Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 17 - Evidence, June 11, 2007
OTTAWA, Monday, June 11, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met today at 4:00 p.m. to study and to report from time to time on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act. Topic: the government response to the second report of the Committee entitled Understanding the Reality and Meeting the Challenges of Living in French in Nova Scotia.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Good afternoon everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages. My name is Maria Chaput, I am the Chairman of this committee, and I come from Manitoba.
[English]
Before we hear the presentations, allow me to introduce the members of the committee.
[Translation]
On my far left, you have Senator Gérald Comeau from Nova Scotia, Senator Lowell Murray from Ontario and Senator Wilbert Keon, also from Ontario, and on my right, Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool from New Brunswick.
In the fall of 2005, the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages travelled to Nova Scotia to consider the reality and challenges facing the francophone and Acadian communities in that province. In October 2006, the committee tabled its second report, entitled Understanding the Reality and Meeting the Challenges of Living in French in Nova Scotia. On April 24, 2007, the government tabled its response to the committee's report.
Today we will be hearing reactions and comments to the government's response from groups in Nova Scotia. We welcome Jean Léger, Executive Director of the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse, Darrell Samson, Executive Director of the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial of Nova Scotia, and Marie-Claude Rioux, Executive Director of the Association des juristes d'expression française de la Nouvelle-Écosse, who is accompanied by Alisa Lombard, a member of the Board of Directors.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. I am going to ask you to make your presentations. As agreed, you will have four to five minutes each and we will then move on to questions.
Jean Léger, Executive Director, Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse: Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, Madam Chairman, to respond to the government response to the second report of the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages. I am here as Executive Director of the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse. Désiré Boudreau, the president of our organization, sends his greetings.
I have a few points I would like to share with you that come from our 24 member organizations, as well as the reactions of the FANE itself.
On the government response as a whole, we believe that it amounts to a list of things that have been done that paints a rosy picture of the reality — if reality it be — but masks a very different situation. We would certainly like the government to tell us what direction it is taking, since recommendations were made. We wanted the government to tell us what it planned to do with those recommendations, not tell us what it has done.
I would also like to note that there is no section in the committee's report on the economy. We have spoken with members of the Economic Development Council, a community organization that deals with the economy in our province — and it was pointed out to us that the economy was not mentioned, although it is very important in that, like many regions in Canada, we are facing a rural exodus, young people leaving to go elsewhere, and also dealing with urbanization. I wanted to raise this point today.
We want to talk about recommendation No. 10. I hope that my colleagues will provide a little more information on the other recommendations.
As you know, relations with the federal government are very important to us, and particularly framework agreements with the federal government, in particular with Canadian Heritage. However, the agreement that we had until 2004, which was renamed an "accord,'' was not signed because what we were being offered did not in any way meet the needs of the community; quite the opposite — it involved more responsibility and management for the community. In other words, the accord increased the administrative burden on the community without providing any additional funding for that purpose. That is the main reason why our negotiations hit a stumbling block and are at a virtual standstill at present, with no continuation scheduled.
As you suggested in your recommendations, we tried to sit back down with them. Unfortunately, Canadian Heritage did not want to explore new ways of looking at development in our community. They had a picture in their heads, which they suggested to the other provinces and territories, and they did not want to explore other approaches. We thought that the new government would be interested in reviewing its partnership with the communities. Apparently, we were wrong. It did not seem to have the courage or will to do innovative things and it was presenting us with the same things as the old Liberal government.
The result was that Canadian Heritage unilaterally decided what funding our organizations in Nova Scotia would be given, without any consultation with the community. We think that Canadian Heritage really could have proposed some kind of mechanism to us, but we were presented with this as punishment for not signing the accord. We were not party to Canadian Heritage's decisions as to the amounts to be allocated under the Canada-community agreement that funds our organizations.
I would note that we have now had two years with no accord and we had community participation in the department's decisions, but this time it was different, we had to sign.
There is already a heavy workload involving reports and administrative requirements, but much more important, the new approaches suggested increase the demands on our work and we are not prepared to burden the community with more administrative requirements. I am also saddened not to see a much greater will on the part of Canadian Heritage to lighten the administrative burden. That is certainly something that saddens us. If the collaboration accords were so good, why are a number of organizations in Canada, such as FANE, not entirely satisfied? At this point, they have to initiate further negotiations for this accord to be implemented. We have also learned that even Canadian Heritage is having difficulty implementing its own section of the accord, because so few resources have been allocated to it.
The FCFA did an analysis and a meeting of provincial and territorial organizations was held, and the conclusion was that 19 recommendations should be prepared so that these accords would operate better. Our recommendation to the government is that it review the accords so they can be simplified and that it develop a genuine partnership with the communities based on their needs and in accordance with the new Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
On recommendation No. 1, I will quickly tell you that it is important that school and community stakeholders — at the postsecondary level as well — be consulted on the bilateral accords between Nova Scotia and the federal government.
Also concerning recommendation No. 1, we note that the Acadian region of Par-en-Bas wants to build a community school centre. There was $2 million promised for this project, but unfortunately only $800,000 was received. It is unfortunate to note that promises were made and then not kept. This community is not particularly impressed with the present situation, a community that has worked so hard to get this community school centre. There has to be more investment in these community facilities in our communities. Our recommendation would be that a specific fund be created for developing community infrastructures for Nova Scotia, to be managed in consultation with the community.
