those funds, the money could go directly to the community without us having to go through all these political gymnastics.

Every responsibility transfer measure must therefore take into account its impact on the linguistic communities. The organization representing the Francophone community must be consulted as to how this money is to be paid out.

In this document, we have not elaborated on the services provided for arts and cultural development, crucial childhood needs, support for amateur sport, technology and bilingualism in federal services, but they are nevertheless among our concerns.

Increasing bilingualism in Canada depends on concrete support from the federal government for stable institutions that will enable us to develop and live in French.

¼ (1825)

The funding granted under existing agreements is insufficient to carry out the development objectives identified by the community and its organizations. It must be kept in mind that the more we cooperate, the more organized we'll be, the more our needs will be met and the more financial support and resources we'll need.

Our federal government must be less timid in its support for bilingualism. In recent years, we have noticed that certain ministers and members of Parliament have paid lip service to, or simply disapproved of, the very notion of bilingualism, one of the fundamental characteristics of our country. Our government must show leadership in this field.

It is also essential that our government adopt a comprehensive action plan consistent with the needs of the Francophone community, which contains concrete objectives, performance indicators, a budget and a timetable to facilitate its evaluation. Our government must adopt the same due diligence policies as those it imposes on us when it evaluates our performance. Moreover, we can only note that our patience in this regard is hardly equalled.

We must develop a concerted approach to implementing Part VII of the Official Languages Act. For the moment, everyone decides what he wants to do, without any real guidelines, which at times results in sporadic efforts without any continuity.

It should be possible for a person to carry on in all areas of human life in the official language of his or her choice. Our federal government must be able to be a solid ally in this area.

We thank you for your attention and count on your support. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.

Mr. Desgagné.

Mr. Denis Desgagné (Executive Director, Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise): Thank you very much for this opportunity to share a Fransaskois point of view on the question of the official languages action plan.

Thank you as well for carrying out this consultation before making your recommendations on the plan because otherwise it would be too late to meet needs and difficult to alter or adapt the plan. Moreover, consulting before a program, policy or report is created should be one of the first stages in the process. So that's perhaps my first suggestion: that this cooperative and consultative approach be an integral part of the action plan.

To provide an adequate response to our entire clientele, the official language action plan must absolutely meet the challenges of its more vulnerable official language community. If it can respond to that, we are convinced it will meet all challenges. There are 20,000 Francophones in Saskatchewan, 20,000 Fransaskois, of which, according to the statistics, approximately 5,000 or 6,000 speak French. That's not a lot, but I've always felt obliged to state the size of the community, to say how many we are. We are what we are. It's not a question of numbers or budgets that I want to raise, but rather a question of fundamental rights. So as long as there's a chance, there will be hope.

We are convinced that, to respond effectively to needs, to become well aware of the problems or challenges, those involved must have a sincere desire to understand the problem, the issue, the challenge of linguistic duality in a minority setting. The smaller the minority community, the clearer the problems and challenges are and, consequently, the clearer the solutions should be.

To find a solution, you must clearly understand the problem. Since the start of the Fransaskois community's mission, that is to say the Fransaskois community assembly, that is since 1912, we have learned one thing of which we are certain: to ensure sustainable development and true vitality for both official languages in Saskatchewan, so that both official languages can also spread their influence, a holistic approach, a comprehensive approach is needed.

We are very familiar with our challenges because we experience them every day, and we express them in our comprehensive development plans. So another suggestion I would make on the basis of that is that, to clearly ascertain the needs of the communities, the official languages action plan should be based on the comprehensive development plans of those communities. Attention should be paid to the minority community, not only to constraints such as budgets and all the other political issues.

In writing this short brief, I wondered who was responsible for linguistic duality. The reflex of the various municipal, provincial and federal government bodies when they see us coming into their offices is to say that Canadian Heritage is responsible for linguistic duality. If we're talking about the economy, health or industry with the various departments, we are referred to Heritage Canada and even to our provincial government, which finds what we are proposing very interesting, but says that it will take it into consideration if funds come from Heritage Canada.

So, in our view, linguistic duality is the responsibility of every citizen, and we need the means to assume that responsibility. As far as means go, we suggest giving force, vigour to Part VII of the Official Languages Act, more particularly section 41, 42 and 43, so that all citizens can assume their responsibilities. We suggest it be made enforceable. It's not that we always want to go to court to have our rights recognized. Instead, we want to assist political and community initiative.

A small community like Saskatchewan's Fransaskois community has little influence on political will. Should that political will fail in Saskatchewan, the community sector will still have the court option. This is a good way to strike a balance between political will and court remedy to advance the case of the linguistic minorities.

Another suggestion concerns cultural change. We too often rely on the leaders in place, for whom the section 41 issue is an additional task and who often have a negative and incorrect perception of the minority community. We often get the impression we are perceived as beggars, wasters of public funds and down-market consultants. We always have to justify ourselves and bend and scrape to obtain a minimum level of resources to carry out our overall development plans and preserve the things we have, such as Radio-Canada.

The Fransaskois community's overall action plan embraces eight sectors which we think are essential to our development. The sectors we have selected are arts, culture and heritage, communications, the economy, education, the home and spirituality, the political and legal sectors and the health, sports and recreation sectors. It's somewhat like a body-builder doing exercises to make his body harmonious but only working one of his arms because he doesn't have the resources to do more. In the end, he winds up with one big arm, but has problems in the rest of his body because of that arm, back problems and so on. So that's somewhat how the problem should be conceived, holistically.

Another example is Latin, which has now disappeared from school curricula. My parents told me they learned Latin at school and heard it at mass. But they never brought a quart of milk in Latin, and Latin disappeared. In any case, I didn't learn it and I still don't buy milk in Latin. Back home in Saskatchewan, you only buy it in English. So French is not a living language and is bound to disappear. That's why you have to use it, not only in education, but also in health and in the economy.

¼ (1830)

The action plan can make public servants understand that minorities are made up of responsible citizens who want to live, which is one of the fundamental values of this country.

