Official Languages Committee on April 26th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We'll start with Mr. Trottier.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank our guests for being here this morning.

As you know, it's been a few weeks, a few months even, since we started studying the roadmap. It's always good to receive comments from groups that benefit from the roadmap. It's really the communities you help that benefit from the roadmap.

Ms. Enguehard, you said that it was good to have long-term support, that to have long-term plans of four or five years, it's important to have long-term support, as well as some coordination among the departments. This is what we have tried to put in place. The amount of funding is quite large and, of course, every group always wants more. There was $1.1 billion for five years. So it isn't surprising that the groups that come here always ask that we continue to provide funding and that we even increase it.

There is one group of people that did not come and testify, and that's the taxpayers, those anonymous people who pay out of their pocket so that we can invest in groups through the roadmap.

The backdrop, and the reason I mentioned the taxpayer not being represented here, of course, is the fiscal challenges the government has. It doesn't matter whether it's the United States, France, Spain, Greece, or Quebec—all governments everywhere are wrestling with fiscal challenges. So, ultimately, the question becomes one of priorities.

Every group can say that their group is the priority, but I was wondering if you could just help us, in terms of our evaluation, in thinking through evaluation criteria, without saying “our group is the priority”. Mr. Bélanger can appreciate this, having been in cabinet in the past and their government also faced with that question of prioritization: where do you spend money, which also implies where do you not spend money.

I'll ask maybe each in turn, if you were to put yourself in the shoes of the Department of Heritage and the Minister of Heritage, and thinking about the next version of the road map—there will undoubtedly be a next version of the road map—what would you say the different criteria should be to come up with a plan for determining where to spend money? I'm thinking at a higher level than your own group, putting yourself in the position of, say, that heritage minister.

I'll start with Concordia University. It might be difficult to put you in that position, but it would be useful feedback for us, as an evaluation committee, if you can think about those priorities. You're probably aware that with the road map we're investing in seniors, in youth, in culture, in health—a wide variety of different aspects of the linguistic reality of Canada.

[David Graham]

With your permission, Monsieur Trottier, I'll say a few words and then perhaps I'll ask my colleague, Dr. O'Donnell, to add something from her perspective.

The question you raise is an absolutely vital one. It is about priorities. I would point out that like everyone in the room, I think, I am a taxpayer. The taxpayer is indirectly represented here, and more directly by you perhaps than by us.

Having said that, it seems to me that it is critical for the Government of Canada never to lose sight of its mission of doing whatever it can to guarantee the vitality of all our minority communities in Canada. I think there are payoffs for the taxpayer in that.

For example, if we hark back to what Dr. O'Donnell was saying about developing metrics and parameters for assessing community vitality, having lived in Newfoundland for many years, which is where I had the good fortune to meet Madame Enguehard many years ago, I have seen it firsthand there, and more recently in Quebec, the terrible pattern of loss that arises when community vitality cannot be sustained, when communities are hollowed out and emptied and people vanish from those communities, either to migrate to nearby cities or, in the case of both Newfoundland and English-speaking Quebec, to other provinces and other countries. That is a terrible loss for Canada, it seems to me.

I think it is incumbent on the Government of Canada to do what it can, within the limits of fiscal responsibility, you're absolutely correct, to sustain those communities, because they are part of the fabric of this nation and they contribute vitally to sustaining the fabric of Canada.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I'm understanding, then, that a key criterion would be the vulnerability, if I can encapsulate what you're saying. If there's a group that's being threatened with disappearance altogether, that would take away from the fabric of what Canada is.

Maybe I'll ask some of the other groups to comment quickly in the time available.

So give maybe a one-minute sense, in a few words, to help us establish criteria for prioritization. I'll go with the West Quebecers group, please.

[Noel Gates]

I would certainly regard the maintenance of vitality, which is so much talked of these days, as being a fundamental criterion. It's the question, certainly, of trying to establish a reasonable set of categories, or metrics, or whatever the right word is, for determining what is vitality. That I think is something that has to be worked out in consultation between the groups involved—including ourselves, West Quebecers—with the Department of Canadian Heritage and other departments that are involved.

With respect, I would not have the emphasis put quite so much on vulnerability. Mr. Graham has stressed that very effectively. But once you've got a process of enhancing vitality under way, you want to keep it up. That means that support has to continue for a period of years. I would certainly side with Mr. Graham in saying that this is an investment for the taxpayer. We are all Canadian taxpayers, and the whole business of maintaining minority communities is an essential part of Canada as we see it.

