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

Tuesday, March 19, 2002

1530

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier)

Ms. Chantal Berard (Executive Director, Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française )

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron (President, Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française )

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Georges Arès

1535

1540

1545

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron

1550

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Chantal Berard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Lili St-Gelais (Centre (Ontario) Representative, Fédération nationale des femmes canadiennes-française)

Ms. Brigitte Duguay (Executive Director, Fédération nationale des femmes canadiennes-françaises)

1555

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Reid

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Georges Arès

M. Reid

Mr. Georges Arès

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Georges Arès

M. Reid

Mr. Georges Arès

M. Reid

1600

Mr. Georges Arès

M. Reid

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron

Ms. Brigitte Duguay

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Georges Arès

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Georges Arès

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Georges Arès

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Georges Arès

1605

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Georges Arès

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron

The Hon. Gauthier

Mr. Georges Arès

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron

1610

Ms. Chantal Berard

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

1615

Mr. Georges Arès

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Georges Arès

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Chantal Berard

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Chantal Berard

Mr. Sauvageau

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1620

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Chantal Berard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Chantal Berard

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mme Thibeault

Ms. Brigitte Duguay

Mme Thibeault

1625

Ms. Brigitte Duguay

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron

Ms. Thibeault

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP)

1630

Mr. Georges Arès

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Georges Arès

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Georges Arès

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac--Mégantic, Lib.)

Ms. Brigitte Duguay

Mr. Gérard Binet

Ms. Brigitte Duguay

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Belanger)

The Joint Chair ( Mr. Mauril Belanger)

M. Marc Boily (President, Fédération nationale des conseillères et conseillers scolaires francophones)

1645

1650

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Gérald C. Boudreau (President, Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française)

1655

1700

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

M. Jean Giroux-Gagné (Vice-President, Commission nationale des parents francophones)

1705

1710

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1715

Mr. Gérarld Boudreau

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Gérald Boudreau

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Marc Boily

Ms. Charlotte Ouellet (Secretary General, Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française)

1720

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mr. Jean Giroux-Gagné

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

1725

Mr. Paul Charbonneau (Director General, Fédération nationale des conseillères et conseillers scolaires francophones)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Gérard Binet

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Paul Charbonneau

Mr. Godin

Mr. Jean Giroux-Gagné

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Paul Charbonneau

Mr. Jean Giroux-Gagné

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

1730

Senator Raymond Setlakwe (Les Laurentides, Lib.)

Mr. Paul Charbonneau

Senator Raymond Setlakwe

Mr. Paul Charbonneau

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

CANADA

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 030

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 19, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1530)

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier), Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, since it is 3:30 p.m. and the members must leave at 5:20 for a vote in the House, I think it would the right time for us to begin our meeting.

We are continuing our hearings as a follow-up to the resolution adopted by the committee, a resolution presented by Mr. Sauvageau in order to provide input into the preparation of Mr. Dion's action plan. Yesterday we heard a series of presentations. I would like to apologize for my absence to those witnesses who appeared yesterday. I was faced with an unavoidable scheduling conflict. I certainly intend to read the minutes of yesterday's meeting and the submissions that were presented.

Today with have with us representatives of the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française, Ms. Chantal Berard and Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron;and from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, Mr. Georges Arès and Mr. Richard Barette. We will then hear from Ms. Duguay and Ms. St-Gelais from the Fédération nationale des femmes canadiennes-françaises, followed by Mr. Paul Charbonneau and Mr. Marc Boily from the Fédération nationale des conseillères et conseillers scolaires francophones. The Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française will be represented by Ms. Ouellet and Mr. Bouchard and, lastly, the Commission nationale des parents francophones by Mr. Jean Giroux-Gagné.

We'll follow the order as set out. I'd like to ask you to limit yourselves to five minutes so that everyone has a chance to speak during this two-hour session. I'll turn the floor over to Ms. Chantal Berard for her presentation.

We'll take a few minutes to allow Senator Gauthier to get set up.

Ms. Berard, you have the floor.

Ms. Chantal Berard (Executive Director, Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française ): I'll defer to our president.

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron (President, Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française ): I'd simply like to know, Mr. Chairman, if it would be possible to begin with the FCFA, immediately followed by the FJCF.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I see no objection if it is agreeable to Mr. Arès.

Mr. Arès, you have the floor.

Mr. Georges Arès(President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thought that I would have 10 minutes and I prepared a presentation that would take that amount of time. I'll try to do it as quickly as possible, taking into account the fact that it is being interpreted.

First of all, I wish to thank the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages for this opportunity to express the views of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada on a subject that has been of particular importance to us since our federation was founded 26 years ago.

The Hon. Stéphane Dion, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is also responsible for coordinating official languages issues, is currently developing a framework for action to reinforce support for official language minority communities, which we hope will be a truly comprehensive development policy. We can sum up our aspirations for the federal government's expectations in a single sentence: work upstream not downstream, do not merely react to the repeated requests of the francophone and Acadian communities but start taking a proactive approach.

We have already described our vision to Mr. Dion and we feel fairly certain that we were clearly understood. The purpose of this representation is to support the minister's efforts to develop a framework for action which responds, among other things, to the needs and aspirations of the minority francophone communities. Although their needs vary, they have one common aspiration: to be able to live and grow in French across Canada.

The FCFA thus strongly encourages the minister to develop a comprehensive development policy for the French-speaking community of Canada so that his framework for action encompasses measures that will simultaneously stimulate the various components of community development. The framework for action must be based on a policy of comprehensive development of the French-speaking community of Canada, a policy that would specify and clarify the federal government's commitment toward the communities, as well as the scope of the obligations stated in part VII of the Official Languages Act.

To date, the act has proven to be unequal to the task of ensuring that the various initiatives introduced to support development of the communities remain permanent. Even now, development measures rely all too often on the officials in place and risk being forgotten once those who initiated them are gone.

One of the major challenges of the comprehensive development plan is to stabilize gains and guarantee a certain degree of longevity, if not continuity, for support programs aimed at the francophone community. A comprehensive development policy must also meet another important challenge, that of redirecting the federal approach so that it is not based on the implementation of a few projects, as is currently the case, but rather on concerted action to induce government departments and agencies to integrate community development considerations when they develop their departmental policies and programs.

Linguistic equality is a fundamental component of the very structure of Canada. Francophones took part in the founding of this country, contributed to its development and still play an active and important role in it. There are francophone communities in all provinces and territories. You've had the opportunity to hear the representatives of those communities these past few days and you have observed their vitality, their passion and their pride. This is where the federal government should draw its inspiration.

The constitutional rights of the francophone and Acadian communities are increasingly being recognized by the Constitution, courts and legislatures. Subsection 16(3) of the Charter is the constitutional expression of this fact. All provincial and territorial legislatures have constitutional obligations towards the francophone and Acadian communities, even if only with respect to education and the right to public educational institutions administered by the communities.

The Parliament of Canada also has its own constitutional responsibilities. It has passed legislation, the Official Languages Act, which gives quasi-constitutional status to a number of specific rights and thus imposes on the federal government an obligation to act, indeed an obligation to achieve results.

¹ (1535)

The framework for action must clearly state the vision of Canada on which decision-makers must rely in developing their programs and policies, a pluralistic society embracing two official communities and within which the francophones living outside Quebec are not second-rate citizens, a society that acknowledges that francophones living in a minority have a quasi-constitutional right to develop and grow in their language. Ultimately, this means that they can enjoy federal policies and programs as fully as their anglophone fellow citizens. The framework for action must ensure that the promotion and development of the linguistic minorities are provided for in the initial stages of policy and program development rather than after the fact. All too often, the communities are forced to fight for a few crumbs once a program has been introduced and its budget largely spent. In the case of programs poorly suited to their situation, the communities have no other choice but to react and express their needs at the end of the process, and frequently come up against a brick wall.

The FCFA believes it is up to cabinet and Parliament to press the senior managers of all departments to discharge their responsibilities under the Constitution of Canada, but also under part VII of the Official Languages Act. When a policy or program is contemplated, government managers should be required to orient one component toward francophone minorities so that the policy or program in question is adapted to their specific situation and their members can take full advantage of it. Such pressure will be more effective if it comes from the highest authorities than if it were to come from a single department such as Heritage Canada, even more so than from the communities alone.

It was in the spirit of harmonization that the Conseil national des présidentes et des présidents held its most recent meeting last week. The organization includes all member-associations of the FCFA and it unanimously passed a resolution which I shall quote from today. I will not read the “whereas” clauses, but only the resolution, since our time is limited.

It is proposed that the FCFA of Canada request that the President of the Privy Council be designated Minister Responsible for the Official Languages Program and for the implementation of the federal government's global development policy, which it supports.

That being said ,however, we are not giving the Privy Council a blank cheque. It is important that our communities support Minister Dion's framework for action and that it be based on a new partnership with our communities. Over the last few years, our communities have set out global development plans in every province and territory. We are asking Minister Dion to take the overall span of our development into account in his action plan.

