Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 3 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, February 10, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 4:05 p.m. to study and report upon the Official Languages Act, and of regulations and directives made thereunder, within those institutions subject to the Act, as well as upon the reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Senator Wilbert J. Keon (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Welcome to today's meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
Before proceeding with our first witness, I would like to ask Senator Gauthier to comment, because he was anxious that the proceedings today be recorded for CPAC. Senator Losier-Cool had intended not to have the proceedings of the first two meetings televised, but to do so for subsequent proceedings. For the first two meetings, there are some issues about our work that she felt were best discussed among us.
I would like to invite Senator Gauthier to give you his reasons for wishing that this particular meeting be recorded.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: I think today's hearings should be recorded with a view to being televised once we get Senate approval. We should table a motion tomorrow to have our meetings televised
We must remain open and transparent so that Canadians can follow our committee meetings. So far, we have held one public meeting with the Commissioner of Official Languages. We missed a brilliant opportunity to show Canadians what the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages does.
This is the first time an independent Senate Committee on Official Languages is seating. It is therefore important to allow Canadians to recognize the importance of what we do.
We have been offered technical support. This room may not be the best for television broadcasting. However, an audio recording of senators' statements is made. It is no problem making a video recording, and if we wish, it could also have closed captioning for the 3 million Canadians who are hearing impaired. They have as much right as others to see on their screen what they cannot hear. I do have a vested interest in that, since I myself am hard of hearing.
It is important for the Senate to properly represent the regions of this country and its linguistic, physical, auditory or other minorities. One of the Senate duties is to work openly so that Canadians can see what work is being done by its committees.
Senator Beaudoin: I am very open to those suggestions. Some committees are televised, others are not. I have no objections to the Senate Committee of Official Languages being televised, quite the opposite. My colleague, Senator Gauthier, is ready to ask the Senate for permission tomorrow. I think that for today, we will have to proceed as usual. If we get permission tomorrow, our hearings will be televised and I am pleased about that. Senator Losier-Cool no doubt had reasons for not making the request. Part of the meeting can be televised, but the other cannot, and sometimes we have in camera sittings.
I have nothing against that either. If Senator Gauthier is willing to wait until tomorrow to get permission from the Senate, I support him. The next meetings may or may not be televised, depending on what the Senate says. I think that is an additional argument the Committee on Official Languages can use to have its hearings televised.
Senator Gauthier: All I asked was to have a recording of what goes on so that it can be broadcast later. Our agreement with CPAC stipulates that they can record; I did not say broadcast.
At a later date, at a sitting like this one, we could have a visual recording as well as the voice recording. The only reason a committee would sit in camera would be to discuss a report or an employee-employer issue. Apart from that, under Senate rules, in camera sittings are not allowed. I want our comments to be transparent and even limpid. The equipment is here, let's have it do the job.
Senator Beaudoin: I fully agree with absolutely everything that has just been said.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: I want to put the question and be sure that it is clear. Are you in agreement that we record the proceedings today? That does not mean that we will broadcast them. Those in favour of recording the proceedings, please say ``Aye.''
Hon. Senators: Aye.
The Deputy Chairman: It is unanimous. We shall record the proceedings. We are honoured to have with us today, Mr. Gauthier from the Société Santé en français.
[Translation]
Mr. Hubert Gauthier, President, Société Santé en français: I would like to thank your committee for inviting us to appear today. I congratulate Senator Maria Chaput, a fellow Manitoban, recently appointed to the Senate. We are proud in the West and especially in Manitoba, to have a Franco-Manitoban representative, with deep roots in that province, appointed to the Senate. We are confident she will represent the interests of Canada's francophones and especially those in the West and Manitoba because she is from that community.
The Director General of Société Santé en français, Mr. Armand Boudreau, is with me here today. During the question period, he will help me answer your questions.
I sent you a document. I will give you an overview of health services in French, to put the Société Santé en français into context, and complete my presentation by telling you what progress has been made and how we think a committee like yours could help us.
First of all, the question of health services in French for francophone minority communities outside Quebec is one that has been on the agenda for a number of years now. In the first pages of my presentation, I noted that the federal Health Department has created an advisory committee to review the problems of access to health services in French in minority areas outside Quebec. The department also struck a similar committee for Quebec's anglophones. Both the federal and provincial governments are currently represented on that committee.
The advisory committee spent a year and a half identifying the problem and making some recommendations to the government. The report was submitted to Mr. Rock and then to Ms. McLellan in September 2001. It was also presented to deputy ministers and provincial health ministers in 2001. It was also presented to francophone leaders living outside Quebec at a major forum in Moncton in November 2001 where it received nearly unanimous approval.
As I indicate on the fourth page, in a summary that could not be more succinct, our committee told the government and everyone that if access to services in French is to be improved, we must first improve the quality of services provided. On a side note, I would just like to say that it is not just a question of what I would call national bilingualism. So linguistic and cultural elements are part of it. If someone does not respect someone else language and culture, the quality of service suffers.
It is a matter of providing quality service. It is not a question of making this a bilingualism issue, in the true sense of the word.
To improved access, our committee from the Société Santé en français said that five major issues would have to be broached. Fist of all, the people scattered all across the country must be able to connect, to join forces and work together. That was the first step. Secondly, the question of training for the professionals working in the health sector such as nurses and other caregivers. To improve access, you need more professionals. If we do not have them, there will just be endless rhetoric. Thirdly, it was important to have a proactive service organization so that communities feel at home when receiving those services.
Two other elements were less of a priority but just as important; today technology could help improve access through TeleCare, Info Health lines and other modern means; you also have a better knowledge of the needs of our francophone communities outside Quebec. Let us not assume for one moment that in New Brunswick the needs of Acadians are exactly the same as those of the anglophone community.
After numerous discussions, the advisory committee decided to take these five elements and come up with three priorities. I called them the three pillars that must be considered as priorities. You will find them on the fifth page of our presentation: networking, training of professionals and the organization of services.
We feel these three priorities should be dealt with at the same time and not in a linear fashion, one after the other.
What is the point in training professionals if there is no access point, a place where they can work properly and provide services to the public?
On pages 6, 7 and 8 of our presentation, I wanted to show the results we want to achieve. Issues like these are often raised, but you do not know what results people want. On those three pages, you can see our major goals for each of the priorities indicated earlier.
With regard to networking, it is important to establish solid, lasting ties among francophones working in the health sector because they are the francophones living in a minority situation in Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Ontario. Those francophone caregivers are part of primarily anglophone organizations and the topic of services in French is never on the agenda. That is why we need to network and work together in order to broach those issues.
Compensate for geographic disparity; we are everywhere in Canada and very often isolated.
Improve access to services; that is why we are there.
As for training, I would just say that we need more professionals, such as doctors, nurses as well as other health care providers.
As for the organization of services, long lasting models must be implemented to reflect the needs of francophones living in a minority situation. These models must enable them to feel at home in their own institutions, and not like visitors in anglophone institutions. They must also receive services that are tailored to their particular needs.
In order to promote these ideas, we founded the Société de Santé en français, of which I am the first president, that was recently incorporated, in February 2002.
