Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 9 - Evidence, November 20, 2006
OTTAWA, Monday, November 20, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met today at 4:03 p.m. to study and to report from time to time on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the act, as well as to study a draft report.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chairman) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Good afternoon and welcome to this 16th meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. My name is Maria Chaput, I am the Chair of the committee and I am from Manitoba. Before turning the floor over to our witness, I would like to introduce our other committee members: Senator Comeau from Nova Scotia, Senator Murray, from Ontario, Senator Champagne from Quebec, Senator Tardif from Alberta, Senator Jaffer from British Columbia and Senator Robichaud from New Brunswick. Today we are continuing our study on the application of the Official Languages Act and we have three groups here to discuss three separate issues.
We have with us the Executive Director of the Association des juristes d'expression française de la Nouvelle-Écosse, Ms. Marie-Claude Rioux. We asked the association to come and tell us what it thought about the amendments to the Official Languages Regulations — communications with the public and service delivery, which were published recently by Treasury Board.
Marie-Claude Rioux, Executive Director, Association des juristes d'expression française de la Nouvelle-Écosse: First, I would like to say that Ms. Geneviève Boudreau is sorry that she cannot be with us today because of a schedule conflict. She is in Ottawa, but she has other commitments that she simple could not cancel.
Ms. Lombard should be joining us shortly.
I would like to thank you for giving us this opportunity to appear before you to explain the association's position on the proposed amendment to the regulations regarding service to the public in the two official languages.
This proposed amendment to the regulations is a particular concern to us because it was presented following the Doucet decision by the Federal Court of Canada. We disagree completely with this amendment. We think it would limit access and hamper progress toward equality of status and use of French and English, and that it violates Parts IV and VII of the Official Languages Act.
In our brief we explain in detail our argument to justify our position. However, I would just like to emphasize that following amendments to the Official Languages Act, section 41(2) states that positive measures must be taken for the implementation of the commitment to enhance the vitality and support and assist the development and the full recognition and use of French and English.
In our opinion, the draft regulations, which would mean that the services of the RCMP would always be restricted to the nature of the office and that they would be in French if the city in question were on the border with a bilingual province, is really quite restrictive. It could have been even be more restrictive if it had provided that the driver must be driving a grey car and display an Acadian flag. That might have restricted the scope of the proposed regulation even further.
In fact, that limits the scope to the city of Amherst in Nova Scotia, and we think that the services of the RCMP should cover all of the Trans-Canada Highway. In other words, it should go beyond the nature of the office and involve health care and public safety services as well as the traveling public concept.
After all, accidents on the Trans-Canada Highway can happen, and it would be unfortunate if an individual had to deal with a representative of the RCMP in a safety situation and not be able to do so in French, if that would be the individual's preference. Similarly, we find it rather ridiculous that the traveling public has the responsibility to know to which part of the Trans-Canada RCMP services may apply. That is a very heavy burden to place on the public.
We think that these regulations may eventually become too complicated and people will simply give up and speak English when they are approached by an RCMP officer, even when the individual in question would have the right to service in French.
So that is the argument of the Association des juristes d'expression française de la Nouvelle-Écosse.
Senator Comeau: I just want to be sure I understand the proposed regulation, Ms. Rioux. We are talking about entering a province from another, officially bilingual province. There is only one province in Canada that is officially bilingual. Let us try to understand the context of what is being proposed. Are we talking about the Trans Canada Highway entering from Nova Scotia into New Brunswick, but not from New Brunswick into Nova Scotia? Have I understood this correctly?
Ms. Rioux: Yes. Actually this was the main question we looked at, because our association's jurisdiction is Nova Scotia. That is what we were most concerned about. I am not necessarily familiar with the RCMP's mandate in New Brunswick, but I do know, for example, that in Saint John, there is no guarantee of service in French in that region. I have heard that a new office was opening in the Dieppe area and that it would be serving south-eastern New Brunswick. However, I cannot claim to know exactly what the RCMP's status is in that region.
Senator Comeau: If I understand correctly, that will probably mean that the only provinces involved would be Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, because they are the only two provinces where there would be an entry from an official bilingual province. The RCMP is not in Quebec, as Senator Murray rightly pointed out. The RCMP does not work on the Trans-Canada Highway. So this draft amendment applies to only two provinces in Canada, is that correct?
Ms. Rioux: That is exactly why we say that the amendment is really restrictive. You are quite right.
Senator Comeau: What is meant by ``at least 5 per cent of the demand for these services by the public over a year in that language''? Does that mean that there must be five complaints?
Ms. Rioux: No. In the Doucet case, it was determined that at least 5 per cent of the travelling public crossing the border from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, therefore the Amherst region, is francophone. That is why the RCMP service located in Amherst has a responsibility to offer services in French. This is just being restricted to Amherst, but if this were to apply to other regions in Canada, each time it would have to be proven that at least 5 per cent of the population of the region served by the office is francophone.
Senator Comeau: I see. In the case of a small community such as mine, Baie-Sainte-Marie, would it be recognized that there should be bilingual service?
Ms. Rioux: Exactly, and that explains why the RCMP office in Baie-Sainte-Marie has an obligation to provide service in both official languages — the reason is that the office is located in a region where at least 5 per cent of the population is francophone.
However, as you know, the RCMP services are not defined just according to the nature of the office. There are three main categories for service to the public in both official languages. The nature of the office and the issue of public health and safety, for which the RCMP has no responsibility to provide service in both official languages. The same is true for the travelling public. So that is the point we are trying to emphasize. We find this is a rather sensitive matter.
Senator Comeau: So the judge in the Doucet case handed down a judgement stating that service should be available to the travelling public. Is that correct?
Ms. Rioux: Yes.
Senator Comeau: In that case, Treasury Board issued a response to the judgement, which is the amendment we are discussing here. We have time to object to it, and that is what we are doing at the moment. I agree with you that it is very restrictive.
Ms. Rioux: In addition, the proposed amendment to the regulations does not deal with the concerns raised by Mr. Justice Blanchard in his decision in the Doucet case. I mentioned two points in my brief. One of the things Mr. Justice Blanchard said was:
In summary, the Regulations do not cover the situation of a busy highway, patrolled by the RCMP, [...] by analogy, I note that the Regulations do set out other circumstances, namely in respective airports and ferry terminals, where the number of travellers determines whether the federal institution must offer services in both official languages.
That was his first concern about the travelling public.
A little further on he says:
It is clear that the expression ``travelling public'' under section 23 of the OLA must be defined more broadly than to include only travellers using airports, railways stations or ferry terminals, and that travellers using major highways must also be considered, [...].
Senator Comeau: Nova Scotia is trying to attract more Quebecers. We like Quebecers and we want them to come and visit us in the Maritimes, particularly in Nova Scotia. Many Quebeckers feel more at home in French, of course. If they come to Nova Scotia, we would like to serve them in their own language if they are stopped by the RCMP.
I see this is a step backwards for tourism, if we cannot provide this type of service, particularly in a country that is supposed to respect the two official languages. You have anything you would like to add?
Ms. Rioux: I must say that I agree with you completely, but that this goes even further. My mother tongue is French. I speak English very well. I am quite able to have a conversation in English, but I can tell you that when we are stopped by the RCMP on the highway, we want to be able to present our opinion or defend ourselves in the language of our choice, in our mother tongue. The same is true when a person appears before a judge, we want to make sure that our arguments are understood correctly, and that we are able to convey our message properly. If we start feeling too comfortable when we appear before a judge, there is something wrong somewhere. It is about the same when we start to feel too comfortable with the RCMP. It is not just an issue that concerns the travelling public from Quebec; it is also about respect for individual choices.
I cannot think of a more powerful symbol than the RCMP as a representative of Canada. This symbol is known and recognized throughout the world.
Senator Comeau: Why would there have been a need to support this idea in an officially bilingual province, which there is only one in Canada?
Ms. Rioux: I do not know what the drafters of the regulation were thinking, but all I can see is that the intention would be to limit to this Amherst region, since the Doucet case involved that region mainly.
Senator Comeau: So these two words in the regulations would completely exclude all the other provinces of Canada, with the exception of this region.
Ms. Rioux: That is quite right.
Senator Comeau: Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are the only two provinces that border on New Brunswick.
Senator Tardif: Do you think the Federal Court decision was intended to apply just to the Doucet case, or do you think its intention was to introduce a regulation that would be broader in scope so as to cover similar situations elsewhere in the country?
Ms. Rioux: I think the decision was larger in scope. I must say that we were very disappointed to find that the proposed amendment to the regulations was limited to the Amherst region.
Senator Tardif: If we wanted to offer services in both official languages on the entire Trans-Canada Highway, how should the regulations be amended in your opinion?
Ms. Rioux: It would simply state that RCMP services on the Trans-Canada Highway would be offered in both official languages throughout the country. I was present at the Doucet case and an expert witness appeared. He admitted that designating the RCMP just under the heading ``nature of the office'' was a compromise at the time.
It was quite simply a compromise, a political compromise decision. Our position is that since the introduction of section 41(2) of the Official Languages Act, there is a duty to ensure what positive measures are taken to promote the vitality and equality of status of the two official languages. Rather than having restrictive regulations, regulations should broaden mandates. I do not think it is necessary to go to extremes immediately, but I do think the regulations would have been a step in the right direction if they had been worded differently.