Since the minister's action plan will direct the development of our communities, it is normal that Mr. Dion also be responsible for official languages support programs to align them with our development plans through consultation with every development sector of our community. These mechanisms would serve to inform the communities concerned of the initiative contemplated and of the political imperatives, departmental priorities and objectives so that they could adjust their remarks accordingly. It would enable the communities to explain how and why the initiative should be adapted and would afford them the opportunity to express their concerns so that they could be taken into account by decision-makers.

The comprehensive development policy will thus include the various areas of intervention which the francophone and Acadian communities consider priorities, such as education, arts and culture, justice, economic development, health, immigration, international cooperation, communication and community development, to name only a few. We are working with the francophone organizations in those sectors to propose an appropriate consultation and joint action approach to each. We will thus offer a diagnosis of the current situation in each of the areas, identify objectives that should be achieved with regard to government participation and, lastly, suggest possible actions that can be taken together by the communities and the various departments and other agencies.

¹ (1540)

The framework for action should make it possible to correct the problems involved in the implementation of part VII of the Official Languages Act by clarifying and clearly explaining to senior government managers the scope of their obligations and by introducing accountability measures to induce them to meet those obligations. On this point, we believe that the Privy Council has a crucial role to play with regard to the federal government's responsibility for the framework for action that will be put forward.

A number of avenues are worth considering. The criteria used to evaluate the performance of the departments and their officials could, for example, take into account their performance with respect to part VII. There should also be a possibility of including an opting-out scheme in the framework for action which would require departments not adapting their initiatives to the needs of the communities to make the necessary finances available to the communities, either directly or indirectly, so that they too can take full advantage of the initiative in question.

To be truly affective, the framework for action must include an accountability mechanism. The Department of Justice has an interpretation of part VII of the Official Languages Act with which we do not agree. In the department's interpretation,part VII is a serious and solemn commitment by the government, but one that does not create either rights or government obligations. As you will understand, we do not share this view.

At a minimum, a central agency such as the Privy Council should report to Parliament on actions taken to achieve the objectives of the framework for action.

We can only wonder what purpose would be served by introducing a comprehensive development policy if the government arbitrarily decided to change the ground rules. The francophone and Acadian communities have known for a long time, too long a time in fact, how important it is to be able to have solid guarantees when the time comes to assert our rights. We should bear in mind once again that we are not necessarily talking about language rights but rather about our rights as citizens.

The purpose of this brief is not merely to demand increased resources for the federal Official Languages Program alone. The FCFA of Canada also demands that those resources be used more judiciously by altering the federal government's approach to providing its support for the minority francophone communities.

We thank you for your interest and will be pleased to answer your questions.

¹ (1545)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Arès. You are right. Your presentation lasted 10 minutes rather than 5. In the interest of fairness, I will grant the other witnesses the same amount of time. If you don't mind, Mr. Arès, I would ask you to leave a copy of the resolution with us so we can include it in the record of our deliberations.

Mr. Georges Arès: Certainly.

The Joint Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Liboiron.

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron: First, we would like to thank the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages for giving us the opportunity to present our views on the subject at hand.

In our presentation, we would like to share our views on the plan of action which the Hon. Stéphane Dion is working on to strengthen support for official language communities. Of course, we will also speak to the importance of francophone and Acadian youth in Canada.

In our opinion, it is essential that Minister Dion set a global development policy for francophone Canada. This global development policy is essential to ensuring the longevity and consistency of community support measures.

Part VII of the Official Languages Act must be better upheld and strengthened. The Department of Canadian Heritage is not only accountable to communities, but all government departments. A global development policy for francophone Canada will enable the Government of Canada to take a global approach towards our communities.

When he last appeared before the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages, Minister Dion focused on increasing bilingualism in Canada. It is crucial that the federal framework for action distinguish between the promotion of bilingualism and strengthening our communities. The framework for action must show that the vigour of our communities is first and foremost based on building upon existing programs and the development of our community, for instance in new sectors, such as health.

The youth network throughout Canada tries to be inclusive in its activities. We believe that French immersion schools and schools which teach French as a second language play an important role in our communities. We are often called upon to work with organizations such as Canadian Parents for French to attract young people into immersion schools in order that they may benefit from the richness of francophone culture and participate in some of our activities.

However, we should not confuse the promotion of bilingualism with the development and growth of our communities. Our francophone communities contribute to the development and growth of our country, which is Canada. We live in a country which is receptive to the diversity of ideas, cultures and, of course, of choice.

It is high time that the federal government develop a framework for action for minority official language communities.

Young people will play a vital role in the development of Canadian society. It goes without saying that the same holds true for our communities. We want to ensure that young people who wish to be involved in the development of their community and that of Canadian society, of which their community is part, receive a French education. We believe that Minister Dion must include a specific and distinct provision for youth in his framework for action.

At the moment, it is hard for us to integrate into existing government programs. But it must be said that for several years now, the government has made youth its priority and that several departments have programs which target young people.

Several youth-oriented government programs focus on youth at risk. We believe that minority youth are at risk. We also feel that there are many risks. To name but a few, we run the risk of losing our language, our culture and even our identity.

The future of our communities lies with our young people. Will we be able to get on with our work and uphold our claims as communities? Will we continue to develop? Will we be led by skilled leaders?

Minister Dion was given a mandate by the Prime Minister to coordinate official languages issues and to set out a global development policy with regard to our communities. The official languages support programs are a key element in support of the development of our communities. Our communities are seeking a new partnership with the federal government which will help foster their overall development. For a long time now, our communities have been calling for the complete application of part VII of the Official Languages Act and the principle of accountability of departments towards the Privy Council.

For all these reasons, we are asking that the President of the Privy Council, Mr. Stéphane Dion, be designated minister responsible. We want to ensure that the minister responsible for the official languages program receives a clear mandate and discretionary power over other departments. We want to ensure that part VII of the Official Languages Act be understood and, especially, applied by every department.

The Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française feels it is essential that the federal government adopt a global development plan with regard to the francophone community. This global development plan will ensure that new federal programs will take into account the distinct nature of our communities. It is obvious that our communities lack the human resources to fulfill their mandate. This global development plan will enable the federal government to better target concerned parties and will enable every department to contribute to our development.

It is worth repeating: young people are the building block of our communities. Without young people, there is no community. Without true leadership on the part of government, as well as on the part of our communities, we will remain in a fragile situation.

Thank you. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

¹ (1550)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We still have a few minutes. Madame Berard, would you like to add a few words?

Ms. Chantal Berard: No. Please go ahead with your questions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Who will speak? Ms. Duguay or Ms. St-Gelais?

Ms. St-Gelais.

Ms. Lili St-Gelais (Centre (Ontario) Representative, Fédération nationale des femmes canadiennes-française): As a member of the national Board of Directors and on behalf of our National Chairperson, Ms. Rose-Aimée Haché, who unfortunately could not be here today, I would like to thank the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages for allowing the Fédération nationale des femmes canadiennes-françaises to make this brief presentation.

The national federation's mission is to defend the interests and advocate the rights of women belonging to the Canadian francophonie and living in a minority situation, and to support them so that we have a just and egalitarian society for all women in Canada.

I would like to now call upon the Executive Director of the Fédération nationale des femmes canadiennes-françaises, Ms. Brigitte Duguay, to present her position on the comprehensive development policy.

Ms. Brigitte Duguay (Executive Director, Fédération nationale des femmes canadiennes-françaises): Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

Our presentation will be brief. The message we want to give you is very simple.

First, it is important to point out that the Fédération nationale des femmes canadiennes-françaises supports in its entirety the position of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne regarding the comprehensive development policy document that was prepared. Today, we would like to present a point that will complete the framework surrounding the comprehensive development plan policy for our francophonie in Canada.

Given that women represent approximately 52 per cent of the population, and given that women are very important agents of change in the development and vitality of our francophone communities, and given that these women are also often key players in the transmission of French language and culture, we can state that women will be key players in the comprehensive development plan that the Hon. Stéphane Dion has asked us to comment on.

We have a challenge to throw out to Mr. Dion, and we have very clear positions on this. We know that when the government decides to carry out policies, it uses a method to analyze those policies. For example, there can be environment-based analyses, etc. I do not need to explain how policy analyses are done to you. The Fédération des femmes canadiennes-françaises firmly asks Mr. Dion to use a gender-based analysis when the comprehensive development plan policy is undertaken within our francophone and Acadian communities.

What is a gender-based analysis? It is a tool that facilitates the systematic integration of factors related to gender equality into the process of policy development, planning and decision-making. It is a much broader concept of gender equality and calls upon various skills and expertise to ensure the equal participation of women and men in building our society and preparing for the future. This is what has been formulated within our francophone communities.

It is important to point out that the federal government made a commitment in 1995, on the eve of the 21^st century, to establish a federal gender equality plan. The government committed itself to systematically using a gender-based analysis in developing its policies and legislation at the federal government level. It said that seven years ago.

Therefore, we challenge Mr. Dion to develop his comprehensive development plan using a gender-based analysis.

Mr. Bélanger, I don't know if I can do this, but I would like to give you copies of bilingual documents that were presented by Status of Women Canada and that provide a brief but rather interesting explanation of gender-based analysis.

Last, I would like to give you a small piece of information on how an analysis like this is done. Status of Women Canada has the necessary resources, within your own government, to undertake this type of analysis when a policy is developed.