Consider the matter in context. In Saskatchewan, for example, many of the representatives who are responsible for the section 41 issue are often public servants with limited or very limited knowledge of French and of the minority complex and who have been assigned this issue as an additional task. Unfortunately, some believe that Francophones are an elite and are bound to occupy the best positions in the public service.

So, at times, we are a kind of threat. I'll cite the example of the Fransaskois single window, which, for the past three years... For a number of years now, the Fransaskois have tried to obtain services in French at the offices of the public service. People are tired of always demanding service in French. So we established what is called a single window as a solution. We are still working in an attempt to set up this solution because we aren't being supported in our efforts. We don't understand why, and we see this as a kind of competition for what already exists.

Since the challenges and strategies are contained in the community's overall development plan, the federal government's action plan must also be part of a comprehensive development policy. That policy would be a guide for the government's commitment and responsibility toward its official language minorities. Such a policy must clearly state the vision of linguistic duality on which all departments and agencies should base their programs and policies. You must understand that the policy isn't exclusively concerned with financial resources, but rather resources in the very broad sense, such as services, programs, policies and so on, which the majority already enjoys.

So we're talking about an overall development plan for the community, an overall development policy for the government and a matter of coordination to make these mechanisms work. In closing...

¼ (1835)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I believe our members must go and vote.

Mr. Denis Desgagné: So perhaps I can simply share a wish with you. I simply hope that my children do not perceive themselves as second-class citizens, as is the case for me and my colleagues currently in Saskatchewan.

There. I had other points to make, but I thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): You can continue as soon as they return.

¼ (1837)

½ (1909)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): We will return to our deliberations. Mr. Desgagné, have you finished your presentation? Do you wish to conclude?

Mr. Denis Desgagné: I think that's it. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): You lost your momentum.

So let's move on to questions. Mr. Sauvageau.

½ (1910)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation and your suggestions. Please excuse our brief delay, our vote break. I will try to muster my ideas and ask you some questions about that.

When you hear Minister Dion talk about his theory of manufacturing bilingual people to counter assimilation, which he wanted to use as his leitmotiv in the action plan he wanted to table, how do you react?

I made a calculation a while ago. I don't really want to be politically incorrect, but I think I will be anyway. According to my data, in your territories--this is being recorded; I think I will look crazy--the assimilation rate is almost 66% on average. So before all the anglophones become bilingual--this is a question that was asked in New Brunswick--, with whom are they going to speak French?How do you feel when you hear this theory, this concept of manufacturing bilingual people. These are about the questions I ask your predecessors.

My second question is about consultation. I think that Mr. Provencher talked about consultation and there is another on, Mr. Desgagné, who talked about consensus building and consultations on the action plan with advocacy organizations. I believe that Mr. Dion sometimes unexpectedly sets foot in certain communities. He goes to meet people and says he has consulted. I would like the hear your thoughts on the consultation process, on what you would like to see in the action plan, and what you don't want in it. I will start with that and then, if I have time, I will have other questions. You can answer them in order or not.

Mr. Claude Provencher: Regarding the first part of your question on bilingualism, it's understood that we would have to ensure that Francophones keep their French if we want bilingual people. I don't know under what circumstances he said that, but I hope that his point of view will change and evolve.

that brings me to the second question on consultation. Mr. Dion has said many times that he comes out West for consultations. He came to our federation and he turned a bit of a deaf ear to what we told him; that is to say he was surprised by our recommendations. He came back to many of our associations. He took the trouble, I believe, to find out if what we were telling him was the general opinion. I think that we have a meeting with him. I am satisfied with this consultation because he will be consulting at various levels.

The question of bilingualism may be evolving; I hope so.

He also talked about education. He put a lot of hope in training. we can't be against that because if our school systems are backed by the provinces, obviously we will get good results. that's what we hope.

Mr. Daniel Lamoureux: At home, in the North-West Territories, anglophones whose second language is French are twice as numerous as we are. We are 1000. They number 2200, plus a few Native people for whom French is the third language;there are still some. In a sense, it is reassuring because we can get more services in French since they are more numerous. However, they will not ask for services in French because they can already speak English.

On the other hand, what worries us is that if budgets are limited, we are competing, in education, with immersion and French as a second language, on the one hand, and French as the first language on the other. Of course we favour French as the first language. We have schools in two of our four communities but we believe we need them in the four communities, which is not currently the case.

In the long run, if we come back to my curve, if the number of entitled decreases, at a given point the government will feel less obligated to finance French as a second language and French immersion, and, in the long term, the failure will continue.

½ (1915)

Mr. Denis Desgagné: As for the first question, the manufacturing of bilingual people, I think the answer is already there. If there are really no francophones, if cannot first have a Franco-saskatchewanian community, why have bilingual people?

My wife is an immersion teacher and the question is often asked. We try to insert them in a milieu, to immerse them. We have to immerse them in something. So essentially we need a French community.

I think we have also answered the question on the consultation process well. We in Saskatchewan are less satisfied; we have not have a minister visit us. We have gone before other people in the minister's office but have not yet had a chance to speak to the minister. I was saying in my presentation that we had to understand, that there has to be a sincere desire for understanding. And I am not convinced that such a desire exists. There.

It's important to us. I also said in the brief that if the development plan can apply to the smallest community, it should apply to all. Currently I don't know if we are aiming at the largest number, but we always start with the most important ones and it is only at the end that we stop at... So we feel a bit like that in this consultation.

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: In terms of what has been said about manufacturing bilinguals, I would say that in general, in Alberta, we have an interest in seeing to it that young people in immersion programs have a better chance of becoming bilingual, that they have better academic support at the high school level, etc. However, that must not be to the detriment of the French language minority. That is how I would answer that question.

The French language minority is growing. There are 60,000 in Alberta, or about 6% of the total population. among those 60,000, many are not active in the community. As for their commitment to community activities, there is a lot to do. the assimilation rate is high.

