Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 4 - Evidence - Meeting of December 6, 2004
OTTAWA, Monday December 6, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:10 p.m. to study and to report from time to time on the application of the Official Languages Act and other regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the act.
Senator Eymard G. Corbin (Chairman) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Good evening, everyone. The texts have now been distributed and we can begin the meeting. First of all, I would like to remind you that next week we will be holding what I think will be the last meeting of the semester. We will be hearing from the Minister of Justice, the Hon. Irwin Cotler.
In a few hours you will be receiving the briefing notes prepared by our researcher.
Next week's meeting will be followed by an in camera session at which time we will try to set an agenda for our work after the holidays. We will have three or four months in which to do our studies. I believe that we had already agreed that we would be going back to a special study undertaken by this committee previously, namely, the teaching of the minority language.
Almost every week I receive documents, studies and reports dealing with this issue. I may send them to you directly as well. At any rate, you will be receiving this information in due course. Later on this week, I will be meeting with committee staff and I will ensure that you receive, from the in camera meeting to be held next week, the relevant material that will enable us to draft a post-Christmas agenda. I will spare you the list of these documents. I would like to point out that, further to the request made by the members of this committee, after the holidays, we will be inviting the Clerk of the Senate and the Chairman of the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to appear before us in order to educate us about the state of bilingualism in the Senate. You will recall, among other things, that senators have complained that they have no access to language training. I believe that the Senate should serve as an example in this sector, as is done in the public service in general, in order to allow those senators who so desire to learn the second language.
This evening, we are pleased to welcome the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, which is headquartered in Ottawa, Mr. Georges Arès, who is accompanied by Ms. Marielle Beaulieu, Director General. Mr. Arès has just come from Edmonton and I think he has caught his breath. You have the text of his presentation before you and I would invite him to proceed.
Mr. Georges Arès, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: I would like to thank you for inviting me here today. I really appreciate the opportunity to appear after ministers Mauril Bélanger and Liza Frulla, two individuals whose actions have had a significant impact on the development of our communities. I will be as brief as possible so that we will have time for a good exchange afterwards.
The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada is the primary advocacy organization representing a million francophones and Acadians living in the minority environment. We represent the provincial and territorial associations in our communities and, in addition, eight national sector associations.
The Chairman: Mr. Arès, can I ask you to speak a little bit more slowly so that the interpretor can follow you?
Mr. Arès: I always have this problem when I make presentations. I tend to go too fast.
The FCFA has become an indispensable tool to ensure that community stakeholders are involved in the files that have an impact on them.
Moreover, when the official languages action plan was drafted two years ago, our federation presented the Hon. Stéphane Dion with our priorities in nine distinct sectors, several of which were included in the plan. In addition, the FCFA insisted that the action plan be coupled with an accountability framework guiding the actions taken by the entire federal government in the area of official languages. To ensure that the measures taken by the entire government provide our communities with tangible results, Minister Bélanger is preparing a horizontal management and accountability framework based on results. We support this results-based approach, given that this is the approach currently used by our community groups. In addition to this horizontal framework, the Minister of Official Languages must be able to intervene and must be given the tools required to do the job and to ensure that the accountability framework is followed. We have seen how necessary these particular powers are, given that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development recently obtained $90 million to be spent over five years for an economic development initiative that took absolutely no account of the francophone populations in the North.
The action plan must target various development sectors, while at the same time encouraging commitment from more departments and other government levels. However, this in no way diminishes the importance of Canadian Heritage as the cornerstone for the funding of community development. Its role in enforcing Part VII of the Official Languages Act remains unchanged and has even been reaffirmed within the accountability framework.
The official languages communities support program under the Department of Canadian Heritage has contributed significantly to the success achieved over the past few years by our communities. In particular, the notion that the community itself should take charge of its own development, which is the basis of the Canada-Community Agreement, has yielded excellent results. Our community development agencies have become social economy undertakings, contributing to the development of the regions where they work.
As Ms. Frulla indicated, national consultations are currently underway to assist the Department of Canadian Heritage in determining the co-operative mechanisms through which the department can invest in our communities. We are hoping that the new co-operative frameworks that will come out of this consultation will maintain the fundamental principles of the Canada-Community agreements, particularly this notion that it is the community organizations that will look after community development.
We are hoping that the next generation of Canada-Community agreements will make it possible to establish a true partnership between the Department of Canadian Heritage and our communities. It has often been difficult to convince the department to become involved in the leading-edge sectors of community development, those sectors that make it possible for us to take major steps towards achieving real equality of the linguistic groups. The major breakthroughs in the development of our communities have generally resulted from initiatives of our community network, for example school management, health care, immigration or early childhood.
Moreover, the reluctance of successive governments to significantly increase the money earmarked directly for the development of our communities has had serious ramifications. As shown by the first reference document submitted to you, this funding has more or less gone back to 1991 levels, when inflation is factored in. This situation has made it increasingly difficult for our organizations to undertake development initiatives and is triggering rapid burn-out of our employees and the many volunteers who are constantly being asked to give a little bit more of their time.