I think that our position is clear and to the point. We will be pleased to answer any questions you may have, Mr. Bélanger.

¹ (1555)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you very much, Ms. Duguay.

Mr. Reid.

[English]

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark--Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Have we had presentations from all of the groups before us?

The Chair: The next group is at 4:30 p.m. We've done one group.

Mr. Scott Reid: I follow that. I'm just wondering about the handouts. Was there one from Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-français?

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The documents are not available in both languages. They will be translated and distributed later.

Mr. Scott Reid: Very well.

I would like the witnesses to tell me what the relationship is among the groups. Is each group independent from the others or are there links among them? Is any group a sub-group of another group here?

Mr. Georges Arès: Each group is independent. The young people and the women have chosen to become members of our federation, as have others, like the Association des juristes d'expression française and the Association de la presse francophone. So each group is independent, and the boards of directors are not linked.

Mr. Scott Reid: What about funding?

Mr. Georges Arès: It is separate.

Mr. Scott Reid: Your group, Mr. Arès, is basically a federation of other groups, right?

Mr. Georges Arès: It is a federation of all provincial and territorial associations that represent their community, plus four national groups, as I indicated.

Mr. Scott Reid: I have only the English version of our presentation.

[English]

In the English version, which is the only one I have, you say if departments don't live up to their section 7 requirements under the act, they ought to essentially make the necessary finances available to the communities, either directly or indirectly, so they too can take full advantage of the initiative in question.

That's an intriguing possibility. I wonder if you could elaborate a little on how that would actually work at a practical level, if you've thought it through.

Mr. Georges Arès: We haven't worked out the details of that, but I'm sure we'd be more than pleased to sit down with the departments that don't see fit to handle our needs within their programs, to see how we could work out the details on how our communities could receive the resources and deal directly with that.

The situation is that some government departments don't care to handle our needs within their programs and initiatives, and some communities suffer as a result.

Mr. Scott Reid: Would it be through your organization? I'm not trying to put you on the spot if you haven't thought it through, but I'm just wondering how that would go.

º (1600)

Mr. Georges Arès: There are community organizations in each province and territory that are well able to handle that. They have developed their priorities of development in each province and territory. They know what their needs are and how the departments can properly address those needs. It would certainly be up to them to sit down with the representatives of those government departments in their provinces and territories to see how that could be done.

It would be much better if all government departments, when they're developing programs or initiatives, would willingly deal with official language community needs and how best to respond to them. That is the attitude we want to see developed in each government department, and it is necessary in this country. I would prefer to see that rather than have to sit down with a government department and say, “You don't deal with our needs; give us the money and we'll do it ourselves”. That's not what we want from our government.

It would be much better if the government departments were to do it themselves. Sadly, that's been lacking in a lot of government departments and agencies to date. That's why we need some central agency, with authority over some government departments, that will oblige them to deal with their responsibilities under the Constitution of this country, under the Official Languages Act, to deal with communities and see how they can respond to their needs. That's what's important.

[Translation]

Mr. Scott Reid: I have one last question for all three groups. Is there an English language counterpart for each group? For example, is there an English Canadian youth federation or an English language national women's federation?

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron: Yes, there are groups in English Canada. Take, for example, the Students Commission, which is a national organization. It is harder to say for each province, although the Students Commission is active in every province. That answers our part of the question.

Ms. Brigitte Duguay: If you will allow me to answer on behalf of women, I would say that there are women's groups in various areas of interest, as well as national anglophone women's groups.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I am going to start with Mr. Arès because his presentation was interesting. Well, all of your presentations were interesting, but he brought up points that seemed more crucial.

Mr. Arès, you come from Edmonton, if I understood correctly. You came here today to speak to us for five minutes, but you were given 10 minutes. Right?

Mr. Georges Arès: Thank you for the 10 minutes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: What can I say? It is not my fault. I am not the one who decided that.

You talked about an opting-out system. I would like to know what leads you to talk about an opting-out system.

Mr. Georges Arès: I think it already exists provincially, senator. If the federal government is not doing anything in certain fields for the provinces, there is an opting-out system that enables provinces to provide services that are provided elsewhere by the federal government.

I think it is absolutely necessary that the needs of official language communities be taken into account. If there is a department or agency or institution that does not want to see to those needs, the communities cannot be abandoned in fields where those departments could take action. There must be a way to get this done.

I have to say that in the communities, there are professionals who can get the job done if the departments do not want to. We can do it, and we have been doing it for quite some time.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I do not have much time, Mr. Arès. The chairman will cut me off in two minutes.

You are referring to the precedent that currently exists between the provinces and the federal level: when there is a national agreement, one can opt out. Is that what you mean?

Mr. Georges Arès: Absolutely. Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You also raised the issue of an accountability mechanism. What do you mean by accountability mechanism? Would the federal institutions be accountable? In any case, they are already accountable. What do you have in mind when you say that?

Mr. Georges Arès: We want departments to be accountable to the Privy Council and to Parliament. They ought to be held accountable and they should produce reports to demonstrate how they met their obligations under part VII.

This is what we mean by an accountability mechanism. Currently, there is no such thing under part VII. Heritage Canada, under section 42, can work with other departments, but has no authority over those departments to ensure that they meet their obligations under part VII. Thus, I think that it is important to have such an authority that could oblige departments to assume their responsibilities under section 41 of part VII.

º (1605)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You said that the coordinator, Mr. Stéphane Dion, should coordinate something tangible. You said that he should coordinate the activities of departments. This is already provided for in the Official Languages Act: Heritage Canada is responsible for this.

When you say that Mr. Dion should do it, are you telling me that Heritage Canada is not doing its job?

Mr. Georges Arès: I think that it is difficult for Heritage Canada to do its work when it has no authority over other departments. This is very difficult work that involves awareness raising and influence, it is very time consuming and often frustrating, especially as the department has no authority to oblige other departments to assume their responsibilities.

Something called an IPOLC was developed by Heritage Canada. Even with the IPOLC, it is time consuming and difficult. Departments are not eager to get on board and do not really consult anyone. They produce action plans that do not meet our needs.

Thus, I think that we need a higher authority. Heritage Canada is at the same level as the other departments. We would like some body to have authority over all departments. This is a necessity.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Liboiron, you supported the recommendation made by the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne when you said that you also would like Mr. Dion, the President of the Privy Council, to be responsible for federal programs and for developing and protecting minority official language communities. Am I wrong?

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron: No, absolutely not.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are too young to remember this, but I remember. In 1972 or 1973...

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron: You are right.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: ...there was an initiative of that type. When the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, which was called then the Fédération des francophones hors Québec, was set up... I am from outside Quebec, but I do not like to be identified that way, because there are millions of francophones outside Quebec. There are over 50 million French people in France, Belgium, Switzerland and so on. So I do not like to be identified as a francophone outside Quebec.

In 1972 or 1973, with a view to establishing a comprehensive program to promote the development of these communities, Mr. Trudeau, as Prime Minister, responded to that initiative by appointing Pierre Juneau to coordinate the efforts. Mr. Juneau was neither a member of Parliament nor a minister at that time. He tried to get elected, but he was not able to, and the idea was dropped.

If I understood correctly, Mr. Arès and the other witnesses want to have access to someone responsible for promotion, development, and hopefully the vitality of these communities. Do I understand correctly?

Mr. Georges Arès: Yes.

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron: Yes.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: If the comprehensive plan or the action plan submitted by Mr. Dion meets your requirements, what would be the minimum—not the maximum but the minimum—cost of that for young people today? Do you have any idea what that could represent in terms of programs.?

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron: That is an excellent question. I admit that we...

º (1610)

Ms. Chantal Berard: What we need and what we have right now...

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron: ...are two things. Are you asking what percentage should be earmarked for young people if such a plan is adopted?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: In fact, that is not the answer I am looking for, but I will give you a partial answer. Tell me about what you do. Tell me about your budget, the cutbacks you have experienced, what your needs are and what you see every day.

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron: Very well. I will start by talking about the federation and what it does. It is the only umbrella organization for young French Canadians. Like the FCFA, we have members in every province and every territory, except Quebec and Nunavut. The best example of what we do would be the Canadian Francophone Games, a gathering of...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The senator's question to you is a very difficult one. If you or other witnesses have ideas or comments you would like to send us after today's meeting, that would be helpful. Feel free. It would be good if you could so fairly quickly, within about a week. It is difficult to come up with numbers.

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron: I would not want to guess at a figure.

As I said in our brief, young people have to be seen as the underpinnings of a community. Youth is sometimes called a sector, a term that I do not feel really fits. As for funding, more emphasis has to be put on the young so that they can revitalize communities. That sums it up.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I am sorry. I must move on to Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for accepting our invitation.

Those who follow francophone affairs are aware that Mr. Dion announced some time ago that an action plan was to be tabled. The way things looked, the plan was to be tabled without formal consultations and without us knowing what you would like it to contain, and more importantly, what you would like it not to contain. I do not think this will be the first time government has presented an action plan. As the Commissioner of Official Languages already said in one of her reports, the time for wishful thinking is over, and it is now time to take action. She said the train was at the station, and yesterday, we were joking that the train probably had a transmission problem because it had not yet departed. The problem is with the transmission.