In terms of consultation, ACFA, l'Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta, is currently repositioning itself. In general, ACFA seeks to get closer to the community. In the past, and I think the same is true elsewhere in Canada, the associations were there to motivate the population by contributing to the creation of organizations. For example, we started working on the education problem and we eventually got school boards. Now the organizations are becoming more and more independent. the same thing has happened with various groups in Alberta. So from the egg, the bird grows and eventually flies on its own. It sometimes forgets who its parents are. for example, in education we believe ACFA still has an important role to play. When the children get too far away it becomes difficult to get them back.

So, based on our plans, we want to get closer to all the groups because we feel that we still have an important role to play, for r some a little in terms of their development and for others a lot more. We believe we also have a political role to play for everyone.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Did I cut you off, Ms. Beaudoin? No? Very well.

Now if we had an action plan that satisfied you. and therefore satisfied us, and that we wanted to ensure, on paper, the follow-up on that action plan, would you propose that it include objectives for, for example, the reduction of the assimilation rate, the increase in the participation of Francophones a little all across Canada? would you propose that instead of spending money in front of the courts we should create a panel to hear the differences between the various Francophone communities and the government? Would you propose that the Commissioner for Official Languages have more power to correct a situation instead of simply describing it for the government?

The action plan is already done. It contains nice words, nice things, but how do you see the follow-up that needs to be done concretely?

½ (1920)

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: First, I believe that the action plan must truly reflect the real needs of communities. This action plan could vary, to a certain extent, from community to community. I believe that what is important is that it match the reality of the communities and reflect it accurately. In such a case, we would have the necessary support to implement it.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, but how could we verify later that everything is as rosy as you say?

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: How?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: How could we verify?

Air Canada has tabled action plans for 30 years and tells us that this year is the right one and that we will see how good it is. What I fear--and I do not see this fear in you, but I may be paranoid--, is that you, like air Canada, also have a nice action plan. It's cute. We have found a nice dictionary with synonyms, we but nice words in it and the presentation is pretty. OK, but it doesn't mean anything in the end and it doesn't have concrete results in the communities. How do you think we can validate the application of this action plan?

Ms. Jeanne Beaudoin: We spoke earlier about the assimilation rate. I would say it would be a good indicator of success if the assimilation rate dropped. I would not call it luck, but in the Yukon, even though the Francophone population has increased in number and percentage since 1996--we have not received the latest census results--, we still have a low linguistic retention rate, which means there is still assimilation. I think that will be a performance indicator.

I believe that the global development plan, as Heritage Canada now requires it from the Francophone communities, must have performance indicators, ways of analyzing the results. They have to be measurable, quantifiable. there are broad areas. there is language and there are broad objectives that should be part of the plan in terms of the language of work.

We have talked a lot about the idea of reinforcing designated bilingual positions in the different departments. That is one thing. There is the whole question of support for community development, which means strengthening things so that the different federal departments respect their obligations under the Official Languages Act, offer French services and support community development.

There is the education issue that I mentioned earlier. for now, we still have the impression that that we are left out in the cold in terms of education because we are told it is a negotiation between the two governments. We fought for school management. If we want to talk about real school management, we should be able to sit down at the table and talk to the Minister of Heritage Canada and the Minister of Education so that the money that is invested in education be really invested in setting up front-line services that will support development, counter assimilation and allow us to keep our young people.

There are bread guiding principles. We have to do some diagnoses. There are a lot of people who have talked to you about problems in their community. We need to develop, to propose objectives, action roads to follow, and then, in each community, the actions that will be perhaps different, but say how we will measure the results... we will calculate them the same way Heritage Canada asks us to calculate results. If we say we went from 4 to 4.2% of the population, that is positive. If there are 120 students in the French school rather than 110, that is nice. An increase in services, an increase in the quality of services...

½ (1925)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Suppose we give you $100,000 for a project. Do you have to account for it or...

Ms. Jeanne Beaudoin: We have to account for it. We can't...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But if they spend $30 million, shouldn't they have to account for it?

Ms. Jeanne Beaudoin: That's what I was saying. Of course. We are talking about accountability.

Mr. Daniel Cuerrier: I would like to answer that question by responding initially to the first question on consultation. With a global action plan like that one, we should move beyond consultation and into consensus building and partnership.

You have before you--and there are plenty of others you don't see--potential partners who are passionate and love language and culture. As long as we don't let these people have a voice in matters, any action plan, as you say, will only be a pious wish. It won't happen; it won't be implemented. What is needed is not only for the action plan to be developed in partnership with the public servants and the elected officials, but also that for the implementation of measures ways and means to evaluation the plans's performance, the same partners sit at the same table and manage to decide together on the set of performance indicators, i. e. the ways of measuring the implementation of these action plans.

I wanted to speak earlier about my Inuit fellow citizens. Before signing the AL:and Claim Settlement Agreement, they demanded and got joint management committees. I don't see why Francophone communities could not have the same level of management over their destiny. If those communities are to have a future, I think that is the route that must be taken.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Lamoureux, do you also wish to answer this question.

Mr. Daniel Lamoureux: I would like to answer it very briefly.

We have a nice action plan, done jointly. Of course there must be an accountability structure with compulsory results at each level. It can be the assimilation rate, whatever. If public servants are implementing the plan, they are accountable. If they don't do the work, they won't be doing it in the future. If it is being done by the community, there could be sanctions. There can be incentives and coercion measures. I think there are also ways of building, in parallel with the action plan, an accountability structure with teeth.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Provencher

Mr. Claude Provencher: In their recommendations, our communities ask that the President of the Privy Council be designated the minister responsible for the official languages program and the minister responsible for the implementation of a global development policy for the federal government. This is a plus for us because the person holding that position has the responsibility and answers directly. It is the Prime Minister's Department. They will give themselves the means, at least I hope so, to implement it; if not we will evaluate it easily.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): You will come back if there is time left later.

Ms. Léger

Senator Viola Léger: I have only one question, but before I ask it I would like to thank Mr. Cuerrier for this nice map. If in the government we could look at the world upside down, we might find new solutions and ways of applying them. We will try to do that.

