Official Languages Committee on April 1st, 2008

[Fernand Denault]

Yes.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Is he aware of the needs and the recommendations that you made to this effect?

[Fernand Denault]

Yes.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

All right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rodriguez.

We will now move on to the representative of the Bloc Québécois, Mr. Richard Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Blaney.

Good morning gentlemen.

The agreements between Canada and the communities, which became collaboration accords, were born of the upheaval created by the Meech Lake Accord. One will recall that the Conservative government of Mr. Devine in Saskatchewan had decided not to go forward with school governance, even though the federal government and Mr. Mulroney had deposited the money. This had become known in Quebec, and the Conservatives and the federal government had to find a way to show Quebeckers, who were thinking about signing the Constitution, that they were loved anyway even though terrible damage was being perpetrated on francophone communities.

Following that, the first agreement took place. It involved a little over $4 million for Saskatchewan. In fact, that was the first community to benefit from an agreement. Then Mr. Chrétien's government arrived and reduced the agreements by 37%. I know that it was 37% in Saskatchewan. They wanted to cut 52%, but people were up in arms. I was there back then and so were you. The Liberal government, which has always had a tendency to take francophone minority communities for granted, was a sort of double-edged sword for these communities.

You will recall the Schneider report which proposed to make a clean slate of it with all francophone organizations and the agreements in question. This is when the ACFC became the ACF and the provinces had to fall into step. It was the same thing in Ontario with the ACFO. They had to follow and restrain themselves and yet the fundamental goal of each of these organizations was to fight assimilation.

The study by Roger Bernard of the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française was tabled in the 90s. It stipulated that I don't know how many billions of dollars had to be invested simply to achieve the equity that existed in 1951. Indeed, these communities were more lively back then than they are today, as assimilation has caused terrible devastation. The agreements, which were of a completely political nature in the Quebec debate, became a constraint whereas they were supposed to provide assistance.

The Fédération des Acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse preferred to do without the agreement because it was less constraining, and they still obtained support. My wife worked over there in the schools of the Acadian communities. She was fired by the federal government and then reinstated by the Department of Canadian Heritage. In all this upheaval, certain things were clarified for the Acadians and showed them that not having an agreement was less onerous. Today, annual agreements force the organizations that don't have the necessary money to pay decent salaries to have a very high number of employees. We have to tell it like it is.

There's also the interdepartmental work. It should not just be the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Standing Committee on Official Languages that has to answer to the Canadian francophone minority, it should be up to all departments and to the entire federal government to do so. But that is not the case. We talk about it here. The Department of Canadian Heritage must do its share. Sometimes, it makes unilingual English presentations in your communities for francophones. We know the story; this is all very recent.

With regard to human resources, I've just discussed that.

And with regard to accountability, some organizations must produce reports, monthly in the case of some projects, when their offices only have four employees for the entire province.

I took a lot of time to paint the picture, but I'd like you to tell us what the possible solutions are. What could be done in the medium term to recreate authentic aid from the federal government for your communities?

[Denis Desgagné]

If linguistic duality seems impossible in Quebec and everywhere else in Canada, it has to become possible in Saskatchewan if we want it to become possible in Quebec. That means that the whole government apparatus must fall into step, respect the legislation and take the measures provided for in part VII which is still very inactive after I don't know how many years.

You talk about four employees per association or organization, but the majority of our organizations only have one employee. These are local organizations that provide services to French-speaking citizens. That sole employee must take care of administration, otherwise there will be no more resources and if there are no more resources, he will have to close the organization's doors. That amounts to saying bye-bye to services for the citizens. There must absolutely be a genuine analysis of the needs, province by province, territory by territory, and then we must ensure that we'll be in a position to offer genuine services, so that actual French-speaking citizens can have access to them. Whether it's early childhood, health care or other fields, it has to be possible to live in French in our province.

