Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 7 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, May 26, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is meeting today at 4:07 p.m. to study and report upon the operation of the Official Languages Act, and of regulations and directives made thereunder, within those institutions subject to the act, as well as upon the reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The Honourable Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: We are happy to welcome Ms. Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Ms. Sheila Copps, P.C., M.P., Minister of Canadian Heritage: There are two assistant deputy ministers here with me today, Ms. Eileen Sarkar, who is responsible for citizenship and identity and Ms. Susan Peterson, who is responsible for cultural affairs. Ms. Peterson works in cultural investments and Ms. Sarkar will speak directly to issues related to the Official Languages Act. We cannot speak about official languages without mentioning our support for culture.
The Chair: Minister, you will be giving your presentation. I am certain that there will be many questions. We have been looking forward to meeting you.
I wish to point out that the minister will have to leave at approximately 5:15 p.m. The members of her staff can stay somewhat longer if we feel the need.
Ms. Copps: Linguistic duality and the recognition of official languages are cornerstones of Canadian values and social cohesion. Our mandate is found in Part VII of the Official Languages Act. Our objectives and programs are really based on two pillars. First of all, the official language communities are strong and enjoy the support of many partners, and secondly linguistic duality must be recognized and valued by all Canadians.
[English]
In the 2001 Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada made a formal commitment to the promotion of Canada's linguistic dualities by reiterating support for official languages communities and for the expansion of the influence of French culture and language throughout the country and, by our determination, to serve Canada in two official languages. In the budget of 2003, we invested in a five-year action plan to renew the official languages policy.
[Translation]
The memorandum of understanding on education from 1988 to 1989 and 1993 to 1997, provided for federal investment of $261 million.
This investment was considerably reduced under program review. The new 1999 investments for official languages support programs made it possible to improve the situation considerably.
The contribution planned for the official languages budget thus increased to $215 million in 2002-2003, the final year of the MOU. These amounts include the contributions of the provinces and territories under national memorandums and programs, which amounts to $182.2 million, educational investment measures, $18 million, and special support to Ontario for school governance, $15 million.
At the moment, there are 254,074 students in primary and secondary school, 153,700 of whom study French outside of Quebec and 100,353 students studying in English in Quebec. There are 1,025 primary and secondary schools, 672 of which are French language schools outside Quebec and 353 English-language schools in Quebec. As for post- secondary institutions, there are 28, including seven CEGEPs and three universities that operate in the English language in Quebec, 18 French-language post-secondary institutions outside Quebec along with the French-language post-secondary distance education network. There is now school governance in every province and territory where francophones manage their own schools.
With respect to strong and supported minority communities, the funding has been set for 2003 to 2008 at $544.2 million under the MOU and the bilateral agreements. New investments and a targeted financial envelope totalling $209 million over five years bring total investments to $753 million from 2003 to 2008. These funds will be allocated according to precise and measurable strategic objectives.
[English]
The targeted funding envelopes will be the subject of bilateral agreements outside the protocol between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the provinces and territories.
[Translation]
I asked Hilaire Lemoine, the Director General, to look into the possibility of establishing a parents monitoring committee. There are currently agreements between the Government of Canada and the provinces. School boards are the responsibility of the province; it is difficult for a school board to criticize the province if it fails to deliver the goods. We are looking for a way to empower and inform parents by creating a monitoring committee for each of the bilateral agreements signed in the next round of negotiations, province by province, under the agreement.
Where are the problems? There is a loss of students when they reach secondary school. Why? The possibility of taking post-secondary education in French is a determining factor in whether or not parents choose to enrol and keep their children in the minority education system. When the time comes, from grade 7 to grade 8 or from grade 8 to grade 9, if there is not a good post-secondary system in place, students often decide to switch to the other system. That is when the loss of francization occurs.
The consolidation and expansion of the post-secondary system remain relevant. Furthermore, the loss of students and the small numbers continue to be a major challenge for post-secondary education in minority communities.
The targeted results for teaching include the need to reduce the differences in quality between minority official- language schools and those of the majority, to ensure the long-term viability of francophone school systems and access to French language post-secondary education.
Needs differ from one part of Quebec to another, particularly outside of Montreal. Our objectives include revitalizing schools, bolstering community life, upgrading the language skills of school populations, and distance education.
With respect to the agreement between Canada and the various communities in each province and territory, the current budget is $159 million over five years. Under the plan announced by the Prime Minister, new investments of $19 million are going to be made available to enrich community life, an increase of 12 per cent. The network of community infrastructure allows communities to live in their language. This does not mean only schools, but also what happens before and after school, formal education and community life. Progress was made with the establishment of 20 schools/community centres, as well as 18 francophone community radio stations and six anglophone stations, not to mention, for the first time, the addition of youth activities.
This weekend, I attended the Jeux de la francophonie canadienne in Prince Edward Island. The first games were held five years ago, when there was only one school. Friday evening, it was full. There are now five primary schools on Prince Edward Island. Growth is explosive. It is a model to be followed. Five years ago, they were wondering whether enough people would attend, but the building of schools created more demand in other parts of the province. There is now a request from the school in Souris. Young people are getting to know one another through sport and that is a good thing. They are preparing for the Acadian Games and then for the Canadian francophonie Games. Attempts are also being made to sign agreements with minority communities and to make cultural investments. We have signed an action plan for books, CDs, for the promotional office of the Zone francophone, the regional distribution theatre network in Western Ontario and the Atlantic region, the regional theatre festival, the national network of song galas, and the national cultural forum. A five-year agreement, from 2002 to 2007, which was renewed in March 2002, covers theatre, media arts, visual arts, song, music, literature and cultural development. The signatories are Canadian Heritage, the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, the Canada Council, the National Arts Centre, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Film Board. Efforts are being made to convince these major institutions to support the linguistic duality.
The goal is to make sections 40 and 42 of the Official Languages Act a reality in arts and culture by fostering the dissemination and promotion of artistic products and events of the Canadian francophonie. For example, there is now a festival of francophone films in Toronto that runs currently with the Toronto Film Festival. It was launched four years ago and it is unbelievable how it is snowballing.
For the strong and supported minority communities and provincial/territorial services in the minority language, there are federal/provincial/territorial agreements totalling $66.9 million over five years for services. The budget has been increased by $14.5 million in the government's action plan, a boost of 22 per cent.
The objectives of the new funds are to develop innovative projects that constitute one-stop windows to those who live as part of a minority, to increase services at the municipal level, to promote the Canadian francophonie, and to support New Brunswick in the implementation of its new Official Languages Act.
[English]
Duality must be recognized and valued, and I think some of the facts and figures on second language instruction are worth repeating.
In Canada, there are 328,451 students in French immersion classes, and there are more than 2,000 schools offering French immersion programs across the country. I read Senator Gauthier's letter to the editor this morning about the support of Canadians for an official languages policy. He is absolutely right.
In the province of Quebec, there are 38,388 students in French immersion classes, and there are 563,690 French- language students who are taking English second language courses. There is an appetite in both language groups to know and understand the other language. Eighty-two per cent of Canadians support Canada's official language policy, so Senator Gauthier's letter, which was published in the paper this morning, rings true vis-à-vis the population. Unfortunately, some of the other editorial boards are not as forward-thinking.
We have a targeted envelope for second language instruction of $137 million over five years. We also support bursaries and monitors to develop the capacities of teachers, which has been one area of concern. For that, we have $91 million over five years, and that has received an additional investment of $35.5 million over five years. Those objectives are to improve the teaching of core French and English programs; to relaunch immersion; to develop innovative pedagogy, that is, to modernize the teachers; to increase learning opportunities through linguistic exchanges; and also to encourage access to post-secondary education programs.
Through these particular objectives we expect to double, from 24 per cent to 50 per cent, the number of secondary school graduates with a working knowledge of their second language within the next decade. The targeted funding envelopes will be the subject of bilateral agreements outside the protocol with 50-50 shares between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the provinces and territories that come forth with innovative programs. It will not be a blank cheque. It will be an investment in the provinces that chose to invest. A reason that one of the first investments we made was in New Brunswick was because New Brunswick decided that they would create a bilingual platform for their people.
[Translation]
The 2001 census shows that bilingualism has made progress everywhere in Canada, but that it has lost its impetus among young anglophones in the 10 to 19 age group outside Quebec. The figures show that enrolments in regular French as a second language and immersion programs have reached a ceiling. This is partly attributable to the budget cuts of the 1990s and the cuts to funds devoted to second language learning, which were reduced by 52 per cent between 1991 and 2000-2001.
In Quebec, the creation of a targeted funding envelope for second language education coincides with renewed interest in learning English and French as a second language in Quebec.