Mr. Provencher, I was very happy to hear that Mr. Stéphane Dion had gone to British Columbia and that you were happy. I understood that he was an active listener. Let's hope for more of that.

Ms. Beaudoin, the results are really a question of generations, aren't they? As you were saying, 1, 2 instead of 1, that's already something. We all know that statistics are difficult. Are we asking the right questions? Are we asking them in a way that they can be understood or is it our ears that are interpreting it our way? The poor person looking at it puts a check here, maybe not. So it is the work of generations to get results.

I come to my little question. Mr. Desgagné, you talked about one-stop shopping. I don't know that. I only know about automatic tellers.

Some voices: Ah! ah!

Senator Viola Léger: It's true, I don't know about that. What is it?

½ (1930)

Mr. Denis Desgagné: A single window is, as it were, a way for the Fransaskois to go to one place to get services; for example, to go get a passport in French, in a comfort zone. People are so tired of waiting in line for the Francophone to finish his lunch so they can get service in French. So we propose that there be these single windows in our community-school or community centres, where we are used to speaking French, where we feel we aren't making demands. We could obtain various services from the federal government. People there find the information. They aren't program officers, but rather people who do the research and facilitate access to the services.

Senator Viola Léger: That's good. That's interesting.

Mr. Denis Desgagné: That's what we thought.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): In English, we say one-stop shopping.

Mr. Godin, do you have any questions?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, I would like to thank you for coming here today and especially for defending the French language in your region. I'm sure it's not an easy task. We don't find it easy in Acadia, and I can imagine how difficult it can be for you. So I want to congratulate you.

When you talk about languages, first there is service in the two official languages of Canada, which are English and French. That's one problem. The second is how to get organized in the province where you live to provide services in French in education and health. One really involves the other, or one is even bigger than the other. The government has laws, but when you begin to get adamant about seeing whether the act is binding or declaratory, that troubles me after so many years. We are still wondering whether it's fair: I intend to do it, but I won't do it; I shall do it.

I've done a lot of negotiating with the unions. When we negotiated in English mainly, people preferred to use the words “I shall do it.” I said: Why not “You will do it?” It's much easier because you know what you're talking about. You don't persist for years.

Would you like Mr. Dion, in the report he's going to produce, to say once and for all that sections 7 and 41 of the act are binding and that the two official languages are recognized in Canada?

Mr. Daniel Cuerrier: I believe that should be the first stage. Once the Canadian government has decided to live with its convictions or to express its convictions by declaring that the Official Languages Act is a quasi-constitutional statute and binding, the action plan should stem from that. That should be the first step. Then, the action plan should stem from that. That would send a clear message: everyone must adopt that action plan. If it is stated without hesitation that the Official Languages Act is binding, that will send a very clear message to the government administration and even to the provinces and territories, which will know that this is how we live now. It will vastly simplify things and make it possible or virtually binding to adopt that language or that action plan.

½ (1935)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Provencher.

Mr. Claude Provencher: Let's say you can't be opposed to application, but there isn't just the obligation to do something. There's also the will. The government must show us the way. If there is a sequence in its actions, all organizations will get into line. It's understood that it will have to take out its stick once in a while, but it's the one that will show the way. If it plays its leadership role, that may not be as necessary, but it should exist just in case. That's my opinion.

Mr. Daniel Lamoureux: I would like to add that section 23 of the Charter is binding. There have been 300 education cases, I believe, and we have won them all. However, the federal government has opposed Francophones on a number of occasions. It is doing so in our case, in the Northwest Territories. We would like the federal government, which has a mandate to implement linguistic duality, to be on our side at times. We would really like that.

There was Montfort, Beaulac, Mahé and a lot of other cases, and the federal government was often against Francophones.

Mr. Yvon Godin: And there's the capital of Canada.

Mr. Daniel Lamoureux: Yes, exactly. That's a point that troubles me a great deal.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Lamoureux.

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: I think it's important that the federal government have an orientation that influences all sectors of government, in every field. Everyone must agree and everyone must head in a certain direction with regard to official languages. So it would be desirable for there to be unconditional support in all sectors of government.

Mr. Denis Desgagné: I agree 100%. I believe the future of Francophonie cannot depend solely on the good will of public servants. There has to be something solid. If there is no will, then there will at least be a lever so we can do something.

Mr. Yvon Godin: For example, this committee sat for up to two days a week for weeks to meet people in the Air Canada case. We met witnesses and we prepared a brief which we presented to the Minister, to Parliament, in which we asked the government to enforce the act.

When Air Canada was transferred to the private sector, there was a provision in the act stating that the company had to be bilingual. We are still fighting for that, and the act has no teeth.

Let's stop dreaming in colour and being satisfied with crumbs. Some say we're headed in the right direction. No, we're not headed in the right direction. We need more than that, I think. How do you, as organizations representing Francophones in Canada, see this matter? We're being given the crumbs. We have to be polite, we have go down on bended knee, we can't complain too much. If we complain too much, they'll cut the money they give our organization. We can't work. If we take them to court because we think they violated the act, they say they're going to take away $100,000 and that we should shut our mouths the next time.

I'm sure you experience that. I want you to tell me. Do you experience that? Earlier, there were people who told us their funding had been cut from $700,000 to $300,000. In another case, it wasn't so serious: their funding was reduced from $700,000 to $650,000. But whenever anyone opens his mouth, he loses government money.

Is the government will there? Or is it holding a big stick over the heads of your organizations and cutting you off if you aren't nice?

I would like to have your opinion on that because I believe it's important to get the opinions of the organizations representing the Francophones of Canada. It's the same for the organizations representing Anglophones in Canada. How do you defend the two official languages of our country, the two peoples that were accepted in our country? We have declared that we had two founding peoples, and even three, including the First Nations. There are three peoples that we should respect in our country. Wouldn't the government have decided to stop engaging in politics and to wait until the Supreme Court judges had rendered their decisions, which cost a fortune, before implementing that in the education and health sectors?