Senator Robichaud: You say that we could not expect to get everything all at once; you would have liked efforts to be made for some time to encourage the RCMP to provide service to travellers on certain parts of the Trans-Canada Highway in both official languages. Is that not correct?
Ms. Rioux: No, I was saying that if the RCMP were to offer services all along the Trans-Canada Highway, that would be a good step toward something even bigger. I do not want to be misunderstood. I think it is somewhat ridiculous to expect travellers who decide to cross the country to wonder whether they will be entitled to service from the RCMP in French if there should be a problem. That is rather ridiculous.
The burden is on francophone travellers to determine ahead of time to what services they are entitled, in which official language, if they travel on the Trans-Canada Highway. And you know what francophones would choose, particularly in a situation of this type. However, when it becomes too complicated, in order to simplify things, unfortunately, francophones will choose service in English. In addition, when people are stopped by the RCMP and do not know whether the officer is francophone or anglophone, they may not dare to request service in French for fear that this may penalize them further.
Senator Robichaud: I agree with you completely. For people travelling across New Brunswick, not on the Trans- Canada Highway, but on the alternative route that goes through Restigouche and the Acadian Peninsula, who then cross the Confederation Bridge, arrive on the Island, head towards the south and then cross back into Nova Scotia at Pictou, under these regulations, they would not be able to expect service when they come back to Nova Scotia from Prince Edward Island, unless it is the same detachment that provides service for the entire region?
Ms. Rioux: You are absolutely right. However, I think the Trans-Canada Highway goes through the Pictou area, does it not?
Senator Comeau: Yes.
Ms. Rioux: So if the service were broaden to cover all of the Trans-Canada Highway, then these travellers would be entitled to service in French in Pictou.
Senator Robichaud: Once they go back on the Trans-Canada Highway.
Ms. Rioux: Exactly. However, I am sure you will agree that it is much easier to tell taxpayers that they are entitled to RCMP services throughout Canada on the Trans-Canada Highway, in eight provinces, in the official language of their choice, rather than telling them that they will be entitled to such service in Amherst, but not in Truro, in the Cape Breton Highlands Park, but not on île-Madame.
Senator Tardif: If I understand your position correctly, you would say that the government's approach runs counter to the court decision in the Doucet case?
Ms. Rioux: I do not think it runs counter to the judgement, but I do think it runs counter to section 41(2) of the Official Languages Act, which advocates a liberal approach whereby federal public institutions have a duty to ensure that positive measures are taken to ensure the equality of status of the two official languages.
Senator Murray: I just was wondering whether you had drafted an alternative wording yourself.
Ms. Rioux: No, I did not think of that.
Senator Murray: Could your group, the Association des juristes d'expression française de la Nouvelle-Écosse, try to send us a draft wording?
Ms. Rioux: We would be pleased to do so.
Senator Murray: Thank you.
Ms. Rioux: If I might, I would like to come back to the question raised by the senator regarding non-compliance with the decision made by Mr. Justice Blanchard in the Doucet case. I do not think these proposed regulations run counter to the judgement, but I do not think they take into account all the concerns raised by Mr. Justice Blanchard in his decision.
Senator Murray: Are you from Nova Scotia?
Ms. Rioux: I come from New Brunswick, but I have been living in Nova Scotia for 20 years. So I have a sentimental attachment to Nova Scotia.
Senator Murray: So then you are very familiar with Nova Scotia.
Ms. Rioux: Yes.
Senator Murray: It is not difficult to identify the cities and regions where there is a considerable number of francophones in Nova Scotia. There are the large centres such as Halifax and Dartmouth, and what used to be known as the Cape Breton industrial region — it is no longer industrial, but that is another matter. However, Halifax, Dartmouth, Sydney and Senator Comeau's region in southern Nova Scotia, l'Île-Madame, which you mentioned, Chéticamp, and the county of Richmond are areas where there are a significant number of francophones.
What can you tell us about the capacity of the RCMP to provide service in French in these regions?
Ms. Rioux: I can tell you that the ability to provide service in French is quite outstanding. I know quite a few RCMP officers personally and they are quite able to provide service in both official languages in these regions.
Senator Murray: What about Halifax and Sydney?
Ms. Rioux: That is much more complicated. I would say that for the entire Halifax region, I do not know the exact number, but I would be surprised if there were two RCMP officers in this region who could speak French. In the past I have requested presentations from the francophone RCMP officers, and I was referred to RCMP officers in the Acadian regions of Chéticamp, l'île-Madame or the Clare region.
Senator Murray: In the rest of the Atlantic provinces, we assume that in New Brunswick, this exists. That province covers not only by the federal Official Languages Act, but also by the provincial legislation. However, on Prince Edward Island, for example, in the Mont-Carmel region, the Evangeline region and even in Newfoundland, are you familiar with the situation in those parts of the region?
Ms. Rioux: Unfortunately, I have no idea whatsoever.
Senator Robichaud: There are enough officers to provide service in French.
It would not be tremendously expensive for the RCMP to provide these services. You say that you doubt there are two officers who speak French in the Halifax region. And that would cause very little more to provide the service if the regulations were drafted differently. Is that not correct?
Ms. Rioux: You are correct.
Senator Robichaud: You have not taken a close look at whether the staff was available?
Ms. Rioux: I was in Newfoundland this summer, at the Annual General Meeting of the Canadian Bar Association. Commissioner Zaccardelli made a presentation about the services provided by the RCMP. He was bragging about the competence of his officers and the number of bilingual officers there are. So I would not dare contradict Commissioner Zaccardelli. I trust the personnel is there and that the cost would be minimal.
Senator Robichaud: Did you ask him why the RCMP would not rather provide services on a voluntary basis?
Ms. Rioux: The question was asked. We found the answer rather confusing. He did say that there was definitely enough staff in the Maritimes to do this, but that there seemed to be a problem in the West. In the western provinces, there are perhaps fewer francophones who can provide the services in both official languages. However, I know that there are regions where the RCMP is present and does provide bilingual service. I checked on this with my colleagues in the branches of other associations similar to ours. We are still talking here about the nature of the office.
We are not talking about service on the Trans-Canada Highway. Nevertheless, it would be a small step to designate an officer and to give him the responsibility of providing services on the portion of the Trans-Canada located within the region served by the office in question.
Senator Robichaud: What would be your proposal for the regulations?
Ms. Rioux: It would be that the RCMP services should be offered all along the Trans-Canada Highway for reasons of the health and safety of the travelling public.
Senator Robichaud: Could this be done in stages?
Ms. Rioux: Compromises are always possible in politics, but I come back once again to my personal preference, which is to offer services throughout the country, with the exception of Quebec and Ontario, of course, which have provincial police forces. It would be much easier for taxpayers to have such a rule in place. You have to look at the regulations about service to the public in both official languages for a very long time, before you understand what they mean.
We should not find it surprising that many francophones do not use the services. It was required to know that the town must have 500 inhabitants or more and represent 5 per cent of the population at least and 1 million travellers. At some point, people simply give up. So with respect to RCMP services, I think it would be really fantastic if we could simplify the regulations to clarify them for everyone.
Senator Robichaud: I agree. Thank you.
Senator Comeau: You have probably answered my question already, but I would like to come back to it nonetheless. You say that you have spoken with the RCMP and Mr. Zaccardelli. Was that during a question period or during a conference?
Ms. Rioux: Yes, but there was a question period afterwards.
Senator Comeau: Did you ask to meet with him?
Ms. Rioux: I have to explain the context. We are part of a small provincial association, l'Association des juristes. I do not know whether the Fédération des associations de juristes has done this, but it would certainly not be part of our mandate to request a meeting with the commissioner of the RCMP. Of course, we could try.
Senator Comeau: Did you ask to meet with the person responsible for Nova Scotia? There must be a constable in charge of the entire province of Nova Scotia.
Ms. Rioux: No, we did not.
Senator Comeau: Perhaps that might be worthwhile. As far as the nature of the office goes, is there an officer designated for the Trans-Canada Highway and for the various towns or communities? If not, could this be done? For example, the bilingual employee would be designated for the Trans-Canada Highway and the rest of the office could be unilingual.
Ms. Rioux: I know that it is possible. I have a friend who is an RCMP officer. He was working in the Bridgewater area at the time. He did both patrol and office work. This could be done, yes.
Senator Comeau: So your proposal would be that the person designated to look after the Trans-Canada Highway would be bilingual?
Ms. Rioux: That would simplify things a great deal.
Senator Comeau: That answers my question.
Senator Robichaud: Let us say I am a tourist and I decide to stop at a motel in Truro, which is not on the portion of the highway in question. Could I get service in French? Am I entitled to service in French?
Ms. Rioux: At the moment?
Senator Robichaud: Yes.
Ms. Rioux: You are not entitled to RCMP services in French on the Trans-Canada Highway, in Truro.
Senator Robichaud: But with the current regulations?
Ms. Rioux: No, they apply to Amherst only.
Senator Robichaud: Even in Amherst?
Ms. Rioux: It applies to the part of the Trans-Canada Highway covered by the Amherst office.
Senator Robichaud: So if I stay at a motel that is not on the Amherst portion of the highway, would I be entitled to service?
Ms. Rioux: Yes, you are entitled to service in French because of the nature of the office provisions, that is the difference. So there is this nature of the office, in other words, the region the office serves. For example, if the office serves the entire region and that a criminal incident happens in a hotel in Amherst, the RCMP would have jurisdiction, but it does not have this obligation in Amherst, because the francophone population is less than 5 per cent.