The inaugural convention was held last fall. We appointed a very solid board of directors. We have representatives from institutions, from community organizations, professional representatives, representatives from training institutes, universities, colleges as well as government representatives — and last but not least — we have an Assistant Deputy Minister from New Brunswick, the vice-chair of our board, Ms. Rachel Barr.
It is quite remarkable that we could get all these partners around one table with the joint mission of improving access to services in French.
The Société de Santé en français is an ideal way to improve access. We want to be a rallying group that provides both professional and technical support to its networks and its fellow citizens across the country. We want to encourage novel and best practices. We do not want people to have to reinvent the wheel every time there is a problem. Above all, we want to be an organization, a creator of innovative solutions and not a beggar. We feel we could act as a link between the provinces and the federal government.
We are often involved in federal-provincial disputes on health matters, but we think we could be a value-added, if not a bridge between the provinces and the federal government on matters relating to access to services in French.
In summary, the Société de Santé en français is an organization that was created to give tools to francophones living outside Quebec to enable them to improve access to services so that all our fellow citizens can get home care in their own language, have access to francophone doctors and to primary health care in their language.
Every day, we hope our organization can say it has taken one forward step toward improving services in French for the million francophones living outside Quebec.
I do not plan to spend much time discussing funding. But our recommendations to the Health Department gave us our first positive result. The Health Department has given us 800 million dollars out of its primary health care adjustment fund that was created under the agreement reached in 2000. Some money was kept at the federal level, $240 million. Of that sum, $15 million was earmarked for official languages communities, of which $10 million was for francophones. That is a real boost because it enabled us to move forward without waiting for the next federal budget, without waiting for the Dion Plan to be tabled. We are expecting it any week now. We were told it would be around mid-March. That was enough thrust for us to create the Société de Santé en français and to start creating networks in various provinces. It also enabled us to start thinking about specific projects that will improve services in the various provinces.
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages must be aware of the two possible options for the funding of certain initiatives. The first option is the Dion Plan. Mr. Dion has been asked to devise as complete a plan as possible of the development of communities. I think we have managed to convince Mr. Dion that health must be included in this plan. We have been told, unofficially, that health will be an important part of this plan.
Also, we have just concluded a five-year federal-provincial health agreement. Announcement has been made. We see this as another option, even though the agreement makes no specific mention of linguistic communities.
We would have like to see the governments agree to serve both linguistic communities throughout the country.
We still believe, however, that within this agreement, there should be resources that will enhance accessibility, which would be our second preferred option.
As to other initiatives, including networking, these would allow people to meet and draft accessibility plans. The Department of Health has already granted us $1.9 million, an amount which allowed us to make some progress. We believe than in the medium and long term, the Dion Plan should provide other resources that might help us carry on for the next five years.
I would like to take a few minutes to deal with a very important aspect, namely training, since without trained professionals, all of our efforts will be for naught.
Following the battle for Montfort, the federal government invested $10 million in the National Training Centre at the University of Ottawa. This seed money allowed us to create a training consortium that went beyond the University of Ottawa to include all francophone universities and community colleges in the country, including le collège Boréal, le collège de Campbelton, le collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface which is also part college, and to bring together a group to draft a training program for the phase beginning in 2003 and ending in 2008.
The file will be submitted to the federal government through the Dion Plan, by the Department of Health. We are expecting a great deal from the Dion Plan in terms of funding for the training of our professionals through an agreement or agreements with various colleges and universities. They have prepared a very credible plan which illustrates how many professionals should be trained, be it general practitioners, nurses, social workers, occupational therapists, physiotherapists or homecare workers.
And we took great care to make Ms. McLellan aware of the importance of having the proper services: It will do no good to train people if there are no services and facilities available to treat francophone patients.
Ms. McLellan understood our point of view and, as I said earlier, the Department of Health has set aside $15 million. We hope that the February budget, and subsequent budgets will allow us to improve accessibility to services. We also hope that the budgets will include an increase over the $15 million.
Our greatest concern relates to the organization of services. I told the Senate committee chaired by Senator Morin that your colleagues, through the Kirby report, gave a very complete picture of our situation. Your report, which was given a ringing endorsement by our community, clearly demonstrated your understanding of our flight. You even improved upon some of our plans. This report should serve as a regular source of inspiration for the government in considering solutions to apply over the coming weeks and months.
We are concerned about service organization because in the federal-provincial agreement signed last week, as I said, the francophone community outside Quebec felt like a tiny ship cast upon a great ocean. While the big steamships navigated the trouble waters of federal-provincial relations, the little boat was afraid that it would go under and never back up to the surface.
But the little francophone boat is still afloat while the big steamships seem to have passed us by. So we intend to press on and stand form with the provincial as well as federal governments in order to ensure a safe passage for our concerns.
This is how things stand at present: we of course, have your report, the Kirby report, of which we greatly approved. The Romanow commission took a round about approach in its comments on the innovative aspects of our networking concept. In referring in the 2003 agreement, I am somewhat concerned because our case was not properly considered.
We cannot understand why a person cannot be treated in his or her mother tongue, and we are baffled by the contention that it is incredibly difficult to negotiate.
We now intend to complete the implementation of our networks, something that is progressing nicely, and we are also looking to further the existing partnerships with provincial governments.
This is a provincial matter. We need to have federal-provincial meetings of deputy ministers in various federal- provincial committees in order to establish relations with the provincial governments. We are encouraging our communities in each province to step up their relations with their respective provincial governments.
We are implementing very concrete programs in primary health care, namely, 247 telephone lines, health centres, francophone multidisciplinary teams, simple tools that will make a world of difference for the communities that we represent.
Finally, we are considering — and for this we would like your support — the need to have a standing commitment by the federal government to establish a long-term strategy. I will close by asking for your help. How? By supporting us and supporting our communities. In supporting us, you support the communities that promote the health of francophones living outside Quebec. How can you support us? To do what? I believe that it is important to urge the federal government, through the federal Department of Health, to continue to promote this matter. Even with enough funds and resources, we will still have work to do.
We believe that this is a very tough road to climb, considering the resistance that we have experienced over the last two or three years, and it is not over yet.
We also believe that in spite of the need for a provincial commitment, the federal government cannot deny us funding since we need these financial resources to spur the provinces to act.
We have often found that the best way to get some provinces moving is to devise some type of formula that includes our communities. Our group believes that, both nationally as well as regionally, we can act as a bridge, and enhance the link between the federal and provincial levels of government, so that our projects will truly improve our communities access to services.
I think we can achieve this by lobbying the Departments of Health and Finance. Our sole objective is to improve accessibility. When I return to Winnipeg after attending these meetings, my mother always asks me whether or not the trip was worthwhile since the homecare she receives is in English. She is anxious for me to make good on my promises and that is what I am trying to do.
Senator Gauthier: Welcome, Mr. Gauthier. I don't think we are related, you are a Manitoba Gauthier and I am from Gaspé. There are a few kilometres between us.
You talked about networking, which is something that is of interest to me. If I understand correctly, this networking consist in establishing solid and lasting links, in improving services to communities, supporting training and better accessibility. How do you see networking? How does one go about doing it?
Mr. Gauthier: Networking is the first stage, it is what we build on. Usually, within the health network, there are people on the education and training side, there are also the CLSC, the local community service centres, the extended care centres and the hospitals, each working in isolation. Then we have the professionals, the physicians, the nurses or the unions, all working separately.