So it was in your interest to be heard from. We will have heard from 17 or 19 groups in these two meetings, and I hope Minister Dion listens carefully to your presentations so that what you want finds its way into the action plan, and, more importantly, what you do not want is left out. You are not just looking for money. You want concrete action from the government.

I am going to continue along the lines of Senator Gauthier's first comments, on the amendments you would like to see to sections 42 and 43 of part VII of the Official Languages Act. I want to get this right too, because I think that if you say it over and over again, perhaps other people will understand it too.

As it stands, under sections 42 and 43, the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for the application or administration of the Official Languages Act. You would like those and probably related sections amended. Not being an expert on the Official Languages Act, do not ask me whether 16 corresponds to 52 and so on. You want the president of the Privy Council to be given the current roles of the Department of Canadian Heritage and of Treasury Board. Is that what the FCFA wants?

Second, the action plan will be tabled. Once tabled, what follow-up will there be? I am always concerned about that. Yesterday, I asked the various groups this question, and I am asking you too. Should there be targets? Should there be deadlines? Do you want to see concrete accomplishments? Ideally, what kind of follow-up should there be to this comprehensive plan? And to stop wasting time and money, would it be possible to have a panel for language disputes between francophone communities and the federal government? People from the federal government, people from the provincial government and people from the francophone communities would all be at the table. They would squabble, but at least it would not cost you anything and a solution would be found. This has already been done where money was at stake, for sugar, steel and softwood lumber. Perhaps it could be done in other fields.

I am going to stop there for now because I want to leave you time to answer, but I will have other questions for you.

º (1615)

Mr. Georges Arès: Would you like me to start?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It is up to you.

Mr. Georges Arès: In terms of the changes we would like to see, I believe Mr. Dion has already received a mandate from the government to coordinate the whole initiative under the Official Languages Act.

As for Treasury Board, we do not want it replaced in order to implement its current obligations with respect to regulations and services. If it is necessary to amend section 42 to ensure the authority of the central agency of the Privy Council over the other departments, well, that would make sense.

As for follow-up plans, we would like there to be consultation and cooperation mechanisms in areas of community development. We are already doing some work with some departments, and we found that a lot can be accomplished when you have these consultation and cooperation mechanisms. Health Canada is an example. There is a joint committee with Citizenship and Immigration meeting today, that is just beginning to look at the whole issue of reception and settlement of francophone immigrants in our communities.

Those are the mechanisms that lead the way, but there will still have to be a central agency for that, with accountability mechanisms to ensure that things move forward.

When it comes to provincial government involvement, some provincial governments are willing to sit at the table. I mentioned the health advisory committee. There are three provincial governments on that advisory committee, which is looking at how to develop health care in French. Not all governments are involved, but those that are interested and willing can participate. I think you have to start there. What is interesting is that we can now sit down with representatives of the federal government, of our communities and of provincial governments in some areas. That is truly a new development.

In the past, we often asked for but were denied community involvement in intergovernmental discussions. When we do participate, I think people realize how much progress can be made when everyone is at the table.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Did anyone else wish to answer? Okay.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: While I was listening to you, Mr. Liboiron, two perhaps irreverent comments crossed my mind.

Currently, for four weeks, four Wednesdays, the Forum for Young Canadians is going around Parliament Hill. They have workshops and so on. There are four times 150 students from all over Canada. Is the budget for this federal government activity comparable to the budget for young francophones in Canada? I am talking about one activity.

Ms. Chantal Berard: Definitely.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So you have as much money as they do?

Ms. Chantal Berard: I know the forum very well, but I do not know what its operating budget is, because that kind of information is rarely shared. Given that there are four meetings of 150 young people, I would say that its budget is probably very close to our annual operating budget.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Does the FJCF—francophone youth from all Canadian provinces—often get invited to take part in this type of summit in Ottawa, all expenses...

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron: That actually happens extremely rarely.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: They do it for others. I suggest you ask. They would have no reason to turn you down. That way, young francophones from British Columbia and Saskatchewan will be invited to come and do the same thing. It is just a suggestion.

You also talked about immersion schools. Given that young people are the life blood of francophones communities, could you explain to us how we should work more closely with eligible students who do not attend these institutions? Immersion schools are great, but if 50% of eligible students are not attending them, how could the action plan raise awareness among these young people?

º (1620)

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron: The first thing to do would be to support the existing plans of the various francophone school divisions across the country. I know that most of the francophone school boards outside Quebec, if not all, have a plan that is apparently working relatively well. Obviously, they are always trying to attract more and more eligible students. So the best thing to do would be to provide concrete support for the existing action plans of each francophone board across the country. Rather than duplicating our efforts, concrete support should be given to existing institutions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Berard, did you want to add anything?

Ms. Chantal Berard: At the provincial level, we lack a recruitment tool for young people in immersion schools because our activities are primarily extracurricular activities. We talk a lot about leadership and coming together, among other things. We try to reach young people in immersion schools, eligible students, to encourage them to take part in those activities and possibly interest them in transferring or at least experiencing activities in their mother tongue.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Ms. Berard. Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, if you do not mind, I would just like to try to understand, because I do not quite follow.

Are there young francophones who are not going to French school, but who attend French immersion schools?

Ms. Chantal Berard: Yes, there are lots of them.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank your for accepting our invitation.

Ms. Duguay, you talked about gender-based analysis. Thank you for bringing us this document. I think that most of my female colleagues are very familiar with it, but perhaps it will jog our memory.

For some time now, I have been trying to understand what you are getting at with this analysis? How do you hope to use it?

Ms. Brigitte Duguay: Policy development should always take into account gender differences. At both the policy development and application stages, this is the work of experts in the field. Gender-based analysis complements the work of policy makers. Often, all policy decisions are based on differences. All manner of differences are taken into account: physiological, psychological, social and other differences. When all of these factors are taken into account, everyone feels included in the decision-making process.

I have lots of excellent reasons for applying the policy. To do the job, it will definitely take policy-making experts and gender-based analysis experts, but the results will be the same. There will be equality in everything that goes on...

I am not going to start giving you a course on feminism and all that, but policies are not made based on women's needs. My point was that since more often than not women are the ones responsible for community development, because they are behind everything in all areas, it is important to take them into account when polices are made.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: You are basically saying that you do not want women overlooked in the process or in the action plan.

º (1625)

Ms. Brigitte Duguay: Precisely.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Mr. Liboiron, you talked about a youth component. You even said that in your opinion, our community was at risk and you would like to have federal programs. I suppose you mean a program like the kind we currently provide other youths at risk. Do you have anything concrete in mind? Have you thought of a specific project, for example, government-funded summer employment for your community in particular?

Mr. Michel Hamon Liboiron: I think it goes further than that. When we said we wanted a youth component in Mr. Dion's action plan, what we meant was that young people are the foundation of the community. We want to ensure the survival of the community. I think everyone agrees with that.

In terms of concrete steps, the firsts step is to support the existing network. We must not reinvent the wheel. There are organizations, as we said, in every province and territory, except Nunavut, which we would obviously like to encourage, and there are organizations outside Quebec. So, first, those existing organizations should be supported. Within those organizations, new projects could be created to better handle the problem of cultural dropping-out and assimilation. A contribution could be made, as Mr. Sauvageau said, by sending those people to immersion schools. As Ms. Berard said, the problem is often that you people in immersion schools are in fact eligible to attend francophone and Acadian schools here and there. People have trouble seeing how the youth network has a role to play in that, but, in conclusion, in the minds of young people, the network is every bit as important to their cultural identity, to their identity period, as the education system. So survival depends on the youth network.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you very much.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to welcome you all. I see some familiar faces, from last night. We are meeting some new people today.

First of all, on the subject of women, I would like to say that if you wait as long as women have for pay equity, which they have yet to achieve, you have your work cut out for you, in spite of the fact that you make up 52% of the population. I don't think that governments have discharged their responsibilities, and they have not shown leadership in the area of women's issues, at the federal level as well as in the provinces. Continue your struggle. I can tell you that I am 300% behind you.

On this point, I would like to come back to something that happened here last night, when someone said to one of the witnesses—I'm bringing this subject up again—who was the representative of francophones in the area of the Northwest Territories... They were saying that they used to have 50% francophones in the population and that now they are only 3%.

And now, we have Mr. Dion, the great saviour; he's going to save the entire planet, or at least Canada. As President of the Privy Council, as minister without portfolio, who spends his time egging on other ministers, will he be able to move this issue forward? Have we actually made progress, or have we only created hope? We will wait for Mr. Dion and hope that he will do something.

I find that you are not very demanding. In all honesty, I don't think you are tough enough. This hasn't worked for 35 years. Therefore, Mr. Dion will be the great saviour, without portfolio. Should it not be the Prime Minister of Canada who makes statements saying that he accepts both official languages of Canada, and establishes the mechanisms whereby each department would be responsible?