The funding for the official languages communities support program has always been inadequate with respect to the requirements of the Canadian francophonie. Based on their comprehensive development plan, the various francophone and Acadian communities have estimated that community development would require that the amount of money earmarked for francophones under the Canada-Community agreements, which is currently set at $24 .4 million, would have to increase to at least $42 million per year.
These funds are necessary to strengthen the sense of francophone identity in the face of new challenges such as urbanization and the rural exodus, as well as the need to strengthen capacities, organizational leadership, and openness to diversity, which has become essential due to the demographic changes that have taken place within our communities. More specifically, the arts, culture, education, and early childhood development sectors are being called upon to strengthen awareness of the Canadian francophonie that is present in all of the country's regions. The communications sector supports and disseminates the image of our communities.
I would point out that these investments we are asking for our communities will be subject to very high audit standards, as has been the case for several years. Accountability procedures imposed on development and community organizations by Canadian Heritage, under the Canada-Community agreements, guarantee that these public funds will be used in an effective and transparent manner.
In the past, the community support program was comprised of three components: the Canada-Community agreements for francophone communities, which amounted to $24.4 million; the agreement for the anglophone community in Quebec, which amounted to $3 million, and the Strategic Development Fund, made up of sums that are invested at the discretion of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, without consultation of the communities, a fund worth $7.3 million. Over the last six years, the grand total of these three different components amounted to approximately $35 million. The structure of this program is outlined in the second reference document that has been handed out to you.
Last week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage told you that funds allocated to the new program would remain unchanged at $35 million. Francophone and anglophone communities can expect supplementary investments of $19 million channelled through Canadian Heritage under the Action Plan for Official Languages.
These sums are clearly insufficient. Regardless of whether these $19 million are spread out over five years, the duration of the Canada-Community agreements, or three years, the time remaining for the Action Plan, these sums are not enough for communities to develop without increasing financing from $24.4 million to a minimum of $42 million per year.
In addition, there is a problem of transparency with respect to the funds transferred to Canadian Heritage under the Action Plan. It has been two years since the department has obtained this sum of $19 million set aside specifically for culture, community radios, and community centres. While resources for the promotion of cultural activities are terribly meagre, and while the national network of community radio stations is in the process of shutting down its satellite link because of a lack of funds, and while a large number of local communities are still waiting to build their community centres, it is still impossible to obtain information on how Canadian Heritage intends to use or has used the $19 million. During the appearance of the minister before your committee and that of the House of Commons, no clarification on this subject was forthcoming.
The minimum of $42 million per year determined by our communities does not include new sectors of intervention identified in the Action Plan, nor education. This sum specifically involves the sectors of activity which fall under the responsibility of Heritage Canada and the Canada-Community agreements. The third reference document gives examples of progress made and challenges encountered in different sectors that fall under the agreements, over the past 10 years.
The third document, while far from being exhaustive, presents a clear picture of certain aspects of community development. In addition, a modest supplementary investment would allow for better access to the services in French that must be offered to francophones living in an urban setting. It would also allow for development of stronger partnerships with Quebec society, it would allow us to share our experiences with other francophone countries, and to raise awareness amongst provincial and territorial governments so that they may include linguistic provisions in agreements with the federal government. It would allow us furthermore to forge stronger links among francophones across the country, specifically with respect to the use of information technology.
Three conclusions can be drawn from this overview; first, support financing of francophone organizations so that they may ensure full development of their respective communities. Tremendous work has been done in a large number of areas. Given their nature, issues related to development that are managed by community organizations make the work of these organizations increasingly complex and require specialized expertise. Gains made in the last years are still relatively fragile. This fragility is demonstrated specifically by the difficulty we have in retaining qualified staff, and by volunteer burn-out. A supplementary investment would spur important progress in a wide range of areas.
Whether funds come from other programs of the Department of Canadian Heritage, or directly from Cabinet, the francophone portion of the Canada-Community agreements should go from $24.4 million to $42 million per year in order to allow for francophone and Acadian communities to fully contribute to Canada's social and economic development.
As you can see, our demands involve several levels. If, following these hearings, you decide to make recommendations, I would like to suggest two. On the one hand, I would recommend that you ask the Department of Canadian Heritage to increase annual financing of the francophone component of the Canada-Community agreements to a minimum of $42 million per year. On the other hand, I would suggest that you recommend that Cabinet increase the powers of the minister responsible for official languages so that he may see to the full and effective application of the Action Plan, including the accountability framework which stems from it.
Honourable senators, thank you for your attention. I would be pleased to answer your questions now.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Arès.
Senator Comeau: Thank you for coming to meet with us again, Mr. Arès. It is always a pleasure to have you here and it is a pleasure for us to hear your comments and presentation.
Last week, following Madam Frulla's appearance before this committee, Senator Chaput and myself had the impression that the situation was positive, given the discussions, negotiations and consultations. However, in listening to you tonight, I get the impression that there is still a lot to be done.
Mr. Arès: I think it is fair to say that the consultations in view of developing a collaborative framework are going quite well. Nonetheless, there has been no negotiation yet with the Minister of Canadian Heritage on renewing the Canada-Community agreements.
