Official Languages Committee on April 1st, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Mulcair.

Thank you, Mr. Desgagné.

We will now begin the third round. We will start with Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you for coming here this morning.

First, Mr. Desgagné, I can understand you when you talked about the television because in Atlantic Canada, when highway 40 is flooded in Montreal, the L'Atlantique en direct broadcast is interrupted to explain the inexplicable for an entire day.

To some people, this is important and perhaps our situation isn't as bad as yours. Perhaps we're even a little spoiled, but it's frustrating when those kinds of things happen. We wonder about the need to devote an entire day to explaining the flood, because it can't really be explained.

Still, I'd like to come back to a few things. Mr. Denault, you mentioned earlier the issue of discrimination. People may recall that schools were able to be built in the Northwest Territories for francophones, but under a specific program. We can recall the entire controversy regarding the program called the Court Challenges Program, which allowed francophones in the Northwest Territories to obtain a French school.

You were talking about discrimination. Could you quickly tell me how the francophones in the Northwest Territories are currently able to defend themselves and promote their rights when it comes to complaints of discrimination? Do they have the financial capacity to do so or are they left to their own devices because of the current situation?

[Fernand Denault]

As a result of the current situation, we are left to our own devices. The Court Challenges Program has been the key to all the improvements and ensured the advancement of this file. We have been able to expand our schools to provide secondary school services. At each stage, parents wanting to have schools and improvements had to appear before a judge. In order to obtain governance of those schools, threats had to be made. The cutting of the Court Challenges Program made things more difficult, it's true, but not impossible, since we are stubborn.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I can imagine. You said earlier that you had made recommendations to the former premier of New Brunswick, who recently tabled a report before the federal government. I imagine that you touched on a number of issues, including the Court Challenges Program. If so, do you feel that your comments were heard? Do you believe that the federal government wants to try to eliminate the discrimination that you and the people in your community are currently being subjected to?

[Fernand Denault]

Things would certainly be much easier if there were more harmony between the federal government's words and its deeds. One day, we hear a fine-sounding speech, and the next day they cut the Court Challenges Program. This was not a very expensive program, just a few million dollars. But we were very proud of it. The UN actually congratulated us on this program, which it saw as a wonderful way of achieving social justice. This amazing little program allowed us and other citizens to seek redress before the courts when the system let them down. It's the only tool we ever found for making some headway.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thanks to this program, you could defend your rights. Did you mention that in your demands?

[Fernand Denault]

Yes.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Do you think you were listened to?

[Fernand Denault]

I think there are weaknesses with the community component and education in French as a first language. We have not yet completed our analysis of this program. Do you remember the first program that was implemented by a different government? There was very heavy support for French immersion programs in English-language schools. Our schools got nothing from that program. Now, at least, they are mentioned. This is certainly less visibility than we would have liked to have had in the report, but at least we are mentioned.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

The Action Plan for Official Languages came to and end yesterday. Today, April 1, we find ourselves with nothing. Do you think that is acceptable?

[Fernand Denault]

Having nothing is never acceptable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. D'Amours and Mr. Denault.

I would just like to remind committee members and witnesses that the committee has studied the Court Challenges Program and that there was a separate report on it.

We will now move to the Bloc Québécois, represented by Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Court Challenges Program, which has been discussed by this committee, is not mentioned at all in Mr. Lord's report. Earlier, Mr. D'Amours talked about the Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan, but the fact remains that most of the provinces with French-speaking minorities have had to use the program because their governments did not comply with the Canadian Constitution and the federal government completely closed it eyes to the situation. So people had to go to the courts, and even go back to the courts in some cases. I'm thinking of Saskatchewan, for example, where it was necessary to go back to the courts twice in the case of the same judgment because the government was not taking any action.

Can you give us some examples of situations in which the Court Challenges Program would still be useful today? I am thinking of the cases involving Justin Bell or Martin Rousseau. They were stopped by the RCMP, requested service in French, and were rebuffed in no uncertain terms. Could you give us some examples that show how essential the Court Challenges Program is and illustrate that the government should listen and reinstate it immediately?

[Denis Desgagné]

You gave the two examples that sprang to mind immediately when we were talking about this. In the case of Justin Bell, the Assemblée communautaire fransaskoise had to take over. These are development tools for us. If we do not defend our rights at the political level, we can still turn to the courts. But at the moment, that is not an option. We could not support young Mr. Bell.

This also answers the question as to whether young people want service in French. All Justin Bell did was to request service in French and he was reprimanded, spoken to in German and put under arrest. If the federal government does not show some backbone and assume its responsibilities for linguistic duality, what point is there in young people trying to get services in French? Rather than relying on the federal government, it is up to us to ensure that the government acts in accordance with the Constitution. If the government does nothing, the only tool we have available to us is the Court Challenges Program.

I could give some other examples. The same thing happened to Martin Rousseau a few months later. At the moment, we have no recourse. We are relying on government, we are begging it to ensure compliance with the law.

[Fernand Denault]

I'm going to keep on repeating this because I want it to get through: our government is a federal institution. It is a federal jurisdiction. Our government found itself in a strange situation when we were asked to intervene in the CALDECH case which is currently before the Supreme Court. One of the judges raised a constitutional issue. The government did not respond. However, after some badgering by the federal Department of Justice, the government decided at a rather late date that it would intervene.