I would like to hear your reactions, because I'm fearful of the direction in which we are headed. It is not that I want to be pessimistic, but I want to be realistic. I feel we are just buying time. The government is buying time. Studies and plans, we have seen tons of them and we see more everyday. We need action. That is the law.

We are still persisting in our efforts to find out whether or not it's declaratory or binding. The law has no teeth. Air Canada breaks the law everyday. They get a slap on the wrist and they continue to break the law. We have all these organizations around us that do that, and it's always the same old story. I think I just want to give you some food for thought and try and provoke some reaction, in order to find out how you see these things.

º (1630)

Mr. Georges Arès: Mr. Godin, I think that Ms. Adam, in her first report, alluded to the blatant lack of leadership at the highest level. I believe it was in response to a federal government comment, what Mr. Chrétien said in increasing Minister Dion's responsibilities. We trust him, for the moment. We want to see what he will do.

It is important to meet the challenge of bringing section 41 up to date in order that it not be necessary for us to go before the courts to oblige the federal government to respect their responsibilities as set out in section 41.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Excuse me. The first thing he said, when he appeared before the committee, was that he was not responsible, that he was only there to coordinate. Secondly, he said that we should produce more bilingual people. It's as if, from the outset...

Mr. Georges Arès: I think we've seen some progress in Mr. Dion's thinking. We have managed to have some influence on him. When he made those comments, we got in touch with his office, and we told them that we wanted to give them our vision for developing an overall policy. They told us to write up something. Therefore, they indicated to us that they were willing to have consultations and to see what, in our opinion,an overall development policy should be.

And so, I think they deserve credit for that. I think more consultation needs to be done. There are some communities and some organizations that have not yet been consulted, but I hope that he will do so before producing his final report. We want him to take his time.

The overall development policy is something we have been waiting for ever since Confederation. Had there been an overall development policy for official language communities in 1867, we would be much further ahead than we are today, it's a fact. If we had had this in 1976, we would be much farther down the road than we are today.

But now, we have the opportunity, in response to Ms. Adam's report, to show the necessary leadership. I believe something is finally being done; we hope something is finally being done. We will see what has finally been done once it is underway. But I believe, given the fact that he has consulted our federation and that he is willing to receive our documentation, this may indicate that there might be something very good in it. We hope so. The challenge is there, and we want him to have some authority over the departments, because just to state that the Prime Minister could tell them to respect linguistic duality, to move forward on that, to do this... I believe that the then Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, had sent a letter to all the departments in 1989, telling them to respect the government's obligations under section 41, but...

Mr. Yvon Godin: He is like a minister of Finance, but without money.

Mr. Georges Arès: That's it, exactly. Therefore, if there is not a central authority with the capacity to oblige the departments to move forward, to consult with the communities in order to find out what their needs are and whether or not there is, in their programs, an initiative to meet those needs, I think we're going to miss the boat. That is what we need. We need someone to see to it that this will be done.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Arès. Thank you, Mr. Godin.

One short question, Mr. Binet. Then, we will move on to the next group. Go ahead.

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac--Mégantic, Lib.): I wanted to cover all of the points Mr. Godin made, but I won't have time. I am quite aware of the fact that we have a good Commissioner of Official Languages. I have no doubt about that. We also have Mr. Dion. No one can doubt his abilities. We also have a good Prime Minister, who is a francophone. And so I feel that we should see something positive there, Mr. Godin.

What I enjoyed at that meeting, is the idea of the involvement of the women's committee. I think this is wonderful. When did this involvement start? When was the Fédération nationale created?

Ms. Brigitte Duguay: Eighty-eight years ago.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Eighty-eight years.

Ms. Brigitte Duguay: The Fédération nationale des femmes canadiennes françaises was set up in 1914. We have come a long way.

Mr. Gérard Binet: I have often heard talk about the pride of being able to speak French. We all know that mothers, at the very beginning, can easily instill ideas in their children. I can tell you that I think this is very good, but I think we need to show more determination. In my opinion, it's a good first step towards finding a solution to the problem.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Belanger): Then all that's left for me to do is to thank the first group of witnesses for their patience and their contribution.

We will now take a two-minute break while the next group of witnesses take their places. The meeting is suspended for a couple of minutes.

º (1635)

º (1641)

The Joint Chair ( Mr. Mauril Belanger): Ladies and gentlemen, I see that we have a quorum for hearing witnesses.

If I follow the list in front of me, we will begin by hearing from the Fédération nationale des conseillères et conseillers scolaires francophones, represented by Mr. Paul Charbonneau and Mr. Boily. They will be followed by the ACELF, the Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française, which is represented by Ms. Ouellet and Mr. Gérald Boudreau. We will then hear from the Commission nationale des parents francophones, represented by Mr. Jean Giroux-Gagné.

We have received briefs, but since they are only in French, we are not allowed to distribute them under the rules. Once they are translated we will distribute them to committee members.

I guess you know somewhat how the committee operates. We will try to proceed briskly to allow enough time for questions. Please be advised that there will be a vote in the House this evening, in fact, several votes. Therefore, we will have to leave by 5:15 p.m. or 5:30 p.m.

Mr. Boily, you have the floor.

M. Marc Boily (President, Fédération nationale des conseillères et conseillers scolaires francophones): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to begin by thanking you for this opportunity to express our views on the comprehensive development policy for official language minority communities which will eventually be presented by Minister Stéphane Dion. We are grateful for this opportunity, since it is probably the first time you officially hear from representatives for francophone school boards operating outside Quebec.

In our brief presentation, we will begin by describing who we are and whom we represent. Then, we will address the situation of French schools and lastly, make a few recommendations which the comprehensive development policy for the francophonie should consider.

We are one of the youngest Canadian organizations representing francophones and Acadians. We represent 31 francophone and Acadian school boards and, by virtue of that fact, also every school counsellor with every francophone school board located outside Quebec. For the last decade, we have been organized in a federation and since 2000, we also represent the group of directors general. We are both a group which receives funding from the Official Language Communities Support Program, as well as an organization which, through its members, manages the grants under the Official Languages in Education Program.

Our organization was founded after a long hard fight on the part of the francophonie and parents who, since the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, have fought with every means at their disposal to reach their goal, which is the concrete recognition of rights granted under section 23 of the Charter. These efforts finally resulted in the creation, in some form or another, of 31 homogeneous school boards whose mission is to provide quality French education to francophone Canadians whose right it is to be educated in French.

Our hard work has led to the creation of a network of over 600 schools employing over 10,000 professionals who teach half of the people entitled to French education under the Charter. Only half of the students who are eligible under section 23 are enrolled in our schools. The other 150,000 students are still being assimilated into English or immersion schools.

Furthermore, according to the latest PISA study by the OECD, which was made public by the CMEC, our students, despite strong marks in science and mathematics, scored extremely low in French. A coincidence, you say? No.

We basically believe that the study confirms that as long as governments do not provide us with sufficient funding to make up for lost ground as framed by section 23, the situation will remain worrisome. We are almost at the same funding level as English schools. However, our needs are completely different and the nature of our teaching and community activities require additional funding if we are to produce excellent results. In addition, we received data which revealed that less than 10% of our funding comes from the federal government. Whereas section 23 seeks to redress the wrongs of the past, the Supreme Court is quite clear on this matter: the lack of structures required to meet our needs is contributing to the literal breakdown of our communities due to a lack of cooperation, but—and yes, it must be said—due to a lack of funding and input on the part of school boards.

We therefore ask that the federal government help us help them. The government could help by providing precise data on education needs, bysetting up a direct accountability mechanism in terms of federal education expenditures and by providing the francophonie with enough funding to put together an infrastructure enabling it to efficiently and effectively serve the minorities.

This can be achieved in three ways. By letting us develop the national expertise to help support federal action; by reviewing the frame of reference of the federal-provincial relationship in terms of minority education; by completely renewing the concept of education so that francophones may have access to their own system.

It would come as no surprise if we told you that our organization is under-financed. That's one thing, but so is our national organization. It is high time that governments recognize the importance of opening a dialogue with someone who represents school boards and commissions from across the country and who can press their case.

The Canadian government needs a new, strong, national school board network to work directly with minorities.

º (1645)

It must work hand in hand with us. The court, in its Quebec Secession Reference, upheld the unwritten principle of responsibility towards the minority we represent.

Throughout Canada, we manage our own schools. However, the relationship in the area of French as a first language, between the federal government and the provinces has not changed since we received the right to manage our own boards. Not much has changed in the way we are funded or in our negotiations and consultations. It is as if the creation of a single francophone level of government based on the Constitution has not changed a thing. It is time that the Government of Canada acknowledges, or even notices, our presence and realizes how much power it really has in the area of minority education.

We do not feel that a comprehensive development policy will produce the anticipated results if, for a program such as official languages education, we do not give the legitimately and officially elected representatives of the francophonie their right place in education. As is the case with the CMEC, we are a partner which must be taken into account. It is up to the federal government to recognize the fact by transforming two-party agreements with departments into three-party agreements.

We have to take a national approach to the problem to find efficient solutions. We have no choice, because as individuals, the rug is being literally pulled out from underneath our feet. As individuals, we have to let the department develop educational programs, for instance, without our input or consent. Without a national approach, we have to let departments do as they see fit in supporting school boards and commissions. Without a national approach based on school boards, we will end up with all kinds of funding for small projects, a real mishmash, led by community groups and unions involved in the jurisdiction of our boards. What's more, this would happen without our consent, without consultation and even without formal notice.