The minister wants to hold consultations beforehand on the collaborative framework to find out whether or not the Canada-Community agreements formula can apply in all cases.
During these consultations, we want to discuss the needs and priorities of the Canadian Heritage program with representatives of the department, as well as the needs and priorities regarding the development of our communities, and to see whether all of this can be integrated.
It seems as though this exercise is underway in certain consultations. We are not talking only about the collaborative framework but also about Canadian Heritage development priorities and those of our communities.
Allow me to specify that there has been no negotiation on the Canada-Community agreements.
Senator Comeau: Consultations are going well then, but you have not reached your goal of receiving adequate funds and of having a consultation mechanism put in place which would better suit the communities?
Mr. Arès: It is important for us to develop a partnership with Canadian Heritage. That is why we wanted to be a part of the consultations. We noticed the department's desire to consult, the potential to develop a partnership with them. We recognize that we are equal partners in the development of the francophonie outside of Quebec and in the development of our communities.
We have not reached that point yet, but the right steps have been taken in this direction. We will see where this takes us, whether we get results. It is important that the process conclude before the end of March, when the Canada- Community agreements will be signed; we can then proceed with further negociations.
Senator Comeau: I was not here when the minister responsible for official languages, Mr. Mauril Bélanger, appeared, but I read the transcript of his testimony. There was mention of the communities meeting with ministers once or twice a year and with officials once a year. Rather than holding consultations every six months with Canadian Heritage, would it not be a good idea to set up another mechanism, and perhaps do ongoing assessments? This is the way big businesses proceed in the drafting of their budgets. Instead of doing an overview of past events, they take them into account as time goes by and as a result, adjustments are made day to day.
It may be difficult for governments, who must draft their budgets once a year, to proceed in this way, but priorities change within a given year. Perhaps we could review priorities as needed. Are these the kinds of consultations you are looking for?
Mr. Arès: We want to have consultations on the Action Plan once a year with ministers and also once a year with officials: ministers, associate deputy ministers, program directors, et cetera. We would have to work together to implement the Action Plan so that they could be aware of our needs, and so that the departments could respond.
We are always on the lookout for better ways of doing things. Following the meeting we had last year with the ministers, we realized that we had to change the process in order to be able to work with them in a more effective way. We will probably have to change the process to be able to work with the officials in a better way as well.
We are just beginning to implement the Action Plan. We must study what is going well, what is going less well, and how we could do things better. We could certainly take your suggestion under advisement and work with Mr. Bélanger and the team working on the implementation of the Action Plan.
Senator Comeau: A few weeks ago, the Commissioner of Official Languages appeared before the committee. I asked her the following question: should the government not study the socio-economic impacts of its decisions when it becomes involved with a community or makes decisions that have an impact on that community? I gave her a specific example: in the Acadian communities where the Marshall decision was applied to fishing licences, whether for lobster or for other fish or shellfish, the licences were transferred from one community to another. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans' goal was to compensate the licence holders, without taking into consideration the effect that would have on the community. In other words, a licence holder was paid and that person could go to Florida and that was the end of it. The community that relied on those resources was left to muddle on with its own difficulties. I checked with several departments — Fisheries and Oceans, Treasury Board and others. There was no impact study done on these communities. As an advocate for the interests of the francophone and Acadian minority communities in Canada, have you studied the impact of these decisions?
Mr. Arès: Not the impact of that specific decision, but since the creation of our federation in 1975, we have been asking the federal government to draft a comprehensive development policy for our communities. This would mean that if there were a policy that applied to all departments, agencies and institutions, consideration of the impacts of decisions made by the various departments, agencies and institutions on francophone and Acadian communities would be an important element. This is why we insisted on Mr. Dion including an accountability framework in his Action Plan that would apply to all departments.
The accountability framework requires that the department, in drafting a new initiative or program, consult with the official languages communities, understand their needs and deal with this aspect in their cabinet briefs, before their presentation to cabinet.
Senator Comeau: Is that currently in the plan?
Mr. Arès: It is there, but it is not done as it should be. The example I gave in my presentation concerned the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which set out to get $90 million for economic development in the north. There was no francophone element to the plan despite the fact that we had been working with this department for five years to try to get them to accept the fact that they had obligations in terms of the economic development of our francophone communities in the Yukon, in the Northwest Territories and in Nunavut.
They went to Cabinet in their quest for $90 million and there was no francophone element to their plan. I do not understand. So the accountability framework did not work well in this case, and that is why we are asking that if there is a second recommendation made to the government, the minister concerned have greater authority to apply the accountability framework and to ensure that it works as it should. Consideration of the impact of such governmental decisions should be part of this.
Senator Comeau: Especially since in this specific case, the Supreme Court of Canada forced the government to do so. The Supreme Court decision was not respected. That is in the second Marshall ruling. The consequence of this, at the moment, is that these communities are seeing their populations decrease, and move away because the resources are no longer there.
Still on the same theme of impacts, we now have a proposal from the Minister of Public Works regarding the privatization of all buildings belonging to the Government of Canada. Do you intend to assess the impact of the sale of these buildings, of the signs in windows, the management of these buildings, and so on? For many of these communities, these buildings are the only tangible evidence of the presence of the federal government.
