If I understand what you are saying, there are areas where, to be able to make services available to francophones, anglophone hospitals are given the means to provide services in French. I understand that, even though that is not an ideal situation. Services are to be given in French wherever there are francophones who require treatment. Although this is a last resort measure, I am ready to live with it.
Now, what I do not understand is that, out of an envelop of 30 million dollars, 10 million dollars is given to McGill University, in a city such is Montreal where all services are in French, and that this money strengthens the anglophone network in order to provide services in French. I am not sure that that is appropriate, because the money you are given is for the promotion of French language health services.
The McGill's network is very well equipped and has extraordinary resources. There is always this bias when we compare what is given to francophones outside Quebec on a needs basis and the type of hybridization with the anglophone “minority”, which creates dreadful distortion. Some 10 million dollars goes to McGill. I have nothing against Montreal anglophones being healthy, far from it. And their health seems fine, especially in view of your statement in your document, that the health of the francophones is much poorer than that of anglophones. I am trying to understand the rationale behind this decision.
Furthermore, the report by the advisory committee you chaired in 2001 indicated that francophones were less healthy than anglophones and that 50% of them did not have access to services in French.
Can you monitor changes in the health of francophones living in minority situations? In other words, can you say whether there have been improvements in their health since you began your work? Moreover, I would like to know the proportion of francophones five years later who live in a minority situation and who do not have access to health care services in their language.