I would like to have your reactions to that because I believe it's important.

½ (1940)

Ms. Jeanne Beaudoin: I agree with what you're so eloquently saying. It's true we're punished. It's true we shouldn't speak too loudly. It's true we get the impression that servility is what the government prefers. We talk about partnership, which is a very fashionable word. That's not partnership. We talk about cooperation. Mr. Cuerrier talked about it.

It has to be a two-way street. We have to stop begging. That's really the impression I get. When I come to Ottawa, my plane ticket costs $924 and I have $1,200 in my expense account. We're still counting our pennies. We really try to make our dollar go as far as possible. We take the opportunity to meet our contacts in the federal departments and advance our causes. It's often said: “If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.” That's what I tell people.

In our case, we've been repeating it for a very long time. I've been in the Yukon for 20 years, and my children were born in the Yukon. I want my children to be bilingual and to raise their children in French in the Yukon, if they decide to stay there. I don't want to be irreverent here, but I really feel I'm rambling. I've been repeating the same thing for 20 years. Yes, you're right.

We've always been in favour of consultation and cooperation before confrontation. But now we realize we may not have the choice. Perhaps that's what the policy is. Perhaps the policy is, see you in court. Otherwise, things don't change much.

Do we believe in the Official Languages Act in Canada? We have an act. How many people would like to scrap it? I'm talking about having the courage of one's convictions. It's all very well to have an act on paper, but it has to be binding.

We had the same experience with the education act. There are still provincial and territorial governments which get money under the bilateral education agreements, which take advantage to upgrade their computers in the schools. They can justify it because they've installed French keyboards. Heritage Canada doesn't ask for any more proof than that.

There's a double standard. I agree with what you say. I believe we should reinforce the Official Languages Act and find measures to ensure it is complied with and that it is not a phoney act.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Lamoureux, would you like to add anything?

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: I would like to give a few examples of the consequences in Alberta of what you are saying. Grants are made in the fields of health and childhood. I refer to them in my presentation.

We have five school boards in Alberta. One of those boards serves students in a number of different regions. In Alberta, we have regional health boards. Money for regional health is forwarded to those regional boards. A school board that wants to demand support for orthophonic and other services for its students must enter into individual agreements with each of those various regional boards. If the money was paid to a centre for French-language education in Alberta, it could be distributed in the manner that, in our view, best suits our situation. In each region, you have to go begging and prove you have special needs. The amount of work is increased and, as I said earlier, you always have to go begging.

The same thing occurs in the case of grants for early childhood. The regions for early childhood are the same as for health care, and the same phenomenon occurs. In appearance, Francophones are really like the majority and have the same colour skin, but we do not have the same problems. The problems of the minority are often unknown to the majority. When we want support for early childhood care, our needs are often not even recognized. It's still a question of demands. We constantly have to justify ourselves. Those are the consequences of granting a lot of money to an agency which is not aware of your needs. That's what happens when you allow majority agencies to decide how those funds will be distributed.

These two examples are a consequence of a lack of recognition of our needs in the highest authorities. The development of our communities could be greatly facilitated by acknowledging our needs and supporting them in a development and funding plan.

½ (1945)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.

Mr. Provencher.

Mr. Claude Provencher: I have a question for you.

Do you really need to consult the public in order to enforce an act?

Mr. Yvon Godin: As I am not part of the government, I can answer you directly: no! The government usually beats about the bush. It's the one that has to pay. I believe it comes at a cost. That's the problem here in Canada. When you recognize three peoples, you have to pay the price and say that's what we're going to do. You have to take action. I believe we've been studied enough. As we say at home, we've been studied up to there. Action is needed now. That's my answer.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): The consultation we're conducting today concerns Mr. Dion's action plan and only that.

Gérard, do you have any questions?

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): I would like to make a brief remark.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): All right.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Since I had some obligations, I missed two meetings, but I get the impression I missed more.

I listen to you and I listen to Mr. Godin. He of course is not a member of the government. His party will never form the government, unless something exceptional happens.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Doug Young never thought I would beat him, but I beat him. Watch out!

Mr. Gérard Binet: A government, as you know, has obligations. I don't want to say anything new, but, in my opinion, when you say we are regressing here in Ottawa... I have spoken with former members in Ottawa, and, from what I experience as a new member, I believe the position of French is pretty good here.

What I'm getting at is that there are members who speak French in the House, from the New Democratic Party and from the Alliance. It is very well considered to speak French in question periods. You hear people speak French then. If they want to learn to speak French, there's a reason. Somewhere, there's pride in speaking French.

There is something else that's progressing, I think. If you want to hold a management position, you have to be bilingual. So some are forcing themselves to become bilingual. But it is difficult to apply that everywhere. In the provincial governments, in the federal government, there are some who don't want anyone to touch their sphere.

Yvon was talking about Air Canada, a company that merged with another. Does the company have to dismiss everyone? Teaching French to someone 50 years old isn't an easy task.

I figure that what's important is to create pride in speaking French. Some say to themselves that if they speak English and French, it's an advantage for them since they'll be able to rise in any organization in Canada.

When anyone wants to enforce the act very strictly, if you say that costs money, that's considered poor political form. Mr. Dion spoke about that a little, and he had the media on his back. If you give the act teeth and enforce it, you won't be able to spend elsewhere the money that's allocated to that.

Was that well said? Politically, it's not good to say that, but you nevertheless have to move forward. We have a minister in place and, in my opinion, he will be able to move things forward. I don't think anyone's announcing deficits at this time. In any case, that's my position.

½ (1950)

Ms. Jeanne Beaudoin: Allow me to comment. Yes, we can find something positive in everything. I would like to tell you that, in the Yukon, Agriculture Canada is currently funding a study on Francophones' health needs. I find it somewhat ironic that Health Canada does not assume its responsibility toward us, whereas Agriculture Canada is supporting a community health project. Perhaps we'll have to go to Environment Canada for funding to save endangered species. That's fashionable these days. Perhaps we can find creative ways to try to save the French language, pride in speaking French, but, well...