With respect to recommendation No. 2, we think that the government should establish a specific program to support community radio stations, in consultation with ARC Canada and its members.
With respect to recommendation No. 6, on young people, we consulted the organization responsible for this subject, the Conseil jeunesse provincial, and found that in spite of the Government of Canada's commitment to youth, that government's recent decisions run counter to its commitment. An example is that summer jobs for young people under the program Young Canada Works have been cut and our provincial organization was unable to hire young people to assist on its projects.
As well, we note that the bursaries from the Jeux de l'Acadie foundation will run out in a few years and we have received no guarantee or confirmation of renewal.
Recommendation No. 7 on the role of PCH in raising awareness in the community about the Department's programs, well, very little has been said. What we see in the government's response dates from over a year and we have seen no consistent, formal effort to genuinely engage in this dialogue between the community and Government of Canada departments. We have meetings, but nothing really comes of them. We talk, we are consulted, but then we are left out in the cold. What did they do with our words? We do not know and the community receives no feedback.
We have to go beyond ad hoc action in this area and establish formal parameters for the dialogue between the community and the government. I hope that these departments have a genuine desire to support the development of the community, and the FANE hopes that its discussions with them will expand, for the progress of the community.
In our view, Canadian Heritage does not have the funds in Nova Scotia to fulfil the role described in section 42 of the Official Languages Act. The Department does not have the funds, personnel or resources to do it properly at this point. Did you know that all of the Acadian provinces, what I call the Atlantic provinces, with the exception of Nova Scotia, have interdepartmental agreements with the federal government, precisely to encourage collaboration between the two parties, and sometimes even with the provincial component? We have been working on this for several years. I am hoping that it will result in something concrete. We are working with Canadian Heritage at this time and we hope that it is going to happen. This communication is very important in our minds.
Recommendation No. 9 concerning consultation of stakeholders regarding the Action Plan for Official Languages — I think we saw a major shift at the recent meeting with the community stakeholders in April. We were merely presented with ideas about the process for implementing the Action Plan, when in recent years each of the departments where there was a plan had presented us with their outcomes and challenges. We were presented with a process, but what the departments had done, that was not part of the discussion. Nor do we know how much has been invested or will be invested between now and the end of the plan. We think that our community is entitled to know what is being done for it, in concrete terms. In other words, they are working for us, but we do not really know what they are doing.
There used to be an annual consultation with the federal departments affected by the plan, with the heads of representative organizations throughout Canada; this year, there was no meeting. We do not know why. I am hoping that this is not a withdrawal from political commitment to official languages. We recommend that the federal government increase its political contacts with the community and that ministers and other political actors in this government have a greater presence with the community and clearly inform us of the actions taken and concrete outcomes in our province in relation to the Action Plan for Official Languages.
In conclusion, we would like to thank you again for coming to Acadie in Nova Scotia. We hope that your work will lead to concrete results for the progress of our official languages community. We also hope that you will be going to other official languages communities in Canada in the near future, to get a good understanding of their situations and to understand how the government can support their development and enhance their vitality.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Léger. Please excuse me for having mispronounced your name at the beginning of the meeting. In Manitoba, we pronounce it differently.
Darrell Samson, Executive Director, Conseil scolaire acadien provincial de la Nouvelle-Écosse: Madam Chair, I am very pleased to be here to speak on behalf of the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial of Nova Scotia. We are the only francophone Acadian school board in Nova Scotia. It is a pleasure to be able to speak with you and share our reactions to the response of the Government of Nova Scotia.
I am going to focus my comments mainly on recommendation No. 1, although I will also address other recommendations.
I am also going to follow up on the presentation we made in 2005 and tell you about new issues that have arisen.
You have received a copy of my presentation, and I will therefore explain its general theme, without actually reading it.
I want to thank the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages for the opportunity to continue this consultation. This kind of follow up is really very important. We very much appreciate the process, because it allows us to talk about the points raised, to consider new issues and to make a few comments about the government's response.
I want to point out that the mission of the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial de la Nouvelle-Écosse is to provide a high quality education in French, and that the Action Plan is very important, to provide us with support and to help the school board to accomplish its mission.
I will therefore comment first on the response of the Government of Canada regarding recommendation No. 1. I quote that recommendation:
That the government fulfil its commitments on minority-language education in the Action Plan for Official Languages.
The Conseil scolaire acadien provincial de la Nouvelle-Écosse points out that, in the government's response, $30.2 million has been granted to Nova Scotia for education in French, over four years. Those facts are true and accurate. I would nonetheless like to clarify something: of that $30.2 million, $15.3 million is for first-language instruction and $14.9 million is for second-language instruction, that is, core French and immersion. So for the purpose of discussion, this is about 50 per cent.
On the other hand, the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial de la Nouvelle-Écosse, over a four-year period, gets only $9.2 million, because the rest is going to Université Sainte-Anne and other projects to contribute to things that are very important in Nova Scotia.
We therefore wanted to confirm that the money granted for francization projects, pre-kindergarten, literature and other things as described are as described in the government response.
I would also like to comment on, and confirm, that yes, in 2005-06 Nova Scotia received $1 million for work on community school projects. And in 2006-07, it received $1.5 million. We confirm that those funds have been advanced for the school board, for its communities.
That being said, as we submitted in 2005, the Action Plan formula in place is not the one we wanted to see. As I explained in September 2005, Nova Scotia is the province that receives the least funding for French education in Canada. We would like to engage in discussions for a new agreement that will enable us to deal with the new realities, and to move forward on the projects presented in 2005.