Mr. Arès: As far as the impact study is concerned, no, because we do not have the resources to do so. We see events of this kind on a regular basis, whether they involve a department here, or a provincial or territorial government; there are things we would like to study, but we have neither the staff nor the financial resources to do so. There are many things we cannot even consider because of our lack of resources.
Senator Comeau: That would be the main recommendation.
The Chairman: Concerning the consultation that is under way, you made a distinction between ``consultation'' and ``negotiation.'' Can you tell me more clearly what this consultation to help determine the collaborative process is all about?
Mr. Arès: I will ask Ms. Beaulieu to answer, because she has worked specifically with Canadian Heritage on these consultations.
Ms. Marielle Beaulieu, General Manager, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: We are currently consulting with the Department of Canadian Heritage on the frameworks for cooperation. When we talk about cooperation frameworks, we are talking about agreements. This is what we did in the past. But the current consultations aim to open up new ground, broaden the discussion, add to what already exists in some cases, and in other cases, to change what is being done if we realize that it is not working too well or is not benefiting the communities.
This is not the time to negotiate anything. The Department of Canadian Heritage is gathering information, doing research, assessing the outcome of these discussions, to enable them in the second stage to have more specific discussions with the communities in terms of the model, to see what will be done and how.
The Chairman: Who is involved in these negotiations on your side? Would it be the provincial or regional associations? Could you be even more specific?
Ms. Beaulieu: The current consultations are taking place in the provinces and in the territories with spokespersons from our organizations and from the other community organizations. Leaders from various other communities, for example people who are from institutions, from colleges, from universities and even from hospitals are also participating in these consultations.
We do however have several elements of the francophone and Acadian communities present during these consultations. Our organizations that act as spokespersons for their community are present at these consultations, and they are done by province and by territory.
As far as negotiating the envelopes is concerned — Mr. Arès will certainly want to add a point or two on the issue — the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne has in the past discussed these budget envelopes with the Department of Canadian Heritage; the Canada-Community agreements envelope was also the subject of discussions, and was afterwards discussed with the communities or with community organizations. This is the stage we are referring to when we talk about second-stage negotiations, that is, following the consultations. I hope that answers your question.
The Chairman: We are getting there.
Mr. Arès: We could say that the Fédération is at the stage of negotiating the total envelope with Canadian Heritage. We have not sat down with Ms. Frulla or with the deputy minister to discuss the amount that would be included in the agreement, but everything that we have done recently has been with a view to increasing the budget amount. We have had discussions with Ms. Frulla and with the deputy minister, but the discussions have not come to any conclusion. Our role in the negotiations is to try and increase the amount in the envelope, so that afterwards our communities can negotiate separately with the department for funds to meet their needs.
The Chairman: This is not the first time I hear the expression ``a comprehensive approach'' to solve problems, to funding activities in order to satisfy you. It existed when Senator Murray and I were co-chairs of the first Joint Committee on Official Languages. Is there really, after 35 years of official languages, a deliberate reluctance on the part of the government to taking a comprehensive approach to settling these problems once and for all? What is the obstacle? I cannot understand that kind of attitude.
Mr. Arès: I think that some interesting progress has been made over the last two or three years. When our federation appeared before the government three and a half years ago, Part VII of the Official Languages Act and the role of Canadian Heritage vis-à-vis the other departments was creating problems. Almost nothing was being done because, even if the Department of Canadian Heritage had obligations under section 42, they did not have the power to prompt the other departments to contribute to the development and vitality of our communities.
The action plan, with one minister responsible and an accountability framework, flowed from this. We believe that it is not enough to completely break through the obstacles. Part VII is not viewed by the government as being binding as such, and that really is the stumbling block.
In asking the federal government to appoint a responsible minister, we had hoped that person would have the authority to encourage the other departments to act. We wanted action to be mandatory, backed by a minister who could insist, who could oblige the other departments to respect their obligations under section 41. We are not there yet, but there has been some noteworthy progress.
Senator Chaput: I would like you to quantify the following points if you can. I do not know if it is possible. Seven to ten years ago, I am convinced that the associations and other groups did not have to deal with all the stakeholders they have to deal with today. Each province and territory has an association acting as a spokesgroup and councils representing various sectors and communities. All of these groups, within their own province or territory, have to deal with Canadian Heritage, with the official languages action plan, with the Department of Immigration, with the agency that deals with training officials, with Health Canada, and I could go on.
As compared to the time you used to spend on these activities, how much time have you spent recently dealing with these entities, in meetings and discussions, writing letters, and preparing funding proposals for all of these departments? The communities and the associations are exhausted, and with good reason. Could you try to give us an overview?
Ms. Beaulieu: That is an important question. It is a very particular problem. Even three or four years ago, we did not spend as much time as we do now addressing requests to the various departments, meeting with different departments, and in addition to what you refer to, our community organizations are working harder and harder with provincial and territorial governments, and in future will be called upon to work with their municipal governments.