[English]
Each year, more than 9,000 young Canadians have a chance to work in their second language through programs that Canadian Heritage started in 1996. One is called Young Canada Works in Both Official Languages, which has seen 6,433 participants since 1996. Another is the Summer Language Bursary Program, which has had 200,000 participants since its inception in 1971, and another is the Official-Language Monitor Program, which has had 30,000 teacher participants since 1973. French for the Future, a youth forum in 12 large Canadian cities, emphasizes the value of learning a second language.
[Translation]
There is also the Rendez-vous de la francophonie to raise awareness of the French fact in Canada. We know that 70 per cent of Canadian youth are interested in linguistic exchanges, including 77 per cent of young francophones.
[English]
We have also focused on interdepartmental coordination because of the importance of sections 41 and 42. In implementing section 41, we work with 29 federal agencies and departments to encourage development of official language strategic planning, reporting and evaluation of their activities. We have action plans and achievement reports in 29 departments that are tabled with the annual report to Parliament on official languages, and we also created the Interdepartmental Partnership with the Official Languages Communities. This is a five-year initiative aimed at leveraging more support from other departments in favour of the development of the official language minority. It has an annual budget of $5.5 million. Of that amount, we have been able to lever $23.3 million of services for official language communities.
[Translation]
Designated departments and agencies were selected following consultation with the minority official language communities.
[English]
In 2001, we signed MOUs with the Canada Council for the Arts, Industry Canada, Telefilm Canada and Health Canada. In 2002, we signed MOUs with CBC Radio-Canada, ACOA, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Human Resources, Fisheries and Oceans, Economic Development Canada, the Canadian Council for the Arts, Western Diversification, and the Canadian Immigration Office. In 2002-03, we signed MOUs with the National Film Board and Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
In the first two years, 13 MOUs generated $17.4 million, adding to the $5.3 million from the IPOLC. In the third year, 15 MOUs and IPOLC funding of $6.3 generated $23.3 million in support of official language communities.
The Interdepartmental Coordination Accountability Framework assigns all federal institutions clear responsibilities to determine whether their policies have an impact on linguistic duality, how they approach their responsibilities, how they meet the needs of minority communities, how they consult the public in developing and implementing their policies, how they make employees aware of the needs of minority communities and, where an impact has been identified, to plan activities, to present deliverables and to provide for results assessment mechanisms.
We have designated an expanded role for the Department of Justice to examine initiatives, programs and policy directions with a potential influence on official language communities, and to reinforce the Treasury Board and Privy Council monitoring roles.
Our role under section 42 is to encourage and promote coordination of federal institutions of the implementation of the commitment set out in section 41; to establish incentives like the IPOLC program; to enforce provisions applicable to all institutions that have to table action plans; and to recommend that other institutions be covered by the framework. There are 29 now designated, and we would like to see that number increase.
[Translation]
We spoke a little about the importance of the linguistic duality, but it also needs to be reflected in agencies like the CRTC, the Canadian Television Fund, The Canada Music Fund, the Canada Council, the Archives and the Library, national museums, Telefilm, et cetera.
I am going to give you the two most recent examples of how the CRTC benefits francophone communities. On May 7, 2003, the CRTC approved the application from the CBC French language service, Société Radio-Canada, to operate a transmitter in Victoria to broadcast Radio-Canada's ``Première chaîne.''
On April 17, 2003, the CRTC approved the application from La coopérative radiophonique de Toronto to establish a new French language community radio station in Toronto.
In 2002, the renewal of the CPAC licence required that it be distributed both official languages across Canada, except for small cable operators. The report also mentions that licences were granted to increase the reach of La chaîne culturelle and that the Standing Committee had tabled a report on the role of the CRTC and official languages in Canada.
In connection with the CBC and funding, it is mentioned that the French-language service, Société Radio-Canada, has French-language television in all regions of the country. RDI, the French-language news network, serves 7.5 million francophone subscribers, including 5.5 million subscribers outside Quebec, and its operating expenses are $318 million.
For radio, la Première chaîne reaches 98 per cent of francophones in Canada. The CBC's La chaîne culturelle reaches 90 per cent of francophones and receives operating expenditures of $104.9 million.
As for the Television Fund, part of the budget is reserved for French-language productions, specifically for minority French-language communities. In 2001-2002, $8.6 million were spent on support for 21 French-language projects by francophones in minority communities, which led to the creation of 80 new hours of programming.
There were productions in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, New Brunswick and British Columbia. When I established the Fund, I was emphatic that part of it be set aside for minorities, because it gave young people the opportunity to remain in their home communities to work.
[English]
Arts Presentation Canada: This deals with changes that we have made in the programming of Canadian Heritage arts funding. The total budget of Arts Presentation Canada is a bridge between the Cultural Initiatives Program and Arts Presentation Canada. Arts Presentation Canada has a $2-million budget, of which 8 per cent is set aside for French-speaking minorities outside the Province of Quebec.
I turn now to special considerations for official language minority assistance. The stacking requirements for arts presentation of 75 per cent can be waived in the case of minority languages. We have actually built the program to give special consideration to those in minority situations.
[Translation]
Cultural Spaces Canada received 12 per cent of the $14 million investment for francophones living in minority communities. That is 12 per cent of the total budget.
[English]
With respect to the National Arts Training Contribution Program, you can see that we have tried to use the power of the investment of Canadian Heritage outside the official languages envelope to provide a platform for young artists.
I turn now to book publishing.
[Translation]
Support for the francophone sector is $14.5 million. The budget for the four components of book publishing is $35 million. There is investment in book fairs across Canada. This year, 3,446 books were published by francophones, namely 50 per cent of all investment in books. As for the percentage between Quebec and outside Quebec, I could ask someone from Industry Canada to give further details.
Twelve of the 16 publications in the magazine category are published by minority francophone publishers.
[English]
Turning to the Canada Music Fund, we are trying, in all the programs of the department, to be more broadly based. When I became the minister we had —
[Translation]
MUSICACTION invested in francophone music in Quebec. Factus invested in anglophone music outside Quebec. A fund was created for both groups, called the Canada Music Fund. Attempts are now being made to establish an equivalence between anglophone projects in Quebec and francophone projects outside Quebec.
For example, in 2001-2002, 42 per cent of projects approved by MUSICACTION were minority francophone productions. The total budget increased by 50 per cent between 2000-2001 and 2002-2003, from $10 million to $28 million over a period of three years. Efforts are being made to ensure that anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec receive their fair share.
Then there is Francommunautés virtuelles, Canadian Culture Online, and the Canadian New Media Fund. On Friday, we announced initial support for the New Media Fund. It is for the universities conducting a study on the two languages, namely the University of Prince Edward Island, the Université de Moncton and University of New Brunswick, which are studying how two communities speaking two different languages can interconnect via the Internet.
If we succeed, we will be the first place in the world to have conducted a study on how to interconnect communities virtually in two languages. It will constitute an asset to minority language communities, and for those who live in such minority communities in big cities like Toronto and Montreal. If it works, it will be a springboard for communities that speak different languages.
Francocommunautés virtuelles is administered by Industry Canada. The first agreement to establish virtual francophone communities came from Canadian Heritage. After linking all municipal libraries in Canada and public places to the Internet, the second greatest need is people who are living as part of a minority, hence the birth of Francommunautés virtuelles.
[English]
With respect to Telefilm Canada, you can read about some of the projects. We continue to insist that agencies — and we continue to struggle with them — support cultural expression in diverse languages across the country.
For example, the Cinéfest du Sudbury —
[Translation]
An article in The Globe and Mail mentioned how successful the Toronto Cinéfest had been and that it had had nothing to do with the government. On the contrary, it had everything to do with the government. We were the first to grant financing. I urged Telefilm Canada to begin to support regional and minority film festivals.
Support to the Sudbury Cinéfest, the Winnipeg Cinémental and the Toronto Cinéfranco came from Telefilm at the request of Canadian Heritage. It did not happen because they just decided one day to invest somewhere other than Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. We took the time to make sure that funds were spread more equitably across Canada.
Thirty-two of 78 NFB productions/coproductions were made in French. Forty-one per cent in 2001-2002, $18.4 million for French programming. There are documentary productions, fiction productions and animation shorts for Studio Acadie, Ontario and the West, that are available to 55 libraries in Canada and that give the Canadian market as a whole access to French Canadian artists and products, and also to 250 international film festivals. We are trying to make use of everything we have.
At the Canada Council for the Arts, 2.7 per cent is awarded in the form of investment. Over $3 million goes to francophones in minority communities. The National Arts Centre has been much more national in recent years. The national museums history centre has been announced. It is all part of our need to make people aware of what is available at the National Library and National Archives of Canada to share with everyone, and to teach students who we are, in both official languages.
[English]
I now turn to our next challenges. The protocol and bilateral agreements need to be in place for April, 2004.