There are two very important elements: education and culture. In reality, the cultural element is what distinguishes us from the English schools. In terms of education, it is essential that pedagogical resources be developed to support instruction in French in Nova Scotia. We are convinced that the role of the federal government is extremely important, to support those pedagogical resources for the minority in Canada. That is why the school board supports developing Canada-wide pedagogical resource centres, throughout the country. As well, Nova Scotia, which has the CPRP at the Université Sainte-Anne, will be able to develop more fully and deal with issues that exist only in the Atlantic provinces.
In terms of the community, the CSAP's schools are often the only francophone institutions in the community. That means that the community uses them more, but also creates a partnership that is essential for developing a community.
On the question of francization, the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial de la Nouvelle-Écosse has a responsibility to support its students from kindergarten to Grade 12, in terms of francization. Pedagogical resources are needed for this. This is certainly very direct, but with a Canada-wide pedagogical resource centre — that being one of the focuses of the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones — we could proceed with the francization of pedagogical resources and research in francization. You see how this could be lined up so that each supported the others.
Pre-kindergarten programs are undeniably essential for survival. In Nova Scotia, about 60 per cent of rights holders who start kindergarten in September speak the language of instruction very little or not at all. No anglophone could say that when he or she starts at an English school. This additional challenge is a major one for us. With the support of Canadian Heritage and the provincial government, started that this year. We have five pre-kindergarten classes in five regions. The intention is to add three more, for a total of eight. We plan to do this across the province for the 16 elementary schools.
Infrastructure is essential for developing the cultural aspect of the community. There have been several renovation projects since 2005. On the other hand, these contributions need to be increased. We have to develop community school facilities.
This is exceptional, $1 million in 2005-06 and $1.5 million in 2006-07. However, we have to look at history. Ten years before 2005, Nova Scotia had received $562,000 for its community facilities. Where we come from, we call that peanuts; it is a very small amount. We are now trying to make some progress, but there is no foundation. This allows us to create a strong foundation and put more pressure on the provincial government to invest, because the investment is 50/50. So it is easier to get the provincial government's attention and encourage it and make some progress on these issues.
I would also like to give you some good news. The government of Nova Scotia has just announced that two new French schools will be opening. One in the Bridgewater region, and there will be a second secondary school built in the metropolitan region, and this is a wonderful thing. It will mean that we can reach our rights holders and carry out our mission as a school board. We are going to need your support even more, and I will come back to this in a few minutes.
In terms of recruitment and retention, the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial de la Nouvelle-Écosse is at a historic moment. Between May 14 and 18, we celebrated the promotion of French education in Nova Scotia. We even went to convey messages on Oprah and Dr. Phil, if you can imagine! As a result of all this, we were able to send a clear message to the community of Acadian and francophone rights holders in Nova Scotia. The campaign was officially launched on May 2, with the Premier of Nova Scotia and the Minister of Acadian Affairs, and the launch was a great success. We would like to keep the momentum going.
To put this promotion in context, the 2003 Action Plan for Official Languages pointed out — a ten-year plan, to 2012 or 2013 — that 56 per cent of rights holders in 1986 were in our French schools. In 2001, we had reached 68 per cent. The plan clearly stated that by 2012 we should have 80 per cent. That is an excellent objective. The CSAP supports those objectives, but to be honest, we were at 50 per cent in 2007 in Nova Scotia. We still have a ways to go, and it is this kind of support for education and community facilities that will make it possible for us to achieve those objectives. We have the plan, we have the vision, and it is essential that we continue to get this support.
I would still like to point out that one of the focuses of the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones in Canada is promotion of French education at the national level for the minority. Nova Scotia spend this time as the pilot and that would give it an opportunity, if we had a national promotion, to galvanize the country to promote French.
One of the challenges relates to school transportation and the distances that have to be travelled in order for everyone to have access to extracurricular activities.
The Conseil scolaire considers support for community radio stations to be key. This makes it possible for our students to participate in these kinds of activities. We could also integrate community radio stations at the schools, to assist in community development. The Government of Canada must also establish training programs for young people who want to have careers in the media. Those young people might be here with us today.
Obviously, the Conseil scolaire supports youth projects. The Jeux de l'Acadie provide students opportunities to enjoy sports, culture and friendship. This is very important. We would like the Government of Canada to provide for greater participation in cross-Canada youth parliaments, youth festivals and other activities of that nature.
We would reiterate our needs in relation to continuing education for teaching personnel, since some of these individuals did not do their studies in French. We are asking for more support for continuing education for teachers in minority communities, because teaching here is very different from teaching in Quebec.
I would now like to share with you some of the issues of concern to us since our last appearance before your committee, in 2005: the national campaign to promote French education; the creation of a cross-Canada pedagogical research centre — in connection with the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones; and also the academic and community support for our two schools, for which we would like to implement parallel community- school action plan plans.
I would also like to tell you about another concern: We are worried about the elimination of the court challenges program in Canada. Nova Scotia has made a lot of progress in education, in particular with the support of the courts, to promote the evolution of the Canadian constitution in this respect. We are asking that it be reinstated in the Government of Canada's program.
Support for the integration of francophone immigrant communities is also a matter of concern for us. And we must mention the depopulation of the traditionally Acadian rural areas, and of the small schools. That presents more challenges for us.