This is not an education system like any other. In fact, it's what we are, but it shouldn't be that way. As it now stands, the French system is completely modeled on anglophone school boards and schools. This should not be the case, but that's how we started out. It should not be that way, because our mission is much larger and repairing the wrongs of the past, due to the historic absence of French schools, requires much more than simply substituting an English or other course with a French one, that is, simply repeating in French what was previously done in English.

We should have the means to act differently because we have different needs. A comprehensive development policy must therefore include massive funding to meet the needs of the minority, but there also has to be a political will, which is presently lacking, in support of a system which is different, which goes beyond our current concept of what a school should be if it is to be based on the principle of excellence, of reparation and the cultural and linguistic development of French schools.

We therefore need our own criteria and programs to support this approach, as well as a minister willing to defend and represent it. While we're trying to fit our system within the majority programs, we are losing students to English schools at an alarming rate.

Therefore, if an overall development policy for the minority means schools for children age 2 years and up, so be it. If it means creating true canada wide education television programming, so be it. If it means a completely new cultural, athletic and educational infrastructure, so be it. If it means significant investment, so be it. If it means that we stop splitting hairs, all the better!

Some community leaders have said that there needs to be a reparation fund. In our view, the Government of Canada must do more, much more than simply subsidize an alphabet soup of programs, much more than, for instance, provide funding for the Official Languages in Education Program, which represents approximately 5% of current spending. Call this what you will. The Canadian government has to spend more on minorities. And the future of minorities is based on education.

In fact, we need a sustained effort, an investment fund which will send a message once and for all, a fund which will give us the tools and put a stop to our complaints before parliamentary committees, a fund which will ensure the future of minorities and, by virtue of that fact, the future of Canada, a fund which, year after year, which will prevent half of our potential members from going elsewhere and encourage them to stay with us, thus ensuring their growth and survival.

º (1650)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Boily.

Ladies and gentlemen, I must advise you that, unless there are any changes in the House, the bells will begin ringing at 5:15 p.m. This means that at 5:20 or 5:25 at the latest, we will have to leave. So I would ask you to proceed a little more quickly.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That's exactly what I wanted to say, out of respect for our guests. As well, if we want to ask questions, that will leave about five minutes per person, because in any case we will have to leave at 5:20.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I just want to say that I will let the witnesses speak freely, but that the time left over for questions will be shortened.

Mr. Boudreau, you have the floor.

Mr. Gérald C. Boudreau (President, Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française): Mr. Chairman, members of the joint committee, Madam Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. For 55 years now, the Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française, or the ACELF, has been involved in the area of education, which is the linguistic and cultural cornerstone of francophone communities. Our mission is to inspire and support the development and growth of francophone educational institutions in Canada.

Within the framework of our Canada-wide mission, we work mainly in three areas of endeavour. First, we work for the consolidation and development of comprehensive and high-quality education networks throughout Canada, ranging from preschool to post-secondary education. Second, we are involved in research, awareness and facilitation activities to promote the development of a dynamic francophone cultural identity and to foster a strong sense of belonging to the francophonie. Third, we contribute significantly to the study of and cooperation between organizations and institutions involved in French education to creating many partnerships and to the representation, by delegation, of the interests of francophone organizations and institutions which support the development of French language education in Canada.

In view of its commitment, the ACELF would like to share with you some of its concerns regarding the situation of the French fact in Canada. Despite the commitment of the federal government contained in section 41 of Canada's Official Languages Act, the situation of francophones in Canada remains alarming and does not reflect the anticipated outcomes.

The population of francophones in Canada is based on 1996 statistics—unfortunately, we do not have the most recent figures—which indicate that it went from 7.5% in 1951 to 4.5% of the Canadian population. This decrease is explained by the fact that more anglophones have immigrated to Canada, people have left Acadian and francophone communities, which did not serve their needs, to settle elsewhere in Canada, linguistic transfers, a lower fertility rate, the aging population and exogamy.

Outside of Quebec, the linguistic continuity index decreased between 1971 and 1996, falling from 73% to 63.8%. However, francophones living in every province and territory have developed a strong attachment to their francophone communities, irrespective of province, territory or municipality.

Since 1982, section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to minority language education. I don't have to tell you about the content or the implications of this article. We are all aware of the many cases which were fought before the courts to uphold this section.

Under section 23, the number of francophone students increased. Nevertheless, we are only half way towards the targeted number of francophone students, which was 54.4% in 1996. Even worse, parents who decide not to send their children to French school take away the right of their grandchildren and great grandchildren to be educated in French and, as a consequence, are condemning them to assimilation with the majority culture, perhaps for ever.

We are not going to address the alarmingly high drop out rate in French language schools. As well, due to a lack of time, we will also not speak to the increasing shortfall of French teachers.

In light of this discouraging and too brief overview, I would like to make the following recommendations on behalf of the ACELF. First recommendation: that the federal government, as stated in section 41 of the Official Languages Act of Canada, become more actively and efficiently involved in the promotion of francophone minorities in Canada and their development, as well as promoting the equal status and use of French in Canadian society.

º (1655)

This federal government's commitment is not only a responsibility, but a constitutional obligation.

Second recommendation: that the federal government take concrete measures to ensure that funding given to the provinces and territories for French language education be spent exclusively in that regard only and not towards other ends hidden behind creative accounting, and that coercive measures be implemented to prevent provinces from subtlely using this funding to balance their budgets or to spend elsewhere.

Third recommendation: that federal funding departments cut back on their bureaucracy, which often suffocates the energy and constraints the efforts of volunteers working for Canada's francophone organizations. Employees in these organizations spend so much of their time doing paper work and drafting status reports that it compromises the actual projects they are trying to get done.

Fourth recommendation: that the federal government ensure that its agencies and regional offices respect the spirit of the Official Languages Act to enable all francophones, irrespective of where they live in Canada, to feel free to speak French when dealing with these agencies and offices. You have to be in a minority situation to realize that this is not always the case.

Fifth recommendation, which is more specific: that governments invest in allowing youth and stakeholders to take part in exchanges in order to get to know people from across the country better, to get to know their country better, and to share their expertise; that the government also adequately support the education of people in developing their identity and teaching training; that enough money also be made available for teacher training of young Quebecers in francophone and Acadian communities throughout Canada; that funding also be earmarked for basic research in French language education and that this research be carried out in as many places as possible; and lastly, that the federal government support the creation of relevant learning tools for francophones living in a minority situation.

Thank your for your attention.

» (1700)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Boudreau.

I would now like to ask Mr. Giroux-Gagné to make his presentation.

M. Jean Giroux-Gagné (Vice-President, Commission nationale des parents francophones): Thank you. I was already worrying about having to be the last to have the floor before an audience that seemed eager to leave. Besides, if you are in a hurry to leave because of some other commitment, I know enough about psychology to understand that you will not remember anything of what I will tell you in the last 10 minutes.

Honourable ministers, senators, members and colleagues, Madam Commissioner for Official Languages, dear partners whom I did not expect to see here and my very dear partners from minority communities, I am President of the Fédération des comités de parents du Nouveau-Brunswick and Vice-President of the Commission nationale des parents francophones. Our Chair, Ms. Soltermann, made a presentation last week in Ottawa, and I am afraid that she sometimes has to work outside of our voluntary activities. Nonetheless, she sends you her respectful greetings and acknowledges her extreme interest in your work that is so important for Canada.

The Commission represents the parents' federations of all the provinces and territories in Canada and has recently included Nunavut. These federations include more than 500 francophone parents committees from one end to the country to the other. We are volunteers working in Canadian francophone schools.

The parents movement is very active. Our members have had to threaten legal proceedings and sue practically every territorial and provincial government in this land. Some have had to do so more than once. Thanks to section 23 of the Charter, more than 30 lawsuits have come to a successful conclusion in the past 20 years. However, the fight is far from over. You may recognize the names of some of our parents: Mahé, Martel, Arsenault-Cameron, Doucet-Boudreau.

Later this year, the Supreme Court will hear the fourth national case relating to the implementation of section 23. Following behind parents from Alberta, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island, parents from Nova Scotia will have an opportunity to be heard. New Brunswick is also on the list.

Why must these lawsuits continue? Why do we have to go on like this? Are the provinces not signatories to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Do they not have a duty to provide francophone residents with an education of equal quality to the one offered the majority? Which part of the word “equality” do they find difficult to understand?

You have asked for our suggestions regarding the plan to revitalize official languages. Our answer is quite simple: stop empowering the majority and make every effort to empower the minority.

Over the last 32 years, the federal government has spent close to $10 billion on official languages in education. One would be hard pressed to say where this money was spent. The provinces will never tell. Often, this is because the money was placed in a pooled fund and they no longer know what was done with it. They provided for their own education system, which is often very basic, as regards minority needs. Let me refer you to a study done in 1996, Where did the billions go?. This question, moreover, has never been answered, except with regard to the large sums granted to McGill University.