The community feels rejected — even foreign — from the health network and often, the community groups have the best contacts with certain user groups. For its part, the government has long advocated the breaking down of barriers so that people will work together.
For some time now, the World Health Organization has been saying that unless we can bring all of the stakeholders together around the same table, there will be no solution to our health care woes. If we don't cooperate, we will be working at cross purposes.
For our small communities, where everyone works in isolation, it is essential that we come together in order to work out common objectives, action plans and strategies to improve our services.
We think we can come up with winning formulas not only for the francophone minority community, but also for anglophones or communities that are in the majority who seek to establish better working relationships. With networking, we are asking people to sit down at the same table and set common goals that they will help one another to achieve.
Let us take training, for example. The universities want to train more people but no one has found a way to apply the principle. Could the community play a role? Do the institutions not have a role to play in terms of promotion? We find that with networking, francophone universities outside Quebec have realized the benefits of working together on these issues.
Senator Gauthier: The Commissioner for Official Languages recently tabled a report in Parliament dealing with single window services. Are you aware of this report?
Mr. Gauthier: Yes, very much so.
Senator Gauthier: She is in favour of the concept and has asked the federal government to examine the proposal which promotes a more equitable access to both official languages. There were recommendations made by the francophones of Saskatchewan who, in 1999, requested a project to link communities with single windows or multiservice access windows.
I have a practical question. As you know, on-line medicine is now a reality. This technology also makes it possible to perform surgery. The armed forces are well versed in this field. Throughout the world, people are linked to these centres via satellite. There are even doctors operating via satellite. Groups from Afghanistan can be linked to Canada. What would prevent the communities from linking up through these television lines? If surgery can be performed via the Internet, if medical consultations can take place via the Internet, then why is this technology not available to us?
Mr. Gauthier: There is a simple and quick answer to that: of course. And incidentally, in our recommendations, we state that technology could be a useful tool for us. When a community is dispersed, technology can be used to bring us together. In Saskatchewan, the single window concept was discussed, because the community is widespread and assimilated. We do not put our head in the sand, but they have schools. They would not set up community health centres that were separated and apart from these schools. Saskatchewan wants to build on what they already have. They never said that they wanted francophone hospitals in Saskatchewan. All of this technology is available in our communities to help us improve accessibility in numerous ways. We are very close, at this time, to setting up French language telephone services available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and not only to provide poor translation. We must be careful not to say: ``It is available in French'' then only return the call two days later. That is not service on demand. At this time, the New Brunswick model is the one we have chosen and it can be used elsewhere in the country. The answer to your question then is, yes.
Senator Gauthier: You said earlier that there were agreements between the hospital in Sherbrooke and the one in Moncton, and between the University of Ottawa and Montfort Hospital. The agreement with the Montfort Hospital ends in March 2003. Has this exercise, if I can use that term, being evaluated? Was it a positive experience? Did it accomplish anything? Will the agreement be renewed? Your document mentioned $10 million. It ends in March.
Mr. Gauthier: They were fortunate to receive the funding which allowed all of the francophone colleges and universities in the country to come together and ensure that there would be continuity. Even though the Ottawa- Montfort experience is a recent one, we believe that the outcome has been positive. An in-depth assessment in underway. If we look at the number of students who have registered, as well as the number of professionals, whether there be doctors, nurses or others, we believe that the outcome has been positive, and in fact, it has been one of our major accomplishments. The consortium means continuing with the first $10 million invested in Ottawa. This consortium has build some momentum with all of the country's universities. The request is a large one. Over five years, we are asking for $100 million. Following the federal budget and once minister Dion Plan has been tabled, we will see how committed the federal government is.
Senator Beaudoin: You referred to the Montfort case — which was heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal and which made the headlines — as well as to various health networks. Health is a provincial jurisdiction, along with hospitals, the faculty of medicine, nursing care, et cetera. The federal government does have some powers, including a very important one, that is to spend and ensure equality in health care throughout the country.
Is there a connection between networking and what happened with Montfort Hospital? The Montfort case settled things for Ontario. As with any important legal decision, it is now a precedent and all of Canada has been aware of the case. Since we now have the very interesting legal ruling, should the same thing not apply in the other provinces in order to bring them up to standard with Ontario? What would you say to that?
Mr. Gauthier: I continue to deplore the fact that our community is forced to engage in battles like the one involving the Montfort Hospital, the fact that we have to expend so much energy defending a cause rather than building something. I hope that our work will allow us to avoid another Montfort. Montfort, however, did serve as an encouragement to us and the battle is symbolic. It has given us recognition that the accessibility to services in French is legitimate. It cannot be swept under the rug, even if we are on shaky ground in terms of our statutes or Canadian or provincial charters. We did have certain rights in education, but not in health. Moreover, we have colleges in the communities defending a sixth-principle or some legislative accommodation. Our society has told the advocates of a legal status that we have their support. We are focusing on concrete measures to improve services for today, tomorrow and the future. What Mauril Bélanger is doing in the House of Commons with regard to the sixth principle can only help us. Most people support him, as do I. We are doing our utmost to create a network of services in order to avoid being locked into other existing services. That is always a possibility when services are constantly being reorganized from one end of the country to the other.
Reorganization has been underway in New Brunswick over the last two years. The Acadians, in 2002, had to fight in order to have the regional boards recognized as francophone boards. They represent 33 per cent of the population. Now look at the groups in Manitoba with 4 or 5 per cent of the population and who, in spite of that, have gained a political and regulatory foothold that allow us to designate institutions to provide services in French, such as my hospital, the Hôpital général de St-Boniface.
It is always better when there is a legal basis. Historically, we francophones have always had to turn to the courts, despite that legal basis. We want to try to avoid these legal battles that costed so much. We lose soldiers, waste energy and invest a great deal of money in that. Yes, sometimes we win, but winning in a courts does not help us start to built our forces. The work we do with our constituents is to try avoiding these types of fights at all costs and being proactive upfront. With respect to organizing services, we need to take a proactive position and say what we want rather than always being reactive and saying that we do not want.
Senator Beaudoin: I agree. People should not have to go before the courts on these matters. It takes time, energy and money. As a jurist, my initial reaction is that a constitution is subject to interpretation. A very good approach is to choose an interesting case occasionally to move things along. One does not go to court just for fun, but rather to see results. In that way, a more bilingual country is built. After discussion between politicians and the public, the problems should be resolved.
Unfortunately, we are not yet in heaven. We do have to go to court from time to time. What has been achieved is there. It can also be used as a reference in the future. If it is absolutely necessary, we can go to court. If it is not necessary, we should choose an easier and less expensive path. That would be my reaction.
Senator Lapointe: How many francophones are there in Manitoba?
Mr. Gauthier: There is a distinction to be made between those who are from a French background and those who speaks French. According to the latest sense, there are about 40 000 francophones who speak French, for a total of about 55 000 people.
Senator Lapointe: In all of Manitoba?
Mr. Gauthier: It is about 4 to 5 p. 100.
Senator Lapointe: How many francophone doctors practice in your hospital?
Mr. Gauthier: Five or six general practitioners.
Senator Lapointe: That is not very many.
Mr. Gauthier: No.
Senator Lapointe: You have a problem.