[Translation]
As we are studying the possibility of establishing a parental monitoring committee, we have been speaking with parents in each of the regions and each of the provinces to see what form it should take. I know that many provinces already have parents associations, but we want to make sure that there is truly a committee to monitoring what we are doing with the province because the school boards are not in a position to criticize the governments that are their masters.
When we sign a five-year agreement, we want to make sure that the agreement is followed, but there is no way of reviewing it.
[English]
We have a new intergovernmental agreement. We need to renew the intergovernmental agreement on community services by 2004. We also need a renewal of the Canada community agreements. Those are the agreements that started the programming and community centres, community radio stations and cultural programming. They have been the glue that has held everything together.
Official languages needs to be a priority for everyone, not just Canadian Heritage. We need to work together to achieve our stated goals.
I look forward to working with you to achieve those stated goals.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you for your commitment to minority communities and the Canadians who live in them. Your presentation has proved that you are certainly familiar with the needs of these communities. I am thinking of the francophones of British Columbia, who were very pleased to receive your support when Simon Fraser decided to give French courses in post-secondary education. You have just said that the school boards are not in a position to criticize the government. Let us now consider those who can criticize the government.
My question has to do with the Auditor General's 2001 report. On the last page of your presentation, I am looking at the next challenges. You are planning to sign a new MOU.
I am thinking of Minister Dion's presentation, where there was discussion of accountability. How do you intend to evaluate the performance objectives of the official languages programs received by the communities? Programs and agreements are signed. Will this new MOU reflect the needs? We often hear it said that they are not performing.
Can you comment on accountability as mentioned in the Auditor General's report, which said that the programs were not monitored closely enough? Those were not the exact words used, but that is what they meant.
Ms. Copps: I would rather speak of the Auditor General's question in connection with the programs. The communities tell me that when they receive $5 million or $10 million, they are faced with a mountain of red tape. We need a strategy. A foundation or a university that receives $60 million is not subject to the same requirements as a committee of volunteers that receives $10,000.
We are attempting to have multi-year funding. Now, when you submit an application, you have to redo it every year. We are trying to provide a structure that is more in keeping with the reality of volunteer work.
Depending on whether you receive $$60 million or $6,000, the requirements should be different. We looked at the situation in New Brunswick to make the forms easier and more accessible to the people.. We are trying to change the way forms need to be filled in and to have multi-year funding.
Accountability is something else again. I have always believed that accountability is important in every field. It's all very well to tell someone: you have a right, but you do not have the right to take legal action. My thoughts about this are not necessarily supported by others in the government. That is why in the Dion plan we added a framework that will attempt to review how the new structures that we are implementing have worked out after three years.
The Chair: Will this framework or will these performance objectives be included in the new MOU that you plan to put in place by April 2004?
Ms. Copps: Absolutely. I have always found it somewhat troublesome that we are prepared to take provincial governments to court when they do not meet their commitments, but that we are not prepared to do the same thing for us. If I can give someone advice, then I ought to follow that advice myself. My point of view is not necessarily that of everyone.
The Chair: I agree that you should recognize the volunteer aspect.
Ms. Copps: We signed an agreement with Human Resources. I was told that in this agreement, the Official Languages Act would be complied with. But this was not the case. So when the community noticed that the Official Languages Act was invalidated by provincial statutes, what to do next? The only remedy is to request a change to the system. We had no recourse to uphold their rights because the Act does not require accountability. It is difficult for the community to say that it demands its rights. They have to comply with government interpretations. I would prefer that we do what is done in the National Parks Act. We are adamant that there could be no development unless it is approved by Parliament. When it's in the Act, with a framework and a jurisdiction, it is always easier in the long term to protect rights. One ought not to include rights just because they are currently in fashion. Rights are not given, rights must exist.
The Chair: Thank you, and I remind members that it is difficult to chair a meeting when time is limited.
Ms. Copps: I will listen to the questions and answer at the end.
The Chair: There is one minute left.
Senator Gauthier: What you said today is a step in the right direction. I congratulate you, Minister. You have made great progress.
When you speak of accountability, I have a great deal of difficulty. I introduced a bill in the last Parliament, Bill S- 38. The government took a stand and I came back with Bill S-41. The Senate passed the bill on second reading, and the Bill was based on comments made in the course of a Senate committee review.
I am aware of Mr. Dion's position. He wants an action plan, and the action plan will include accountability. He mentioned a framework, character, et cetera, whatever. Whenever we were granted rights over the past 15 years, we obtained them through the courts. In education, in justice, all these issues were settled by the courts. But then we had the right to go to court.
There was the Beaulac decision with respect to justice, Mahé for education. It took 15 years, from 1982 to 1997 before we could manage our own schools in Ontario. We were told that we could not have recourse to the courts under section 41 because that's the way it is. And yet I was here and you were here, like me, in 1988 when this Act was passed. The language was not declaratory, but executory. At least that is what I believed. I was told afterwards that it was declaratory.
I am now told that there is a committee working on creating this accountability framework. Are you on this committee, Minister? Are you consulted on a regular basis? Are you actively involved in this accountability framework?
Ms. Copps: I will answer at the end.
Mr. Gauthier: When will it all be official?
Ms. Copps: The framework is part of the agreements that we will be signing and the action plan that has been proposed. We sit down with the Assistant Deputy Ministers regularly. It already exists.
Senator Gauthier: I am a politician and I do not sit in on Deputy Ministers' meetings. I am not familiar with that. Can I expect to see the Minister of Canadian Heritage on this committee? I need someone who understands the file the way you do. I am not certain that the others understand it as well. You read between the lines. I do not believe that the accountability framework that has been announced will meet the needs of the communities who have this right. Earlier you said that you were going to establish a parents committee. Who will choose the parents?
Ms. Copps: The Heritage Department. The discussion about the monitoring committee will be included in the agreement that we will sign with the provinces, but we want to consult each of the provinces and the parents in the provinces. The discussion with the parents has already begun. Take British Columbia for example, where there are very few school boards, whereas in Quebec there are many. That is why a different system is needed, depending on the region.
Senator Gauthier: I do not understand how you divide up the responsibilities conferred under section 42 with Mr. Dion, the President of the Privy Council, he maintains that he is responsible for coordination. Who is responsible? How do you share these powers? You have the funds, not him. Who decides? You or Mr. Dion?
The Chair: Minister, you can answer all the questions at the end.
Senator Beaudoin: I have two very specific questions. Section 41 of the Official Languages Act is in my humble opinion clearly executory. There is no doubt about this in my mind. I have never had any, I have not changed my mind, and I am prepared to appear in court to defend my point of view.
You said that the federal government is introducing programs. Are you exercising federal spending authority? I think that you have the absolute right to do so. That is my first question.
Section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that when there are enough parents who speak the official language of a minority group to have a school board or a French school, they can manage their schools. It is a management right. It is true that education falls under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government may spend, under its spending authority, when section 23 applies. It is a good reason to spend in this area. The Constitution says so. Those are my two questions.
Senator Comeau: On page 19, you refer to the year 2003, with the renewal of the CRTC licence, which will require cable operators to carry the Cable Public Affairs Channel in French, although an exemption will be made for small cable operators. You are familiar with the St. Mary's Bay region of Nova Scotia. You have a doctorate from Université Sainte-Anne. In Meteghan, half the population lives on the East Coast and the other half on the West Coast. The region is divided in two. To the east there is EastLink cable and to the west, there is Rush, which is receiving an exemption, probably for this case. On a number of occasions, I have tried to encourage this person to carry RDI. He refused. I asked him at least to carry CPAC in French. You are aware that the region is francophone. He refused. I therefore stopped using the cable operator and, like many others, I use a satellite system.
Why give these people an exemption? If I have understood correctly, in 2000-2001, compared to 2001-2002, under the program of education expenses with the provinces, in Nova Scotia, the budget went from $4.1 million to $2.7 million, a decrease of $1.3 million. I would like to know why.
You have a program entitled the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities. I think it is in New Brunswick. What is it? I think that the program received $10 million in 2001-2002.
[English]
Senator Keon: First, let me congratulate you on a superb program and thank you for coming. Building on what Senator Beaudoin asked you, it seems to me that this initiative is unique. On a global basis, there are probably no comparisons, which means that you have had little or no opportunity to benchmark and compare outcomes.
While you want to be accountable, it seems to me that the preoccupation should not be entirely with accountability at this time. This initiative will have some successes and failures. It is a superb initiative and I do not think it should be bogged down in measuring outcomes three years down the road.
I would like to hear your comments on that.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: You have developed an unusually thorough understanding of the minority community situation. I congratulate you and thank you for this. This understanding has led to projects that are not only innovative, but concrete and that have really had an impact. I am speaking on behalf of francophones from Western Canada.
I have three examples to give you: the Festival du cinéma francophone, the book fairs — books in French — and your Canadian Television Fund, which accepted small francophone minority productions. These made it possible for us to see films from where we live about our own history and about who we are.