Senator Robichaud: The 5 per cent applies to the demand for service, does it not?
Ms. Rioux: No, it is 5 per cent of the population. The wording of the regulation is not really clear and is confusing, but the reference is actually to 5 per cent of the population. So in the Doucet case, it had to be proven that 5 per cent of the travelling public whose mother tongue was French was crossing the border at Amherst.
Senator Comeau: Does this figure refer to something specific, or was it simply set arbitrarily? Do you know where this decision came from? In other words, was there an official at Treasury Board in Ottawa who simply chose the 5 per cent figure because it sounded good?
Ms. Rioux: The decision may have been more or less arbitrary, but the regulations state clearly that it is roughly 5 per cent — over 500 inhabitants out of the total population of 5,000. The figure 5 comes up a lot.
Senator Comeau: It is important that we deal with this matter. After discussing this with Senator Murray, we think we should perhaps invite the RCMP to appear before the committee. Since Nova Scotia does not have a national mandate and we do, in light of the importance of these regulations. It might be a good idea to invite the big boss to appear before the committee.
[English]
Senator Murray: On a related subject, perhaps we could ask our researchers to take a look at recent reports by the Commissioner of Official Languages insofar as they touch upon the RCMP. I do not think you need to prepare a report for us; rather, point us in the direction of any comments that have been made about the RCMP so that we can read them.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Had you completed your questions, Senator Robichaud?
Senator Robichaud: Yes. Thank you, Ms. Rioux.
Senator Tardif: In her latest annual report, the Commissioner of Official Languages mentioned the importance of modernizing the official languages regulations. If I understand correctly, with respect to the publication in the Canada Gazette, only one part of the official languages regulations was mentioned — the subsection 6(1). If the official languages regulations are to be reviewed, would it not be preferable to consider modernizing all the regulations and thus ensure services of equal quality for the francophone and anglophone official languages communities?
Ms. Rioux: The Association des juristes and the Fédération des associations de juristes would like the review process to be broadened. Both associations would like the regulations to be modernized in a meaningful way, not a restrictive way, as has happened in this case.
Senator Robichaud: If we were not able to amend the regulations, would you object to having signs posted in places where services in French are no longer available on the Trans-Canada Highway?
Ms. Rioux: Provided the signs are in French!
Senator Robichaud: Definitely.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions for Ms. Rioux?
Some honourable senators: No.
The Chairman: I would like to thank you very much for coming, Ms. Rioux. Your testimony will definitely help us in our future deliberations.
The Chairman: Our next witness is the President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, Ms. Michèle Demers, who is accompanied by Mr. John Peirce.
We asked the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada to appear regarding our study on the relocation of the head offices of federal institutions and its impact on the implementation of the Official Languages Act.
You have the floor, Ms. Demers.
Michèle Demers, President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada: The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada subscribes to the principle that Canada is a bilingual nation. Canadians have a right to be served in their official language of choice, and the public service employees in the four designated bilingual regions of the country are entitled to work in the official language of their choice.
The Professional Institute welcomes the study of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages on the move of federal agency head offices and the impact on the application of the Official Languages Act. In our submission to the committee, we provide our comments on the issues where we can speak with knowledge and authority to a series of questions raised by the committee. When an institution moves to another region, there are a number of factors that will influence an employee's choice to move with its employing agency or not.
The ability to work in the language of their choice would certainly be one factor influencing employees' decisions, but this would not be the only factor, nor necessarily even the most important factor. The distance of the move, family considerations, a desire to return to one's roots, the desire to keep one's job, seeking new opportunities for advancement and the cost and availability of housing in the new location would also be important considerations. In practice, it is often extremely difficult if not impossible to disentangle these factors from each other in attempting to determine why employees would or would not be willing to relocate.
In the case of the Canadian Tourism Commission, we are aware that a majority of those employed by the CTC, while it was still located in Ottawa, refused to make the move, and that among the 21 employees who did accept the transfer to Vancouver, only five were francophones, a figure that appears in line with an earlier internal employee survey which had estimated that 80 per cent of CTC employees would be unwilling to relocate.
This means that, given the commission's need to have sufficient numbers of bilingual employees available to meet its responsibilities for serving the public under section 22 of the Official Languages Act, it may well have been faced with the necessity of hiring a sizeable number of bilingual employees in a market where there are not a great many such employees to be had.
We have not been able to ascertain precisely how many such employees would have been available in Vancouver. However, it is worth noting that in Western and Northern Canada, the region in which Vancouver is located, only 2 per cent of the federal public service is francophone. Indeed, in no region other than the designated bilingual regions, do francophones comprise more than 5 per cent of the federal public service, a fact very much worth bearing in mind in connection with any projected future moves to unilingual anglophone regions.
According to Ms. Judith LaRocque, the Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage, in her testimony before your committee two weeks ago: it remains to be seen whether the CTC will be able to attract bilingual employees. The fact that such a statement could be made nearly a year after the CTC's relocation to Vancouver is certainly not encouraging.
With respect to the move by the Department of Veterans Affairs in the 1980s, we recently polled a few members, one of whom told us that the department ``continues to struggle to maintain bilingual capacity in Charlottetown.'' The remaining respondents told us that the department had recruited enough bilingual employees to meet the requirements of the act.
[English]
As to whether Canadian Tourism Commission employees hired after the move faced any problems relating to official languages, employees have not raised this issue with us. In Charlottetown, members at Veterans Affairs had divided opinions. Protecting the employee's language of work rights would effectively be achieved by guidelines, policies or regulations.
Among the members we canvassed, three of the four Charlottetown respondents spoke highly of the Official Languages Act as the mechanism for protecting employees' language of work rights. With respect to the present situation, namely, that of the relocation of head offices, we believe that regulations such as those proposed by Graham Fraser before this committee are probably the best way to protect employees' language of work rights. We agree with Mr. Fraser that establishing standing regulations makes more sense for the government than having to intervene every time the head office of a federal institution is relocated from a bilingual region to a unilingual one.
On the issue of developing a regulation governing Parts V and VII of the Official Languages Act, we can say that, lacking any meaningful commitment by the government to provide sufficient resources for language training to its employees, we cannot see that moving head offices to unilingual areas will in any way help the government comply with the provisions of the act.
With regard to reviewing the list of regions designated bilingual for language of work, we do not believe that expanding this list would be either an effective or efficient way of protecting employees' language of work rights in the event of head office relocations out of Ottawa.
The purpose of the bilingual designation is to allow workplaces to reflect the reality of life in parts of Canada heavily represented by members of both official language communities. In areas where one linguistic group makes up over 90 per cent of the public service population, as is the case in regions not designated bilingual, we do not in fact have what can fairly be called a bilingual public service community. To attempt to create one through the use of official language policy seems at best an exercise in futility.
The federal government obviously needs to be able to serve Canadians and other clients, such as those of the CTC, in both official languages, and it needs to be able to accommodate the staff who are attempting to do this. These twin objectives will, in our view, best be achieved by maintaining head offices in centres where there is a sufficient critical mass of bilingual Canadians and a sufficient critical mass of bilingual federal government employees to serve that public.
[Translation]
In closing, from the perspective of official languages, we do not believe that either the Canadian public as a whole or federal employees are likely to be well-served by relocations of government head offices outside the National Capital Region. Furthermore, when these moves are to unilingual regions which are very likely to lack a sufficient critical population mass, the government would be unable to respect its own official languages policies.
The general problems relating to relocations outside the National Capital Region have been well outlined in the Institute's earlier presentation on the proposed relocation of the CTC headquarters. As our earlier brief indicated, such relocations are costly, unsettling and very likely to generate more or less serious labour market difficulties in hiring new employees, as appears to have been the case with the CTC.
When an agency required by the Official Languages Act to provide services in both official languages has difficult hiring sufficient employees, the public will not be well-served.
In addition, existing employees could have to deal with more stress, particularly bilingual ones who may well find themselves overworked due to staff shortages.
Given the federal government's vested interest in developing and maintaining linguistic skills in its employees, there is also the question of whether unilingual regions are the best place for bilingual employees to develop and maintain their skills in both official languages. Over all, any attempt to devolve federal government services to unilingual areas would appear to be in conflict with the broad thrust of the government's official languages policies.
If the government is really interested in providing the best possible service to Canadians across the country and internationally, it simply does not make sense to relocate offices outside of bilingual regions, in areas of the country where bilingual employees are scarce.
At the end of the day, our advice to the government regarding moving head offices of federal agencies into unilingual parts of the country would be ``Don't do it?'' for the reasons outlined in this brief.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for your presentation. I have just read and heard what you have said with great interest. I will make no bones of it: I come from British Columbia and I am happy the CTC has come to our province, because we are a part of Canada, we need to belong, and we need agencies all across the country.
I imagine you represent PIPSC across the country?
Ms. Demers: I do.
Senator Jaffer: I have been asking this next question to many witnesses; I think you are the perfect one to answer it. What does your organization do to help people become bilingual in B.C.?
Ms. Demers: The institute is a union. It has a policy on official languages, which you have in your brief as an annex. The institute recognizes the obligation of the government to provide some form of language training, not only to give lip service to the fact that they should be giving language training to employees in order to meet language requirements. We also recognize a certain ownership on behalf of the members that we represent who choose to work in the federal public service.