Mr. Gauthier: That is why I said that medical training was a key aspect.
Senator Lapointe: How is your group perceived by the anglophone establishment in Manitoba? Is it welcomed with open arms?
Mr. Gauthier: People are certainly interested. Right now, we are getting some funding from the federal government. As I was saying earlier, it is important to receive that kind of support. When the federal government says that it has a kitty of $10 millions, that this is project money and that our province is eligible, the provincial government rarely turns his back on such an offer. It helps us have fruitful discussions with the provinces. It gives the communities leverage in the health care field that they have never had. I must say that Health Canada, right from the outset, provided us with that leverage. Our challenge is to make good use of the leverage to have our provinces move forward. Some provinces have absolutely no interest in providing services in French, since the francophone communities there are infinitely smaller than in Manitoba, in term of percentage.
Senator Lapointe: That is why, the Federal Government does play an important role.
Mr. Gauthier: That is why we take advantage of the issue of provincial jurisdiction in the setting up of the services. We do think the federal leverage is indispensable.
Senator Lapointe: It can help first shake up those that are a bit reluctant to go in.
Senator Leger: When you talk about ``creating innovative solutions,'' ``beyond politics,'' ``a bridge between the Federal and Provincial levels,'' and ``avoiding isolation,'' you are talking about the present and the future. There are, of course, organizations like yours, but networking is particularly important.
Regardless, I hope that you will get the financial support from the Federal Government that you need to continue your efforts and not become a simple machine — it is something to watch.
Universities, for example, have to be careful. Their funding is tied to the number of students they have, regardless of the language.
The idea of unity across the country that you talked about, is very refreshing. We are going to take stock of the situation in the territories. This may be real democracy. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that there is a third level. It is not just a provincial-federal issue. This issue affects you as well.
Mr. Gauthier: It is a very important issue for us. I could use the analogy of a three-legged table. At two-legged table will tend to fall over. We are proposing that a third leg to be added to help support the table. We will be talking about services and not jurisdictional quarrels.
Senator Chaput: I come from a minority linguistic community. The results you mentioned are important for insuring the ongoing development of minority official language communities. Networking is vital. I agree fully with what Senator Léger said.
Technology and the benefits of technology are a concern of mine. There is a great deal of vulnerability involved. To what extend can we expect information to be available in French and in English and to be of good quality? Whether we are talking about distance services or anything else, it is a concern. The benefits of technology are fragile. We need to ensure that technology contributes to the development and vitality of minority official language communities rather than their assimilation.
You talk about a bridge between the federal and provincial levels. That is a vital and essential aspect. However, do you have a strategy for how to force the less willing and insensitive provinces to respect the rights of official language minorities?
Mr. Gauthier: Yes. But we are going to need help. Senator Lapointe talked about that help earlier. Certain types of leverage make things more acceptable. The federal government must not abdicate responsibilities.
I am concerned that the agreement we have just looked at does not talk about the obligation to serve people in both official languages. I think that your committee will need to look at that aspect.
There is another aspect that you can help us with. Mention was made in the agreement of a national council on accountability. I intend to write to the federal government to ask whether we can participate in such a commission. Perhaps your committee could support us in our request.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: We shall. Thank you very much, Mr. Gauthier. I am sorry that we had to rush you. Our next witness, Senator Morin, has a very tight agenda and has to leave us at 5:30.
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you. We are always pleased to come and meet with you. As developments will occur, we will keep your people up to date.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, as Senator Morin has to leave at 5:30, if you have questions for him, and I am sure you will, please submit them in writing and we will ensure that he gets them and that they are answered.
Senator Morin: I apologize for this full agenda. The Swedish Prime Minister is in Ottawa. The Committee that our chair is on has worked closely with the representatives from Sweden. So I am going to need to attend a meeting followed by dinner.
I would first like to draw your attention to the presence of Mario Ménard, a researcher from the Library of Parliament. He has contributed substantially to the report and will support my testimony.
I would like to give you an overview of the report tabled by the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Sciences and Technology — which you also contributed to, Mr. Chairman. I would highlight the recommendations that are more relevant to the issue of francophone minorities outside Quebec.
The report is the outcome of a study that lasted over two years, during which time the committee heard from over 400 witnesses. We made a number of recommendations dealing with various aspects, including the health care system and health care guaranties.
I would like to draw your attention to the recommendations concerning primary health care. Reference is made to an organization that may have a significant impact on the care provided to francophone minorities.
We specifically recommended the creation of multidisciplinary groups that would take charge of a range of health services. Such a responsibility would be assumed on a permanent basis. These groups would be made up not only of physicians but also nurses and other health professionals.
It is our view that these primary health care groups would constitute the basis for a reform to the provision of French-language health services outside Quebec. Models are already in existence in a number of places. We can come back to the issue of funding later on.
We also refer to home care, community care for people with mental illness and palliative care for patients in terminal stage. Such programs should have a minority language component.
So much for the programs that require some attention. I would now like to talk about an information system based essentially on a national system of electronic health records. It is something that will be developed, we will have a chance to come back to it.
You know that there is a crown corporation, the health information highway, with a $500 million annual budget. Its budget was practically doubled at the last first ministers meeting, it amounts to a very large subsidy. Significant progress will be made in this area and it is important for us to be involved from the outset and to ensure that the minority language dimension is included so that this electronic health record system is bilingual.
If we do not take action quickly, decisions will be made, the provinces will adopt their models and it will be too late for us.
We recommend specific funding of universities health sciences centres. The Romanow commission did not discuss this recommendation of the Senate committee. The two main poles would be Moncton and Ottawa. It is important for us to have some presence here.
Mr. Gauthier referred to the Health Commission and it is important that minority language care be one of the elements of accountability required from this Commission.
I have quickly skipped over many recommendations. There are two important points I would like to emphasize. We recommended a major increase in funding for research, the Canada Health Research Institute on whose board Mr. Gauthier sits.
I hope that this funding we recommended will materialize in the next budget that will deal with the issue of health services for linguistic minorities.
We recommended specific funding for the training of health personnel. This is something important for francophones outside Quebec.
I would now like to turn to the second document, to the report on better access to French-language health services.
In the sixth volume, we noted that this issue of French-language services outside Quebec is particularly important and warrants a special report.
There are two points here. We know that because of the aging of the francophone population throughout Canada, the priority established by these communities is health care, as they have indicated on a number of occasions.
In the summer of 2000, Health Canada called upon the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes to carry out an in-depth study. A report was prepared, a report that you are all familiar with. In November 2001 Senator Gauthier also tabled a motion asking our committee to examine and analyze this report, rightly noting that there was no point in reinventing the wheel and this large report should be used as the basis for our study.
That is what we did. We held 5 meetings where we heard 19 witnesses from all sectors. Mr. Gauthier was part of the group and some of our witnesses are present here and made an important contribution to the proceedings of the committee.
Our report that you received and that was tabled in the Senate is made up of three main parts. It sums up the report and describes the progress made in this issue over the past several years. For example, it refers to the report of the advisory committee of minority francophone communities prepared for the Minister of Health, Mr. Rock, at the time.
There is also information about the forum held in Moncton in November 2001. It sets out the three basic premises, respect for provincial jurisdiction, the need for a flexible approach and building upon programs that already exist.