Thank you.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

The Community Economic Development and Employability Corporation, please.

[John Buck]

Thank you, Mr. Trottier, for the question.

I can certainly appreciate the difficult priority-setting challenges you have. In fact, I can recall very recently one of the individuals who appeared before you who simply said, we need a lot of money and we need it for a long time. We would probably agree with that statement, but we appreciate the need for us to be very transparent and accountable, and we appreciate the circumstances that we find ourselves in.

The two factors that we would look at most closely are really very much a part of the way we evaluate success, and in fact the way our current funder, the majority funder we have, through HRSDC evaluates the success of the enabling fund. That is through leveraged funds and also through concrete partnerships that are established.

There are two very precise criteria. If I may elaborate very briefly, the leveraged piece of that is critical because it talks not about the road map being an expense but rather an investment. When we look at every dollar spent—and we made reference to this in our presentation—for the past year we can demonstrate $1.07 of immediate leverage generated in the economy to more than 100%. If we look across the country at the investment, there is $69 million going through the enabling fund over the five years. The average across the country is actually a three-to-one ratio. There's a clear value there that's being generated, and something I think we can speak very boldly to taxpayers about and let them know that we are doing wonderful things with a relatively minimal investment in this space of economic development.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you to our guests.

Mr. Buck, you read the archives of our previous meetings. That was really special. Thank you.

I'm very interested in the research you are doing at Concordia University. Thank you very much.

We just heard Mr. Buck say:

“we need a lot of money and we need it for a long time.”

We've heard this type of statement repeatedly from the groups who have appeared before this committee. Could you talk to us about the conclusions that indicate that we need to eliminate certain programs because they aren't effective, or does it look like we should continue all the programs that are in place? Are there any other conclusions?

[David Graham]

Is that question for me?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Yes, it is for you, if you wish to answer first, Mr. Graham, or Ms. O'Donnell.

[David Graham]

Thank you. This is the big question for the Government of Canada. We can't do it all. As a university administrator, I know that all too well. The way things are currently, when there are increases in one area, there need to be decreases elsewhere. However, I don't agree that we need a lot of money over a very long time. I spoke with Ms. O'Donnell last night. The needs of the network she runs and coordinates are modest. A relatively modest sum would make it possible to increase the capacity, in partnership with the university that I have the honour of representing, for instance by funding another researcher position. That would enable us to increase this leverage effect that my CEDEC colleague just spoke about. It isn't up to us to suggest budget cuts, because I don't want to target other programs I know almost nothing about.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

You are right to say that. I clearly recall that, when I was supporting an opposition party, it was very difficult to criticize, but now, we need to make the decisions and establish priorities. As another leader once said, it's difficult to establish priorities. Isn't that right, Mr. Bélanger?

I think it was you, Ms. O'Donnell, who spoke about community vitality. But we always have difficulty establishing success measures.

What's community vitality and how do we measure that? We've discussed that a little bit this morning.

What are the criteria for success? Is it always up to the government, or could the community find success in working with the government?

Mr. Buck, perhaps you could answer that question.

How do we see that community vitality progressing, increasingly independent of government support, so that we know we're sowing the seeds of success but not always taking the taxpayers' money and investing it here?

[John Buck]

Thank you, Mr. Weston, for the question. It's a very important question that we look at in terms of sustainability in our communities and diversification of those resources that support much of what we do.

We've made reference this morning in our brief to the business vitality index and another initiative we've done, the community vitality index. We've done both through the support of Industry Canada and Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions.

If you'll permit me, I may ask my colleague, Mr. Myers, to respond to the main criteria there. He's our vitality guru and I think is best positioned to respond to that.

That question around creation of partnerships and considering sustainability is definitely a large part of the response there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Buck.

Go ahead, briefly, Mr. Myers.

[Grant Myers, Provincial Economic Development Officer, Community Economic Development and Employability Corporation]

I'll be very brief.

A guru is a bit generous, but I'll go from there.

I can only speak from the perspective of the work we do. I think when we're looking at vitality, as John said, we're looking at measuring how a community can sustain economic development in the long term. We have some tools that we work with to do that, not the least of which is a tool developed by HRSDC called the community capacity assessment tool. That enables communities to gauge their growth in their ability to chart their own economic future among a number of variables. We can measure the impact of our work and see changes in how well a community can sustain itself in the long term. That includes investments from a variety of sources. It cannot be sustained merely by the federal government.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Enguehard would like to answer Mr. Trottier's question. He asked what the criteria were.