It is commonly known that for 30 years we have had similar types of official languages policies in the federal public service but that they were not applied with rigour. Many people occupied bilingual positions after having received language training time and time again but without meeting the language requirements. This situation was generally tolerated and accepted.
It was only in 2004 that Ms. Robillard presented changes to the application of the policies on official languages in the federal public service and decided that they would be more stringent in the application of those policies.
We encourage our members to learn the second language and maintain proficiency in that language. We also encourage the government to stay with its 2004 commitment, which was twofold. First, every new public servant who would come to work for the public service would have as part of his or her developmental plan an opportunity to develop the competency of a second language to the same extent as other competencies required in their jobs. In addition, there would be more money made available for language training in the federal public service in order to meet the requirements of the newly revamped policies and the application of those policies.
We encourage our members to learn the second language and to learn it early on in their careers. We are like pit bulls to the federal government in encouraging them to do this.
[Translation]
We would encourage it to make available the financial and human resources required to provide language training for public servants.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: I am pleased to hear that. I am sure you are in touch with your members regularly, as am I. My colleagues here and in B.C. will tell you that there is a great thirst to learn the language in B.C. However, it is difficult for your members to learn French, and I will ask the chair to have someone come and speak to us in this regard. The seven- or eight-month training program that is provided in Ottawa is not provided in Vancouver, and there are many other things not provided to your members. It is not that your members do not want to learn the language. It is a concern that it is not made accessible.
As you are advocating here, I am sure you will advocate for your members in B.C. to ensure they will also have access to French-language training. We are a part of Canada and we need to have agencies in our province as well. I am very concerned with your presentation, because I do want more agencies to come to my province.
Ms. Demers: There is quite a distinction between, for example, the transfer of Veterans Affairs to Charlottetown and the transfer of the Canadian Tourism Commission to Vancouver. Vancouver is not a city where the economy needs a boost and the presence of 100 federal employees will create that boost. That is not the kind of landscape you have in Vancouver. In Charlottetown, there was a great need to provide jobs for the younger generation that was fleeing the province. We have to make a distinction here on relevance.
I am not saying that it is not good to decentralize some of these institutions, agencies and departments. I am saying that if you want to meet the official languages requirements, it is not a good idea, because there is not a pool of people out there to meet those requirements.
Senator Jaffer: We could keep on talking and I should not hog the floor, but I am concerned. When you say ``unilingual,'' there is not a province in the West that is not unilingual, as far as I know. With the greatest of respect, if I am hearing you correctly, you are saying that no agencies should move to the West because they are all unilingual. I am saying that we should change that and help people to become bilingual rather than stay unilingual. We may not have the issue of wanting hundreds of jobs, but we do want to be part of Canada and we want to have you come and work in our province. We will continue this discussion another time.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: I would like to continue along the same lines as Senator Jaffer. You say that if we are to comply with the Official Languages Act, particularly part V on the language of work, it is not a good idea to relocate agency headquarters from a bilingual region to a unilingual region.
However, if we were to add a regulation providing that any relocation of a federal agency head office must be to a designated bilingual region, in terms of obligations, would that alleviate some of your concerns?
When we went to Vancouver, we discuss the fact that the Canadian Tourism Commission had chosen to offer its employees a bilingual work place, but that 80 per cent of employees who did not move from Ottawa, the Official Languages Act did not apply.
The commission hired 19 employees who were relocated from Ottawa and 60 other employees on site in Vancouver. Under the Official Languages Act, the relocated group is entitled to rights whereas the other 80 per cent group is not. This has made the situation very difficult to manage. That is why the Canadian Tourism Commission chose to have a bilingual work environment. It also recommended that from that point on, following the move of the head office, the work environment had to be bilingual.
Do you think that if we adopted this type of regulations it could work?
Ms. Demers: If we can ensure that services can be provided in both official languages and that staff may work in the official language of their choice, then there is no problem because those are the two prerequisites under the Official Languages Act with respect to the public service.
Now, I will give you another example of the situation where an agency moved outside of the national capital region or was established based on an entity which was previously located here. I am referring to the Canadian Space Agency, now located in Saint-Hubert. I recall that there was quite an outcry when this agency was moved. I was just there last week and I met with members that work there and whom I represent. Saint-Hubert is not a region that is designated bilingual, but the language of work in the area of ``space'' is English. So, because of a pool of people in the greater metropolitan area meeting the necessary language requirements to fill these bilingual positions, it is not a problem for the Canadian Space Agency to be in a unilingual region or one which is not designated bilingual. Because of its proximity to a qualified pool, the agency is able to fill its positions.
That is not the case in Vancouver. In fact, in Vancouver and in Western Canada, English and Cantonese as official languages would probably better suit the area residents. That being said, the commission's mission is to serve the country as a whole in the area of tourism, not only Western Canada.
Senator Tardif: I think it should also be stated that there is an active francophone community in Vancouver. It could be an opportunity to better promote French in Vancouver and in the region and to enhance the vitality of this francophone community. So, if the jobs being offered can serve to reach out to French speaking members, newcomers, immigrants or francophones who have been living in Vancouver for a number of years, it opens up additional options.
I am trying to understand, somewhat like Senator Jaffer said, when we consider moves to other countries and the decentralisation of federal government services, whether there may be a way to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act, perhaps through the adoption of certain regulations, guidelines or enforcement measures. I agree with you on the fact that it cannot be done on a temporary or case by case basis. But if we could create regulations which would clearly identify the application of these measures, could it work?
Ms. Demers: I have no objection, if the regulations enable us to reach our goals. However, based on the figures I was given, and anyone can make a mistake, but based on what I have been told, 2 per cent of the federal public service in Vancouver in British Columbia is francophone. As far as I am concerned it is a ``pool'' issue. You say that the bilingual or francophone population is very much alive and active, and I believe you. But is it large enough to meet the needs of the Canadian Tourism Commission? I do not know.
The Chairman: We were told that francophones account for 2 per cent of the population of Vancouver. Maybe we should start by looking at how to identify this 2 per cent, how is it measured, what type of statistics are we using? Because there is no doubt that when we go there, and various committees have been going there on numerous occasions, there is a pool of people who speak French. There is also a pool of people who want to learn Canada's second official language.
I think these factors have to be taken into consideration so that we can see what can be done to improve these moves. In our opinion both official languages apply throughout Canada, not only in Ottawa, but also in Vancouver. Especially when people over there want to learn a language and speak it.
Senator Murray: Based on the figures we were given during our stay in Vancouver, there are 58,000 francophones in B.C. and also 200,000 people, more or less, who can speak French. I don't know if you have different figures than ours. We were unable to double check them.
Ms. Demers: I understand. What I was saying was that francophones account for 2 per cent of the federal public service in British Columbia. I was not referring to the general public but to the public service. Francophone public servants account for 2 per cent of the public service in British Columbia.
[English]
Senator Murray: Do you use the terms ``francophone'' and ``bilingual'' interchangeably? I see what you said. I was following the point you made when you were talking about the CTC.
[Translation]
It probably had to recruit a considerable number of bilingual employees within a market that does not really have many. You are not in a position to know exactly how many of these employees were available in Vancouver, however, it is worth knowing that only 2 per cent of the federal public service is francophone.
[English]
Are you using those two terms interchangeably? You do recognize that there is the odd Anglo who can speak French?
Ms. Demers: I realize that, but I was referring to francophones specifically. Those who moved from Ottawa to Vancouver were bilingual. You say 19; I had 21.
Senator Murray: I took the occasion while I was in Vancouver to talk to some people who are public servants. I came away — and this I think supports what you were saying earlier — with the strong impression that government has not been fair to those people when it comes to the opportunity to take language training and to learn the second language. If you are as far away as Vancouver and you are, for example, a middle-level public servant who aspires either to become a higher level public servant or just to work in Ottawa, or in Montreal, or in some bilingual region, the opportunities that you are given to learn French are not very generous. The money has to come out of the department itself, the departmental budget, perhaps the office budget. Getting time off to do it is extremely difficult, especially in small offices, and so on. I heard all of this while I was there. It occurs to me that we who take these things for granted are not being fair to people at that distance. We are not giving them full opportunity to pursue careers to the fullest in the Canadian public service. This is something that we better get back on one of these days with the appropriate people in the government.
Ms. Demers: I agree.
[Translation]
Senator Comeau: In your presentation, madam, on page 6 you state:
From the perspective of official languages, we do not believe that either the Canadian public as a whole or federal government employees are likely to be well-served by relocations of government head offices, [...]
So you are not that thrilled with the idea of moving head offices.
Ms. Demers: When it comes to official languages.
Senator Comeau: You end by adding, ``to unilingual regions.'' I think that was raised earlier by Senator Tardif. At the end of the day, Canada is a country with two official languages. It is up to the federal government to promote, demonstrate and encourage this concept of two official languages. If the federal government states that it does not want to move some services to unilingual regions, I think that actually goes against the values of linguistic duality in this country. If we say that we cannot move services away from Ottawa because there are not enough francophones in a given region, I think we are undermining the concept of linguistic duality in Canada. I do not know what the answer is, but I think that it does not involve refusing to move head offices.
I believe that we should be able to find a way to perhaps not move the entire office, the entire head office, but maybe do so in stages. Refusing to move federal services to unilingual region destroys the very concept of a country with two official languages. I know Canada is not bilingual. I am not going anywhere, but it is a country with two official languages.
Ms. Demers: You are absolutely right. My comment would still stand if we were considering moving the Canadian Tourism Commission to Chicoutimi, for instance.