Did the Official Languages in Education Program change following the adoption of the Charter in 1982, in order to ensure compliance with section 23? No. To the tune of billions of dollars, the federal government continues to provide funding to those who flout our rights, use funds intended for French language education in a dubious manner and sit back, watching the gradual erosion of our communities.

Coming back to a topic often discussed in this forum, let me put the following question: Where is the accountability? The net result of 32 years of federal assistance in the area of education has been the ongoing erosion of our communities, despite the billions that have been spent! This is despite the fact that we consistently win in court.

With regard to school management, like Boileau, we have to put our work back on the stocks a hundred times before the provinces will accept to share their authority with the francophone school boards.

The provincial departments do not fully respect section 23 either in law—I refer you to the most recent one, drafted in New Brunswick, despite all the advice from the Supreme Court—nor in fact.

» (1705)

The federal government has continued to empower provincial departments without demanding accountability. For instance, Heritage Canada funded a province that did not even have a school board—it had been abolished despite the law—and it did so with a great deal of publicity, proud of its generous contribution to the problem and oblivious to reality until we pointed it out to them.

The majority continues to be responsible for developing the educational curriculum of the minority, and to dictate how the money is spent. At the same time, you are providing the funding that allows us, the parents, to petition the courts. Let us pay due tribute to Canada's Court Challenges Program, to the Commissioner for Official Languages, Ms. Dyane Adam, as well as her predecessor, Mr. Victor Goldbloom, who are true and trustworthy partners of the minorities. We are the new gladiators; we are the ground troops waging an all-out battle. We, the parents, know the price that must be paid at a personal level to achieve even the smallest gain.

Take, for example, Noëlla Arsenault-Cameron of Summerside, Prince Edward Island. Her case was before the courts for seven years. Try to imagine what she must have gone through during that time! When the Supreme Court finally rendered its decision in January 2000, Noëlla no longer had a child in school. Her family therefore gained nothing from the benefits she obtained. Besides, she no longer had a husband by then.

Dear MP and senators, if you want to do something, stop this lunacy. Stop giving provincial governments additional funds provided for the education of the French language minority. Give these funds directly to the minority school boards elected to govern our schools, while making sure that the provinces will not be able to penalize them by taking the money back. Make the connection between section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and section 41 of the Official Languages Act by supporting organizations mandated to strengthen our official language minority communities.

Section 23 is an admirable statement of principle; many decisions have been based on it. However, no federal legislation or policies have come out of it. And those who consulted Heritage Canada were recently told that this section does not entitle anyone to any special treatment.

Curbing the erosion involves more than providing children with a French language education. The purpose of legislative and constitutional guarantees is to ensure that our official language communities continue to exist, for the sake of community living. What role do parents play in education? Parents are the primary educators of children. For this reason, the Commission and its components have developed an extensive action program at the family level. The Commission’s plan national d'appui à la petite enfance (National Early Childhood Development Support Program) endeavours to include families in a social and educational network that will lead to registration in a French language school.

The plan is based on the principle that the birth of a first child is a critical time as far as decisions for the long-term are concerned. It is an ideal time to actively offer parents support and services in French. Everything else follows from there. Quite understandably, the second child will be sent to the same system as the first one.

Our plan suggests two types of action: services provided in the home and preschool services provided in daycare centres and junior kindergarten. One of our goals is to include couples made up of one member from each official language group. These couples account for the majority of our young couples at the national level. Now the study done by Landry and Allard clearly shows that 65% of these couples made up of one member from each official language group choose the majority language because minority language services are often deficient.

In order to carry out our plan, we have requested the creation of a new federal program. We have presented this request to Minister Stéphane Dion and hope that he will consider it in his own action plan.

Moreover, the Commission supported Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier's Bill S-32. He believes that the government must be empowered to foster official languages. There are some who fear that, by giving section 41 too much bite, we will encourage judicialization; that is, frequent referrals to the courts. Really? Judicialization is what we have been living with for the past 20 years with section 23. We always won, although that is about all we did win. Legal action is the only real recourse we have to further the cause of the official minority.

» (1710)

It would not be necessary if governments fulfilled their responsibilities. Unfortunately, the provinces have been very uncooperative. Is the federal government assuming its responsibilities? Let us say that it has not been firm enough. It has refused to provide some form of remedy under section 41 of the Official Languages Act.

You should discharge your responsibilities and ensure that we can all successfully implement a generous policy. Mere words are not and have not been sufficient. If things were otherwise, we would not have spent such an inordinate amount of energy on endless lawsuits, trips and meetings. We would much rather have spent our time with our children.

For many years, the Commission has been under the impression that it is speaking into deaf ears. We have prepared countless plans. What more could we do? Your committee on official languages should take the means necessary to make a difference.

In closing, we urge you to begin by empowering the federal government. Empower the provincial school boards because they do not have to please the provincial majority. They do not constantly have to weigh the benefits for the majority and the minority with a view to the next elections. Empower our communities—this is a constantly recurring theme—including the whole parents movement. In every province, there is a struggle to obtain a share of ever dwindling funding from Heritage Canada. For instance, in New Brunswick, we return to Heritage Canada as management fees between 33 and 35% of the money we receive.

Finally, please adopt mechanisms to address this matter without increasing the duties of volunteers so that they no longer have to justify themselves at every turn. In short, equip section 23 and section 41 with national tools that will allow our communities to stop the erosion and ensure progress.

Thank you for your attention.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Giroux-Gagné.

Mr. Sauvageau you have four or five minutes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine, Mr. Chairman.

Given the strong views expressed in this last presentation, if it is in fact the last, we will not be able to forget it, and it will not be ignored. I wanted to mention that. I have also learned a number of things, including the existence of the study called Where did the billions go? There has been tons of studies and we have not read them all.

My first questions are for the ACELF. You make five very concrete recommendations, and I thank you for that. The fourth and fifth call for agencies and offices to comply with the Act. You also said, and everyone agrees on this, that the federal government should itself comply with the Official Languages Act before asking others to do so.

In the case of Air Canada, which was not following the Act in its operations, the committee proposed—it was sort of my doing—that a complaint form be made available to users. Should complaint forms be available in federal government agencies and offices so that people can indicate if the Act is not being followed? That is my first question.

In your fifth recommendation, you talk about young people travelling, internship programs. Could we ask for parity with existing programs? I will give you an example that comes to mind, the Student-Exchange Program. Young people from across Canada come to Quebec to learn French, and young people from Quebec go to different places in Canada to learn English. However, francophones do not fit into that program. Would it be possible to have programs that are based on existing programs, but that would involve francophones only?

» (1715)

Mr. Gérarld Boudreau: I will try to answer your first question. I would ask the secretary general of the ACELF to respond to your second one.

The problem is not unique to Air Canada. Of course, Air Canada does cause many problems for us because it assumes that all passengers speak English first. Do you want coffee or tea? That is the first question asked. Air Canada assumes that everyone is anglophone. So that is the first thing.

Second, if people indicate that they are francophones, some flights do not carry any French-speaking flight attendants. So these people are second-class citizens. That is the situation at Air Canada.

If you call a federal government’s office or agency in the provinces, or the territories, I assume, the person answering the phone will speak English. If you insist on being served in French, you will have to wait, sometimes a long time, or you will be told: “We'll get back to you.” You do not receive equal service. That kind of service and that kind of attitude has to change in our country.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Excuse me. I did not want to interrupt you, but we do not have much time. Changing attitudes and changing society are fine ideas, but concretely, it will not work or it will take 100 years. A francophone arriving in New Brunswick or another province, who is not served in his or her language in a federal government office, is not necessarily aware that there is an office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

First, should there be a publicity campaign? Second, should there be a complaint process? That is what I want to know.

Mr. Gérald Boudreau: It is my turn to interrupt you. If we have to go to the Commissioner of Official Languages every time we are refused service in French, we will spend our entire life filing complaints. It is like having to go to court to ensure compliance with section 23 of the Charter. People spend years on that. It is a waste of time, because while we are in court, assimilation is going on unabated.

The solution is not always to go to court or to the Commissioner. The authorities in this country have to take their responsibilities and obligations in hand and ensure that public servants work in both languages.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Boily.

Mr. Marc Boily: In many areas of the country, in minority communities, francophones do not even have a school for their children. Federal services are really secondary when we cannot even have our children educated in the language of our choice.

There are 150,000 eligible children, 150,000 francophones who are not in our schools. How can we expect a community to survive if it does not have the institutions it needs in order to survive?

As far as Air Canada goes, that is fine. It is all right to be asked in French or English whether we want peanuts, but when we do not even have the basic institutions we need in our communities, survival is impossible. We at least finally have the right to administer our schools. That took 100 years. Now we are simply trying to compete with the majority in order to be able to keep the eligible children that should be attending our schools.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. Mr. Sauvageau, a quick last question.

Ms. Charlotte Ouellet (Secretary General, Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française): It has already been asked, may I respond?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That is what I meant. It has already been asked.

Ms. Charlotte Ouellet: Regarding parity with exchange programs between francophones and anglophones, it is true that a great deal of money is b eing spent on exchanges to help anglophones learn French in Quebec, and vice versa. But there is a problem, which is that francophones also need to meet francophones in Quebec and elsewhere. That is where there is a lack of funding. Our recommendation to increase these budget envelopes is precisely for that purpose.