We do not deny that the transfer of powers goes that far. This aspect concerns us, but to answer your question directly, I would say that unfortunately this work takes up a lot of time. I would even go so far as to say that one third of our time, if not 40 per cent of our time, is eaten up by all this, but I mostly want to emphasize that while we are doing this type of work, we are not doing any work in the field, with francophones and Acadians.
And that, essentially, is the big problem. That is the reason why we have said in our arguments submitted to the Department of Canadian Heritage and various members of Parliament, that one of the priorities in the years to come would be assistance for our organizations so that they can consolidate. The requirements are more and more onerous, the current staff is overworked, and sometimes, we do not have enough time to take advantage of very interesting opportunities. And that includes the Fédération. I hope I have answered your question fully.
Mr. Arès: As an example, when due diligence was implemented three and a half years ago, Canadian Heritage received additional resources in order to implement due diligence vis-à-vis the official language communities, and to ensure that we were really accountable. This required a lot of work on our behalf, but no organization received additional financial resources to help them meet those extra requirements that due diligence imposed on us.
Senator Murray: Listening to the conversation between Senator Comeau and yourself, I am surprised at the lack of studies on government projects, on initiatives from the point of view of their impact on official language communities. It would not be difficult to ensure that any initiative submitted to Cabinet be assessed from the perspective of its potential impact on these communities.
Certain departments and central government agencies have the right to examine any political or legislative initiative submitted to Cabinet. The Department of Foreign Affairs has its say as to possible repercussions on Canada's foreign policy. Treasury Board also has input. Every time a new initiative is presented to government, there are four or five ministers responsible for commenting on this initiative and approving it, whether it is the Minister of Foreign Affairs or Treasury Board.
Could you tell us what the Fédération franco-ténoise is? Senator Comeau does not know either.
Mr. Arès: It represents all of the French-language communities in the Northwest Territories.
Senator Murray: We are discussing important policies, major government programs. I must admit that in a national context, I have not been directly involved in these issues for some time.
Could you talk to us briefly — or for a longer time if you wish — about the situation of francophones in your province? What has been the situation of francophones in Alberta over the last 10 or 20 years? How many francophones are there in Alberta?
Mr. Arès: Alberta has the third largest community after Quebec and Ontario. Alberta is in third place with 65,000 francophones.
Senator Murray: They are not dispersed throughout the province. There is what they call a critical mass in some communities, is that not the case?
Mr. Arès: Yes. I think that there is a critical mass in all communities, which means that French is continuing to develop, be it in Lethbridge, Fort McMurray, Rivière-la-Paix, Saint-Paul, Edmonton or Calgary. There is a French school in Cochrane and one in Wainwright. These are anglophone communities, but there are enough francophones there to justify a school.
I would say that over the last twenty years in Alberta, the situation has greatly improved. There are now 26 French schools; there are 5 francophone school boards covering the entire province and they decide where French schools will be opened. The Catholic francophone school board in Calgary opened a school in Cochrane and the Conseil scolaire Centre nord in Edmonton opened a school in Wainwright.
Senator Murray: Are they high schools?
Mr. Arès: Not all of them, no. Oftentimes, in small centers, they start with grade one to grade six and then they add grades. That is what happened in Legal, north of Edmonton, where there is now a twelve-grade program. It is an interesting phenomenon that is happening in small communities.
Once francophones realize that it is legitimate to send their children to a French school, the number increases from year to year. In Legal, one school went from 35 to 150 students. The number of students increases every year.
For more than ten years now, the government of Alberta has been doing wonderful things for francophone communities. This is a tribute to the growing openness of provincial and territorial governments to their francophone communities. We are talking about Alberta, but recently in Nova Scotia, a bill regarding services was adopted, and this new openness can be seen all over the country. The francophonie has been making strides in Alberta and elsewhere over the last 20 years, since the advent of school governance by francophones.
Senator Murray: School management and schools are your constitutional right.
Mr. Arès: Yes. We had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get it.
Senator Murray: Yes, I know. That was the Mahé case, out of Alberta.
Mr. Arès: Yes, precisely.
Senator Murray: What is the situation with respect to health care services at the federal and provincial level, for instance?
Mr. Arès: That is a very interesting question. We are currently developing, with Health Canada and the provinces and territories, an innovative way of developing francophone heath care services.
Health Canada is working with the Société santé en français, which in turn works with provincial and territorial governments through the networks that exist within each province and territory. There is a desire within the networks to get the francophone communities involved in discussions relating to health care; they also want to involve the training institutions, schools, politicians at the municipal, regional, provincial and federal level, as well as health care professionals. The networks bring these people together to look into the needs in various communities and to develop needs-based, made-to-measure solutions. This work is being done by Health Canada, the Société santé en français, the networks and the provincial and territorial governments. Things seem to be evolving well. There is, increasingly, improved cooperation in the field of health care which is very worthwhile.
Senator Murray: What would be the most serious issue the francophone community in Alberta is facing? Assimilation, yes, but in terms of what we're studying, what would that be?