In conclusion, the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial believes that discussions like these ensure that there is dialogue between the two levels of government. We therefore want to thank the Government of Canada for its continuing support for high quality education in French in Nova Scotia.
We hope to continue this collaboration, and to continue doing things that will enable Nova Scotia to achieve its objectives in the face of the challenges that will arise. The Acadian and francophone schools are the main factor in keeping the pride of living in French in Nova Scotia alive. The support of the federal government is essential to enable us to meet the challenges of a world that is constantly changing. We are aware that more has to be done to provide the Acadian and francophone community of Nova Scotia with the high quality schools to which they are entitled and for which they have historically fought an unrelenting battle.
Marie-Claude Rioux, Executive Director, Association des juristes d'expression française de la Nouvelle-Écosse: Madam Chairman, it is always a pleasure to appear before your committee. I bring you greetings from our president, Roland Deveau, who was unfortunately unable to be with us today. Ms. Lombard is present with me.
Our association was created in 1994 to promote access to legal services in French by the Acadian, francophone and francophile population. We are therefore going to focus specifically — not because the issues or recommendations in your report do not all affect us — on recommendations 3 and 4, which relate to the Official Languages (Communications with and Services to the Public) Regulations, and in particular on the services provided by the RCMP.
Last November, we appeared before this committee and stressed the importance of having services provided by the RCMP everywhere on the Trans-Canada Highway. I believe that we had a very positive discussion.
In fact, I would like to thank the committee for the recommendations it made, which essentially support having services offered by the RCMP in both official languages everywhere on the Trans-Canada Highway. That was very much appreciated. It is a concrete measure of the results that can be achieved by coming to appear before a committee like yours. Again, thank you.
With respect to recommendations 3 and 4, made by the federal government in response to the Committee's recommendations, I must admit that the Association des juristes is someone perplexed by the response. You will note that the response is rather evasive; it is not very specific. That is our main concern: that it says that the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages and the recommendations and comments made by the public will be considered. Personally, I am not very fond of the word "considered'' in this context. I would have preferred "adopted,'' or "followed.'' The Association des juristes d'expression française would have liked to see a more positive statement in response to the recommendations by your committee.
I also note — and this is perhaps worrisome — that the government's response is one short paragraph long, while the response to all the other recommendations is much more detailed. Are we to believe that less importance is placed on the committee's recommendations 3 and 4? I hope that is not the case.
I will not address this subject at any greater length; the Association des juristes d'expression française de la Nouvelle-Écosse encourages the committee to monitor the review process that is to produce the new version of the services in French regulations very closely, particularly in relation to the services of the RCMP.
This is an important issue. It is particularly important in Nova Scotia where the services provided by the RCMP leave a lot to be desired, not only on the Trans-Canada Highway but also where there are very clear obligations relating to the RCMP's services.
I am thinking in particular of Halifax airport where services are provided by the RCMP but they are not offered in both official languages. We must insist that the services delivered by the RCMP in both official languages be expanded, not only on the Trans-Canada Highway; we must also ensure that the obligations set out in the Regulations are appropriate and are met.
[English]
Senator Keon: Mr. Samson, tell me a little more about the national pedagogical centre that you were talking about. Would you locate that in the Maritimes or would it be located elsewhere, for example, where you have a very strong francophone component, such as New Brunswick? Would you rather put it in Nova Scotia in order to have a presence there?
[Translation]
There are three centres: the centre in Nova Scotia, which belongs to Université Sainte-Anne, and we are currently discussing making it part of the CSAP; the centre in Manitoba, which serves part of the West; and the Franco- Ontarian centre in Ontario. One of the objectives of the Fédération des conseils scolaires francophones hors Québec, in the next five years, is to have a Canada-wide centre.
The Franco-Ontarian centre could play a key role in this process. The francophone minority needs a cross-Canada pedagogical resource centre and the two or three other centres could benefit from this too. The federal government has the key to open the doors to that centre
[English]
Senator Keon: My point is that there is the Western centre and the Central Canada centre. Perhaps the most bilingual province in Canada is New Brunswick. Why do you think there would be a great strength in putting the centre in Nova Scotia as opposed to New Brunswick?
[Translation]
Mr. Samson: My answer, Nova Scotia, was just a joke. It is not really important where the centre is located. I see a national Canada-wide centre that plays a key role in developing pedagogical resources for the francophone minority. That essential role would make it possible for all three centres to grow.
[English]
Senator Keon: Mr. Léger, it seems to me there is something very wrong with the communication system. You repeated a number of initiatives where there is no continuity. You make your proposals and there is no follow-up. Is it not possible that we could recommend some system of communication where you would have continuity?
[Translation]
Mr. Léger: Yes, in fact. We would like to develop a memorandum of agreement with the key federal departments, precisely to have specific parameters for communication, dialogue, follow-up; like what has been developed in the other Atlantic provinces, with Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and New Brunswick.
Canadian Heritage is trying as best it can to develop an interest in those departments in doing things with the community, but it cannot compel a department to do that. There really needs to be some motivation. In our province, we have a lot of awareness raising to do with senior officials in government departments for them to have a culture of openness to the communities. In recent years, there has not been as much openness as we would have liked.
We are therefore in discussions with Canadian Heritage to consolidate this relationship with the federal government and its departments, with a formal memorandum or agreement of some sort. But things are not moving very quickly.