The ACELF has an exchange program for francophone students, but our small budget of $150,000 enables us to send only 300 students a year from Quebec to other parts of Canada. Over the past three or four years, we have been trying to increase our budget to allow exchanges of young people between communities, so that young Acadians can go see young francophones in Alberta.

Exchanges Canada was created in 2000, I believe, a great deal of money was put into that. The money from Exchanges Canada is fed through SEVEC, which does English-French exchanges, the YMCA, which does English-English exchanges, the 4-H Clubs and the ACELF. Organizations involved in French education have been asking for years to have a francophone organization included. We have all the infrastucture. All we need is the funding.

There is money given to Quebec that comes to us, but we have learned that in two years this budget will no longer exist. I think that it is time to ask Exchanges Canada to delegate French organizations to do French exchanges across the country.

» (1720)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That will definitely be one of the things we will forward to Mr. Dion, Ms. Ouellet. Thank you.

Mr. Binet.

Mr. Gérard Binet: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Giroux, we learned from meeting you today. I quite liked what you said. You raised very important points. I was saying that Ms. Adam, our Commissioner of Official Languages was doing very good work and that we have a good minister. That's where we see how important the choosing of the Intergovernmental Affairs minister is. I often said there were provinces who really have problems using their budgets the way they should.

Here's my question. I would like to know if these are really powers that you want to give to the federal government to impose a maximum on the Official Languages Act. We know that the provinces don't like having a strong central government. If we want to put pressure on at the provincial level, it's more complicated.

Mr. Jean Giroux-Gagné: My perception is that in the federal-provincial fighting going on these last few years on cuts, the provinces recovered all the money they could from the federal government in any way possible to make their provincial systems work. That included the money for their minorities. They redistributed that, amongst other things, within their own educational system without actually caring very much whether it was going to French immersion for anglophones or whether it was used to help francophones with their education or whether it was used to increase services, which was the initial objective, or whether it was used to pay for extra expenditures for francophones. The money was recovered there. We also note that the federal government didn't do any follow-up on that. They didn't ask where that money was going.

There are scandals in Nova Scotia. In Saint-Claude, Manitoba, a farmer had to mortgage his farm to build the local French school and his wife taught there for free for five years before the province recognized there was a need for a French school. Unbelievable! I don't know if you'd mortgage your own house to send your children to school back home. All that affects me enormously.

Right now, in New Brunswick, there's a debate on the high school in Moncton. The answer from the province is that we don't need a French high school in Moncton because there aren't enough francophones. Now, based on geographic studies, we know that people like to go and live around the schools so their children can get there easily. There's that whole question.

We're telling you to follow the money you give them, to empower the proper people and to go and work with the people in the community. In most cases, those committees have been working with the communities for 15 or 20 years. You would have a better chance to get results with them.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Mr. Charbonneau.

» (1725)

Mr. Paul Charbonneau (Director General, Fédération nationale des conseillères et conseillers scolaires francophones): Mr. Binet, on that, we have a legal opinion that was introduced in one language only. I would invite you to read it once it is translated.

It is true that the federal government has always said that they could not get involved in education, which falls under provincial jurisdiction. So these agreements that allow the funding of our schools were done as a gentlemen's agreement in a process of back scratching and more specially based on unwritten principles. We know that the federal government does have direct jurisdiction over minorities and all the opinions we have say that, even though they must deal with the provinces, they can also deal with the school boards.

The federal government grants $140 million for that every year. We don't exactly know where that money is going. Right now I'm trying to find out on behalf of the school boards. First, I have to get my hands on the bilateral agreements. I have to ask the provinces for the figures and they don't always give them to me. I calculated there was a difference of $40 million between what is spent and what we are supposed to be getting. We could include the school boards in those bilateral agreements as the federal power allows this. If there were an agreement between Heritage Canada, the Department of Education and our school boards, we could officially tell the federal government where its money is going to and we would especially know how much money we're actually getting. There is money for us and we don't even know if it exists. It would be much easier to be accountable to the government.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That would be something very interesting for this committee to study, colleagues.

Is that all, Mr. Binet?

Mr. Gérard Binet: As I was saying yesterday, I'm often in touch with Minister Dion. He's going to have to put even more pressure on the provincial governments.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Binet.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: We're lucky to have Mr. Binet with us because I don't know what Mr. Dion's mandate is anymore.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Put your questions, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, I'll be quick about it. My question here is for Mr. Giroux-Gagné who is saying that when something is said it's forgotten 10 minutes later. I don't think that it works quite like that here. I think that what you have said is really important.

First of all, I'd like to make a little comment to tell you that we've gone through that at home also. In the Acadie-Bathurst area, when the government wanted to close down the Saint-Sauveur and Saint-Simon schools, the RCMP showed up with baseball bats, dogs, tear gas and helicopters. They were whacking women and children and the dogs were biting our children. We went through that on 3 May, 1997. It's important to look at how you are saying this.

If the federal government is responsible for official languages in Canada and gives money to the provinces to make that the minority children have their own schools, it seems to me it's only normal that it should do some kind of follow-up. Any good manager will check to know whether his money went to the right place. They must call the provinces back to order if the money didn't go the right place, as was the case in Nova Scotia, and we can find other examples like that one.

I support what you've said. I'm telling you right out that I support that and that the federal government has responsibilities. In his action plan, should the minister see to it that the government shoulder responsibility for seeing where the money is going and to make sure it's going to the minorities?

Mr. Paul Charbonneau: Yes, even more so because the government has the right to “deal”—excuse my French—directly with the school boards which are spending that money. At that point, it would know how the money is spend. I can see a difference between what we've received and what we should have received.

Mr. Yvon Godin: In New Brunswick, they even got rid of the school boards.

Mr. Paul Charbonneau: Now they have some.

Mr. Yvon Godin: They have some, but I just wanted to show you how far the provinces will go to prevent parents or locals to take care of their own business. The province had even abolished our school boards.

Mr. Jean Giroux-Gagné: Actually, I could have given you that example because I knew about it. I was going to tell you that they have school boards, but that the minister has reserved the right to open and close minority schools on his say-so.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Mr. Yvon Godin: In the action plan, should there be something about that?

Mr. Paul Charbonneau: What I answer to that is that the biggest budget spent by the federal government is on education and it's going to have to find a way to make sure that budget goes directly to the minorities for proper needs. That will be of capital importance in the comprehensive development policy. If the school isn't firing on all cylinders, then nothing else is working any better.

Mr. Jean Giroux-Gagné: It's sort of the same situation and I'd repeat what my friend Gérald was saying. The government puts the burden of those responsibilities on the volunteers. Presently, with Heritage Canada, it's the volunteers who have to write up an unending stream of reports to ask for money and to justify how it's spent. They have to justify everything but when it comes to the province, who is in a far better position to justify its expenditures, the water just flows under the bridge.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Giroux-Gagné, thank you. Senator Setlakwe.

» (1730)

Senator Raymond Setlakwe (Les Laurentides, Lib.): I'm shocked by what I've just heard. I agree with what you say and what you're asking for. What would the provinces’ reaction be—I suppose it would be very negative—if the federal government were to take away the amounts that it grants to them and which, if I’ve understood you correctly, are often just dumped into the provincial consolidated fund and are not used to help attain the objectives of the legislation?

Mr. Paul Charbonneau: It's not a matter of taking money away from them. The facts must be a recognition that when the agreements were negotiated there were no school boards and that, as school boards can be included in the agreements, we have to make sure that those who spend the money and those who need the money are sitting at the same table as the departments and Heritage. The federal government has the power to do this.

Senator Raymond Setlakwe : The school boards fall under provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Paul Charbonneau: Yes, but if you add the unwritten principles to that—and I would invite you to read the legal opinion that we've given you, in French only—those principles which, among other things, confirmed the presence of the Montfort Hospital, the federal government can and must, especially, include the school boards in those matters dealing with minority education. That is a constitutional obligation.

Senator Raymond Setlakwe: Aren't you afraid...

Mr. Paul Charbonneau: I would say that in half of the provinces, the departments consult us because they know full well it's to their advantage. There are a few Jurassic Parks made up of some senior officials and some departments who were there well before we were granted our school boards and that don't like having to deal with us. It's clear that we suspect that the money given to the province for our programs is used for the immersion programs which are then adapted for our needs even though the money was supposed to flow to us. It's clear that there are some who don't want that.

If the federal government wants to have a good accountability system, than it's up to them to push for it because the official languages programs are going to be renewed next year. As we're going to be getting a new five-year agreement, we may as well have a good one, otherwise we're going to have to wait five more years.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Gentlemen, ladies, Mr. Boudreau, Ms. Ouellet, Mr. Boily, Mr. Charbonneau, Mr. Giroux-Gagné, thank you very much indeed.

We all took notes. We will now do our homework and forward what we've heard to Minister Dion.

We thank you for coming here on such a short notice. Once again, I thank Mr. Sauvageau for his initiative. Until the next time and thank you very much.

The meeting stands adjourned.