The fund was spread over five years, and has now been reduced. What is happening is something that has always happened. As soon as our small groups begin to manage on their own, the funds dry up. They don't learn to fly as they should and then we have to start over from scratch again. Would it not be possible to encourage Industry Canada, your partner in Francommunautés virtuelles, to ensure that it truly recognizes that we have cultural industries? The cultural industry contributes as much if not more to the economy of our provinces, our country. Could they not add some funds, as they do for other industries?
Would it not be possible at some point to push Industry Canada a little harder?
Senator Léger: Thank you for all the work you have done. You said that the linguistic duality would automatically lead to self-esteem. You gave the example of the Canada Games in Prince Edward Island. God knows we have seen that happen often enough. It creates pride.
[English]
Appetite is created. During the next 30 years, people will be healthier, I hope, with linguistic duality.
[Translation]
That will create responsibility: the more you put out, the more you are successful. We are responsible for our success. That means that it will lead to other things being asked for. Funds are granted to projects, whether they are innovative or not. But as soon as the word ``project'' is used, it means that it's limited to two years or three years. As Senator Chaput was saying, you just begin to get going and it's over. It causes a lot of harm.
Where do we stand with the Canadian Television Fund? I have the newspapers from May 9. Was is settled last week? I was not here.
Ms. Copps: It is very complicated. When I became Minister, there were three funds: one for Telefilm, one for cable and we created a fund including all of Telefilm and the private fund of $200 million. Every one who subscribed to cable or satellite contributed a portion of the fees to the fund. This meant that last year, the fund that had $200 million at the beginning now stood at $258 million, public and private.
Each time there is an increase in the private portion, it makes a change possible. When the budget came down, two things converged. First of all, in August of last year, they amended the rules of the fund. It is not the government that establishes the rules for the fund, but rather a committee of 16 people, including francophone producers from outside of Quebec, the CBC, Telefilm and private producers.
Under the new rules for the fund, the budget gave $60 million to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Instead of giving $ 25 million to the Television Fund and $35 million to the CBC, the fund was reduced by $25 million and the CBC received $60 million.
The problem is that the fund is now financed on the basis of whoever gives the most money. Fourteen of the 15 projects approved were for the CBC. These were major productions. Those who were submitting projects from outside were not submitting big projects. On May 2, these were revised. They gave $20 million more, which would give a total for this year, even before the $25 million cut, of $230 million in the fund. That represents $30 million more than at the outset.
There is a private component, a satellite component, and we are now conducting an analysis to make sure that the fund does not exclude the smaller players.
That, more or less, explain the three parts of the problem. We are hoping that with the review that is under way, there will be something more specific. This year, there will be $230 million in the fund and we are emphasizing that we want part of it to go to minority communities, specifically for development. Before the fund, everything went to the CBC. There was no investment except for the CBC.
Thank you for the compliment in saying that I am well aware of the reality. I am aware of it because I have a daughter. I want to know as a parent what the options are. When you leave school and there are no movies, no music, no socialization, the education you are getting is static. That is why we banked on developing sports and culture. It shows in everything we have done outside of politics with respect to official languages. We know that the fund is supposed to help those living in minority communities. We invested in festivals. Senator Keon spoke about the results.
[English]
In actual fact, senator, we have some good student outcomes, which is the only benchmark for the measure. francophone students were the least educated and the worst paid before they had the right to education. They are now the best educated and the best paid. I do not think that is the only outcome we should measure, because life is about more than just money. However, we do have some good economic measures. We have to convince the Auditor General of this. We cannot measure the minority language investments with the same yardstick that we use for institutional investments.
It is not fair to the communities that are struggling on a minority basis. We need to do more work in that area and so we are looking at annual investment to make it simpler for the communities, pursuant to your points.
[Translation]
As for Senator Comeau's questions, I fully agree. It caught my attention. Why do they grant this exemption? It would be a good idea to ask the CRTC. I thought that the problem had been dealt with, and if it has not, then it should be. There ought not to be an exemption.
There are a number of institutes, including the one of which you spoke. This was a proposal by the Université de Moncton. In developing a vision of Canada's minorities, one should not rely on a single institution. The Université de Moncton is a good thing. What we did with Université Sainte-Anne and the college to ensure that the language would survive and grow is also important. We use various avenues.
[English]
This is in response to your question about why we do not invest in culture at the Department of Industry.
[Translation]
It provides added value for Canada, why do we say that it has something to do with official languages? It has to do with our economy. We invest in language and culture and it creates jobs. Twenty-five per cent of the population is francophone and 20 per cent of Internet content is in French. We want to get the other departments involved and we will continue to work on this.
With respect to the spending authority mentioned by Senator Beaudoin, you are absolutely right. If we take the action plan that we are beginning with the provinces, they are not forced to take our money. It is optional. When I say that the school boards have trouble criticizing the provinces, it is like the municipalities. School boards are established under provincial statutes. A school board cannot say that it disagrees with a province.
Let us take the province of Nova Scotia, for example. They closed immersion schools in Halifax. Parents were truly committed. As for the system, it was not possible to get an investigation going and for the issue to be made transparent to the public. It was all done behind closed doors. It is all very well to have a review.
[English]
I got the green light from the provincial government, but I never saw a published study. I would like to see something in writing to ensure that there is public accountability.
[Translation]
The parents' committee that we want to establish would be a way of addressing government transparency. If the provinces do not want to accept the investments, they are not obliged to do so. But at least they should do something that is transparent with these funds.
As for executory power, as a politician, I proposed that the province of Ontario become bilingual in 1982.
[English]
I have got the scars to show for it.
[Translation]
We helped Montfort Hospital with its efforts. The courts ruled in our favour. Governments are not perfect, even ours. But we are committed.
You spoke earlier about why the percentage of language funds in Nova Scotia were cut by 25 per cent. In the 1995 budget cuts, we reduced funds for official languages by 25 per cent. The new fund will increase this, but five years have been lost.
I prefer to have rights entrenched in an act rather than have rights as a Minister. Case law must decide on matters of accountability with respect to the Official Languages Act. I am trying to answer everything.
With respect to the CRTC and the cultural industries, it would be nice one day to be able to invite organizations that signed agreements and that perhaps have something to add to these questions. Ms. Louise Chevrier, who I appointed, did not agree with the changes to the rules. I wanted a minority francophone voice there. When everyone else decided to change the rules last August, they did not know that it would have the unfortunate consequence of financing only major productions. It would be a good idea, for example, to invite CBC representatives to hear their testimony.
The Chair: Would you accept questions in writing, Minister?
Ms. Copps: Yes of course.
The Chair: The questions would include questions about the annual report.
Ms. Copps: I really must leave.
The Chair: Thank you for making yourself available.
Senator Beaudoin: I have always said that on very difficult or controversial issues, it is the courts that need to decide. The Montfort case would never have been won without the courts.
Senator Gauthier: I can't go to court over sections 41 and 42 or Part VII. Part VII is exempt from referral to the courts.
Senator Beaudoin: That is not true. Any point in the Constitution can be referred to the courts. I do not necessarily want to go to court, but I can if necessary. It is true. If there is a point that has been bothering us for years, there will never be an answer until it is taken to court. It's that simple.
Senator Gauthier: Senator Beaudoin, you are speaking like a rich man!
Ms. Sarkar: I have taken note of your comments. As the Minister of Canadian Heritage said, you are the expert.
Senator Gauthier: Twenty-nine federal institutions report to the Minister of Canadian Heritage: the National Film Board, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Canada Council for the Arts did not prepare a report this year. What kind of stick are you going to have to hit them on the head with to make it clear to them that the regulations are there for every one? What kind of penalty is there?
Ms. Sarkar: With your permission, I will ask Mr. Lemoine to reply.
Mr. Hilaire Lemoine, Director General Official Languages Support Programs, Department of Canadian Heritage: Each year, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Ms Copps, releases reports from the various institutions. We are always a year late in terms of tabling these reports in Parliament. These three institutions will have to submit a report, because these reports will be included in Minister Copps' annual report next year.
Senator Gauthier: There was no report for 2001-2002. What do you do in such a situation? I know that these reports are often shelved. There is no follow-up. What happens when the reports are not prepared? Nothing. It's an empty shell.
Senator Chaput: What could the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages do to help Canadian Heritage use a stick? You are responsible for monitoring the action plans of the departments required to prepare them, but you do not have the clout to tell them: You didn't do it, here's what's going to happen. You expend a great deal of effort, but you don't have control over the results. What can the committee do to help you with this very difficult task?
Mr. Lemoine: When your committee asks a department or an agency to appear, that is always a good incentive. You can support us in that way.
The Chair: We will give you the tools and you can use them.
Senator Comeau: On March 24, the Department granted the Fédération des communities acadiennes et francophones du Canada funds for a symposium entitled ``Vive la différence, l'exception francophone.'' What exactly is that about?