Senator Tardif: Does the Fédération des conseils scolaires support your suggestion of a Canada-wide resource centre for pedagogical resources for minority communities?
Mr. Samson: There are 31 francophone school boards in Canada outside Quebec. That is truly impressive. There is only one in Nova Scotia, but there are five in New Brunswick, 12 in Ontario and five in Alberta. One of the six key objectives in the federation's strategy in the next five years is to have a Canada-wide pedagogical resource centre; national funding has been the stumbling block in achieving this strategic objective. We worked with the Franco- Ontarian centre to try to make it Canada-wide. The negotiations were unsuccessful and they have considered other strategies.
Our message is that we believe this is a need all across Canada. We realize that our centre in Nova Scotia will be able to grow within that family.
Senator Tardif: Your suggestion is consistent with the objectives of the federation?
Mr. Samson: Exactly.
Senator Tardif: Mr. Léger, you talked about a shift in the work being done by federal institutions in relation to the Action Plan for Official Languages. Is that right?
Mr. Léger: There was a consultation in April, with the heads of the organizations, most of them spokespersons for the communities; components of the action plan process were presented, without really going into detail as to what had been done. Unlike other years when the senior officials came in with evidence in hand to show us the good things that had been done by their departments, this year we heard nothing. We are somewhat in the dark. In terms of communication, openness and transparency, in terms of what is being done for us, there has been a shift for the worse.
Senator Tardif: You talked about the lack of consultation you have seen between the government and the communities. Is it your position that this is still the case?
Mr. Léger: The other shift relates to the annual meeting with the ministers who are mainly responsible for various aspects of the Action Plan for Official Languages; there was Industry Canada, and a number of departments were asked to get involved in helping the communities make progress; there was a meeting between those ministers and the heads of our organizations; this year, for reasons unknown to me, there was no meeting at the political level.
How are we to interpret that? Is it, once again, a problem with transparency, with political withdrawal? I do not know. I hope that this is not the case.
Senator Tardif: Have federal institutions implemented positive measures to support your development? With the change to the Act, regarding Part VII, the question of positive measures is a major change to the act. Have you noticed positive measures, in relation to your development?
Mr. Léger: If there have been any, I do not know about them, or I have not been informed of them. I believe there is a problem on the part of senior management, who do not really know how to do it.
They know what their obligations are, but they may not know how to set about this. The dialogue has not really been initiated with the community and if that has happened, I am not aware of it.
Senator Tardif: You do not have an example to give us.
Mr. Léger: No. If I had a little more time to think, I might be able to find some examples for you, but nothing really concrete comes to mind at the moment.
Ms. Rioux: We hear a lot of negative things and I would like to interject a positive comment. I would like to cite the Department of Justice of Canada as an example. I can certainly talk about that and compare how Canadian Heritage operates to how Justice Canada does, because I spent seven years managing the Fédération des parents acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse, and the main funder in that case, and main federal partner, was Canadian Heritage.
I had a very pleasant surprise when I changed jobs and became the executive director of the Association des juristes, because our funder was now Canada — and I can tell you that it is in fact not a funder in this case, it is truly a close partner; it is truly a department that regularly consults the provincial associations de jurists, it does excellent work and it is truly an equal partner. When a problem arises, we can telephone Justice Canada to discuss it. The officers are always available, they seek out information regularly to see how we are progressing in what we are doing. They send us positive emails to tell us we are doing excellent work. It is like day and night when it comes to how things work, and yet this is the same federal government, the same federal departments.
When I came to the Association des juristes, I said to my program officer: Are you sure that you are following the Treasury Board Secretariat rules? He was somewhat insulted that I would dare to ask him that question, because Justice Canada ordinarily follows the regulations. So I can tell you that the kind of relationship we have with Justice Canada is truly exemplary.
Senator Losier-Cool: I have a supplementary question. I find this analysis fascinating. With Canadian Heritage, should we ensure that there are more lawyers? Is it the clientele that influences the attitude? Ms. Rioux, how would you explain this?
Ms. Rioux: If it were that simple, it would be marvellous. I think, personally, that the administrative workload at Canadian Heritage is such that the program officers are no longer available to talk with the community. Often, on the telephone, for example, you get voice mail, never the officer, and the officer calls us back when he or she has time. At Justice Canada, in all honesty, it is the exact opposite. Certainly there are only eight associations de juristes and the level is different. That is, for us, when we communicate with Justice Canada, we are speaking directly with the program officer in Ottawa. There is one less level, the Nova Scotia level does not exist.
The second thing, and here is an example: with Canadian Heritage, a funding application is about 80 pages long; that is a week of hard work. With Justice Canada, a funding application is 10 to 15 pages long. It is just as serious, there is just as much accountability and just as much goodwill. We see an enormous difference right there, in terms of the preparation that an association's management has to do.
The other thing is that Justice Canada is very flexible. Canadian Heritage's deadlines are very tight; if the funding form is not submitted by this date at this time, it is all over, it is too late! When I called Justice Canada, when I started in management, and I was told their deadline for funding applications, I asked whether they were joking! Or whether maybe they were talking about the next fiscal year! While Canadian Heritage, and here I am comparing, functions with an uncertain funding budget and we have six months left to readjust the budget if major cuts are made.
There really is a double standard, two ways of operating: One is absolutely congenial and the other is very demanding.
