Evidence of meeting #23 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was work.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Order. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the needs of remote francophone organizations. This is meeting 23.
We welcome today witness Pierre Bélanger. Any relation to Mauril?
3:30 p.m.
An hon. member
He's obviously from the better half of that big clan.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
We also welcome Suzanne Roy.
I will mention to our witnesses that we do have other business today, but it's very important that we hear from you today. We welcome you here for that.
This part of the meeting will last roughly an hour and 15 minutes, or earlier, depending on whether or not we feel enough questions have been answered.
Who will be the first speaker?
3:30 p.m.
Chairman of the Board, Alliance de la francophonie de Timmins
I guess I will be.
3:30 p.m.
Chairman of the Board, Alliance de la francophonie de Timmins
I'd like to thank the committee for agreeing to hear our opinion on the situation of remote Francophone organizations. This is the opinion of representative Francophone organizations like the various Ontario ACFOs, particularly those in remote regions.
As you can see, from the briefs presented, the ACFO community organizations have played and continue to play a really very important role in the development and vitality of the Franco-Ontarian communities. The provincial ACFO, but especially the regional ACFOs, which are separate entities, have been very important instruments for making our demands. The gains they have managed to achieve through their keen work include French-language secondary schools in Ontario in 1968-1969, community health centres, Francophone day care centres, literacy centres, cultural centres, French-language newspapers and, most recently, Francophone colleges. The goal in this last case was to ensure that all Francophones, all those who could contribute to Ontario society, obtained complete and adequate training in their language.
Many challenges remain. We don't have community health centres or French-language newspapers in all regions. We must also fight the downloading of provincial government services. That phenomenon hit us particularly hard in the 1990s. I believe the Liberal government will be transferring Service Canada to the provincial governments. The ACFOs must be vigilant and ensure that, in the context of this downloading of services to the municipalities and provinces, the Francophone community has access to French-language services.
We must also create a socio-cultural environment conducive to the economic development and cultural vitality of the remote communities. We must fight assimilation, which is a major challenge. What makes matters even more difficult is that our communities are going through profound economic restructuring. I won't even discuss the crisis in the forest industry: it's already quite obvious. We must diversify economically, and the presence of the Francophone communities, whether it be in artistic creativity, tourism or any other area, can be an advantage.
Securing funding for these organizations so that they can play their role is the biggest challenge we're facing. Obviously, we could discuss at length the $4.2 million envelope that Canadian Heritage grants to Franco-Ontarian organizations as a whole. It is distinctly inadequate. There are 500,000 Francophones in Ontario, and yet we receive the same amount as Francophones in Alberta. It's not that I want to take away anything from them, but we are scattered across the province. In the minority regions where there are obvious needs, we need more resources so we can play our role effectively.
In addition, we experienced major cuts in the 1990s. If you look at that chart that shows Canadian Heritage grants, you'll see that there are figures from 1985, when we became organizations independent of the provincial ACFO, until 2006. These are solid and established figures, based on the grants that have been made by Canadian Heritage. In the chart showing Canadian Heritage grants, you'll see inflation-adjusted figures in the red part. In 1985, for example, the $50,000 amount is a grant that the Timmins ACFO received. To achieve an equivalent action capability and purchasing power in 2006, we would need the figure in red that appears just above, that is $86,000.
In 2006, we received exactly $37,100 in grants. In 1985, a $50,000 amount enabled us to have two full-time employees. Since the early 1990s, our employees have been part time. We're forced to work on projects associated with Service Canada or other institutions in order to have permanent staff. We have to implement projects in order to exist. Of course, those projects are positive.
The second chart, showing the various shades of blue, shows revenue sources. You can see Canadian Heritage grants in dark blue, money we received from the community, friends of ACFO and economic institutions in lighter blue and, in very light blue, the first peak represents the money for the Clin-D'oeil day care project. All this revenue totalled $180,000, and we were able to operate for four or five years.
In 1996, we fell into a no man's land. We subsequently obtained funding for other projects that met the community's needs, but we had to work very hard. At that point, we were unable to work on all issues affecting the French-language services of the municipalities. It seems to me the figures are quite clear and eloquent.