Senator Comeau: Absolutely!
Ms. Demers: It is strictly based on the potential to meet the language requirements called for under the act and by the government. Of course, there could be many options. We could designate other regions as bilingual. However, it is based on existing population. When we designate a region is bilingual, it is because there is enough of a pool there.
Senator Comeau: You have just given a perfect example as to why we should try to find ways to this, how could we move, for instance the Canadian Tourism Commission to Chicoutimi? If we had done that 30 or 40 years ago, the people of Chicoutimi might have realized that there were francophones outside of Chicoutimi, that there are some throughout Canada, and that Canada is a country with two official languages. The citizens of Chicoutimi probably would have had a different view of Canada. It was not done 30 years ago. Perhaps now is the right time to do this, so that people may realize that Canada is a country with two official languages. We need to find the means to do this.
Give us the means to meet the needs of people who want to send their children to French or English schools, depending. There may be ways to do so rather than to say ``Let us keep head offices in Ottawa and forget about the other regions, except for bilingual regions.'' The only bilingual regions in Canada, aside from Ottawa, maybe in New Brunswick, as for the rest of Canada, forget about it. People are unilingual.
Senator Champagne: There are a few of us living in Montreal —
Ms. Demers: Yes, and many people throughout Quebec.
Senator Comeau: Help us to find a way to show people in unilingual regions that this country does have two official languages. It is true that more Cantonese than French is being spoken in British Columbia, but that does not change in any way the fact that Canada is a country with two official languages.
Senator Champagne: I would like to take you slightly off track, but not that far off really. I am going to take you to truly bilingual regions where there are people who depend on your organization, on employees who are nominally bilingual and yet receive bonuses to being able to work in both languages. Earlier on you said that these people may improve their knowledge of the other official language through government's sponsored courses or by osmosis because they are living in an environment where both languages are being spoken. Despite all that, when you do an audit of the situation, you realize that the level of bilingualism leaves much to be desired. Is this due to the quality of courses offered by government? Is it due to a sort of ``couldn't give a damn'' attitude the people say ``Well, I am considered bilingual, I get my bonus, why bother.'' May be it is a bit of everything. I would like your opinion on that.
Ms. Demers: It cannot be said that most federal officials in bilingual positions meet official language requirements. There are still many unilingual positions in the public service, throughout the country, even in bilingual regions that are designated bilingual.
Bilingualism is required for supervisory positions, for direct service to the public in both official languages in regions that are designated as bilingual. There is a long list of bilingual designated areas throughout Quebec and elsewhere in the country: New Brunswick, the National Capital Region, some regions in Montreal, Sherbrooke and other parts of Quebec. Most of the people working in the Prairies, British Columbia, and Atlantic regions are unilingual and do not have to meet second official language requirement, even though they work for the federal government, even though the country is bilingual and even though we have a flawed language training program within the federal government.
However, as soon as you want to move up the ranks, if you are dealing with, for example, regional directors, there is increasing pressure on you to meet the official languages requirements, everywhere in Canada.
Senator Champagne: We recently heard about Air Canada employees, who along with West Jet and other airlines staff, will have to provide the same services in both languages. Someone made the comment: ``Yes, but what about all the anglophones in Western Canada who are going to lose their jobs?'' My response to that is: ``Could a unilingual francophone have held the same position?''
Ms. Demers: No.
Senator Champagne: And that is when I get a little aggressive. I do not understand how public servants who have had the benefit of taking French classes for so many years still cannot speak French properly, and have trouble providing services in their clients' language.
Despite all this, there has been a fuss made about the CTC being relocated to Vancouver where the pool of francophones is smaller. But would they hire a unilingual francophone in Vancouver and have them work for you? That is my question.
Ms. Demers: No. Obviously, they would not.
Senator Champagne: And yet, in Montreal, you will probably find a unilingual anglophone working in a federal government office. That makes me wonder about how the Official Languages Act is being enforced, even when it is the Government of Canada.
Ms. Demers: If the implementation of official languages policies had not been laxed over the past 30 years, we would not be in the situation we find ourselves today. Had the policies been enforced to the letter, I can guarantee you that there would be far more bilingual people today than there actually are. The concerns anglophones have about bilingual positions are the same concerns francophones in Montreal have. They serve a French-speaking public and yet must be bilingual. They are just as concerned as anglophones elsewhere in the country about the implementation of the both official languages and the obligation to meet that requirement.
This is not a matter for francophones, it is an issue for unilingual people. Whether they be francophones or anglophones, they have an obligation to learn the second language.
Senator Champagne: When we managed to convince our educational institutions that a student coming out of a Cégep must be bilingual in order to graduate, then we will have found a solution to the problem. But do not hold your breath.
Senator Tardif: Do you think that the Canadian Tourism Commission is fully meeting its obligations as far as the application of the Official Languages Act is concerned, and more specifically Part V?
Ms. Demers: I do not know. The commission moved a year ago. They had a lot of positions to fill, and I did not have the opportunity of checking which types of positions have been filled before coming here today. What I can tell you, and this in part explains my scepticism, is that when the CTC was here in Ottawa, they also fell short of fully meeting the language requirements.
I extrapolate by saying that the situation is probably at the very least the same if not worse since they moved to Vancouver.
Senator Tardif: Have any employees reported difficulties in using their preferred language?
Ms. Demers: No.
Senator Tardif: Staff in Vancouver told us they had drafted an action plan and had had quite a good assessment from the Commissioner of Official Languages. So, we will see.
I would like to come back to something. You lost about $5 million in the recently announced cutbacks. I am referring to the $5.76 million which was not used in the relocation from Ottawa to Vancouver. Could this money not be used for language training? Can you explain why this money was not used?
Ms. Demers: I do not know under which vote that money came. It is difficult for the federal government to transfer money from vote to another. I can confirm, however, that there is a glaring lack of financial resources for language training, not only at the Canadian Tourism Commission, but throughout the entire public service.
Senator Robichaud: You have said that there is a glaring lack of funding, so in your opinion, as long as this continues to be the case, you believe that it is not the time for relocation to regions not designated bilingual?
Ms. Demers: I think you are trying to put words into my mouth?
Senator Robichaud: No, not at all.
Ms. Demers: I am not against the relocation of a federal institution to any area of the country. My issue is that, in the department I represent, staff is entitled to express themselves in whichever language they choose and Canadians have the right to receive services in the language of their choosing in regions designated bilingual. Vancouver is not a region with a bilingual designation. And no matter how cooperative the people involved in the relocation are, there are going to be huge challenges when it comes to rebuilding the commission in Vancouver and meeting obligations to provide services to the public in both official languages. That is my message. I am not against having federal agencies transferred elsewhere in the country. But as long as we continue to lack the tools and means whereby we can ensure that official languages are respected throughout the entire country, I will not be happy.
Senator Robichaud: I understand your position. In the last line of your presentation, you said ``At the end of the day, our advice to any government contemplating moving head offices of federal agencies into unilingual parts of the country would be ``Don't do it,'' for the reasons outlined through this brief.''
Ms. Demers: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: You are talking about availability of funding for training?
Ms. Demers: Access to funding for training, the number of people who meet the language requirements at the place of work and availability of services in both official languages.
Senator Robichaud: If you had to give an assessment of funding levels for official languages, what would it be at this point in time?
Ms. Demers: What is my appraisal of the funding situation right now?
Senator Robichaud: Yes.
Ms. Demers: It is pitiful! Federal government departments and agencies have been attempting to do more with less for the past ten years. And the first thing to go is training, whether it is language training or any other type of training. When the purse strings are tightened and training budgets are cut, well then language training falls by the wayside. Departments hold ``lunch and learn'' sessions to learn French or English. If I were a complete novice in English, I do not think attending that sort of thing once or twice a week would help me develop my skills in the country's second language. They do not have the means to replace people in order to send them to language training, nor do they have the ongoing funding to support somebody learning a second language. What more can I say? They simply do not have the resources.
Senator Robichaud: Thank you.
Senator Champagne: I am going to play the devil's advocate and tell you that you are not entirely right about what you just said. I was very lucky on one occasion when I was coming home from a trip. One of my bags was lost on my way back home from Vancouver. And I was returning home from abroad I had to go through customs and have my suitcase cleared so that it could be sent to me. A tall and beautiful young lady approached me and said, ``Madam, does speak French'' because she had seen my name. She chatted with me for about 15 or 20 minutes in impeccable French. She was delighted to tell me she had just sat for her oral exam and would soon have to go back for her written exam. As it turns out, she had spent time in Chicoutimi taking French classes. The quality of this young woman's French was good enough to make many native speakers ashamed. So clearly, it depends on who you are dealing with.
The amount of time it takes to learn a second language depends on the individual, his or her ear, talent, and will to succeed. In light of this, it is not completely fair to lay all the blame on the government. I myself had a real life experience, with real people, of which I am extremely proud.
Ms. Demers: I have also met people like that, but I can assure you they are the exception to the rule.
Senator Champagne: You are in a better position to know this than I am.
Ms. Demers: There are very few opportunities nowadays to learn a second language.
Senator Tardif: I have always been concerned with protecting people's vested rights under the Official Languages Act and, if possible, having these rights extended to the whole country.
You indicated your agreement with Commissioner Fraser's remarks from a few weeks ago about the importance of adopting permanent regulations.
Ms. Demers: Yes.