Mr. Arès: The most serious issue has to do with finding the necessary resources to help communities continue to develop, whether it be the French community in Alberta, the one in Saskatchewan, or the Acadians of Nova Scotia.
Senator Murray: Specifically, what are you referring to, community awareness?
Mr. Arès: It's much broader than that. It has to do with working with municipal governments; increasingly working with provincial and territorial governments, all departments, agencies and institutions of the federal government which should be involved in the development of francophone and Acadian communities. To do so would require enormous resources. There isn't enough staff nor financial resources to allow us to do so. There are new challenges we should be dealing with and we don't have the resources to do that. The rural exodus, whether it be in the Acadian peninsula in New Brunswick, in northern Ontario, in northern Alberta or in Saskatchewan, means the francophone villages are being emptied out. What is being done to maintain services for those who remain?
Senator Murray: There is a critical mass in St. John and in Fredericton.
Mr. Arès: There are ways of maintaining services even if there are less people in the villages. There are some people who remain. We have to find a way to ensure services while taking advantage of the potential we gain by the fact that people are moving to larger urban centers. The phenomenon is such that in the large urban centers, people disappear, in Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto, Halifax, we no longer hear from them. The potential is there. If we could reach out to them, get them interested in living in French in urban centers, then we could continue developing French in these large centers. But we need the resources to do so.
Fifteen years ago, our biggest challenge was provincial and territorial governments, but attitudes have changed. They do far better work with their communities. Currently, the biggest problem is the lack of resources to continue to evolve despite the challenges we have to face every day.
Senator Murray: Thank you very much, that's very interesting.
The Chair: What effect does teaching French as a second language have on francophone life in Alberta? The two provinces where bilingualism is least popular are Alberta and Saskatchewan.
I was pleased to hear that you are however receiving support from the provincial government.
Mr. Arès: I would say that learning French as a second language is extremely important. The young people who went to French immersion as of the 1970s and until the 1980s and who now have positions of power with provincial and territorial governments have helped change the attitude of governments. They are far more willing to work at developing francophone and Acadian communities than they were 15 years ago. This is due in large part to the youths who have learned the value of French and now have influence with their government. The role of francophone and Acadian communities have played within their own government should not be neglected, but these two factors combined have had a great influence.
I would like to respond to your comment on Alberta and Saskatchewan. It depends on the poles. I have seen poles on official bilingualism in western Canada, where 59 per cent of Albertans supported official bilingualism in linguistic duality whereas the three other provinces were against it, especially B.C., where 59 per cent of people were against it. Everything depends on how the questions are asked and on how things are promoted before the poles.
According to us, a large majority of a Canadian public, being in Alberta, Saskatchewan or elsewhere, is friendly and open. These are people who are open and who could support the development of the francophonie in Canada, but they have to have the proper information and people promoting it. I was born in western Canada. I know these people. The majority of them are not against French.
The Chairman: I was quoting a recent survey which was used by the Commissioner of Official Languages, by the way. The situation evolves constantly. You are right, it depends on the question and on the context.
Senator Léger: I do not quite know where to start. Each discussion brings up new issues. When you mentioned the lack of resources, were you talking about financial or human resources?
Mr. Arès: Both.
Senator Léger: Where are you going to find the human resources? I know you have asked the government for funds.
Mr. Arès: If you have the financial resources you can find the human resources. We have often lost good people because we could not pay them what they were worth. They could earn three or four times more in the private sector or in government and so we lost them. They would stay with our organization for a year or two at most and then, they would leave because they were so poorly paid. If we had been able to pay them more, they would have stayed much longer because for a large number of employees who work in community development, it is not about the money. They want to earn a living, of course, but it has to do with passion, the development of the language in their community. There comes a time in their lives when they start a family and they need better financial resources to meet their needs. When we don't have the resources, we lose them. We can find the human resources, but we need financial resources to keep them.
Senator Léger: You say that there are increasing requirements from government. Ms. Beaulieu told us it takes up about 40 per cent of your time. Are requirements increasing? You just stated that progress had been made in Alberta. When there is progress, do requirements increase or decrease? Is it a heavier burden to carry? Given the progress made, it seems to me that it should be lighter because we understand the provinces better.
Mr. Arès: The term ``heavy'' may not be perfectly accurate. I would tend to say rather that development opens up opportunities that we should examine. There has been talk, amongst other things, of a dialogue with other groups in Canadian society, such as aboriginal groups, to see how we could work together. We will be able to look at this new opportunity when time permits and we have the means at our disposal. Development opens up new avenues. We should not limit ourselves.
With respect to communities, we have made certain gains which are now limited because of the lack of resources. There is still so much to do for the evolution of Canadian society.
Three and a half years ago, when Mr. John Ralston Saul was in Edmonton, he said that francophone and Acadian communities were one of the main components in the development of Canadian society for the 21st century. According to him, a community living in a minority setting has to innovate and look at new ways of doing things.
It is possible to innovate and to find new ways of doing things as long as you have the necessary resources at your disposal. We have to address the various problems. However, it is not possible if the resources are not there.