Let's take a look at what ACFO can do and provide for these regions. It is an essential instrument in the development of Franco-Ontarian societies. The problem is that we don't have the financial means to do our job. We owe our volunteers a lot. I'm a teacher and I have a life outside ACFO, but I have to do what I've previously called extreme volunteerism. If I didn't do that kind of volunteer work, like all members of the board of directors, there wouldn't be any ACFO, and we would have closed up shop. Today, we're in a serious crisis. The ACFOs of Supérieur-Nord, Kirkland Lake and Cochrane-Iroquois Falls have received an incredible grant of $18,000 for one year. What can you do with $18,000 in 2006? Receiving $37,100 in a town like Timmins with a population of 19,000 Francophones is hardly any better. What can you do to ensure that that population develops and gets the French-language services it deserves? It's quite difficult.
We're a grassroots, close-to-the-people organization. We're close to the community. I think we should be adequately funded. Being close to the community, we're able to respond to it, express its needs and find adequate solutions to its problems. We've proved this in the past.
The solution we're proposing is simple. Adequate and direct funding should be provided to the communities. Not all the money from the agreements that have been signed, as well as other sums that have been allocated through Mr. Dion's plan or through the Canada-Ontario Agreement, has made it to the organizations that do the work in the field in the North. If I were realistic, I'd say that $50,000 in 1985 is worth $86,000 in 2006. That's what we're requesting, but we're fiscally responsible. We're asking you for $60,000, with a variable formula thereafter, based on community needs. In the regions where there are no services, no support, there should be a little more money. Additional funding should also be granted based on the number of Francophones served, the number of Francophones who will receive those services. I have nothing else to add on this subject. I await your questions and I turn the floor over to Suzanne.
3:40 p.m.
Suzanne Roy Director General, Alliance de la francophonie du grand Sudbury
Good afternoon. I'm going to add to what Mr. Bélanger said.
The purpose of the ACFOs is to provide the community with the necessary tools for its development and to ensure its vitality. We obviously want to achieve tangible and sustainable results. The ACFOs are still the only organizations in the province that have a community development mandate for the entire community they represent. In general, groups engage in development within very limited communities. Seniors work with seniors, youths with youths. We, on the other hand, have a duty to serve the community as a whole.
It is therefore essential that we project a very positive image of the work done in the field, and the perception of that work is currently very wrong. We hear it said that a large number of volunteers are working in the field, but this isn't volunteer work that we're doing; it's support work to ensure the vitality of the Francophone community.
Greater recognition for the Francophone community and its organizations is thus fundamentally important. We want to be able to live in French right across Ontario. That isn't the situation at the moment. Community development is done differently in Toronto, which has its own particular characteristics, in Sudbury, which is a major centre and in Thunder Bay, which is remote, or in all the little towns like Kirkland Lake and Hearst, where a majority of Francophones live. So you can't compare what's being done and what succeeds in one place and automatically want to introduce it elsewhere. That's not realistic.
Every community is responsible for its own development and vitality and must identify its own needs. That's where the ACFOs come into play, that is to say when each community defines its own particular characteristics. We do development based on the community's actual needs. Those needs are expressed in the field, at the grassroots level.
We talked about accomplishments. There have obviously been a number of them. We recall the creation of French-language divisions within school boards, the opening of community radio stations — achievements that are still hard to subsidize — the establishment of French-language health networks. A lot of things have been done, but a lot of things remain to be done because there's probably been a regression in recent years. We're facing increasing challenges and we want to continue to ensure the vitality of our respective communities.
The restructuring of the association movement has been harmful, the downloading of services and government restructurings has been very harmful to the association movement and has considerably weakened the ACFOs in the field. What we're asking is that you promote sustainable long-term development through a fair funding formula: we're asking for operating grants, not project grants, multi-year funding so that we don't have to go through the same process every year. To secure a grant of $10,000, $15,000, $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 for the luckiest organizations, the administrative maze we have to go through is unthinkable.
We also want to promote the establishment of a provincial coalition of ACFOs, financially supported, because that no longer exists. The provincial ACFO had that mandate a number of years ago. Over time, the provincial ACFO became more important than the regional ACFOs alone, and the new organization in place now has a community development sector, but it isn't structured and it's under-funded. This is the sector that represents the largest number of members. Everyone, the entire community falls into that sector.