Mr. Lemoine: Senator Comeau, I think that we will have to send you that information in writing, because I would not want to mislead you.
Senator Comeau: I wanted to do a comparison between the CBC budgets in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. These two provinces are more or less similar. The CBC categorically refused to give me information about the budgets and the funds spent in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. The answer was more or less that I would not understand how the figures are set out.
It is interesting to see that we, the parliamentarians, are asked to vote on rather large amounts of money, but after the money is received, we are no longer intelligent enough to understand how the budgets are allocated. The CBC President categorically refused to reply to me.
Is there no way in which a parliamentarian or anyone else can demand such information from an agency like the CBC, which receives taxpayer funds? I am one of those who approve these funds every year. I would have thought that it would only natural that a parliamentarian should at least be able to know how the funds are spent. I was not asking for much. Is there a procedure to be followed to obtain this kind of information?
Ms. Peterson: Mr. René Bouchard, the Director General of Broadcasting Policy and New Media, will answer your question.
Mr. René Bouchard, Director General, Broadcasting Policy and New Media: I have looked ad the letter that was sent to you and I must say that the tone was rather curt. I think that the explanation basically said that the manner in which the expenses were broken down by the CBC made it difficult to identify the specific costs for a specific station in a specific region.
The explanations you were given mentioned that in a specific region, for a specific station, at a specified time, the programming may come from outside: it may come from the network, the region or it may be local. The cost of broadcasts for the network and the cost of regional programs are not necessarily charged to the local station or the region.
It is therefore difficult, when people ask what funds are required for a production by a CBC station in a specific community, to give a straight answer because the network costs or regional costs chargeable to that station are not known.
That was the gist of the reply. Basically, the CBC is accountable to Parliament; it must file an annual report. It is also accountable to the CRTC for issuing licences and programming. There are CBC accountability measures that can provide us with information. When the questions are very detailed, it may be difficult to reconcile the financial data with information for a very specific station, and I think essentially, that that was the CBC's reply.
Senator Comeau: I was an accountant for many years. At the time, we had no computers.
I cannot believe that these days, with computers making life so much easier and software like Excel, that there is no way of separating out the costs for the Atlantic and other regions.
I find that difficult. If the President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had told me that their accounting system did not work, then I might have thought that that sort of question would be of interest to them. They should be interested in knowing what resources go to Nova Scotia, to New Brunswick and to the West.
Mr. Bouchard: My knowledge of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation computer system and its accounting system is limited. We can study the question and speak to them about it. However, the fact remains that one of the reasons why they are not always prepared to share information is that they are competing with other undertakings and in some respects would not want all the figures that allow them to compete with other broadcasting undertakings to become public.
There are a number of factors taken together — which were not all explained in the letter you received — that leaves them in certain areas not to provide economic or financial information that is very specific about each of the radio or television stations.
Senator Comeau: I have a final comment. It has been said that we are not very well informed about radio. That bothers me somewhat.
Mr. Bouchard: I would like to answer a question that Senator Comeau asked about cable service and about the exemption given for carrying the CPAC system. Part of the answer that I could give you is that for these small cable operators, carrying a second channel in a language other than the one broadcast adds costs. These costs are fairly significant and for many small cable companies in Canada that have very limited revenue, it can cost them up to $65,000 per year and they may have only 250 subscribers, sometimes fewer. That is mainly why the CRTC allowed this exemption. It increases costs in a context in which these companies have to compete with Direct Satellite service. These Direct Satellite services have an easier time of providing more channels. For them, it is less expensive to offer CPAC than it is for small cable operators. That was the logic behind the CRTC exemption.
Senator Comeau: You have a minority language community that is divided in two. On one side there is EastLink and on the other a smaller operator. There would be competition. EastLink is big enough to carry RDI, which is not of interest to the small cable operator. What prevents this cable operator from carrying CPAC in French? Why carry it in English but not in French, particularly as the population is francophone.
Mr. Bouchard: I am not familiar with this specific market. The only possible answer I can give you is that for small cable operations, it may be expensive. For many small cable operators, the technology they use allows them to carry only 24 or 36 channels. If they substitute for the most popular channels they provide to their basic service customers by CPAC, then they find that they are in a poorer competitive position with respect to Direct Satellite. Direct Satellite services can carry many more than 24 or 36 channels, including CPAC, sometimes in both languages.
Senator Comeau: I must admit that I am not sympathetic, because he refused to answer my letters asking why he could not consider providing the service.
Senator Gauthier: In connection with this subject, Senator Comeau, the matter is before the courts with Mr. Quigley, of New Brunswick, who is claiming his right to have access to parliamentary debates in both official languages. The House of Commons has appealed this decision to the Federal Court.
As for my question, if I have understood correctly, it is possible to put questions in writing?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Gauthier: Will we have replies soon? There are 29 federal institutions included in the accountability framework established in 1994. I have made a list of 30 more that could easily be added. Can you at the Department of Heritage add these names? I will send you a list. I would like to know why you do not add the CRTC? Why is the Archives not there? Why are Taxation and Revenue Canada excluded?
There is a list of names, and I would like you to answer positively, and to tell me the reasons why you cannot or do not want to include them along with the other 29 federal institutions required to report to your department every year on the official languages advancement program.
The Chair: Ms. Sarkar, you have received a copy of Senator Gauthier's request.
Ms. Sarkar: I would be happy to answer.
The Chair: We have to interrupt this part of our meeting. I would like to thank all our guests for their participation. After the 10-minute break, we will continue in camera.
(Sitting suspended.)
Sitting resumed.
The Chair: We are pleased to welcome today Mr. Pierre Gaudet, the Acting Coordinator of the Consortium national de formation en santé. Following his presentation, members of the committee may ask him questions.
Mr. Pierre Gaudet, Acting Coordinator, Consortium national de formation en santé: I would like to begin by bringing the members of this committee greetings from the copresidents of the consortium, Mr. Gilles Patry, Rector of the University of Ottawa and Mr. Yvon Fontaine, the Rector of the Université de Moncton. Although they could not be here today, they wished to express their appreciation, particularly for the report on health in French prepared by members of the Senate. This report is often referred to as the Kirby report.
In particular, Mr. Fontaine wishes to thank the members of the Committee for the attention they focused on intervention having to do with the consortium in the report. Ms Andrée Lortie, President of Cité collégiale, also wished to emphasize the importance of the system of colleges, which is now an integral part of the consortium. Mr. Patry wished to note that the official establishment of the consortium and the policy that I will soon be describing briefly, seem to him to be consistent with the approaches developed in the Senate Committee report, particularly recommendation No. 4, which discussed the importance of training.
The management team that will be effecting the transition between the Centre national's first project and the consortium's current project saw an initial five-year period lead to a second five-year period, and this truly appears to match the key directions set out in this report. The management team is honoured to be able to present the work and objectives of the consortium and to discuss them with the Committee members.
I would like to introduce the colleagues who are here with me. Ms. Rachel Ouellette is the project manager at the University of Ottawa, and is working with me on the transition, while Ms. Nicole Lavoie handles communications for the project.
I have had the privilege of working with some of you in the distant past. I also was privileged, along with Senator Gauthier, to present and discuss most of the information I will be recapitulating today. Whenever there are developments that affect the francophonie, Senator Gauthier is always in front lines.
In the document that was distributed to you, you will see that the second page has the logos of all the institutions that are a part of the consortium. It is interesting to note that the project stemmed from an institution that submitted a project to the Department of Canadian Heritage in 1997. That project then expanded into a network of six universities outside Quebec, and then a group of ten universities and colleges.
I will briefly go over the background, as it was covered in the Kirby report and various other works. First of all, I would like to remind you of the circumstances surrounding the establishment of the consortium. I will then move on to its policies and its implementation.
The project is not something that came from nowhere, from scratch. It was based on an earlier project which contributed to its development. Health is a priority in Canada. Several recent studies, including the Romanow report and the Senate's Kirby report, have focused on the status of access to health care in their language for the large francophone minority.
Canadian francophone communities outside of Quebec have rallied behind the health issue. First, there was the initial training project approved in January 1999, whose implementation was entrusted to the University of Ottawa. Shortly thereafter, in the spring of 2000, the Comité consultatif des communautés francophones en situation minoritaire (Advisory Committee on Minority francophone Communities) was established, as well as its counterpart for minority anglophone communities. On the francophone side, this led to the study entitled ``Santé en français,'' which was analyzed by your committee. It made recommendations to the Minister of Health, with which you are familiar. These recommendations led to an approach that emphasized three major priorities for action. An attempt was made to take an innovative approach with respect to this aspect of health in French for francophones.
Of these three major approaches, one is training, which I shall present to you; the second is networking, which was presented to you by Mr. Hubert Gauthier and the third, the establishment of centres in minority communities where health services are dispensed in French.