We have paid particular attention to Mr. Gauthier's testimony and to four main recommendations. There were others as well. Networking is a response to the lack of information available to francophones outside Quebec on the care they can obtain in their language. There is also the presence of a consortium for the training of health professionals, the two main centres being Moncton and Ottawa. I am one of those who thinks that the Moncton pole should be reienforced. Let me note that this is a personal opinion, I am in favour of their request to establish a French- language school of medicine at the University of Moncton.
I have already dealt with primary health care, it is the response to the problem of health care for francophones in a minority situation since these groups can take over the provision of such services in the language of the patients.
We support the creation of an official languages health program under the responsibility of Health Canada and we would like to see the continuation of federal-provincial agreements.
Mr. Gauthier referred to the existing agreement between Manitoba and the federal government, it amounts to $2 million a year. We would like to see this offer improved and given greater impatus.
A word about the review of the Canada Health Act: strictly speaking, it does not come under our mandate since there is no question of it in the report. Two options are possible. One would be to amend the act. Generally speaking, a number of people think that there is a danger in a revision the Canada Health Act.
Several provinces think that this act should be terminated since they are of the view that conditional funding for health care should be totally banned. This is funding from the federal government. Many people do not realize that the entire federal funding, 100 per cent of it, is conditional since it is subject to the conditions set out in the Canada Health Act.
If the act were to be amended, there could be serious protests against the conditions contained in the Act which could be weakened, the Canada Health Act might end up completely emasculated. There is a serious risk.
Romanow recommended amending the act to include accountability and home care.
Quite wisely, the federal government and most provincial premiers are opposed to the revision of the Canada Health Act because of the serious risk that this would represent for the principles that could end up disappearing because of provincial pressure.
The whole matter of the revision of the Canada Health Act is dangerous and must be rethought.
Mr. Gauthier I imagine must have talked about our disappointment on Wednesday evening, at the first ministers meeting, in relation to the reform of health care.
Mr. Gauthier, myself and a number of others, made presentations to the Prime Minister's Office and the Minister of Health, in Mr. Dion's office to have French-language health care for minority language communities included in this agreement with at least a mention made of this particular issue and recommendations for funding and dealing with this problem. Unfortunately, nothing happened.
It certainly would have helped the cause if our report had funding solutions to propose.
I will be happy to answer your questions until 5:40 p.m.
Senator Gauthier: You saw Mr. Maltais' editorial in Le Droit relating to the report of the committee you chaired. You are quoted as saying that his committee looked at the health care provided to francophones outside Quebec and it amounts to next to nothing. Rather than recognize and promote linguistic duality in this sphere, it merely recommends that the federal government provide them with more money.
I sent a two-page letter to Mr. Maltais, I can give you a copy. Our expectations in the Dion plan are very high. Do you have any information that could help us?
Senator Morin: Not that I am aware of.
Senator Gauthier: As for the linguistic duality advocated by some and the accountability recommended by Romanow in his report, I gather that the Kirby committee and the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology did not deal with this question?
Senator Morin: Of accountability?
Senator Gauthier: Duality.
Senator Morin: It was discussed in a paragraph that I can find for you. The Senate studies are very different from the Romanow commission report. It is our sixth volume. There will be six others, at least, until 2026. There are a number of things that we did not discuss at all and that were dealt with by Mr. Romanow. For example, Mr. Romanow dealt with mental health. We did not discuss it because we intend to devote a volume to mental health.
Mr. Romanow talked about aboriginals. We did not because we will be having a volume on aboriginals.
We did not discuss linguistic duality because we knew that there would be a special study.
Contrary to Mr. Romanow who prepared a single study, we are involved in an ongoing project. I prefer our way of dealing in-depth with a particular subject rather than attempting to cover everything within a short period of time.
We did not deal with all the issues in our report, it would have been impossible. There are a great many other subjects we intend to explore, particularly, mental health, which is something we are considering right now.
Senator Gauthier: The Commissioner of Official Languages came to speak to us in December and we asked her the question: is it possible to establish a link between the principles of accountability and linguistic duality? She seemed to think that it was possible. Could you give some thought to it?
Senator Morin: Definitely.
Senator Gauthier: Ask your researcher to do some brainstorming to come up with a solution, that is to establish a link between linguistic duality and accountability.
Senator Beaudoin: I have a question about the Act. I gather that your committee did not wish to reopen the debate in relation to the subject we are now studying. Of course an act is important, as I know from experience. But it is simply an act. It can always be perfected and improved. So what is the reason for your very natural prudence? You may be perfectly right but I would be interested in knowing why you have this reluctance to consider amending the Canada Health Act?
Senator Morin: If we were to propose the Canada Health Act today, it would not be passed.
Senator Beaudoin: Why?
Senator Morin: You saw the kind of outcry that occurred. One of the things that was not adopted in the last agreement was conditional funding. No matter what people say, I was convinced that it would be adopted. No matter what people claim, we did not get any specific conditional funding, as I would have wished, for primary care, home care, catastrophic drug coverage. It is multi-purpose single fund. There is nothing in the agreement. The provinces would have refused such funding with strings attached. Quebec is totally opposed to it.
The best kept secret is that every dollar Quebec receives is conditional upon the Canada Health Act, very specific conditions, such as portability and universality which, if not met, mean that it does not receive funding. If a province infringes one of these principles, it is subject to a fine which may go so far as complete cessation of federal transfers.
It is a very strict Act. In the last agreement, the following elements were theoretically added to the Canada Health Act: primary care, drug insurance and home care. But today the Canada Health Act would not be adopted. It is a good thing we have this Act. Otherwise we would find ourselves with a patchwork of health care systems in each province with different principles of universality, accessibility and portability. At the present time, Canada's saving grace from the point of view of health is the Canada Health Act. We should thank heaven everyday that we have this Act. I am very afraid that if we were to amend this extremely useful Act, there is a danger that it would fall apart. That is my personal point of view. It is shared by the government because it refused to revise the Act.
Senator Beaudoin: In your opinion, the risk is too high.
Senator Morin: Yes.
Senator Beaudoin: So you think it is better to have an imperfect act than no act at all?
Senator Morin: It is not that imperfect. It is an excellent one.
Senator Beaudoin: It is a good act, but an act can always be improved. But you are saying that the risk may be too high. I can understand. I will think about it.
Senator Lapointe: Senator Morin, there is something that is bothering me. The provincial argument is that their priorities are not all the same. What do you say in reply to that?
Senator Morin: That may well be their point of view. You know, there are two important things for the federal government, namely that Canadians have access to a minimum and equal level of health care throughout the country. There is no reason why a Canadian should not have a minimum level of health care because he or she lives in a given province.
The federal government may determine that home care is important even if a province decides it does not want any. For example, we want catastrophic drug coverage. At the present time a million Canadians do not have access to drugs. Some drugs cost $50,000 a year. The role of the federal government is to ensure that Canadians have such a right. I do not know what a province would answer. We do not want this access for our fellow citizens?
Senator Lapointe: May be I did not formulate my question correctly. For example, in New Brunswick, they say: we do not need to invest in radiology, we have the equipment and everything else. What do they do with the money that has been allocated to radiology? Can they decide to use it in another area or, does the legislation require them to invest it in radiology?