Another tool that could be very promising, and that we're requesting, is support for training the program officers of the Department of Canadian Heritage. That department used to have development officers who worked with the communities, whereas now it has program officers who work in an office. Those officers must be able to tell the difference between community development and development projects.
To ensure project development, there must be adequate operating funding so that we can go after projects and programs that will support the work we're doing at the grassroots level.
I'm ready to answer your questions.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I can tell you that I'm in favour of operating funding rather than project funding. In the previous government, I tried, unsuccessfully, to influence my colleagues in that direction. However, I am still convinced that that's the best approach.
I also agree on the subject of multi-year funding, and we've previously tried to do that. I'm somewhat surprised to hear that this is not the case under the Canada-community agreements, because they're multi-year agreements. Management of the agreement currently falls to the AFO, if I'm not mistaken. It is up to that organization to move toward multi-year funding. This capability exists within the community itself, and it is up to the community to ensure that's done. I don't believe the governments are preventing multi-year funding. Tell me if I'm wrong, because I think that can be corrected, if that's the case.
Mr. Bélanger, at the start of your presentation, you made a statement that raised an eyebrow for me. You said that the federal government was preparing a kind of downloading of services to the provinces.
3:45 p.m.
Chairman of the Board, Alliance de la francophonie de Timmins
That will be in effect in January for Service Canada.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Chairman of the Board, Alliance de la francophonie de Timmins
Service Canada provides all the services, such as manpower training and so on. Government officials have already been advised and they were surprised. For example, people from Kirkland Lake requested a review of the proposed projects and they were simply told that, from now on, there would be no possible review because the officials would henceforth be working in the provincial government.
3:45 p.m.
Chairman of the Board, Alliance de la francophonie de Timmins
It's new for me too. I wasn't aware, and that concerns us very much. We already had trouble working with Service Canada on the proposed projects. It isn't easy.
At the time of the cuts in the 1990s, we were told that, under sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act, which concern the joint effort between the departments, there would be specific things for us and that the departments would have an obligation to propose concrete things to the organizations representing Francophone society.
However, that never materialized in northern Ontario. We were working with what is now Service Canada and, often, when we proposed projects — we didn't have a choice to operate by projects, because we didn't have the money — obstacles were put in our path. The only recourse we had was to ask our MP to intervene. Interdepartmental cooperation never really materialized.
That's why I like the first part of your comment. For multi-year funding and everything that's complementary, that's fine because we can make do with what will be proposed. However, one thing is certain: for us to be players in this area, we need adequate base funding. This deficiency has to be corrected from the outset. Subsequently, if we get funding, we'll be able to act with the economic stakeholders and political interests; we'll be at one end of the spectrum. If we aren't, we won't be able to do anything.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Since our time is limited, I encourage you to answer a little more quickly.
With regard to Service Canada, as far as I know, the intention was to work jointly with provincial and municipal authorities. It was modelled somewhat on what was being done in Winnipeg, offering stopping points to enable citizens to enter and be served by people in the country's two official languages for any need, whether it was municipal, provincial or federal. However, I don't believe they were going to transfer employees to provincial authorities.
You also referred to section 41 of the Official Languages Act, which I know quite well. There's an obligation for the Crown to consult the communities. Were the AFO or regional ACFOs consulted in any way on the transfer of Service Canada to the provinces?
3:50 p.m.
Director General, Alliance de la francophonie du grand Sudbury
There was a consultation in Sudbury, on a few days' notice, and it was by invitation only. The invitation was not extended to the association movement as a whole.
3:50 p.m.
Director General, Alliance de la francophonie du grand Sudbury
About a month ago, but things were already moving and changing. The decisions were made and we were consulted afterwards, and that's what happened.
3:50 p.m.
Chairman of the Board, Alliance de la francophonie de Timmins
And it was staggering, Mr. Bélanger. We in the real North, in the really remote regions, were never consulted. I'm talking about Kirkland Lake, Elliot Lake, Timmins, Cochrane-Iroquois Falls, Hearst and Kapuskasing, where 70,000 Francophones live. We were never consulted.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
The period allotted me is over, but I'm definitely going to make it my duty to pass this information on to our official languages critic, because I believe this kind of thing must be explored more carefully in the Official Languages Committee. Thank you.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome.
I'll continue in Mr. Bélanger's footsteps. If government employees were transferred to the provincial level, what would be the potential effects for you?