Moving on to the consortium, and the training component of this complementary approach, in the three priority areas for action. The consortium did not fall from the sky. A transitional consortium was established at the Centre national de formation en santé, which the University of Ottawa had submitted as a project to Canadian Heritage, and which was announced in 1999. There was also work carried out by the consultative committee, about which I have just spoken, which happened to coincide well and contributed to the establishment of this consortium.
This led the consortium to submit an application in July 2002 to the Minister of Health for a five-year project that would enable the initial 1999-2003 project to continue and expand.
We learned in the spring, in the Speech from the Throne, about the very good news that we would be receiving funds. This was confirmed afterwards, by both the Prime Minister and Minister Dion. A more specific announcement concerning the health component was released on Friday evening in Nova Scotia. It was confirmed that the consortium would receive $63 million over the five years of the project under the Official Languages Action Plan coordinated by Minister Dion.
One of the documents we included is the consortium's news release expressing its satisfaction and outlining its project. The consortium is currently incorporating as a non-profit organization. I will now introduce the members of the consortium and the key directions.
First of all, the consortium is an alliance of the main universities and colleges that operate in the French language outside Quebec. The alliance covers Canada coast to coast, with Université Sainte-Anne, and a college component, the Collège de l'Acadie, as well as Université de Moncton, whose Rector, Mr. Fontaine, appeared before the Senate Committee that was studying the report. Then there is the Quebec-New Brunswick agreement, which primarily covers training in medicine. You have also heard Doctor Schofield give a presentation on this. There is a less well-known component of the agreement that allows the people of New Brunswick to purchase training in Quebec in various disciplines, including health.
Then there is the New Brunswick community college, Campbellton Campus, which joined the consortium, because it is the college component of New Brunswick, which is most concerned about health. There is the University of Ottawa, Cité collégiale and Laurentian University, Collège Boréal, in Northern Ontario and Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface, with the college component and Faculté Saint-Jean at the University of Alberta. None of these universities and colleges is against the possible addition of other members in future, when other institutional organizations are able to develop health programs. For example, there is Saskatchewan, which wants to develop potential with what used to be called the Institut linguistique at the University of Saskatchewan. Cité collégiale is also working very hard in a number of areas of education. This often involves continuing education, in an effort to establish college education for francophones in the West. It could also lead to offering programs in health services.
These are institutions, but in these institutions are people who play a major role. We are fortunate in that the heads of the institutions believe in the project. Most of the institutions involved in the consortium are represented by rectors or presidents. I will not read the list, because you know all these people. It is thanks to their leadership, within their own institutions and their communities, and their decision to collaborate and take a partnership approach, that the consortium has been able to develop a project that allows institutions to work as part of a network in which complementarity can be used to best advantage.
Doing so means that the consortium needs to work within partnerships, and complementary research networks, whether within among universities or colleges. To be sure, they will have to look for expertise, in a field as broad and complex as health care, in various communities.
Training in these communities is part of a much larger environment. It includes not only classroom teaching, but teaching in the field.
For example, in Ottawa, Montfort Hospital was quickly used to increase opportunities for training in French. Montfort played a key role. Montfort is trying to establish partnerships with other institutions such as the Hawkesbury Hospital, as well with hospitals and health institutions in Quebec in the Outaouais area. All of these partnerships play a role that can provide teaching that is truly anchored in the health care environment. It is essential to forge alliances with every one who can contribute.
There are over a hundred health care institutions that accept students to provide them with training in the health care community. We counted the various university and college institutions with whom they have to work in order to provide this very concrete and practical training. The list has at least 140 names on it. They need to work with the professional bodies and the francophone coordination agencies. We work closely with the Santé en français corporation, which resulted from recommendations made by the consultative committee in its report to the Minister of Health. Then, of course, there are all kinds of complementary support networks with whom we need to remain constantly in contact. These are regional, provincial and national agencies that work to improve services; it is something that is in the process of being created.
Senator Morin came and gave a presentation a few days ago to the French Language Health Services Network of Eastern Ontario. He said that he had seen all these developments. As you can see, if you say things often enough, they sometimes end up by being repetitions and you lose track of where it originated. He spoke about how dynamic the world health care environment was in the francophone communities outside Quebec.
In this approach, the consortium adopted a vision that I am going to read, because I have nothing to add to it. It says:
The presence and support of professionals in francophone health care and researchers in health disciplines in order to fully meet the health needs, in French of minority francophone communities and to contribute significantly to their well-being and growth.
This vision implicitly includes four main values. In the health field, excellence is an essential criterion, a basic requirement and a necessary quality. Training generally requires this collaborative approach. Moreover, collaboration must occur at several levels. First, there must be collaboration between training institutions and institutions that provide services such as health services, and with all kinds of networks that want to make the French-speaking population aware of the importance of having access to health in French in their own language.
It is also a matter of equity, because they are all citizens of our country and should have access to services that are as important as health services in their own language, particularly when there is interaction between the caregiver and the patient. But there is also a regional dimension to this. It is true that the trend in Canada has been towards monopolies. I do not mean a monopoly in the negative sense, but the idea was to have major training centres and key health institutions in large urban areas and so on. But the fact remains that everyone should have access as much as possible to the possibility of training in the health field, and we shall see that there are different ways that can be used to accomplish this. Access must be provided, even to people who are not in major urban centres.
In terns of compliance with specific requirements and means, these disciplines are vast and many. The professional requirements are very strict and very arduous. Everyone involved deserves respect, because respect for everyone's skills and roles is essential in this field.
These then are the four major approaches that the consortium would like to implement. This leads us to the mission. I will simply read it, because it says everything that needs to be said:
The implementation of an expanded post-secondary network for training and research in French to support training institutions that offer or could offer training in health care, in addition to the researchers who could strengthen health research, particularly in minority francophone communities.
This leads us to the objective, which is where you can see how everything fits together. It is like those Russian dolls in which each doll contains another one, and with each developing and dependent on the previous one. I would ask you to respond to these directions or approaches and to the ways of implementing them that the consortium wishes to follow.
The general objective is to improve health care services in French by broadening post-secondary training for francophone health care professionals and, complementarily, by encouraging research in the health care field, particularly in those areas that relate to community training and needs.
This dual objective is something we can return to somewhat later. It is obvious that training and research are inseparable in many ways. The specific objectives are to become thoroughly familiar with the specific needs of the communities and to encourage professionals to return to work in the communities they come from. The only other option is for them to leave their home communities. The attractions of the big cities often draw young people, and they end up leaving their home communities. There is also often a lack of basic data concerning the status and needs in terms of health care in minority communities.
This is something that the consortium would like to encourage by contributing directly or by indirectly finding partners to help them learn about the specific needs, and in particular to work in concert with others to encourage health care professionals to remain in these communities and provide these communities with services in their own language.
The second objective is to maximize the contribution of existing institutions and to give them the capacity, when they already have programs, and when they already have a training capacity, not only to broaden them, but to make them available to those who are not as well endowed and for whom such training is less accessible. So once again, partnerships and collaboration go hand in hand. The institutions that are members of the consortium are indistinguishable from the health care communities they come from and from health training as well as the other stakeholders who want to improve health care in French and the care provided in French in the communities.
Furthermore, it is essential to facilitate coordination and liaison with everyone who works in related or complementary fields.
They should not get in each other's way. We spoke just now about respect for the specific strengths of each stakeholder, so that not everybody would work in the same areas, and at the same time try to liaise and as much possible make the most of synergy and complementarity.
Based on these approaches, the consortium will, generally speaking, operate as follows. As I said earlier, the consortium is incorporating as a non-profit agency, with the objectives that I have just listed. The consortium consists of ten institutions that will constitute the Board of Directors, to which will also be added the representative of Société Santé en français. This is in keeping with complementarity and liaison. At the moment, the president, Mr. Hubert Gauthier, sits on the Board of Directors of the consortium. Reciprocally, a member of the consortium, Mr. Yvon Fontaine, sits on the Board of Directors of the Société Santé en français.
The other major component in terms of implementation involves the institutions that provide training. They are the core that will make it possible to recruit students and expand the programs. They will be responsible for implementation and will play the key role there.
Then, there is the collective project, which involves two sides of the same undertaking. There is the collective project, and the education and research project, which involves collective efforts and the individual contributions of each institution at the same time.
To support the consortium and the various components that I have just sketched out, there will be an executive secretariat, one that will coordinate the overall activities of the consortium. The secretariat will be very small, but at the same time, it will depend on the coordinators who represent the various institutions. We need to investigate how to put it all together.
Sometimes, two neighbouring institutions will be able to share a number of resources, but there will be coordinators representing the individual institutions with an executive secretariat, and it is more or less this complementarity that will be the backbone of consortium management. To this, we would like to add a committee advisory structure, which I will discuss later. We had such a structure during the first phase of the project, which has just ended.