Senator Morin: First of all, it must be ascertained that the equipment is effectively available and that an inventory is taking place with recognized indicators. So far this has not been done by the provinces. They have taken the money and they have bought lawnmowers and microwave ovens. I think that Canadians must have a minimum level of service from coast-to-coast and they are also entitled to know whether the services they receive are of good quality in comparison to those provided in another community or another province.
Senator Lapointe: There was not much said about palliative care in the presentation. Is there any policy for palliative care?
Senator Morin: Absolutely. In fact, it is thanks to Senator Carstairs, who is our leader.
Senator Lapointe: I have also gotten involved with palliative care.
Senator Morin: There is no better cause than that one.
Senator Lapointe: Since we are on the subject, if ever it runs on television, I will be giving a speech on May 3rd about the benefits of palliative care throughout Quebec. All monies raised will go towards palliative care. This is all thanks to our leader, Ms. Carstairs, whose intervention greatly moved me.
Senator Morin: This is an extraordinary initiative in which minority language rights become important.
Senator Chaput: Sir, I enjoyed listening to you speak about multidisciplinary groups, front-line health care groups and home and community care, because for Western Canada's official language minority communities, these issues affect them directly at home, as well as their families, their children and their parents. These types of health care services enable us to continue to live in French. There is no doubt about that.
But some parts of the presentation caused me some concern. It seems that the regional health boards are to receive more responsibilities. I sat on a regional health board in Manitoba which represented the south-eastern part of the province, which has more francophones than elsewhere, and I found myself in an acute minority situation. In that anglophone environment, services in French were not a priority, despite the fact that the board was designated bilingual. We continually had to fight to prevent the French services from disappearing instead of fighting for more services in French. I wanted to share this concern with you. This is a very real problem for francophone communities in Western Canada. We always end up in a minority situation within a structure designed for the majority.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Morin. I think that you will make your other commitment. Honourable senators, as I mentioned, if some of you wish to submit questions, Senator Morin would be happy to answer them in writing since he is pressed for time.
Under other business, Senator Gauthier would like to discuss the possibilities for dealing with the francophone situation in the Northwest Territories.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I apologize, but this issue is very much alive. In the Northwest Territories, there is one official language, one program, one law. Unfortunately, the law has no regulations. No regulations, no law. There are directives, it is true, but a directive and a regulation are two different things. I handed out a booklet listing legal remedies for francophones living in the Northwest Territories. I do not want to speak to the legal case per se.
The Canadian Parliament must examine any proposed amendment or change to the Official Languages Act before the legislation can become legally enforceable.
The government of the Northwest Territories gave notice that it would table amendments on March 3rd. I am a little nervous, because in three weeks this will be a fait accompli and I would not want the legislation to be different from what it should be.
Let me explain. In 1984, the government signed an agreement with the Northwest Territories whereby the Official Languages Act of Canada would not apply if the territory had its own official languages legislation. I do not want to discuss the validity of this amendment, but I still have reservations about it even today, because I believe it is unconstitutional.
In any case, the agreement contained two conditions. The first was that any amendment to or abrogation of the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories must be sanctioned by the Canadian Parliament.
The second condition was that the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories must be in line with, equal and similar to that of the federal government. But that is not the case. The Northwest Territories legislation does not even have any regulations. French speaking people who live in the Northwest Territories are Canadians. They have gone to court because they do not receive services in the official language of their choice, which is French, and because they do not have access to government services in French.
There is a Commissioner of Official Languages, but I am told that the situation may not be exactly the same as it is here; nevertheless, this is part of our country. In order for me to find out more about this and for my colleagues in the Senate to have a better understanding of what is happening in the Northwest Territories, I suggest that we hear from some witnesses on this matter.
Justice Canada does not support the position of the francophones in the Northwest Territories. It supports the territorial government. Justice Canada says that this is not a federal institution, but I think the act clearly defines it as a federal institution.
Section 3 states very clearly that the House of Commons and Senate are federal institutions. I do not agree that if we are part of a federal institution, any offspring we produce is not a federal product.
In any case, we need clarification about the definition of ``federal institution,'' but that is not my point. What I want to do is get you interested in this issue, because there are approximately 2,000 French-speaking Canadians living in the Northwest Territories who are dissatisfied with and ``badly treated'' by the existing legislation at the moment.
The territorial government has told us that it will be tabling amendments to the act on March 3rd. I would like my colleagues in the Senate to become familiar with this issue. I would like us to invite officials from Justice Canada to come and explain their view and the situation as a whole. I would like the committee to invite a representative from the Northwest Territories so that we can hear those views. I would also like us to invite some representatives from the francophone community in the NWT to come and tell us about their position and their problems.
I would like the committee to invite the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada and the Commissioner of Official Languages of the Northwest Territories to tell us why there are problems with the official languages in that region.
This issue is not a direct concern to some members of this committee, but I can tell you that these problems do concern me. The people facing these problems are Canadians, and once we forget about these French-speaking Canadians throughout the country, we will have a divided country. I am not interested in that. I do not want that to happen.
Senator Beaudoin is here and I can say in his presence that there were serious problems in Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905, when the federal government failed to affirm and confirm language rights in those two provinces. I would not want the Northwest Territories to state that Canadians of the two official language groups are not equal. Regardless of numbers. There are 2,000 of them, and that is enough. One is enough for me.
I would like the committee to look at this matter by the beginning of March. We do not have much time to study this and hear both sides of the story. This will not be done in the House of Commons, it will be done by this committee, because the Senate is responsible for ensuring that the Official Languages Act is enforced in the regions. It is also responsible for monitoring the impact of the act on the official languages communities.
If you have any questions, I can try to answer them, but I have given you a document which outlines my proposal quite clearly.
Senator Lapointe: I know that you have a big heart, Senator Gauthier, and I admire you very much. I know that you are a fighter, but in your report dated Tuesday, February 4, 2003, there is a question that Senator Beaudoin asked. Senator Carstairs replied saying that this matter came under territorial jurisdiction. Is there a conflict between the two? If this comes under territorial jurisdiction, how likely is it that we can get around this problem?
I do want to be sympathetic to your cause and I do want to fight with you to defend French in the Northwest Territories, but if this does not come under our jurisdiction, what is the point?
Senator Gauthier: Senator Carstairs replied on the following Tuesday or Wednesday that the federal government acknowledged that it was not indifferent and that it should take a stand on any amendment to the Official Languages Act in the Northwest Territories for purposes of approval. Senator Carstairs acknowledged that. I will ask her the question tomorrow in the chamber to clarify this point.
Senator Beaudoin: This is a very important problem and there are two conflicting points of view. I have always thought that the territories are different from the provinces. They have powers that come from the Canadian Parliament, delegated powers that are significant, and I agree with that.
However, I think the territories are subject to a type of bilingualism. Regardless of numbers, because section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that the two official languages have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use. There is another view to the effect that once the territories exist, in accordance with a federal statute, they behave as quasi-provinces.
I respect this view, which has been expressed. So this is another position; there are two.
I have just called the law clerk of the Northwest Territories, who is going to send me some documents. There is no doubt that some day this matter will go to the Supreme Court, at least it is likely.