In our province, French is a little bit like Latin. It's spoken in school—where you can get one—and it's still spoken at mass sometimes, even though that's also being lost because of a labour shortage. If we continue this way, if we can't buy a litre of milk in French, the same thing will happen as did to Latin: French will simply disappear. If we truly believe that French is fundamental to this country, let's invest the money and provide the necessary tools. That's the solution I propose. I'm saying the agreement is a good tool, but it's heavily criticized. It's as if we had to hammer in a nail with a monkey wrench.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Denault.

[Fernand Denault]

You mentioned the issue of national unity at the start of your presentation. It is a very important subject we think about often. We can all see what is happening across the country, and we frankly believe that if francophone citizens and their rights were respected, and if they were treated the same way as anglophone citizens, we would not have a national unity problem. Of course, we have problems with the economy and with our multinationals, but that's another debate.

The situation would also be better if our politicians, regardless of where they are, which party they belong to or the language they speak, since this happens everywhere—did not keep on talking about the phenomenon of marginalization. They say that there is only a handfull of francophones here and there, and that it is nothing we should worry about; they adopt a defeatist attitude when they say that francophones have almost completely disappeared. They are throwing in the towel even before the end of the game. This is a very human attitude, but we would expect more from our parliamentarians. In short, if this attitude did not exist, it would be much easier to fix our national problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Denault. We have taken due note of what you said.

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you for your presentations.

Collaboration is important because it is the mechanism by which the government funds organizations representing minority official language communities in each province. Your organizations play a critical role. Indeed, you play the role of coordinator, which is important for all the other organizations in your province. Agreements differ slightly from one province to the next because of the differences between the provinces.

I would like you to tell me what mechanisms you have implemented to ensure that your organizations are represented within the communities in which you operate. What do you do on the ground to ensure that each organization's voice is heard?

[Fernand Denault]

Our committee analyzed the needs of the whole community and made recommendations at our annual general meeting. That was part of a mechanism that had been accepted. It was a pilot project that was seen in a positive light by all francophone and Acadian communities throughout the country. Then, we all worked together to express our needs and to try to find solutions rather than fall into the traps that often divide communities which are all extremely hungry. For example—and this goes back to the question that was raised earlier—the budget for this agreement has been the same for 10 years, except for the paltry 11% granted two years ago. Is there anyone here who could manage a household with the same salary for 10 years, without a raise? It is unthinkable. Moreover, these amounts were far from meeting the needs that existed even at that time.

Considering the meagre amounts that we were given, we felt that this was the best way to prevent dissension, because we still managed to get along. Things also worked well with Heritage Canada. However, it was a pilot project, and it was not renewed because of a change in policy at the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I would like to mention a mistake that someone made earlier in saying that people from the Department of Canadian Heritage only spoke in English when they traveled up north. That is not correct. It is the members of the House of Commons committee who conducted their hearings in English only when they visited us to discuss the Canadian Heritage file. That led to a number of situations that were impossible to manage. It was also the subject of complaints to the Commissioner of Official Languages. We don't have that type of problem with the department and its officials, it's the House of Commons that seems to have these problems.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Desgagné, what is the situation where you live?

[Denis Desgagné]

The mechanism that we use is governance. It is based on the responsibility of the players—they must be responsible—and on their interdependency. We try to use this governance to create a type of cohesion. I say that we try because we haven't yet succeeded in doing that. We are still working on it. I believe that Saskatchewan has made further innovations when it comes to governance. We have held elections. We divided the territory into 12 districts. Citizens go to their community centres to vote for their representatives. The president is elected by all of the citizens. A citizen from Zenon Park can vote for his member and for the president.

Then, the president appoints a type of cabinet or executive committee. Each community member has responsibilities for a given sector or sectors. For example, the member for Gravelbourg can be responsible for education, the community member for Saskatoon can deal with health issues as well. We try to establish a dual link between the assembly—the governance of the Franco-Saskatchewanian community—and the other surrounding organizations. They represent the ties that bind the two, and when decisions are made, all sectors of the territory are involved. That is how decisions are made.