I assure you, I am not considering a career change in the near future! I am having a good time, because this gives me time to develop what I want for my Association de juristes without having to labour under the administrative workload that at a certain point makes you not feel like doing the work.
Senator Losier-Cool: I am very surprised to hear this and I am thinking that this must be a result of a long established basic operating principle. Not to accuse anyone, but Canadian Heritage started from the principle that these are subsidies for people who are not self-sufficient, who have little programs to justify their existence, while at Justice Canada you are dealing with lawyers. It certainly is a case of a double standard.
Senator Murray: Madam Chairman, I was going to speak in the temporary absence of Senator Comeau, but I yield the floor to him.
Senator Comeau: That is very kind. Thank you for being here. We appreciate the time you have taken for us.
My first question is for Mr. Léger. You mentioned that you met with different departments in the past, that those meetings were scheduled, but that this year they did not take place. How did this work in the past? Who initiated the process?
Mr. Léger: It was generally completely handled, I think, by Privy Council. I believe that the Official Languages Secretariat was at Privy Council and has now moved to Canadian Heritage. That was ho organized these meetings every year.
Senator Comeau: Have you asked the Official Languages Secretariat what happened this year?
Mr. Léger: No, I have not asked them.
Senator Comeau: I think, Madam Chairman, that it would be worthwhile to find out, rather than speculating. We are going to look into it, to find out the reason, that is easy for us. We are talking about the workload involved at Canadian Heritage as compared to Justice Canada, and this is not the first time I have heard that the secretariat is not operating as well since it became part of Canadian Heritage. We will look into it and we will ask the director for an answer to this.
My second questions relates to the Collaboration Accord and the deadlines imposed. I do not know whether you recall, but I had suggested that you not sign if you did not get an accord that met the needs of Nova Scotia. Perhaps the suggestion was not particularly good, but I stand by it. If Canadian Heritage requires that you accept a document that applies to every province, that is not good, because each province, each jurisdiction, each region, each community, is very different.
That is why I suggested that you not sign. We have to continue examining this question. In fact we are going to discuss it at the committee. I have heard that other regions were not satisfied with how these accords were dealt with. Have you suffered any consequences from this? Have you been penalized?
Mr. Léger: Yes, we were penalized to a certain extent. We were unable to take part in decisions regarding the funds allocated to our community organizations. In the past, we had a joint committee where members of the community and Canadian Heritage staff agreed on how the money granted to the organizations would be allocated. Because we did not have a collaboration accord, we were left completely out of the community participation in decisions. The decisions were made by Canadian Heritage unilaterally, and at this point we have no way of asking them to justify their decisions — why they cut a particular organization, why they gave more to another organization, what they based their decisions on. We have been cut completely out of the decision-making process. And in our minds, that is a little bit like punishment.
Senator Comeau: This comes back to what I said earlier: either you do as they say or you are punished. Perhaps those people should be invited to come and see us. We could then ask them who is being punished. Are they punishing Jean Léger, or the communities? Those are important questions to ask.
I do not appreciate having my community punished if it does not meet their requirements, particularly in the case of such a burdensome machine.
You mentioned the Par-en-Bas community centre. I may have misunderstood the figures. Would you like to repeat them?
Mr. Léger: I am told that Canadian Heritage suggested a figure of $2 million to help them build their community school centre, but they received only $800,000 and they still do not know what the federal government's commitment for the final portion is. They are a little disappointed that they came to their community to present those figures, but ultimately it did not materialize.
Senator Comeau: Out of a total of how much?
Mr. Léger: They were asking for $2 million and $800,000 was granted.
Senator Comeau: Did the province not offer anything toward that figure? The total figure for the project was $2.8 million and they were asking for $2 million from the federal government?
Mr. Samson: Several years ago.
Senator Comeau: Did the province contribute?
Mr. Samson: The province's contribution is for the school aspect.
Senator Comeau: And the federal government was going to offer the community centre. Okay, I understand a little better.
Mr. Léger, you talked about the economy, particularly the depopulation of the Acadian regions, one of the most important issues. If there is no employment, people will leave for the West. What is being done in the communities to make progress on the economy?
Mr. Léger: Awareness is growing and there are efforts to take charge in each of the communities. The Conseil de développement économique in our province and the RDÉE are trying to stimulate economic development in our Acadian regions. Certainly, however, some financial support would be useful for developing our community.
Senator Comeau: I am not familiar with the work of that organization.
Mr. Léger: The Conseil de développement économique de la Nouvelle-Écosse.
Senator Comeau: What do those people do?
Mr. Léger: In each region, there are economic development officers who support business creation. They also support businesses in various ways. It is for francophone businesses.
Senator Comeau: Are they funded by the federal government?
Mr. Léger: Yes, by the federal government, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, through RDÉE Canada.
Senator Comeau: It would be interesting to see what they do to develop the economy. You could perhaps ask them to send us the results they achieve so that we could know whether more funds should be granted. I am more familiar with what you do in the Fédération than with what they do.
You said that you had 19 recommendations to make.
Mr. Léger: No. I was talking about the collaboration accords that have been signed. The FCFA has analyzed them. They brought together the people responsible for the collaboration accords in Ottawa to discuss the problem of implementing the accords in each of the provinces and territories. From that there were 12 recommendations made. I have them here. They explain the difficulties involved in implementing the accords in each of the provinces and territories.
Senator Comeau: I have a question for Mr. Samson. You referred to a national research centre. Is that a pedagogical research centre?