Let us take our time reviewing this. Let us take all the time we require. I am prepared to study this issue for several days. I certainly do not want to start a little battle! I want to know what the Constitution says and how it is interpreted. It would be worthwhile for us to study this issue in-depth and then report on it. That is what we are here to do. This is a wonderful committee on Canada's two official languages. We need to know what powers are held by the federal government, the provincial governments and the territorial government. The territories are created by the Parliament of Canada; we created them. It would be reasonable to expect equality for the two official languages.
I am quite prepared to take whatever time we need to do this. I do not think we will solve the problem this week. However, we can spend a few days quietly trying to find a solution. We will discuss this among ourselves. We all think much the same, we all have the same ideals.
If there are two views on this, let us study them and come back to the main discussion in a few days. Once we have conducted a thorough review of the matter, we will agree on a final solution. I am from Quebec, but for the francophones from other provinces — and for people from Quebec as well, this is fundamental. We live in a multicultural country but we do have a bilingual federal government. That is in the Canadian Constitution. We must act on that. We cannot solve these difficult issues right away. That is my opinion.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, do we have any further comments on this? I would like to add that the chair and one other senator who could not be here today have very deep concerns about the complexity of this issue. They asked me to express those deep concerns and their desire to defer until the next meeting of this committee any decisions about the timeframe in which this should be dealt with and how it would affect other workings of the committee.
Senator Lapointe: We agree.
The Deputy Chairman: I am simply expressing their view to you. I appreciate Senator Gauthier's tremendous dedication and hard work. I understand also, since he took the time to express it to me, how urgent he feels it is that we deal with this. However, we do have a serious difference of opinion here and I would wish to defer any further decisions until our next meeting.
Senator Gauthier: When is our next meeting?
The Chairman: The next meeting, which will be chaired by Senator Losier-Cool, is February 24.
Senator Gauthier: This frustrates me, because I happen to know that the group in the Northwest Territories is having a hard time right now. They asked to be heard because they do not have the numbers, the money or the resources. They have a lawyer in Regina, but he also needs help. I would like to have the Department of Justice come here and explain why they are taking the position they have, so that I will understand. I can then go home and honestly say, ``Well, I gave it my best effort.''
I am a bit frustrated because, at one time, I tried to arrange a study of this committee.
[Translation]
Nothing had been referred to us. I tabled a document entitled ``Environmental Scan,'' so that the matter would be referred to the committee. We could meet with the Commissioner, because she refers to this in her annual report. Senator Corbin, who is a member at the time, adjourned the debate. This is a very important document. We have not yet studied it. I moved a motion that the Senate passed. The committee will study the document entitled ``Environmental Scan.'' When will this be done? I hope it will be done tomorrow or the day after, because we have problems in Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, the Northwest Territories and British Columbia.
Senator Lapointe: Will it not be too late to discuss the issue at the meeting on February 24? Could we not hear from some witnesses — as recommended by Senator Gauthier — so that we can do something before it is too late, because apparently the decisions will be made in March? In light of the urgency, I would suggest that two people with different views appear before this meeting set on February 24. That would enable the two senators who are not present today to contribute to the discussion. We could have quite an interesting debate and perhaps find a solution that day. That is my suggestion.
Senator Gauthier: May I add a footnote? Two years ago, a decision was handed down by the Federal Court, it was the Blais decision on tickets. The Federal Court said with regard to tickets: you must tell the provinces which apply the Act that they must respect the federal government Official Languages Act. Airports, like the one in Toronto, handed out tickets in English. The Official Languages Commissioner and French-speaking lawyers sued the federal government in court. We won! I say ``we'' because I was one of the parties who fought for this cause. The federal government asked the judge to give it some time. It went before Justice Blais who gave it another year, until March 23, 2003. March 23rd is next month. I have not had any news so far. I cannot tell you any more about this issue. I do not even know how far they have gotten with their agreement on tickets.
Justice Canada must appear here to answer our questions. I could talk to you about this for hours. I do not want to inconvenience you, but we should do something and not procrastinate. I am sorry that there are some absences, but in my books, those who are absent are always wrong. It can also be done by writing a letter.
Senator Chaput: The issue of two official languages is a basic one. This concept sets Canada apart from many other countries. We must study this matter in-depth and invite the groups to present their views starting with the next committee sitting, if it is not possible to hold another meeting, before a decision is made that would go counter to the interests of our country and of the minority official language community.
Senator Beaudoin: We can reach an agreement. February 24 is not tomorrow morning. In the meantime, we will certainly have time to bring in someone from the Department of Justice to tell us why it is taking this position. This would be my first question. Following their presentation, we will reflect and then we will see. There are two points of view: the first would want the territories to evolve and to function almost like provinces. The second says that a province is a province and a territory is a territory.
I agree with the second point of view. The territories have delegated powers whereas a province has constitutional powers. Therefore, they are different. However, as with every legal and constitutional issue, we must hear both parties. Each one has the right to defend its position. I have respected this principle all my life. There are always two points of view in most difficult issues. This is the basis of democracy. We have a good legal system.
February 24 is not far away. As this is a difficult problem, we have the time to bring in representatives from Justice Canada, as well as other witnesses.
Senator Lapointe: February 24 is not far, but March is arriving too quickly.
Senator Gauthier: We must give the clerk the right instructions if we want to hear witnesses. I would like to notify Justice Canada to send witnesses to our committee on February 24. We want to know the position its representatives have taken on the Northwest Territories, and to know why, for instance, the tickets have not been corrected.
If you want to do that, I will relinquish the idea of inviting representatives from the Northwest Territories. I would have liked to invite members of the legislature, either the speaker or someone else, to share their views with us. I would also have liked to hear what the francophones living in the Northwest Territories have to say. But if you do not want this, we can start by inviting Justice Canada.
Senator Beaudoin: I am ready to hear both parties, both Justice Canada and the francophones from the Northwest Territories.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, we have two questions before us. First, do we want to change the agenda for the February 24 meeting, because it is currently set? Are you all in favour of changing the agenda, fundamentally cancelling our arrangements, and having a special meeting on this subject?
Senator Léger, are you in favour also?
[Translation]
Senator Léger: Yes, I was trying to see what we had decided on for February 24th.
[English]
What was on the schedule for February 24?
The Deputy Chairman: We had intended to wind up testimony on our French services in health and get a report started on that by the end of the year. We had Mr. Savoie from the Montfort Hospital, Mr. Schofield from the French language training centre, and Mr. McMurtry from the Romanow commission.
Senator Gauthier: I think it is quite possible to change the agenda. In fact, I have a confirmation.
[Translation]
I have a notice of meeting of the committee, dated January 20, which included in its list of witnesses Senator Morin, then Mr. McMurtry, from the Romanow commission, on February 24, with George Arès, from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, Gérald Savoie, from the Montfort Hospital and Mr. Scofield. Today I received a copy that has changed the agenda. Senator Morin is at the bottom of the list whereas Mr. Hubert Gauthier is first although he was the last. It is not pleasant to prepare questions for witnesses and then have the rug pulled out from under you at the last minute.
Having said that, it is quite possible to contact the witnesses from Justice Canada to get them to explain the government's position on this issue. We must get in touch with representatives from the francophone minority living in the Northwest Territories so that they mandate someone who is able to come here and explain their position.