For example, with respect to the distribution of funds, everything is transparent and public. The distribution is discussed by the assembly of members, and the members vote publicly on the distribution. Moreover, the Franco-Saskatchewanian community has a good idea of what will happen in 2008-2009, but we are still awaiting the minister's signature. In an ideal world, we would have enough autonomy to be able to tell people what they can expect for the coming year, according to our priorities.

That sums up the approach that is used by the Franco-Saskatchewanian community.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

You even use this process to set your priorities. When travelling with the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I heard a number of presentations, in every location. The needs are always great, and the resources are lacking. It is essential to establish priorities, and the approaches that you use to do that are quite similar.

[Denis Desgagné]

The entire network adopts an overall development plan. Participation in the process is open to all citizens. The plan is spread over a five-year period. Priorities are set, but we are never able to have a true impact on the development of the community. There are parents whose children are enrolled in a school but who do not have access to any other type of service because nothing is available to them, be it services provided for preschoolers, for health care or communication.

Currently, in Saskatchewan, Radio-Canada is not available to most French-speaking listeners because the CRTC decisions have resulted in our lack of access to satellite radio. It doesn't matter if we are in Regina or in Zenon Park, we don't have these services.

So how can we have any type of impact on the priorities of families who have a type of French-language school but who are denied other services? It would not be entirely truthful. When priorities are managed in that way, we lose sight of what really matters.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you Mr. Desgagné.

If committee members are in agreement, we will now move on to Mr. Mulcair from the New Democratic Party.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like Mr. Desgagné to explain his concept of sharing with the provinces. I admit that I have a hard time understanding how that could apply to Quebec. Perhaps he could explain how he sees this cooperation unfolding.

[Denis Desgagné]

First, the problem is that when we go to speak to our provincial government to ask for a service to which all citizens of Saskatchewan are entitled, it's as if we had the word “federal” written across our forehead. It's as if we were Canadians who had lost their way and had no place to call home. We are told to go and see the federal government. It's the federal government that will provide funding for the Fransaskois.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

As if you were a second-class nation.

[Denis Desgagné]

I don't even know if you can call us a nation. We don't yet have that luxury. With respect to education, for example, it's as if the provincial government had developed its own education culture. When we deal with the francophonie, we must often begin with the Department of Education before dealing with other departments. Ideally, in agreements related to infrastructure, for example, if there were some type of clause that compelled the government to consult with the Saskatchewan French-speaking community, it would allow us to really work with our government.

We see this with immigration, for example. Mr. Coderre ensured that we would have a clause to cover that. We were able to develop a type of partnership with our government. We have not yet accomplished what we set out to do, but at least we are at the table, we are negotiating, we are working together, and officials are more aware of the community's needs. If that were done systematically for all of the agreements, we would have a much better partnership. With the resources that are available, it would be much easier to negotiate with the federal, provincial and municipal governments. We would have a tripartite agreement and it would be much easier to move forward in the area of linguistic duality.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Denault, can you give us an update on the translation of the statutes in the Northwest Territories?

[Fernand Denault]

The laws have been translated, but they are not being respected. We feel that things should be simpler because we come under federal jurisdiction. It would be logical to think that it would be easier to exercise some influence, and that we would have a little more clout, but there is no evidence of that. It is related to the factor that I mentioned earlier, namely, indifference.

How often do we hear a member in the House of Commons ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a question related to his responsibilities for the North? Almost never. However, he does have a great deal of authority. For example, when Nunavut was created, there was no need to consult with the entire country: but we still needed the signature of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in order to have our new territory called Nunavut.

That leads us to believe that he does have the necessary authority to deal with other issues. But that is not being done and indifference is the reason why.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Are the laws now being translated in this part of the former Northwest Territories that has become Nunavut?

[Fernand Denault]

That is supposed to be the case, but I don't live there. You would have to ask the representative.