Mr. Samson: Yes, it is mainly to develop pedagogical materials to support academic curricula. There would have to be a research component as well, however. That is the kind of centre that is favoured.
Senator Comeau: Are there similar centres in the other regions? I know there is one in Nova Scotia.
Mr. Samson: There is the Franco-Ontarian centre here in Ottawa, and the Franco-Manitoban centre, for Western Canada. But the eastern and western centres are not centres that have a lot of employees, that are going to develop a huge body of pedagogical resources. They are very small. On the other hand, if we had a Canada-wide centre to take the lead, the other small centres could expand to meet the needs of the regions in Eastern Canada.
Senator Comeau: What do you mean by research?
Mr. Samson: It might be francization, types of teaching approaches, analysis, pedagogical resources or strategies that work best for teaching in minority settings, and so on.
Senator Comeau: I have another question for Mr. Léger. Could you give us a list of the departments you meet with every year? It would be worth asking them directly why they have not, on their own initiative, without having to wait for a call from Canadian Heritage, tried to contact you to say they would like to meet with you. You could perhaps give us a list of the people you meet with.
Mr. Léger: I would be glad to give you that. But at the moment, to be able to initiate dialogue with those departments, we have to break down their doors.
Senator Comeau: Our chairman is good at banging on doors.
Mr. Léger: I am afraid that FANE will be seen as an organization that is trying to push things too fast in relation to governments and departments. In some places, when I want to organize a meeting with senior officials in those departments, they ask me why. I tell them that it is for the advancement, to enhance the vitality, of the community. But you get the feeling it is not automatic for them. They do not really know how to manage this.
On many occasions I have had to go right to the minister's office to get a door opened in a particular department, one that I will not name today. There has been water under the bridge since then, and everything is no going very well with that department. But I really had to work to pry that one open.
Senator Comeau: I find it very annoying to hear that you have to put pressure on to get someone to open the door for you.
I am one of the people who supported moving some departments to regions other than those that are perfectly bilingual. If a department goes to Halifax and refuses to meet with the communities, that is not going to encourage the government to move its departments to a region like Halifax. Instead, it will choose Moncton, Montreal or Ottawa.
There has to be some progress. You should not worry if you make a few enemies from time to time.
My next question is for Ms. Rioux and relates to judicial appointments. Are things going well in that area?
Ms. Rioux: That is still a matter of concern. To date, no new bilingual judges have been appointed, to my knowledge, either to the provincial court or to the Supreme Court of Canada, for which the federal government is responsible. In fact, I believe there have been no new appointments.
This is still a matter of concern in Nova Scotia. We have only a very few francophone judges in the provincial courts. We have three on the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. But those judges are approaching retirement. The problem is the same at the national level.
Senator Comeau: There is no progress at the national level either?
Ms. Rioux: We have heard no news about it. We constantly raise the question at the Fédération des associations de juristes and we have still not heard nay news.
Senator Comeau: Madam Chairman, it is important for us to meet with these people on a regular basis to get updates.
The Chairman: True.
Senator Murray: I would like to clarify something about the Heritage Department. The secretariat that is responsible for horizontal coordination among the various government departments and agencies has indeed been transferred from Privy Council to the Heritage Department. That may have been a mistake. As the Commissioner of Official Languages reminded us the other day, the Heritage Department is not a central agency like Privy Council.
The problem raised by Ms. Rioux goes much farther. It does not relate to the secretariat alone. There are programs for which the Communications Department is responsible that have always been managed by that Department, by the Department of Heritage and Communications, the former department, and even by Secretary of State. What you have just told us is that there are serious problems in your relations with those departments. That is what needs to be clarified.
Ms. Rioux, you talked about the government's response on the question of services to the public and the decision in Doucet v. Canada. Apart from your appearance and testimony before this committee, what other steps do you intend to take on this question?
Ms. Rioux: We have also submitted a brief to Treasury Board to inform them of our position on the revision of those regulations. To my knowledge, we have had no acknowledgement of receipt for the brief we submitted, at about the same time as we submitted it to your committee.
Of course we keep ourselves up to date through the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to see what is being done in this regard. The Fédération des associations de juristes is also concerned about this question and is following it. I would say that these are the only things that can be done.
Senator Murray: I know that Treasury Board is responsible for drafting these regulations. Why not take advantage of your excellent relationship with the Department of Justice to have some input on this? It is a matter of the administration of justice, after all.
Ms. Rioux: Completely, and the Department of Justice is also aware of it, it goes without saying.
Senator Murray: Mr. Samson, you said in your brief that there are currently pre-kindergarten centres operating in five of the CSAP's schools. You mentioned that three more will be added by three years from now, which will bring the total to eight centres in 16 schools. Have you or the provincial government established a timetable for completing the network?
Mr. Samson: The Conseil scolaire acadien provincial has set an objective of four years for having them in the 16 schools. Three new centres will be established next year, in September and that will bring the total to eight pre- kindergarten centres. In the next two years, we will have to adopt a more aggressive strategy in order to meet the needs of the other communities in the province to achieve our objective of 16 centres within four years — it may take five years.
We have obtained funding from Canadian Heritage to help us achieve progress in this effort. The province itself does not want to recognize the need for pre-kindergarten. Its argument was that if it did not intend to pay for anglophone pre-kindergarten, why would it do it for francophone pre-kindergarten?