Then, there are all kinds of complementarities and partnerships to be explored. To give you a concrete example, there is already a properly drawn up collaboration protocol between the consortium and the Société santé en français to share certain aspects, to exchange information about certain issues, in addition to perhaps exchanges between secretariats.
Why is it likely that this consortium will succeed? That is what I would like to address. It is true that, as I mentioned, it has adopted certain directions and approaches, some procedures and methods for its operations, but because it is not starting from scratch, it is important to realize that the structure rests on solid foundations.
First of all, the institutions will be implementing the project. It nevertheless amounts to a network of francophone post-secondary institutions that have a long history, that are in their communities, that represent a complete reality and a whole community, not only a student community but something much broader, and they play a role in these communities.
There are ten such institutions across Canada that provide health care education in more than 15 disciplines, and which represent approximately 30 programs; not only that, but the possibility is there for them to do more and to do it better. There is potential for extending complementarities and partnerships. The consortium wants to work towards a much broader French-language health care objective, which is to say to contribute to providing francophone communities to access to health care services completely in French wherever possible.
The Chair: Mr. Gaudet, could you summarize a little?
Mr. Gaudet: All right. I was going to say that the consortium is a strategic and operational collective that can rely on established institutions that have proved their worth. It is also being built on a project that has just ended and that was definitely a success. The Centre national de formation en santé, which received a grant from the Department of Canadian Heritage, has just concluded its project. It had three objectives: to train at least 90 francophone students in different areas of health care, to develop partnerships mainly in clinical training, and to contribute to partnerships with other institutions.
A hundred and twelve students were educated in health care disciplines at the University of Ottawa, which meant that the objective of 90 over a five-year period was exceeded in only four years. There is a team of clinical training specialists now at Montfort that consists of 15 people already, and a multimedia centre that can make resources accessible, along with a framework for clinical training in Canada.
A whole series of workshops have already been given, all distance workshops on the art of clinical supervision, which makes it possible to train clinical supervisors in the communities themselves, where programs can then be given in turn because the clinical supervisors are there in those communities. For example, there are programs that are sent to Manitoba. A clinical supervisor makes sure that training is consistent with the student circumstances, and at the same time trains these students in the field.
These partnerships also made it possible to launch a nursing program at the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface, which now has approximately 50 students.
Next, in training, there are currently partnerships for distance education, clerkships and then, for the second phase there is a kind of springboard already in place which already has a number of accomplishments to its credit.
Inter-institutional cooperation already exists, with the consortium its most important achievement. There are already regional coordinators attached to six institutions across the country, and this will extend to ten institutions.
This leads us to the description of the second phase of the project. Our intention is to train approximately 1,200 health care professionals over the next five years by admitting 2,600 students to programs. The plan is to concentrate on training programs that place an emphasis on front-line services. The list of programs mentioned in your documentation shows clearly that these programs all closely match the needs of the people.
The Chair: Can we go directly to the questions?
Mr. Gaudet: Yes.
The Chair: I am mainly addressing the committee members. A while ago, following Ms Copps' presentation, you had some good comments to make about how to proceed by asking brief questions and then giving the witness an opportunity to reply. I think we will proceed in the same way with Mr. Gaudet.
Senator Beaudoin: No. Not yet. We would like, a first round to begin with.
The Chair: I have a sensitive question. How do all these structures, whether called consortium, société en santé en français, francophone Advisory Committee, partnership, et cetera, how do these help patients in the waiting room? The structure is very cumbersome. The consortium focuses mainly on training. Do you not find that there are a lot of structures? Is there a good reason for that?
Mr. Gaudet: You are right. The purpose of it all is to have professionals who can provide these people with services in their language. The truth in all of this is that we trained more than 150 professionals during the first phase. These professionals are the ones who deliver the services and who deal with the target population. The truth of the consortium lies not in the structure to implement it, but in the results. The main result is that we want to have a thousand professionals who can interact with these communities and provide them with services in French.
The Chair: Have you identified those health sectors where the needs are great? Is it social work, physiotherapy, medicine, will that be the role of the consortium?
Mr. Gaudet: We have attached the list of programs that will be implemented, strengthened or established in certain regions where there are none yet. The list is appended and there are 30 or so programs representing 15 disciplines. These were reviewed and selected because they are all programs that involve providing services directly to the people.
Senator Gauthier: You are acting; what does that mean?
Mr. Gaudet: For the time being, I have agreed to work on the transition between the first phase and the second phase. I am trying to organize this.
Senator Gauthier: The consortium or the programme national de formation has existed for five years. Has there been an assessment of the program that would make it possible for parliamentarians to justify these funds over the next five years, based on the experience of the past five years.
Mr. Gaudet: No assessment was done by an outside firm, but there have been regular reports about everything that has been accomplished under the consortium. All of these things have been summarized.
Senator Gauthier: I am being asked why you are spending $63 million. Has there been an assessment? No. Reports are something that I have piles of. I know that the program in question is not for students in Ontario or Quebec. We are not included, are we?
Mr. Gaudet: Yes and no. In its programs, the University of Ottawa used funds from the first phase only for students outside of Ontario because it is already being funded to deliver these health programs in French in Ontario. It already has the funding it needs from the Ontario government. The amounts in question were to make an additional effort to reach students from other communities who did not have access to such training and to develop health care professionals who, it is hoped, will return to these communities.
Senator Gauthier: Could you please tell those who decided to exclude Ontario and Quebec, that Ontario, Northern Ontario and the northwest, is as big as the rest of Canada. The people of Hearst, Moonbeam and Lafontaine are not included. Students who come to Ottawa in medicine are selected on a quota basis. There used to be quotas, so many francophone students, so many foreign students and so many anglophone students, because everything in medicine at the University of Ottawa was in English. In your list of professions, I note that there is dentistry, but there are no dentists. Is there a faculty of dentistry included in your programs?
Mr. Gaudet: You have raised several points, Senator Gauthier. First of all, in the consortium, Northern Ontario is not excluded. Far from it.
Senator Gauthier: I know.
Mr. Gaudet: Collège Boréal is there. In Phase I, I spoke about the students who were coming to the University of Ottawa. In the current consortium, Northern Ontario is completely included both through Laurentian University, Collège Boréal and every one from the North who wants to study at other institutions, including the University of Ottawa. That's the first point.
It would be useful to meet the people who teach medicine in French at the University of Ottawa to dispel the perception that teaching is only in English. That may have been true five or 10 years ago, but it is no longer the case today.
Senator Beaudoin: I have a little constitutional problem with your consortium. Faculties of medicine, doctors and the College of Physicians, and health are largely a matter of provincial jurisdiction. I have no objection to the federal government helping them, provided that I have evidence that it's necessary. Canada is Canada. There is federal spending authority. It is entrenched in the Constitution, it is a court decision. I am in agreement with help for provinces. I am in agreement with attempting to provide equal access to health care, if I can put it that way, in all parts of Canada. Nevertheless, particularly when you exclude Quebec and Ontario, where 60 per cent of Canada's population is to be found, that is pretty big. On what is all of that based? You want to establish a non-profit corporation. I am in favour of foundations and non-profit creations, but only when they work.
I have a small problem from the structural standpoint. While all of this is largely provincial, it is not completely so. The federal government has spending authority and it exercises it, to a great extent even. The powers need to be clearly identified. Under whose authority does your consortium exist? Its own, a statute, the provinces, the federal government? Is it completely independent? This is not clear in my mind. I have some doubts about your consortium. Perhaps it is a good idea, but there is something that is not quite right about its structure. I congratulate you on everything you have accomplished, but I still have doubts.
Mr. Gaudet: Before answering your question, I would like to dispel the incorrect perception that the consortium and the whole training project excludes Ontario and Quebec. That is completely false.
Senator Beaudoin: Was this dreamed up?
Mr. Gaudet: There is always a grain of truth that leads to this perception. At the University of Ottawa, a university that is not in Quebec, can be found the largest number of health care programs, particularly expensive programs like medicine and rehabilitation. For this project, the University of Ottawa decided not to include Franco-Ontarian students or students from Ontario in the accounting. Why? Because it is already receiving funding for Ontario students.
Senator Beaudoin: What about students from Quebec?
Mr. Gaudet: Quebec students also have access, particularly those from the Outaouais area. It is not true to say that they are excluded. They are already there and they account for 90 per cent of the student body, which gives the University of Ottawa the capacity to offer additional places to students from other provinces.
In order not to cheat, the University of Ottawa is not requesting double funding. It only wants funding for students from outside Ontario and outside Quebec, because it already has funding for students from these two provinces.
Senator Beaudoin: Education is a provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Gaudet: Yes, you are correct.