I would prefer that the Northwest Territories legislature be invited to send a delegate who could appear before us to answer our questions.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: I have a clear answer to the first question. We wish to cancel the agenda as it stands for February 24, develop a new agenda and have someone from the Department of Justice attend.
Senator Lapointe: I do not believe it will take three hours.
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: Would it be possible to keep a part of the February 24 agenda and also include Senator Gauthier's requests? Does everyone support this position?
Senator Gauthier: I was used to having two weekly meetings of this committee. Now we have two monthly meetings of three hours each. Do we have to continue like this? Can we change things a bit to have a little more leeway so we can study the issues that sometimes come up in a sudden and disconcerting way? It is essential for this committee to be properly informed about the issue of tickets in the Northwest Territories, and that Justice Canada come before us to explain it.
Senator Beaudoin: I share this opinion. There was a debate in the Senate chamber on both points of view. The most urgent thing for us to do would be to bring in Justice Canada and someone who represents applicants in court.
February 24 is not far away, but Justice Canada as well as the francophones from the Northwest Territories will have to appear before us. After that, we shall see. Health is very important, but this debate will naturally be a long one. It is already before the courts. We want to know which of the two points of view is best. So why not change?
Senator Lapointe: This would also allow the two senators who asked us for a postponement to come and join us. Even if Senator Gauthier said that those who are absent are always wrong, if someone has a broken hip, there is nothing wrong with him being absent.
Senator Beaudoin: Given that both parties are already in court, the case does seem to be rather urgent.
Senator Gauthier: I agree.
Senator Beaudoin: Then let us go ahead.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: I believe the course that honourable senators wish to pursue is to fundamentally cancel the existing agenda for February 24.
Senator Lapointe, I do not think it would be possible to crowd the witnesses into one meeting, as Senator Gauthier has said. We would cancel the agenda and bring before the committee the witnesses from the court and from the territories.
Senator Beaudoin, I wish to ask you about the legal position of the committee in regard to this subject. I was asked to raise this matter with committee members today. This is a matter before the courts, therefore, is it in order for us to discuss it?
Senator Beaudoin: That is a valid point. In the Senate, as Senator Carstairs has said, there is the theory of the sub judice. I have now learned that the Northwest Territories consider themselves to be a quasi-province. Tomorrow I will receive the list of cases supporting that thesis. There is another theory.
[Translation]
This is why I think we should dedicate February 24 to this problem which involves many difficult issues. This is somewhat urgent. The chair will be present at the next meeting. Her opinion was that we should wait for the courts to make a decision. Will it be the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or the Superior Court? Supreme Court will take at least two or three years.
We must proceed immediately and in good faith. We will report to the Senate and the Senate will decide.
Senator Lapointe: Is it legal to proceed in this way?
Senator Beaudoin: Yes. We can choose our own procedure. I have no problem with that. In this room, we know each other well. Maybe we will agree, or perhaps opinions will be divided. We shall see. That is life.
[English]
Senator Gauthier: On the question of sub judice, which means that the matter is before the court, if this were a criminal matter, I would say we have no business discussing it. However, this is not a criminal matter, this is a civil and constitutional matter.
I did not ask to have the lawyers for one side and the other here. I am only asking for information from the Department of Justice as to why they took the position that they do not comply with the act. Possibly, we could invite those concerned parties. Those people may not wish to appear before us, but it is important to at least look at the matter.
[Translation]
Senator Beaudoin: With regard to this case, I agree on this point. If this were a criminal trial, as mentioned by Senator Gauthier, we would wait for the court to make its decision. But this is a constitutional issue. I can hardly see how the Canadian Parliament can avoid debating an issue that is as fundamental as the Official Languages Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
At any time, as a legislative power, we can discuss this issue, even if the judiciary power is also there.
We often criticize courts and say that we are at their mercy. Maybe it is because we are not doing our job. In Parliament, in our committees and in the Senate, we must do our job. Courts have their role to play and we will see them at work. It is up to each one to do his job.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, if the law clerk says that we cannot proceed in this manner — and it must go before the law clerk — what course would you like to pursue?
Senator Beaudoin: I spoke to Mr. Audcent, the law clerk, about the sub judice and the distinction that this is not a criminal case. Mr. Audcent seems to agree with me, but you may ask for his opinion as parliamentary counsel.
The Deputy Chairman: We will ask his opinion. However, we shall assume that he will agree. We will proceed.
Senator Beaudoin: This is a controversial subject.
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: I would like you to make sure of this. However, if we do not have that right, we will then proceed with the original February 24 agenda.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: That seems reasonable to me. We must now come to a decision as to exactly whom we want as witnesses. We will get the opinion of the law clerk. We will have to move quickly to get these witnesses lined up. Are there particular names that honourable senators would like to raise?
Senator Gauthier: When I want to complain about the food in a restaurant, I call the owner. Therefore, I would call the Minister of Justice, or his representative, as the first witness to brief us on the federal government's position on the Northwest Territories and the Official Languages Act.
Second, I would invite the legislature of the Northwest Territories to send a representative, anyone who is aware of the matter and knows for what he or she is responsible.
Third, I should like to invite the francophone association in the Northwest Territories to come and explain to us their position and why they take exception to the way the law is applied in the Northwest Territories. That is important for us to know.
Senator Beaudoin: I am hesitant about inviting witnesses from the legislature. I do not expect that they would come. I would certainly invite a representative from the Department of Justice and a representative from those who are asking for the legislation to be changed. I doubt that we would hear from representatives of the legislature because I believe strongly in the division of the three powers, legislative, executive and judiciary. We need not intervene in the trial. We should stay out of this matter. We certainly have the right to hear the opinion of the ``demandeur,'' and then make our report, but no more than that.
It may be that there will be no clear-cut conclusion. Some say, ``Leave everything to the courts,'' but I cannot agree with that. We must do our work, but we must respect the theory of sub judice. As I said, if it were a criminal matter, I would not intervene at all, but it is purely civil and constitutional, and we do not stop talking about the Constitution because there is a case in court. We talk about constitutional law every day. We must be prudent and exercise some reserve.
The Deputy Chairman: Are we now down to two sets of witnesses, one from the Department of Justice and one from the francophone community?
Senator Beaudoin: That may be enough for me.
Senator Lapointe: Maybe the third party will be frustrated at not having been here.
Senator Beaudoin: Which one?
The Deputy Chairman: The legislature?
[Translation]
Senator Lapointe: You are more experienced than I am.
[English]
Senator Beaudoin: My first reaction would be to say no to the legislature itself, but yes to the lawyer from Justice Canada and the lawyer for the francophone community.
The Deputy Chairman: Are we all in agreement with that?
Senator Gauthier, do you agree with that?
Senator Gauthier: I accept that.
The Deputy Chairman: I believe that concludes our business. We will reschedule the witnesses for the 24th to another meeting and we will proceed with this new agenda.
Senator Gauthier: To conclude, Mr. Chairman, we will be asking Mr. Audcent, the law clerk of the Senate —
[Translation]
The Senate's legal advisor should clarify the issue tomorrow, not in two weeks. We want his answer. I think that it will be affirmative and we will invite a representative from Justice Canada, a minister if possible, and a representative of the Northwest Territories francophone community. They will choose whoever they want.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed that we adjourn?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The committee adjourned.