I understand what you're saying. I don't know you, but I can associate people with parties. I believe it is very important to avoid political debate, but that may be impossible. We're not here to fight. We want to advance a cause. Dispute and confrontation will only slow us down in achieving our ultimate goal. We're talking about pride. My ultimate goal is that my children have the opportunity to choose to pass on their language and culture to their children. Pride is definitely necessary for that.

The Association franco-yukonnaise has been in a hole for 15 years. It was very hard to encourage people to be proud of their identity. They didn't like to be associated with this dilapidated building. Then we had Heritage Canada, thank you. The Government of the Yukon, thank you very much, invested money in the community--we thought it believed in us--to build a Francophone centre. It's a little centre. It was already too small. We had the land and we built what we could with the money we had. Now we see that has a uniting effect. Yes, Francophones associated themselves with a beautiful building, a modern building, a building that does not show them they are second- or third-class citizens. I'm sorry, but it's easier to be proud of something when you can afford it. We have an Official Languages Act. Do we believe in it or don't we? If we don't believe in it...

Mr. Gérard Binet: I come from a Francophone region where there are very few Francophones, and we're fighting. In my opinion, when you're a minority, the fight is intensive. You must never give up. Pride is not necessarily a matter of having a nicer car. Sometimes you're proud of your car. It's not a Mercedes, but you're quite proud when you worked hard to get it. In my opinion, we have no choice but to continue working hard and putting energy into it because, when you're a minority, you have to cope with assimilation and continue working.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Mr. Binet.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Then you become more intelligent and that's when you become superior.

½ (1955)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Cuerrier.

Mr. Daniel Cuerrier: I'd like to come back to your last two comments, Mr. Binet.

We just said that we want to stop fighting and coast. We're saying we want to be considered as full-fledged citizens, as partners of the government, like people who are taken seriously, like competent people and people who have a passion for language and culture. We don't want to go begging, and, yes, we're ready to continue fighting. We know what that is because we all experience it in our daily lives.

We don't want a coast. We want to stop being undermined by people who are supposed to be our partners, who are supposed to be those who support us and promote our development. That's what we have come to ask you.

We ask you to acknowledge that as a fact and to acknowledge our ability to help and advance the vitality of the Francophone fact in Canada. That's the fundamental message we're trying to give you here.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Mr. Cuerrier.

Mr. Lamoureux.

Mr. Daniel Lamoureux: On Friday, I learned that our federation, which is the mouthpiece of Francophones in the Northwest Territories, will have to register as a lobby group, just like a lobby group for yellow margarine, in order to have access to a certain federal program. We defend the Francophones of the Northwest Territories. Without that, we couldn't have access to the program.

That makes me a bit angry because I believe that the various communities are Canada. They have a certain idea of Canada, that of Trudeau and that of many governments since then. As some of my colleagues say, we shouldn't have to crawl and register as a lobby group. We are Canada.

¾ (2000)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Lamoureux.

Mr. Raymond Lamoureux: Mr. Binet, you referred to a car. I believe that, as long as the car is a good one, as it's in good condition and gets us from point A to point B, that's good. If our situation was comparable to that, I could accept your reference. A better analogy for minorities would be to talk about working with a computer 15 years ago and a computer today.

Today, we as a minority need much more to get us from point A to point B. You really have to be up to date to be able to compete and fit into the community. In our communities, we have so much work to do. As you know, many Francophones are not even aware of what needs they have. They have been so assimilated that they don't even think about making demands.

We must start by leading people to become aware of everything they have lost and of how they have changed in their everyday lives. We have a great mountain to climb and major challenges to face. I don't think the idea is to accept the status quo. We really have to develop an overall development plan and get the community involved. When we adopt a development plan, we have to inform the community.

This year in Alberta, we are starting with sectoral round tables: a sectoral round table on health, a sectoral round table on heritage and history, sectoral round tables in various other fields. We know perfectly well that, in some regions, we have made progress in the field, whereas, in other regions, we haven't even thought of those fields.

People are being told that we're going to regroup and adopt a development plan. I don't believe we can give what we don't have. We are generally caught in situations like that everywhere in our minority regions. This year, we're going to bring together people who know more and people who know less about the health sector, for example. If necessary, we are going to bring in people who know the sector well. For that particular sector, we will have representatives from each region who will progress in their knowledge in this sector.

We're going to do this for each sector, and then those people will return to their regions. When we come to do our planning, our regional joint effort, we will have at least one well-informed person per sector who can share with the other people in the community. We believe we will advance the issues by doing this. The idea is to instruct people so that we can manage to plan in a way that will represent progress over the previous round of programming.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Binet.

Mr. Gérard Binet: I'm on the Official Languages Committee in order to defend my government. I'm here to help advance the cause of official languages.

I can tell you that I am very close to the Honourable Stéphane Dion, the Minister. He is someone I'd like to associate with, as well as Ms. Robillard. I am definitely going to pass on to him what I hear. I do so regularly.

I'm going to come back to your first subject, the car. When I began here, I heard Senator Jean-Claude Rivest, for whom I have a great deal of respect, even though he is a Conservative.

Mr. Yvon Godin: They vote for the NDP in Quebec.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Mr. Rivest said... I would go more toward specific things. That's why I spoke out earlier to say that we have an act, that we give it extreme power, but that we must consider what we're doing. Do we have to pay millions and millions of dollars to have contraventions translated in the municipalities and in the provinces, or do we have to work more in the field, as you are asking? In my view, if we strike everywhere... It would be important to have more specific things in order to really work where we really need to do so. Do we have to go to court, as you said earlier, and pay judges to hear these cases, or must we invest in important basic needs such as computers so as to really assist the cause of official languages?

That's my point of view. All I can tell you is that I'm going to work hard and I'm going to talk about this with my honourable colleagues.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Sauvageau.

I'm sorry, Mr. Desgagné. I didn't see you.

Mr. Denis Desgagné: Thank you very much.