Senator Beaudoin: Except for spending authority, there I draw the line. The Privy Council ruled in 1937 that the federal government could spend, even in areas of provincial jurisdiction, provided that it did not legislate for the provinces. That is because some provinces are richer than others. That is all right. That is federalism. Nevertheless, one must abide by the division of powers.
Mr. Gaudet: The consortium is attempting to tap into both levels of power in Canada. Let's take the University of Ottawa, for example.
Senator Beaudoin: I know that very well.
Mr. Gaudet: The University of Ottawa receives funding from the government of Ontario, and this has made it possible to establish a whole series of programs, including health programs only in French, such as occupational therapy, physiotherapy and rehabilitation. With this funding already in hand, the University of Ottawa established the core programs. Such programs take a very long time to establish. The infrastructure exists as a result of the normal funding that the University of Ottawa receives, from the provincial government.
However, the University of Ottawa wants to provide this access to francophone students from elsewhere. For example, province X does not want to pay for students to go to Ottawa just because the programs do not exist in that province in French. For the time being, it tells the students that they can take these programs in English and that this is not very serious. That is the reality.
Our project, from a Canada-wide perspective, makes it possible to provide additional funds to the University of Ottawa to create this additional capacity.
Senator Beaudoin: The Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa has two faculties in one. Lawyers are educated for the Quebec Bar. Thanks to Ontario — I am the first to admit it, I spent part of my life there — there is the Faculty of Common Law and the Faculty of Civil Law. This is unique in the world. It's wonderful.
I am not criticizing this, but it is the provinces that arranged it. Ontario and Quebec. McGill University is doing extraordinary things and many other universities as well. I have no problem with that. On the contrary, I congratulate them. All of this strikes me as mainly provincial.
Mr. Gaudet: I will give you another example of a de facto partnership. I refer to the Collège universitaire de Saint- Boniface to illustrate what I mean. Every one knows that there is a shortage of nurses right now. I go back to the question that the Chair asked about whether we were going to provide services to the people. We need mainly nurses Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface is going to set up a program to train francophone and bilingual nurses. That is one way we will be able to serve the people.
The government of Manitoba is aware of its shortage of nurses and will provide the funds to establish this program. However, it could not find all the desired support. The government of Manitoba came to the University of Ottawa for help. The University of Ottawa agreed to act in a complementary partnership. It provided the University of Manitoba with what it needed to establish the program, which was partly funded by the government of Manitoba. Thanks to the Phase 1 project of the Centre national, the project provided funded the help provided by the University of Ottawa to this other institution in another province. The first three years of the program will be given in Manitoba and registered nurses will be authorized to practice. If the nurses want, they can them come for their fourth year to Ottawa and receive the bachelor's degree from the University of Ottawa.
In the meantime, Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface will be able to establish resources. The entire program will eventually be given at Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface. In all of this, there is a complementary aspect and a collective aspect.
Senator Comeau: One of the suggestions I would like to make to you would be to remove from your vocabulary all references to francophones outside Quebec. The expression can cause problems for people because it identifies us as people we are not. I do not like to be identified as someone who is not a Quebecer. This is intended as constructive criticism.
Senator Beaudoin has said that health care is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. I agree with him. However, some provinces are not in the slightest interested in providing French language services to its citizens. I will not name these provinces, but the fact remains. Senator Beaudoin is perhaps not aware of it, but if you happen to be in this kind of community and you go to the hospital and the service is in English, you suddenly lose your desire to want to continue to speak French. Television is in English, signs there are all in English and it does nothing in terms of good will. That is provincial jurisdiction. However, from a legal and federal standpoint, we let the provinces organize our services.
To give you an example, my mother was admitted to hospital and services were provided in English. One day, when I was back in Ottawa, I went to see my mother in her hospital room and began to speak to the nurses in French. When the nurses and doctors left the room, my mother said that she was surprised that all these people spoke French. It had not occurred to them that my mother was a francophone.
In these regions, in minority communities, a way has to be found to encourage doctors and nurses to identify themselves as francophone. I have not heard anyone make this suggestion. And if this is not done, then you can give all the training you want, but as soon as they come to work in our region, in hospitals, these people will continue to identify themselves as anglophones as they do now. Has your consortium found a way for people to let others know that they are francophone?
Mr. Gaudet: The consortium may not have found the whole solution, but I believe that awareness is growing. For example, let us take a community with which we have worked closely, St. Boniface. We noticed in providing training to students there on site and at the same time providing distance education, we had to find professionals who could provide them with supervision in a real health environment. We needed clinical supervision.
Many did not dare to do so because they were not sufficiently skilled in French. They said that they were more comfortable speaking English. We therefore developed a series of workshops to provide these people with the vocabulary they needed to function.
Senator Comeau: In the region of Evangeline in Prince Edward Island, there are francophones already working at the hospital. The fact that their French is a bit Acadian does not matter. They do not need training in French because they already speak the regional French. It does not matter that it is not the French spoken in Quebec City or Ottawa!
They simply need to be able to speak French to elderly people and young people in clinics or in the hospital. I would like the consortium to identify these people and to find a way to make them feel good about identifying themselves as francophone. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to work with the province. Perhaps the hospital should be given a bonus. Give a bonus to Yarmouth Hospital for every francophone that self identifies and I can guarantee you that you will find nurses and doctors who speak French.
Mr. Gaudet: The primary objective of the consortium is training. Nevertheless, as this training involves health settings, we attempted to find as many supervisors as possible. It was not necessarily to change their language. It was simply to give them the tools they needed to be able to deal with the students and supervise them in appropriate techniques.
Senator Comeau: Students from a university where French is spoken reasonably well who go to minority communities need to learn the local French. It would be a good idea for the doctors to train them in the language of the region.
Senator Chaput: I endorse Senator Comeau's comment. My question is rather simple. You are at the Phase 2 point in establishing the consortium. In Phase 1, the funds came from Canadian Heritage and in Phase 2, the funds are coming from Health Canada through the Dion plan. Has an agreement been signed between Health Canada and the consortium. If so, can you give an example of the main procedures involved under the agreement?
Mr. Gaudet: To receive funds from a federal agency, one must of course sign a contribution agreement that sets out all of the required financial terms and procedures. The main terms of the project are what I presented to you, which is to say the objectives, how to achieve them, what institutions will be included, and what the outcome will be in terms of students.
Senator Chaput: Will this agreement include something about the provinces? Will it mention the division of powers, of responsibility between the province and the federal government?
Mr. Gaudet: For the time being, this is being done by means of objective complementarity. For example, in Manitoba, they funded Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface to establish a French-language nursing program. In order to do so, the Collège needed resources and the University of Ottawa agreed to a partnership, and the additional funds to do so were from the federal government. There is therefore a de facto complementarity in which the two cooperate.
It will not be through a federal-provincial agreement in which the funds would come through the province. It will be through very specific objectives that promote concrete complementarities.
Senator Chaput: The consortium will receive the funds?
Mr. Gaudet: Yes.
Senator Léger: My question relates to what Senator Comeau said. Your battle to obtain assistance has been extraordinary, but there is a word missing from what you have been saying. I heard it only once this evening. You said that there was interaction between caregivers and patients. Never in this nicely prepared university document is there a reference to the primary goal, the patient.
Your presentations are very academic and you should season them with the real world. Senator Comeau spoke about his mother, and that was a concrete example. Your goal is the patient. I find that in the universities, people get carried away. This also happens in theatre, and in the courts. Everything becomes a big machine in which the universities, without really noticing it, become detached from the community.
A bonus for people who speak French. What a good idea! Things would change quickly. Senator Comeau was perhaps spoken to in French because he began to speak French. I have seen so many anglophones answer me in French simply because I spoke to them in French. They were proud of it. It is difficult at first, but things go more smoothly afterwards.
The Chair: It would be an interesting idea to begin to pay people who show their pride.
Senator Comeau: I did not say that we should give bonuses to nurses or doctors, but to the hospital.
The Chair: Have other institutions shown an interest in becoming part of the consortium, apart from those already mentioned?
Mr. Gaudet: For the time being, no institution can offer programs of this kind. However, we have a list of 140 health institutions that will complete university or college training, because the training needs to take place in the real world. We treat people, we do not do case studies. The real training is in the field. These health institutions, whether a hospital, a small occupational therapy or physiotherapy clinic, will join forces with these theoretical types of training.
The Chair: Often, people who receive their training outside never return to their home communities. Will the consortium do something to prevent this?
Mr. Gaudet: This is an explicit objective. We are attempting to convince students to return to their communities. This may be accomplished in a number of ways, the ideal being that there be a teaching institution in the communities themselves. If that is impossible, then we are attempting as much as possible to return people to their communities for clinical or practical training. There could be part-time teachers or clinical supervisors in the home communities. Contacts with their own communities would enable these people to remain active there.
The Chair: It is certainly a challenge. On behalf of the committee members, I thank you. You have given us an excellent idea of what the consortium is.
The committee adjourned.