That put us in a strange situation, because the documents show that we want to present some arguments to the Supreme Court of Canada that were not supported by the evidence in the case involving the Northwest Territories at the moment. This also led us to request intervener status in order to set the record straight. We have no funding to draw any links because the program has been eliminated. It will probably cost us $40,000; this will not be easy for us. This will probably mean borrowing, trying to get resources elsewhere, and all sorts of other problems.

They are trying to use the back door, because they are not getting what they want by the front door. The rights of francophones in our community should be respected, but we do not have the resources to fight for them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Denault.

We will now move to the government side, and we will hear from Michael Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

How long do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have five minutes.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I would like to thank our guests for being here.

You mentioned the situation you find yourself in with Radio-Canada in Saskatchewan--that you're listening to traffic reports about Montreal. It's the same thing in Ontario with English-language radio. I can tell you that Radio One in Toronto covers a broad geographic area, so farmers living in the north part of Waterloo region in Wellington County, which is hours away from Toronto, hear traffic reports about street cars being blocked at Queen and Broadview.

So this is not unique to Radio-Canada on the prairies; it's across the corporation.

With respect to funding, I know that some new procedures have been introduced to make it easier for organizations seeking funding for their programming. One of the things they can do, for example, is request funding on a multi-year basis.

Is funding being distributed in all parts of the country in such a way as to guarantee the long-term viability of the country's official language communities?

I ask this question because our analyst, Jean-Rodrigue Paré, has prepared some research for us. I note that the breakdown of the funding across the country is not exactly consistent with the distribution of language minority populations in Canada.

For example, in Ontario, community groups receive about $4 million, yet Ontario has over 500,000 francophones. Across all of the prairies, community groups receive about $10 million, yet there are only about 200,000 francophones. In the Maritimes, community groups receive about $5 million, yet there are only about 300,000 francophones. In Quebec, the anglophone community groups receive about $3 million, when there are over one million anglophones in that province.

Do you think the distribution of funds across the country is done in a way that ensures sufficient support for minority language communities in all regions, including Ontario and Quebec?

[Denis Desgagné]

If the only criterion used in calculating the distribution of resources is based on the size of the population, the analysis will really be rather rudimentary. I think we must take into account the adequacy of the community's institutions. What we need is a type of equalization formula.

If there are services in French in Ontario and New Brunswick—and New Brunswick is after all a bilingual province—the issues are nevertheless very different. In Saskatchewan, we have no government services, no health care services and no communication services in French. Anglophones in Ontario can get traffic reports on the CBC, but they can also get the same information other ways. In Saskatchewan, however, Radio-Canada is the only means of communication we have. It would be like Quebec without TV5. There would no doubt be problems as regards identity. I will not get into this whole issue.

The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada is in the process of looking at the issue of a formula. We want to find a way of meeting the development needs of each community to ensure that they can all develop properly.

[Fernand Denault]

I don't, in fact, think that it makes much sense to calculate the distribution on a per person basis, because there are complementary institutions. I won't elaborate on that issue, but it means that other budgets are available to the community. In Quebec, the anglophone community has access to colleges, universities, schools, and community centres, all the things we dream about. We cannot even say that exists back home. We don't have that kind of institution. There are no hospitals providing training in French. Of course there is the Montfort Hospital in Ottawa, but Ottawa is nowhere near Yellowknife, is it?

These comparisons are unfair. It is like Denis was saying earlier, we must adopt a responsible approach. As regards enhancing the vitality of the community, bear in mind that there are now obligations to produce results. The attitude that was just good enough two years ago is no longer possible now. You now have responsibilities, and if you do not assume them, you are justiciable. Sometimes we wonder why the Court Challenges Program was abolished. Maybe it was for that reason. We can question the intention, but the fact remains that you are now justiciable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

For now, no one has indicated that they intend to speak on the fourth round. If members wish to do so, I would ask them to inform the clerk.

We will now begin the third round with Mr. Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you very much.

I would like to ask Mr. Denault what he means by "you are justiciable".

[Fernand Denault]

I meant that you raised the bar when you adopted legislation that imposes obligations of result. That told the people of Canada that our country will now act responsibly in terms of enhancing the vitality of francophone citizens from sea to sea. The objective is a noble one, and we are completely onboard, but you will have to appear before the courts if you do not take the necessary action from now on. It is true that the Court Challenges Program is a tool to help you do that.

Some may think that by abolishing the program they will eliminate the situation, but that is not true. You have been saying for 150 years that we are disappearing. When will you stop saying that we are disappearing and fulfil your obligations and responsibilities?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

In your view, it would be better to re-establish the program as it was? I am very familiar with the program. It made it possible to fund certain cases like the Forest case in Manitoba, and to entrench the right to education in French in Ontario with what was called the ACFO at the time. The base that Mr. Desgagné talked about a little earlier would not be there if those legal battles had not taken place, and that would not have been possible without that program.

Earlier, you talked about $40,000. That is how much it costs to get a team of hired lawyers to sneeze. Is it better to continue to pool the funds, or to ensure that each group has more funds and determines its own priorities?