In response to Mr. Saul, I would say that we have innovated, for instance, with respect to funding francophone school boards in Alberta. The provincial government indicated that it did not want to levy new taxes, because school boards already do. So we had to find a solution to this problem. The solution is so attractive that the government of Alberta has adopted it for all school boards in the province.
So it is possible to explore new avenues and to develop new solutions, so long as you have the necessary resources.
I mentioned the rural exodus, because in our opinion, this is a significant phenomenon, and it is different for anglophone communities. When people from an anglophone village go to the big cities, they leave the rural region but that does not mean they give up their language or their culture.
We have to address this problem, but unfortunately we do not have the resources to do so.
Senator Léger: We cannot put an end to the rural exodus.
Mr. Arès: Indeed.
Senator Léger: Rural regions have given their communities a precious linguistic heritage. Will those people leaving the regions not require that these practices be sustained or preserved once they get to the big cities?
Mr. Arès: It all depends on the region. In the Acadian Peninsula where the Acadian identity is very strong, it is probable that those who move to Moncton or Dieppe will demand that their language traditions be maintained. However, the same cannot be said of Northern Ontario, Northern Alberta or Saskatchewan. To motivate the youth to continue to live in French in large centres, you often have to personally invite them to get involved in Francophone associations.
Senator Léger: It is true that the practices differ from region to region in Canada.
The Chairman: Mr. Arès, you really did focus quite a bit on the 19 million dollars from Heritage Canada. You pointed out that the testimony by the minister before this committee and before the House of Commons in no way clarifies the issue. How were these 19 million dollars spent?
Mr. Arès: We would like to know. As far as we know, this money is not yet spent. Two years ago, Canadian Heritage received a portion of this amount. However, we do not know if it has been spent.
The Chairman: When this amount was approved by parliamentarians, it was supposed to be used for a specific purpose.
Mr. Arès: This amount was to be spent on community centre development, community radio and arts and culture. However many of the needs in these three sectors haven't been met, and we do not know why. Community radio stations are shutting down the francophone network in North America because of a lack of funds.
The Chairman: Because of the costs related to the satellite links?
Mr. Arès: Indeed, there is a lack of resources. Added to these 19 million dollars, Canadian Heritage received funding for community radio stations. Why do community radio stations have to shut down their satellite link because of a lack of funds? This type of situation is indecent when the money is available.
The Chairman: When there is a change in government, following an election, does it impede your access to government, programs and negotiations?
Mr. Arès: When there is a change of minister, deputy minister or program director, we have to start from scratch and we lose precious time. There has been a rapid turnover in ministers recently and the awareness-raising work we do constantly has to be redone. However, it is our responsibility to take on this political work.
The Chairman: You alluded to Minister Mauril Bélanger's limited powers; he is responsible for official languages. I get the impression that you would prefer to see the appointment of a minister of official languages, instead of a program coordinator for official languages who works with the other departments.
Mr. Arès: That is precisely what we asked the government to do, four years ago, when we initiated this entire process. We wanted to have a minister responsible for official languages who would have authority over other departments. We understood the problem and we wanted someone who could not only coordinate but would also have the authority to put pressure on each department, agency and institution. It has not happened and we now see the results. The Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has made a request for 90 million dollars where neither the Action Plan nor the accountability framework is taken into account. Our communities in the three northern territories will suffer from this.
We often forget and the problem remains. Ms. Adam identified one of those problematic factors in one of your first reports four years ago. She stated that in her opinion there was a lack of leadership in promoting linguistic duality at the very highest level. Therefore we should not be surprised that some departments, agencies and institutions do no understand their responsibilities under section 41 and under the action plan.
Senator Comeau: I would like to continue on this issue of accountability and on your second recommendation to the effect that the department would be given the authority to impose the government's will. It goes without saying that Mr. Bélanger is a very strong, motivated, devoted and aggressive person. In my opinion, he is quite capable of taking this on. Often, some departments are quite unaware of the issues they should be dealing with. I was somewhat concerned when I heard Ms. Frulla admit that she was not aware that she was responsible for enforcing the Air Canada Act and that she believed that that responsibility lay with the Department of Transport.
Apparently, CIDA categorically refused to submit an action plan for the year 2003-04. This was raised by the Official Languages Commissioner. Once again, if we have a strong minister, I think that Mr. Mauril Bélanger will be able to make things happen.
What I am worried about however is what will happen when he is transferred to another department and we end up with a weak minister who would be attempting to meet our needs. That is why you would like the minister responsible for official languages to have the authority to tell other departments what has to be done in order to meet the government's requirements. Have I understood you well?
Mr. Arès: Yes, you have understood. Often, the rate of development within our communities depends on the people in those positions. If those people believe in this, then there is progress. However, if the people in those positions do not believe in those requirements then there is no movement forwards, and there is even movement backwards. That is why we asked for a minister who would be responsible and who would have authority.
If Mr. Bélanger is called elsewhere and another person with authority is appointed minister responsible, and if the Prime Minister feels that it is important to appoint someone who can truly make the situation evolve, then events may proceed differently.
It is not always necessary to have a very aggressive person. That person can bring about progress diplomatically, as the majority of ministers would wish. Positive things often happen behind the scenes, meaning that it is not always necessary to use a tough approach. Progress comes with discussions.