Senator Tardif: Would adopting such regulations, especially concerning Part V and VII of the Official Languages Act, and perhaps even Part IV, not be a step in the right direction?
Ms. Demers: Yes.
Senator Tardif: In your opinion, is that a recommendation we could include in our report?
Ms. Demers: Absolutely.
Senator Tardif: In doing so, head offices would be relocated to unilingual regions only if such regulations are implemented and followed?
Ms. Demers: That is right.
The Chairman: Ms. Demers and Mr. Peirce, we would like to thank you for your presentation and for having agreed to answer our questions.
We will now be hearing from representatives from the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada. The association believes the government's decision to scrap federal-provincial-territorial early learning and child care agreements will have major consequences nationwide and has asked to come and present on this issue.
We have Ms. Monica Lysack before us, Director General, and Ms. Amanda Mayer, Finance and Administration Coordinator. The President, Ms. Jody Dallaire, is on her way and we hope she will arrive before we have finished.
Welcome ladies. As agreed, you have ten minutes for your presentation, which will be followed by a question period. The floor is yours.
[English]
Monica Lysack, Executive Director, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to be here and also thank you for your patience. Ms. Dallaire called me on her cell phone and she is on her way here. I hope you will have the opportunity to hear from her. While Amanda Mayer and I will try to communicate the facts to you, I think that when you hear from Ms. Dallaire, who is a francophone parent, from her heart her experience and that of other parents like her in her community of New Brunswick and other families across Canada, how this affects them so deeply, it will be much more meaningful than any of the facts that we could share with you.
I will turn it over to Ms. Mayer, who will read Ms. Dallaire's statement. Please remember that this is on behalf of Ms. Dallaire, who is a parent and the chair of our board.
[Translation]
Amanda Mayer, Finance and Administration Coordinator, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada: On behalf of our association, I would like to thank the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages for this opportunity to outline the connection between quality child care services and protecting the French language and culture of francophones in minority communities. As a francophone mother living in New Brunswick and a volunteer on the board of directors of the Provincial Francophone Parents Association, I am delighted to be able to present this brief today, on National Children's Day.
Our bilingual organization was founded in 1983. Our goal is to ensure that all children enjoy access to an integrated system of good quality government-funded child care. Association membership is open to more than four million Canadians including, among others, parents, child care workers, researchers and students, as well as other organizations.
I would like to begin by referring to two sections of the Official Languages Act which relates to the issue I am going to address today.
2. The purpose of the act is to:
(b) support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities and, generally, to advance the equality of status and use of the English and French languages within Canadian society;
41. The Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development, and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.
In addition to these sections of the Official Languages Act, section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that francophone parents outside Quebec and anglophone parents in Quebec are entitled to educate their children in their own language.
Unfortunately, francophone parents holding these rights, living outside Quebec are registering their children in French schools less and less. That means that our francophone communities are gradually dying away.
According to a demo-linguistic profile done by Rodrigue Landry, only one Canadian child in two who are entitled to education in French have French as their mother tongue. For your information, Mr. Landry is the Director of the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minority. Families holding these rights include those where both parents are francophones, those where one parent is francophone and francophone single parent families. Unless these children go to French school, they loose their right under section 23 of the Charter.
We have to wonder why this is happening. The research shows that in order to guarantee the survival of a minority language, communities must give the minority institutions or a place where people can speak their language and express their culture in order for the linguistic minority to preserve its language and culture.
So we have to find ways of allowing families to live in their own language and culture, including early childhood services, so that they can pass on their language and culture to their children.
When we look at the two sections in question in the Official Languages Act, we would assume that the Canadian government should take all necessary steps to ensure the survival of the language and culture of the minority. Unfortunately, that is not yet a reality in Canada as regards high quality early childhood services.
Very few regulated child care services are available for children in Canada outside Quebec. Approximately 15 per cent of children have access to them. There is an even greater shortage for families that want service in French or that live in rural communities.
As a francophone mum living in New Brunswick, my colleague had seen the impacts of this lack of service. When her children were young, the family was living in Fredericton, the capital of the only bilingual province in the country. There was no regulated child care in French for children under two. Moreover, they could not find a private francophone caregiver, so their first born had a private anglophone caregiver. Her son had difficulties during this time of his life. As a francophone couple, they chose to speak only French at home. And their son found himself five days a week in an environment where he did not understand the language being spoken.
At age two, he was able to go to the only francophone child care centre in the city. It can only take a small percentage of the francophone children in the city. What do the other families do? How can they pass on their language and culture to their children when the support services are not available for them?
The same thing happens throughout the country. A dad living in Ottawa, the national capital, told us that it is almost impossible to find regulated child care services in French. He told us that more and more exogamous families enrol their children in school in English because by the time children are of school age, they understand very little French.
In New Brunswick, francophones make up over half the rural population. These communities are located far away from major centres, and services are virtually non- existent, or of poor quality. The illiteracy rate in New Brunswick is 68 per cent, and 40 per cent of these people are under 40 — in other words, the age of people who have children.
It is essential that eligible parents have access to high quality services in their community in French. Francophone parents realize this. That is why organizations such as the Commission nationale des parents francophones and the francophone associations in the provinces are working actively to achieve the same goal that we are trying to achieve, mainly to ensure that high quality services are available.
Canadians want a universal child care system. This year, Environics polled over 2,000 Canadians to find out what they thought about child care services.
Sixty-seven per cent thought that the shortage of affordable child care was a serious problem, but 82 per cent thought that governments have an important role to play in child care and are also in favour of establishing a national child care and educational program.
The poll also revealed that there is a broad consensus within the Canadian population that child care services allow parents to work, provide children with a safe environment, prepare children for school, promote learning and the development of young children and are essential in ensuring the survival of low-income families.
Last year, all the provinces signed an agreement with the federal government to transfer $5 billion over five years to the provinces. This was to enable the provinces to develop and establish a long-term plan for education and child care services. All the agreements included a clause on the minority language.
In New Brunswick, they have started drafting two curriculums for child care services, one in English, which is being done by the University of New Brunswick, and the other in French, which is being done by the University of Moncton.
The agreement signed in Ontario was the emphasis for the Babies Best Start Program. Media reports show that a number of child care services in French were developed as a result of this initiative, including the Centre éducatif Village d'Élisabeth, in Waterloo, which provides services for 66 children aged 18 months and over. Sainte-Marie school in Simcoe is now opening its doors to pre-school children and includes a program in French for very young children.
Unfortunately, the establishment of an improvement to programs for francophone and exogamous families could come to an end, because the federal government has announced this year that the agreements will be cancelled. The Government of Canada has replaced the agreement with a family allowance of $100 a month. This money will definitely help families. However, it will not create more space in child care centres, or make services more affordable for parents, or improve the quality of services available to families and children.
The government has also announced an initiative whereby it will offer tax credits and incentives to businesses to encourage them to establish child care spaces. However, this initiative is really a reduction of $950 million a year, because it provides for an investment of $250 million, rather than the $1.2 billion a year that had been provided under the federal-provincial agreements.
Moreover, I fail to see how this initiative will meet the needs of francophone families in minority communities, because there is no provision for the linguistic minority communities.
Investments must be made in our communities to enable them to meet the language and cultural needs of families living there. The needs are felt for all Canadian children, but are even more urgent for the minority communities. Consequently, we would like to make the following recommendations to the federal government.
First, federal assistance to the provinces and territories must be restored and increased in a sustained and long-term way. Federal transfers must be used to improve and expand child care services so as to promote high quality, universal affordable services.
Second, we need legislation on child care that recognizes the principles of a Canada-wide child care system, requires the government to be accountable to Parliament and respects the rights of Quebec and the First Nations to establish their own child care system.
Third, we must replace the financial incentives for child care spaces with transfer to the provinces and territories to be used to establish child care services.
In order to ensure we meet the needs of Canada's linguistic minorities the federal government must increase public investment far beyond the bilateral commitment of $5 billion over five years, which recently came to an end. In cooperation with the provinces and territories, this public funding must include a targeted investment strategy, namely a government policy. The funding must also include a requirement on the part of community service providers and the various levels of government to be accountable. These suppliers and government bodies must put forward a whole range of high quality, universal affordable community child care services in Canada.
The Chairman: Before continuing, I would like to welcome Ms. Jody Dallaire, the President of the Childcare Advocacy Association of Canada, who has just arrived from New Brunswick. We will now begin our question period with Senator Murray.
Senator Murray: In our report on minority language education, we mentioned the same figures as you do in your brief, namely the low percentage of rights-holders who attend schools in French. We mentioned the need to begin in early childhood to familiarize children with French language and culture, something that is sometimes missing at home.
You recommend that Parliament pass legislation on child care which, among other things, would respect the rights of Quebec and the First Nations to set up their own child care system. Why do you mention Quebec in particular?
I have read all the agreements in fact I have them before me — and I note that there is some asymmetry in all the agreements which give a great deal of flexibility to the provinces to establish their own network. However, all the agreements include provisions on the linguistic minorities.
Like you, I deplore the current government's decision to cancel these agreements and to replace them with a payment to individuals, to families, of $100 a month. However, it is not as though the government did not warn people that this is what it intended to do. Unless I am mistaken, the party that is now in power announced during the election campaign that it intended to cancel these agreements to send families cheques in the amount of $100.
[English]
Are you all from New Brunswick?
[Translation]
Where are you from, Ms. Lysack?