Ms. Enguehard, you have the floor.

[Françoise Enguehard]

I think the Canadian taxpayers, and that includes us, are also very aware that one of Canada's main criteria has always been the respect and treatment of its minorities. I would add that a country's greatness is measured by how it treats its minorities.

On the francophone side, the leaders' forum, which stems from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, has a strategic plan and established priorities. The priorities should be determined in collaboration with that organization. As Mr. Graham so eloquently said, it isn't up to us here to pit ourselves against the others and determine what should be given priority.

Within this very large framework, I think this should be the preferred approach. That was the response to that question, but we would now like to answer another.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you. I would ask that you be brief because Mr. Dionne Labelle would also like to ask some questions.

[Éric Mathieu Doucet, Executive Director, Société nationale de l'Acadie]

With respect to the indicators intended to measure the vitality of our communities, it certainly isn't easy to answer that question.

Further to the francophone summit in 2007, the leaders' forum developed a community strategic plan. We are currently working with researchers and a colleague from Canadian Heritage to identify performance indicators. The goal is to measure the vitality of our communities at the end of the project. We are working with Canadian Heritage to secure these performance indicators. It isn't an easy task, but if we manage to measure the success and progress every time there is a plan, I think we will really be able to see what criteria will enable us to continue in that direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Dionne Labelle, you have the floor.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I'll start with Ms. Enguehard, and I will come back to certain aspects of your presentation. I will also address our Conservative friends, in particular Mr. Gourde.

Let's take the example of a youth centre in a municipality, and the centre has a budget of $150,000 to $160,000. A regional organization has an assured core budget of $300,000. Here, we're talking about an organization with a mission to defend the interests of one group, in this case, Canada's Acadians. It must also promote the group around the world, so we're talking about core funding of $168,000. Personally, I find that figure astonishing.

In your document, you say that you would like to receive funding comparable to that of other groups that receive assistance from the national envelope. How much funding would you like to have so you can ensure that Canada preserves its Acadian identity, which makes the country what it is, in the same way that Quebec does?

[Françoise Enguehard]

Several organizations are funded from the national envelope. Personally, I have not managed to find out how it is funded since 2007. However, I know only too well that the SNA is on the bottom rung of the ladder. In 2006-2007, we were the organization receiving the least funding. The organization right behind us received core funding of $160,000.

You will notice that I specifically said that, each year, we manage to bring our budget up to about $1 million. If you want a—

bang for your buck,

—we are a quite extraordinary example, especially given what we achieve. But it is clear that we cannot go on like this for ever because of the major costs involved. For the Société nationale de l'Acadie to be able to fulfill its mandate, our core funding has to be more than doubled. There are no two ways about it.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

It seems to me that you are right. I do not want to speak for my party, but it is clear that your organization's mandate is important for Canadian unity. If we really want to be serious in our defence of the official languages and of linguistic minorities in Canada, the core funding of your organization must be reviewed. I have no doubt about that.

My second comment goes to the representatives from the Regional Association of West Quebecers.

Of the 52,000 people who use English in the Gatineau and Pontiac regions, 25,000 are unilingual anglophones. I am particularly thinking of elderly anglophones who live in a francophone world. In their relationship with the provincial government, do you feel that they get enough help in receiving health and support services in their own language? Is there work to do in that regard? Do you get any requests along those lines?

[Noel Gates]

The establishment of the organization that Ms. Stronach referred to, the Outaouais Health and Social Services Network, has really helped to solve that problem. We played a major role in raising the money needed to establish the organization and now it is independent of us. It is constantly working to inform English-speaking people about health matters.

Additionally, it tries to give a voice to the elderly people you mention, for example, who often live in quite remote locations. In terms of cooperation with the province, I feel that is where the network plays an essential role, by mobilizing resources to help people who live in isolated places. As seniors, they have health problems, and on top of that, they are not able to speak French. I would also say that it is impossible to ask them to learn French at that stage of their lives. The time for that is past, isn't it?

It is likely that a lot of work remains to be done. At least we have an agency in our area that plays a major role. The Outaouais Health and Social Services Network also has an advisory committee that represents anglophones.