What is important is to have a minister with government authority who can bring about progress in his own way knowing that if necessary he can use a tougher approach.
Senator Comeau: You say in your report that $7.3 million goes to Canadian Heritage. Is that a non-statutory, discretionary amount?
Mr. Arès: Yes.
Senator Comeau: Shouldn't that amount be discussed with our francophone and Acadian communities in Canada?
Mr. Arès: Yes, that is an important factor in the partnership that we want to develop with Canadian Heritage. We want to discuss all the development priorities of the department and of our communities. That is the process we developed with Health Canada. The Health Canada joint committee, made up of department officials and community representatives, reviewed the situation and made recommendations to the Health minister.
The same is now happening with Citizenship and Immigration where a joint committee has been established, and that is what we would like to develop with Heritage Canada in various areas. For education, significant funds are given to Heritage Canada and then go to provincial and territorial governments. Francophone and Acadian school boards have no say in how that money should be spent.
Francophone and Acadian school boards are on the front line of education development. They should be invited to discuss with Canadian Heritage and provincial and territorial governments how that money will be used to develop French education in their communities.
We are talking about education, but we could also include the various programs that are supported by Canadian Heritage and that directly affect our communities. Canadian Heritage manages the intergovernmental cooperation program for the provinces. Millions of dollars are spent each year and the communities have no say in this because they have not been invited to the discussion table.
Senator Comeau: Now would that not be a nice topic of discussion for the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance!
Mr. Arès: In Toronto, in March, during a Canadian Parents for French forum, a program for promoting immersion schools was announced. The francophone parents who had been invited were all concerned because of the effect that might have on French schools. No one had considered that a promotional campaign for immersion schools might have an impact on French schools and francophone communities.
Francophone parents were not at the table when that was discussed. Someone should have said that it was important to study the impact of the promotional program for immersion schools on French schools.
Someone should have suggested that there needed to be a campaign that would explain the differences to the French schools, that would explain why immersion schools are necessary, why French schools are necessary and why the clientele for immersion schools is different. But that was not done.
When you are not invited to the table, you cannot provide positive arguments and you cannot point out mistakes. We would like to have a real partnership with Canadian Heritage. We have been working on this for a long time. That is why the Minister of Canadian Heritage should accept us truly working together.
At the House of Commons committee, I heard the minister say that she wanted to work with the communities. I would like to know what she means by ``working together''.
We are partners, we are on the front lines of development. We should be treated as equal partners who have an important contribution to make to the discussions on how to spend money to improve the well-being of our communities. Unfortunately, we are not a part of those discussions.
Senator Chaput: My question is about day care services. We were speaking earlier about the rural exodus. You mentioned that in some places there are now small schools. I think that when a more remote community has its own school, then it is more likely that the parents will stay, because the children have access to a francophone school.
How would you evaluate the National Child Care Program? Do you think you will be able to obtain a fair share for minority francophone communities?
Mr. Arès: The Commission nationale des parents francophones appears to be satisfied with the amount being allocated to early childhood development for francophones. When Ms. Frulla was Minister of Social Development, she understood the francophone communities' needs, and insisted on reserving a significant amount for early childhood development in French.
I believe that Marielle could expand on that.
Ms. Beaulieu: Obviously we are following this issue closely because for francophone and Acadian communities, early childhood centres are important for providing services to parents and for providing services to children in French.
Now the Commission nationale des parents francophones is working on a partnership that goes as far as involving provincial and territorial jurisdictions in, and having them commit to, a plan for an agreement under which francophone and Acadian communities would have access to a special envelope within federal-provincial agreements in order to ensure that francophone and Acadian communities have adequate basic funding to develop their early childhood centres. It seems to be quite clear that dedicated funding would be the right way to proceed.
There is certainly still work to be done to recognize the importance of these agreements with regard to provincial and territorial jurisdictions, but it is also a very good precedent for communities because it will allow us in future to sign similar agreements in other areas. Things are looking up and we will certainly want to use our network to help carry out this work with other parents' federations in every province and territory.
Senator Chaput: You mentioned the envelope which was earmarked for francophones under these agreements. Would it be a good idea to pursue this type of initiative when the government enters into partnerships or agreements? Would that be simpler?
Ms. Beaulieu: I don't know if it would be simpler, but, based on federal-provincial agreements, it would certainly be a mechanism which would greatly improve the situation. This type of mechanism would be helpful in the area of health care. It would also provide assurance in other areas. The problem was always that, in other words, very large envelopes managed as they see fit by provincial and territorial governments give us no assurance whatsoever. But this approach recognizes the fact that communities do exist, that they have specific needs and that we should recognize them. We can give them a voice.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Arès and Ms. Beaulieu, for having given us a very honest overview of the daily reality of our French-Canadian minority communities. That being said, I must express one regret, which is that we should have heard from you before hearing from Mr. Bélanger and Ms. Frulla.
We will not forget the lesson we learned this evening. Next year, if we are still here, we will do things differently. Thank you for your contribution.
Mr. Arès: Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.