[English]
Ms. Lysack: I am working here in Ottawa, but I have spent almost my entire life in Saskatchewan.
Senator Murray: The decision was announced and the decision was taken. I regret it greatly. It is not for me to defend it. I deplore it for many of the same reasons that you do. Where was your government? Why are you here? Where was the Government of New Brunswick or the Government of Saskatchewan? It takes two to sign these agreements. All of those provinces made commitments within the agreement to do justice by their francophone minorities. All of a sudden, in the campaign, the policy was announced by Mr. Harper and his colleagues. I did not hear much complaint from the Government of Saskatchewan or from the Government of New Brunswick or from the Government of Ontario, or from anywhere else. These agreements had been duly signed. The federal government gave 12 months notice and, as we know, it is over at the end of next March. In the case of New Brunswick, it would have meant $110 million of new money. I do not know how much it means to Saskatchewan or to Ontario, but I have heard little complaint from those provinces. I do not want to be unfair to them — I am sure they complained in their way — but this program is over and done with.
[Translation]
I can assure you that as long as the current government is in power, there will be no national child care program of the type you describe.
Ms. Dallaire: Why did we mention Quebec specifically and not the other provinces? We live in a federation, and this matter is a provincial responsibility. We targeted Quebec, because it has really established a universal child care system. It has gone much further than the majority of the other provinces. It is true that the people of Canada elected this government. It is true that during the election campaign it did announce that it intended to send $100 cheques out to families each month. Our organization is in favour of family allowances. We think parents deserve allowances to help them raise their children, but that is not a child care program. This money will not create child care spaces nor make the service more affordable and accessible for families.
A number of provinces have taken a position on this. Unfortunately, mine is not among them. There was a change in government at the last election. Child care was a very important issue during the election campaign. In the next few weeks, we will be meeting with the new government and we hope it will be ready to take a stand on this.
[English]
Ms. Lysack: In terms of the current government, when you said that there would not be a national child care system, it is important to note that, despite cutting about $1 billion annually from child care spaces, there is a commitment to keep $150 million to create child care spaces.
Senator Murray: That is not the program that you are envisaging in your paper.
Ms. Lysack: No, that is true. Claims to be able to accomplish the same kind of thing by creating 25,000 spaces are not at all the same as creating a national child care system. Providing capital without building a system to address these issues will not at all fix the problem.
Senator Murray: If there is to be any kind of national system, it will not come from Ottawa. It may have to be something that will come to Ottawa from the provinces and territories. That would be my judgment at this point. Medicare started in Saskatchewan, senator.
[Translation]
You look confused, Senator Robichaud.
Senator Robichaud: Yes, but there could be an election coming. If that happens, a number of things could change!
Senator Murray: We do not talk politics in the Senate!
Senator Robichaud: All I am saying is that times change, as happened in New Brunswick. The parents of New Brunswick approached their government and it seems interested in working with them to establish some type of program. I certainly cannot speak for the province of New Brunswick, but I hope you will be successful. As Senator Murray were saying, this program could move forward and be implemented in a number of other provinces.
Ms. Dallaire: Our province has done some innovative things. As we mentioned in our presentation, a French curriculum is being developed for the linguistic minority community, and another one for the anglophones. During the election campaign, the government made a commitment to develop a long term plan for child care services. Of course, our provincial government will ask that the federal government work in partnership with it to provide funding for the system.
Senator Robichaud: Do you have any idea how much this system might cost in New Brunswick?
Ms. Dallaire: We have some national estimates. I think the figure is $10 billion a year. We would have to look at this in terms in our population with respect to the impact in New Brunswick. The agreement will have doubled the amount of funding for provincial child care services. We could have made a great deal of progress, with about 13 per cent of children having access to the services. We probably could have doubled that with the long term objectives to create a genuine network for our children.
Senator Robichaud: Now that these agreements are no longer on the table and parents are getting each month $100 per child under six, do you know how much goes to child care and could help set up a system?
Ms. Dallaire: Of the $100?
Senator Robichaud: Yes.
Ms. Dallaire: It depends where you live. For example, my brother lives in rural New Brunswick, but there are no child care services. I do not think that people in the community will be pulling their $100 cheques to establish services. Clearly, for parents who already have access to the service, this could help them pay some of the costs. However, parents have to keep some money to pay their income tax, because the $100 is taxable. It is a family allowance that does help families, but it does not create child care services, certainly not for the francophone minority living in rural regions.
Senator Robichaud: If you live in the greater Moncton area it is less of a problem than if you live in Kent County or elsewhere, is it not?
Ms. Dallaire: Definitely, My brother, who lives in Cocagne, has very few services.
Senator Robichaud: In contrast, my grand-children in Moncton have access to services that work quite well.
Ms. Dallaire: The services are good, but the waiting time is two years.
Senator Robichaud: You are right to say that not everyone has access to the services; there are waiting lists. That is unfortunate. Had we been able to keep the agreements, we could have created more child care spaces. Don't you think?
Ms. Dallaire: Precisely.
Senator Comeau: We are glad that you have come to share your concerns and your proposals with us. I would like you to help me with the figures. I always have trouble with figures when national programs are involved. Please correct me if I am wrong. From what I heard from your presentation, 15 per cent of children currently have access to child care in education services.
Ms. Dallaire: The child care services are regulated and they meet minimum standards of health and safety.
Senator Comeau: Has the federal government asked for any specific amount as a contribution from the provincial governments? For instance, if the federal government gives 50 cents, should the provinces also contribute 50 cents to the universal program?
Ms. Dallaire: The province did not have to contribute to this program. In some provinces, it was agreed that these funds should not replace those already invested by the provincial government.
Senator Comeau: There are no specific figures from the provinces or from some of them?
Ms. Dallaire: The provinces contributed certain sums, but there was no requirement for them to do so.
Senator Comeau: Thus, when the federal government reaches an agreement with a province does it not ask for a minimum percentage of contribution?
Ms. Dallaire: No. In fact, the provinces are not all at the same level. Some provinces are more advanced, for instance, Manitoba has developed a system for child care services. Across the board targets would not be suitable for a province like mine, which is far behind the other provinces.
Senator Comeau: The program proposed before the current government was a billion per year, five billion spread over five years, was it not?
Ms. Dallaire: It was five billion but not necessarily a billion a year. I think that there was less funding at the outset but that it increased over the years.
Senator Comeau: You said that a national program like the one proposed would cost 10 billion, did you not?
Ms. Dallaire: Yes, you are alright.
Senator Comeau: Would this be nine billion short of what was proposed up the last year, if we want to achieve what you propose?
Ms. Dallaire: Yes, this is really what it would cost to have a truly universal system where some children have full- time access and others have part-time access. However, we realize that this could not be done overnight and we considered doing it over a longer period of time.
Senator Comeau: Apparently, the program was supposed to be national, universal, accessible and of high quality. There was a choice between that for $1,200 a month. I think that was put forward. I read in a regional newspaper that Carolyn Bennett thought that quality child care services would cost $90 per day per child. Are you familiar with this figure?
Ms. Dallaire: It can vary, depending on where you live in Canada.
Senator Comeau: Was the average $90 per day?
[English]
Ms. Lysack: It is difficult to identify an average. Care for infants is expensive. The ratio of infants to caregivers is about 3:1. Parents of infants would be expected to pay a third of the cost, as opposed to four year olds or five year olds, where the ratio might be 8:1 or in some provinces as high as 10:1. The costs are divided accordingly.
There are also differences in terms of offering child care in downtown Vancouver.
Senator Comeau: I understand.
Ms. Lysack: There are so many variables. It is very difficult to come up with an average.
Senator Comeau: I am reading the statement made by Carolyn Bennett, where she said that the cost of full-time child care can reach $90 per day.
[Translation]
Perhaps that is the highest level. I did the arithmetic. $90 per day would give around $24 000 per child over the 52 weeks in a year. With 2 million children, the program could be worth about $47 billion. I previously heard about figures of around $18 billion, this figure was given to me as the minimum figure up to about $30 billion; does this make sense? Did you come up with a $10 billion figure? This is the first time that I hear about this figure.
Ms. Dallaire: This is based on a research and evaluation program with a long-term plan for child care services. The costs were evaluated and it was presumed that not all parents would choose to send their children to child care full- time. Some would choose part-time. According to this assessment, child care services for infants would be much more expensive in Vancouver than in New Brunswick where they would probably cost less.
Senator Comeau: Did this assessment include offering an opportunity to every Canadian parent to send their child to child care, no matter where they live, and including parents who work on week-end?
Ms. Dallaire: Yes.
Senator Comeau: Was it for all parents?
Ms. Dallaire: Even parents without jobs could benefit from the service.
Senator Comeau: It will be interesting to breakdown these figures. For a long-time, I have wanted to find out how much such a program could cost. I have heard figures going from 18 billion up to 30 billion. This evening I heard about 10 billion for the first time, it is very different. You proposed not to implement your national and universal program immediately. Did you say that you would be given a certain period of time for its implementation?
Ms. Dallaire: Yes, exactly.
Senator Comeau: In the beginning, who do you think will benefit from the services?
Ms. Dallaire: This will vary from province to province. Some provinces were already developing plans, for instance, Ontario had started working on this. There was the Babies Best Start Program. They assessed the basic needs and they targeted the areas with less service. With good planning, I think that this is how things would develop in the other provinces.
In our province, the new government announced that it wanted to create child care space for babies and infants, because that was the most crying need. I think that the needs will vary from province to province.