But the fact is that anglophones who start school at the age of five speak the language of the institution, while ours do not. Acadians and francophones who have been assimilated are entitled to an education in French; more important, they are entitled to a high-quality education in French. That is where we have to start to ensure high quality education. At least these students will speak the language of the institution and we will be able to keep them from kindergarten to Grade 12. We note that 60 per cent of new students are in great need of francization when they start school.
Senator Murray: This process is closely connected with your objective of increasing the percentage of rights holders enrolled in your schools.
My next question relates to the community school centres. Over 30 years ago, I was involved in establishing community school centres in New Brunswick, in Fredericton and St. John. They are very important, not just for minority education, but for centres like St. John and Fredericton, which are majority anglophone but where there is also a critical mass of francophones. The community school centres are a focal point for the entire community.
But I am not familiar with the financial arrangements. You said that it is now the province that handles the building of the schools and the federal government covers the cost of building the centres. Is that the case? How many community school centres are there in Nova Scotia?
Mr. Samson: Very few, because for several years we have received no direct support. There is the Centre scolaire communautaire du Carrefour in Halifax and the Centre scolaire communautaire Étoile de l'Acadie in Sydney. In reality, they are the only two community school centres. Before last year, there was practically no funding for community school centres, apart from the $562,000 in the last ten years for pre-kindergarten child care centres in the schools. They are not community school centres. That is why we are making a very direct statement of the extent of our needs for the next agreement. We are the least well funded in the country, by far. We have provided you with these figures since 2005 and we are going to continue to provide them.
On the one hand, I will say that Canadian Heritage has been helping us for two years, but we have a long way to go. In the preamble to your first report, you said that each delay and each missed opportunity permanently compromises the future of these young people and jeopardizes the community and cultural life of all francophones in Canada. I will stop with those very fine words, which are very important for the survival of Acadie.
Senator Murray: Are the two centres, in Halifax and Sydney, a success?
Mr. Samson: They are certainly two dynamic centres. The community is committed to them, other partnerships are developing. It is truly exceptional. It is the only French institution where parents, children and the school community can come together and bring the community to life. It is an exceptional and important asset. Nova Scotia was forgotten for several years when it comes to this extremely important foundation for the development of the community.
In the next three years, we have an auspicious opportunity, because the opening of two new schools has been announced by the provincial government, which is going to invest a total of about $30 million. This is an excellent opportunity for the federal government to invest at the same time in the community school centre.
Senator Murray: The provincial government should not be leaving you on your own to negotiate with the federal government for the community centre. If I recall correctly, there were negotiations between the two governments about the community school centres in St. John and Fredericton.
Mr. Samson: That is a very good point. The provincial government is certainly going to take advantage of this opportunity because it will be investing a lot of money. The opposite could happen, it could be the provincial government that urges the federal government to get involved.
For two years it has been the federal government urging the provincial government, because it is a little more difficult for the provincial government to invest in schools when the schools already exist. Renewing the school system is extremely important. It works in tandem with community development.
Senator Murray: I am absolutely convinced that community school centres and pre-kindergarten are crucially important for these communities. Good luck!
Senator Losier-Cool: In your brochure, you talk about going into the community colleges. Are there many francophone community colleges in Nova Scotia?
Mr. Samson: There are various satellite offices, if you like.
Senator Losier-Cool: We often hear about the economy, about there being a shortage of workers, a shortage of personnel. Schools that were referred to as "vocational'' have been closed. Now we say:
[English]
Not only do you create jobs, but you must produce skilled workers.
[Translation]
This is the aspect that is missing for francophones.
My second question relates to community radio stations. Do you believe that a fund for community radio would be a good thing? Do the community radio stations in Nova Scotia get an audience share?
Mr. Léger: The community radio stations in our regions have a huge impact. In the Chéticamp region, we used to talk about the "weather.'' Among Acadians, we said "weather.'' Now, with the community radio station, we talk about the "météo.'' In terms of the visibility of French and of Acadian culture, these radio stations have played a key role. The same is true in Baie Sainte-Marie where Acadian and francophone music is enjoying a revival. I believe that these radio stations do indeed need support. At present, they are just managing. They have a lot of problems because they really do not have a critical mass, in terms of audience share, to be able to have announcers on air. They need support more specifically in terms of core funding. As I said in my brief, I would dearly love to see a support fund developed for these community radio stations, to help the two that already exist in Nova Scotia, in Baie Sainte-Marie and Chéticamp, but also the two others that have obtained broadcasting licences, in Isle Madame and the Halifax region. It seems that we are able to get the radio stations set up, but at a certain point it is more difficult that one thinks to keep them operating properly. We do not want to lose the stations because they are key elements. Federal government support would certainly be desirable.
Senator Losier-Cool: This committee has undertaken to do, in its future work, a study of francophone culture in minority communities. Two weeks ago we heard Mr. Ouellette, who talked about community radio stations.
I agree that this communications vehicle is a good one. However, I was disappointed this morning, when I read in Acadie Nouvelle that the radio announcer courses that were offered at the Collège communautaire de Dieppe have been cancelled for lack of enrolment. We need to continue to promote this vehicle so that young people see it as an employment opportunity.
Mr. Samson: Student radio stations in the schools could stimulate additional interest.
The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for coming to share your concerns with us. All of the members of the Committee support you and want to help you. I can assure you that we will be continuing to make vigorous efforts to support the work you are doing in your communities.
The committee adjourned.