You raised an excellent point at the start. It precisely illustrates what I was saying about our representatives in the field.

I'm a Quebecker too. I'm a native of Quebec, and I was very proud as a Quebecker in my small village. But it was when I moved to the West some 16 years ago that I understood what we were talking about and became truly proud. I really understood what I was proud of when I saw the Fransaskois and the Franco-Albertains, among others, fight for what little they had.

You said earlier that we were making progress. When you talk about an assimilation percentage of 70%, I don't think that's necessarily progress. At the start of the century, life was lived in French in our homes and instruction was given in French. School was taught in French, at least until the auditors passed and the French books were hidden. But it was nevertheless taught in French. Health care was provided in French.

¾ (2005)

Mr. Gérard Binet: When I spoke about progress, I did so on the subject of pride.

Mr. Denis Desgagné: I'm going to continue on that point. I'm also going to address the economy, the church and other subjects.

Today, when we talk about progress, we're trying to get back those things: health and so on. But we're alone in our efforts. We are left quite alone in our regions with an assimilation rate of 70%.

You were saying earlier that speaking French is highly thought of in Ottawa. That's good, except that, outside Ottawa, it may not be highly thought of to speak French. When you're told, “Speak white,” you can't be responsible and speak to your children in French. It's not highly thought of. There's been no progress on that aspect. However, when the time comes to put money into that, people say it costs too much. You nevertheless said that it was poorly thought of. It's not popular to put money into what I call pride; let's say instead to put money into the budget. We're going to look at things like that.

Then, you concluded by saying that, on top of that, there was a minister in place. If a minister is in place, it may be because there is a problem. We can't disregard the fact that, in solving a problem, the first thing to do is to accept the fact that there is a problem, to take a good look at it and to consider what you must do and what the solutions are. I believe we are doing this, but first you have to recognize it.

Pride is a process, an acknowledgement. We can be left alone and say that we're proud. There are a lot of people who are proud. And I believe that's quite clear: we show that pride.

To earn a certain community status, you have to have that kind of social capital, as I would call it. We're entitled to have a French school, and that's good. It's not poorly thought of. We're entitled to be sick and to be cared for in our language, to be understood in our language.

I'm going to give you an example of pride in one's language. I was presenting a brief not very long ago, last week, to the Romanow Commission. I spoke French, like a proud Fransaskois. To hear me, people had to pay for earphones. I spoke French throughout my presentation, and I wasn't understood.

I could continue on like this. Last week, I presented another brief like that one to the Broadcasting Task Force to convince it that it takes more than Radio-Canada, which my family here doesn't watch. They have a lot of other options, and that's the station they don't look at.

When I say second-class citizens, I mean people who have no choice. That means that my children will be called “losers” by their friends who have been in Saskatchewan for longer than they. When I do my grocery shopping and the lady next to me calls me irresponsible and tells me to speak English to my children...

As a Quebecker, I've learned a lot of things about pride. I think that the people in charge of official languages should at least know a minimum about these things so they can really help us go further with this, realize this and make progress. Progress is being made, but we need to have more tools in hand to really advance this cause. We are often called “francofous” because we're still pursuing this cause. Perhaps that's one way of saying we're proud and we believe in it.

Mr. Gérard Binet: When I say pride...

Mr. Yvon Godin: Madam Chair, on a point of order, I hope we will have as much time as the Liberal member had. I believe he has already had roughly 15 minutes. I wouldn't mind spending the evening here. I've already done it. I just want to make sure, Madam Chair...

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Excuse me, sir. Order.

Mr. Binet was speaking to Mr. Desgagné. Mr. Binet, would you repeat?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Madam Chair, I only want to make a point of order to ensure that, since he is asking further questions, we be allotted the same time.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Five minutes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Did you say five minutes?

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): You have five minutes and 45 seconds.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm sorry, he had more than...

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): That's from the start.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That's definitely not all the time he has had since the start of the meeting.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): In fact, he had 15 minutes. I agree, provided our guests are willing to stay.

Mr. Yvon Godin: They like it here in Ottawa. They're talking with their elected members.

Go ahead. Continue.

Mr. Gérard Binet: All right. It's fun with Mr. Godin. It's animated.

I'm going to come back to the question of pride. Obviously, when someone says in English that someone's a loser or something else, that person understands nothing. The day we become proud, everyone will understand that speaking English and French in Canada is an advantage. The person who said that 10 years ago will see things differently.

You come from Quebec. Speaking English in Quebec when I was 15 or 16 was... My teachers told me that there was no point in learning English. It's different today. That's all I wanted to tell you. Today we know it's important. Perhaps one day they'll understand that right across the country. It's nevertheless a question of time and not just a question of money.

¾ (2010)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: For Mr. Binet, it's unfortunate Mr. Dion's spy has left, but our words will be conveyed to his ears.

Our honourable colleague Mr. Dion hinted that rights depended on the money that was granted, but he said later that he had not said that. I thank you for clearly stating that we have rights, but that, if we want to have them defended, we will have less money for other things. At least that was clear. That's one thing.

Second, as regards pride, I will tell you that the assimilation rate in Ontario was 40%. Ottawa has always refused status as an officially bilingual city, even though it is the federal capital of an officially bilingual country. They seem to be quite proud of that.

An hon. member: I don't dispute that.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Now, as to Mr. Dion and the other things we were talking about, that is to say the action plan, I believe they have cast an interesting doubt. Everyone talks about Stéphane Dion as though he was now responsible for the Official Languages Act, but, if your read his testimony before this committee, you will see that he told us very clearly that he was not responsible for the application of the Official Languages Act, that that was Sheila Copps. He was responsible for coordination. We are trying to determine how many coordination meetings there have been over the past year. We've never found out. With whom is he coordinating? We don't know that either. How much new money has there been since he became minister and has had this file? There hasn't been a single cent more. How many more persons have there been? There's been one, I believe, and that's Mr. Asselin, who has just left. Where has his action plan been over the past year? There isn't one.