Senator Comeau: The provinces did not have to contribute to this universal program? Did they?
Ms. Dallaire: I know that most provinces are contributing to this system.
Senator Comeau: Was this not provided for in the agreements?
Ms. Dallaire: There were variations. Yes, there was a provision saying that they did not intend to go beyond the amounts allocated to the provinces, and this applied to all the provinces.
[English]
The Chairman: Did you want to add anything, Ms. Lysack?
Ms. Lysack: Yes, please. I wanted to follow up. The Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada has two research documents that we will forward to you that I think you will find of interest. One is called ``From Patchwork to Framework: A Child Care Strategy for Canada.'' This is a 15-year plan, and now by default we have moved to maybe a 10-year plan. Since that study was released in 2004, of course, based on a year or two previous to that, there has been some movement in federal-provincial agreements. We have the multilateral agreement that is still in place. So there have already been some contributions. We are not as far behind as we think we are. There have been some slow and steady steps.
The second document that I think you will find very interesting is the cost-benefit analysis that we commissioned with two very well-known economists from the University of Toronto, highly respected in the international community, who have done some work for the OECD. They have grappled with the questions that you are asking. One of the difficult things to assess and to fix is the early learning and child care labour force. It is a poorly paid profession. In Alberta, for example, we are hearing that the child care spaces that are currently in existence and licensed cannot be used by families because they have no workers to put in them. Workers go on a lunch break and are offered a higher wage at the restaurant where they are having lunch and do not go back to the child care centre.
The kind of program we are talking about addresses all those deficiencies. It is not enough to say, ``Let us create some spaces.'' It is looking at increasing wages and having a parental contribution of up to 20 per cent. When we are talking about a cost of $10 billion annually for a universal child care program, the return that was predicted was a 2:1 return. For every dollar invested, $2 would be returned to the economy. It is one thing to make a prediction like that as an economist; it is another thing to see it come true.
When we look at Quebec, the province that has the closest thing to a universal system, we see that there is already a 40-cent return on the dollar. It is costing a net of 60 cents on the dollar for child care services in Quebec. That is without even achieving the universality that we have been aiming for, even in Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: I agree with you in saying that preschool education is an important tool for preventing assimilation. I come from Alberta and I am very aware of the importance of this kind of education for our youth.
I also know that the federal government's contribution often encourages the provinces to offer services in French to their francophone communities. Since this incentive no longer exists, did your association approach the provincial to encourage them to keep up the support that they had promised to minority francophone communities?
Ms. Dallaire: We discussed with the various provincial governments to encourage them to take a stand and insure that resources be granted to the provinces for child care services. We encouraged them to go ahead with developing their plans to deliver services in the provinces.
In New Brunswick, we succeeded in insuring that child care is a priority. We met representatives of the francophone community to make sure that every service or program offered to the language minority contributes to preventing the assimilation of our youth.
Senator Tardif: Did the provincial government react favourably to maintaining those services?
Ms. Dallaire: Yes. Our government has committed itself to developing a curriculum for the francophone and anglophone sectors and it was developed with the help of new funding promised by the federal government.
Senator Tardif: Does this apply to other provinces?
Ms. Dallaire: I do not think that the Ontario government intends to backtrack and stop offering new child care spaces.
[English]
Ms. Lysack: It would be fair to say that all provinces have slowed down their plans, although none of them has actually talked about rolling them back. Things will not move forward as quickly as we might have expected, and, in fact, might move forward very slowly and stop. As far as we know, no other provinces are cutting back; they will pick up the share of funds that had been committed by the federal government.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: Do you have you any examples of projects that were compromised by the cancellation of the federal- provincial-territorial agreements regarding child care?
Ms. Dallaire: In New Brunswick, the previous government had looked into the possibility of offering a universal junior kindergarten system. This program is now in jeopardy and our four-year-olds will no longer have access to universal junior kindergarten. I think that the lack of funds will prevent this project from going forward. This is a concrete example of a project in jeopardy in New Brunswick and I think that similar examples exist in other provinces.
Senator Tardif: Do you have a list of the projects that are at risk of being cancelled?
[English]
Ms. Lysack: No. There are some difficulties with that. First, provincial governments are very reluctant to provide the information. On anything that was already public, they are trying to be as discreet as possible because they do not want to end up holding the responsibility for paying for those programs. We hear about some very specific developments where a centre was to expand and that was halted or where a community was expected to develop a centre within a year or so and now they are on an indefinite waiting list, but it is very difficult to get that data. All we know is that the rate of expansion has been slowed significantly. In terms of actual organizations or communities or neighbourhoods, there are only a few examples where it is that concrete. We are certainly hearing from parents who had their expectations raised. The need is so great that they have been working for many years to develop these programs. They thought they had it in their hands, but it has slipped away.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: You mentioned that some children had to go to child care centres where their mother tongue is not spoken. You described the situation in New Brunswick and I am quite sure that this is also happening elsewhere.
How much of a hindrance do you think this could be for a child learning its mother tongue?
Ms. Dallaire: A family must really be committed to transmitting its language to its children. My husband and I are both francophones and we are making an effort to speak only French. We are fortunate to be living in a province with access to many services in French. Nonetheless, there must be some willingness to make an effort.
This is really difficult for exogamous families. Often, English is spoken at home and it is important for this anglophone population to have access to supporting services. In New Brunswick, many francophones are living in a rural environment with very few services available in English or in French.
We relied on the long-term programs to make the services more accessible. Parents must really get involved in transmitting their language and culture to their children because in a rural setting, there are no accessible support services.
Senator Robichaud: You are telling us that children in a rural setting are at a disadvantage compared to children in cities?
Ms. Dallaire: Yes. Besides, there is a 40 per cent illiteracy rate among New Brunswick francophones, and thus, as parents, they do not always have the means to transmit their language and culture to their children. This is why we must offer adequate services to communities.
[English]
Senator Murray: Just to sum up what we have lost with the cancellation of these agreements: It was not really going to be a national child care program, was it? It was going to be 10 provincial programs, albeit all of them partially financed by the federal government. While there were no national ``standards'' such as one thinks of in other national programs, all of the agreements with the provinces had commitments undertaken by the provinces to increase the number of regulated spaces, to increase the number of subsidized spaces, and to have a particular focus on, among other things, minority-language students, except in Quebec. The Quebec agreement was rather shorter than the others. It made reference to existing laws, and I suppose indirectly that could be read as a guarantee of facilities for the non- French minority, the anglophone minority in Quebec. So that is what we would have had, and it is gone.
The government, for its own reasons, announced it would do away with the program, will do away with it as of I think next March and replace it with a payment to families with kids under 6 years of age, and also provide incentives to businesses, among others, to provide child care facilities. That is where the situation now stands.
What will the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada do now? Where are you taking your representation? How do you see the future unfolding?
Ms. Lysack: I should like to begin answering that question and then I will turn it over to Ms. Dallaire.
I wish to assure you that I have personally been a child care advocate for almost 30 years, and I practically started as a child. I started working in child care when I was in high school. I intended to be a kindergarten teacher.
When one is exposed to a system where one sees so many benefits, where one sees children who have no language, who are developmentally delayed, in a program where they are thriving and learning language, where one sees them growing and developing so well and being cared for by people who are being paid a pittance but who love every one of those children as though they are their own, it is not something that one looks at coldly as policy. Most of us who have been advocating for this do it because we have a vision. Our Canada cares for its children.
What will we do next? We will continue to do what we have been doing for the last 30 years, and that is to promote our vision of a Canada that has a good, solid support system for young children and their families. Specifically, we will continue to work with the provinces and pressure them as well.
Senator Murray: I would think primarily at the provincial level at this stage.
Ms. Lysack: Yes. However, I respectfully disagree with you that we would not have had a national system of child care, and perhaps it is semantics.
Senator Murray: You would have a network of 10 provincial programs. I supported the program, and would continue to support it, but it was not another medicare; let us not kid ourselves.
Ms. Lysack: No. There were some important differences. So we would have 13 systems, if we include our territories. What we do have — and I think SUFA was leading us in this direction — is a minimum standard that would be applied differently but where in each and every province and territory there would be comparable services.
Senator Murray: Yes, and they were going to account. There were going to be annual reports and the rest of it. It is all there.
Ms. Lysack: Yes. There really was a commitment to build toward what we were talking about as the national quality framework and to do this by consensus, to agree on what it is that we want for our children in Canada.
I do not know if you are aware that in the last two months there have been two international reports that Canada should be ashamed of. In the OECD report, we came in dead last out of 20 countries for investing in children. National Child Day is a day for all of us to reflect on what it is that we as a nation are providing to our youngest citizens and how much we value or do not value them, the country with the fourth-highest GDP per capita. We are high on that end, but we are low on how we invest in our children and families.
[Translation]
Ms. Dallaire: We have representatives in most provinces. As we observe the situation in each province, we realize that outside of Quebec, the situation is more or less the same. Children have very little access to services and services are practically unaffordable.
These arguments would have allowed us to sit down together five years from now and evaluate the results. Possibly, the system could vary from one province to the other. However, in the end, we might have been able to say that children will now have access to services, no matter how they are implemented, and that we have reached our common objective.
The Chairman: I thank you very much, ladies, for coming to answer our questions here this afternoon. You gave us a great deal of information and we are waiting for the two documents that you will be sending us.
The committee adjourned.