Like all those who have preceded you, you say that Mr. Dion must prepare an action plan, that Mr. Dion must do this and that. Well, Mr. Dion has told us that he was not responsible for the implementation of the Official Languages Act. This point must be kept in mind.

In the action plan, would it be practical to have an organization chart of the federal government? That's a little like the 12 labours of Asterix. You have to know who's doing what. My friend Yvon and I have learned that, if we're in an airplane and we have a problem with a glass of water, Ms. Robillard is the Minister responsible, but that if it's a safety problem, it's Mr. Collenette. It's not clear for people who are in an airplane and who have a problem. And if the plane crashes, it's the flight recorder.

So would it be practical to have an organization chart so that we can know who actually does what? Perhaps we're all completely off track here today because Stéphane isn't in charge of that. He's going to prepare an action plan for us, but he's not the minister responsible. I ask everyone quite humbly to read the testimony he gave when he came before us the first time. It's very interesting. If he isn't responsible, what kind of action plan he is going to prepare for us?

Second, I don't know how things work with you, but I'm going to explain how they work with us. If you watch Radio-Canada television between 6:00 p.m. and midnight, you're sure to see a federal government advertisement every 15 minutes. I don't know how things work where you are, but that's how it is here. They do advertisements on tom-cod, on weights and measures, on species at risk, on everything.

Do you think that, when he tables his action plan, he can put it through the media so that your communities can know their rights and duties with regard to the federal government? In other words, do you think the action plan should be accompanied by an amount of money for media advertising? They're very big on that, at least in Quebec, to make themselves known. Do you associate the two?

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Desgagné.

Mr. Denis Desgagné: On the question of advertising in our media, I was president of the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada for eight years, and we requested a community radio policy somewhat like that of Quebec. A certain percentage of advertising--I believe it's one percent--must go to community radio stations. We requested something like that a long time ago. This is money that's already there. We're not talking about new money. Those are resources that are already there and that can be allocated effectively.

We're talking about a comprehensive development policy. This is one of the elements that could be included in that policy. As we said earlier, we have a comprehensive development plan concerning, in particular, health, education and communications.

¾ (2015)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Excuse me. I don't believe I was clear. In the newspaper a few weeks ago, we saw a beautiful advertisement: a father, a mother and their child who had a suitcase and were saying: “Their safety is everyone's business. Check what's in your baggage.” But I didn't see any advertisements saying: “On board aircraft, you have a right to be served in the two official languages of this country.” Could you put Francophones, instead of suitcases, in one advertisement in five? That's my question.

Mr. Denis Desgagné: Yes, I believe that's a good way, but perhaps, instead of placing it in newspaper x, it should be placed in a newspaper that will reach Francophones or on radio stations that will reach Francophones, in other words our community radio stations, our weeklies, etc.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So it would be good to put it into the action plan.

Mr. Denis Desgagné: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Provencher.

Mr. Claude Provencher: Let's say the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs have been given a mandate to coordinate official languages. He was not appointed minister responsible. For us, that's an opening because we have overall plans in our communities that we want to develop. This appointment is a positive point for us. It's so positive that all the associations and all persons unanimously would like the President of the Privy Council to be appointed minister responsible for implementation of the Official Languages Act. That's a recommendation we're making.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But now, he isn't.

Mr. Claude Provencher: He isn't, but we would like him to be because we think the President of the Privy Council may have more influence over the entire apparatus of government.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But it's the Minister of Canadian Heritage who was responsible for the act; why isn't she also responsible for the action plan?

Mr. Claude Provencher: If the government made the decision to appoint someone to coordinate...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: All right, but I have a problem.

Mr. Denis Desgagné: Ms. Copps has nevertheless done a good job, but it seems to me she has a very, very broad portfolio. This appointment may have been made to reorganize things so that everyone, rather than a single department, is a bit responsible for this. As was said, this creates perceptions, not only in government, but in the community: if you want to do something, there is one responsibility and one entity responsible, the Department of Canadian Heritage. So if we're talking about a comprehensive development policy, all departments and agencies necessarily have that responsibility. Perhaps the matter should be viewed in this way.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I put the question to everyone. Do you know who does what in the federal government with regard to official languages? Can you figure all that out?

Mr. Denis Desgagné: No, I can't say who does what in official languages. I know that, for the purpose of knowing who does what, there is currently an overall development policy. I'm not a specialist in government. I simply know that, if there was a policy, I could look and see who does what. It would be easier for me and for the people who work in the government.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Lamoureux.

Mr. Daniel Lamoureux: I'm going to draw an analogy. I'm a hockey fan. To win, you need a game plan and a cohesive team. If you lose, you mustn't blame the others. There have to be people who work together and a captain. Ultimately, that's what we want, and we want to be on the team.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: All right.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Godin.

¾ (2020)

Mr. Yvon Godin: And you need a good coach. You forgot the coach. He's the one we're looking for.

I know that the evening is wearing on and I won't take much time. I don't want to attack Mr. Binet. I know he and I sometimes spar, but I think it's healthy because it kindles discussion. As soon as that happened, everyone joined in, and I think that's good.

Mr. Binet was talking about individual pride. You get the impression that all that's automatic in Mr. Binet's mind. If someone is proud, he won't lose his French. I don't believe Mr. Binet was here before the vote and that he missed a lot of things. He missed the presentation by the man from the Northwest Territories. When you made your little speech, you said that approximately 50% of the population of the Northwest Territories was Francophone in 1870. How many are left today?

Mr. Daniel Lamoureux: There remain three percent.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm sure those people had pride. Don't you agree with me that what was missing were infrastructures, the tools and the will? To have that, you need a little money. Do you agree with me?

An hon. member: I agree.

Mr. Yvon Godin: We just settled that, and it's not so terrible.

I would like to thank you sincerely and to encourage you to continue working for French-speaking Canadians. I'm sure you're doing a good job. It's up to us to continue our work here.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you as well for being here and especially for your patience and your presentations.

The meeting is adjourned.