I am known here for not mincing words. Right off the bat, I want to tell you something fundamental: I firmly believe that Canadian unity can only be achieved by having dynamic and healthy French-Canadian communities. You can adopt all the motions you want on the Quebec nation, but as long as communities outside Quebec are dying, Quebeckers, who are not stupid, will know that Canada is not their country. So, it's clear that communities outside Quebec are the key to national unity.
This morning, I want to talk to you about the vitality of francophone communities, in terms of the action plan commonly known as the Dion plan. I also want to talk about communications.
I have worked in media for over 30 years, and I faithfully cover the entire issue of francophone communities. I know the leaders and the communities, I have followed the epic battle for schools and all sorts of things.
I want to say that the federal government made itself responsible for this community. That responsibility is recognized in the Constitution, in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act. Obviously, the federal government has not taken this seriously. I also think it's clear that the Dion plan has not had any impact on communities.
One of the most devastating things that we have noted, particularly in the past seven or eight years, since the first HRDC scandal, the former Service Canada, and since the sponsorship scandal, is that the government machinery has become paranoid, which means government subsidies are now almost inaccessible and as ineffective. Projects are being subsidized, but no one is being paid to administer them properly. People are being given projects, they are told that they have so much money to implement a project but they're not paid for rent or phone services. Finally, not much is being paid and these people have to obtain results. We are then asked to analyze the results of all kinds of things.
This is much more difficult to implement. Programs specifically for minority organizations are often organized for the majority. I'd like to give an example. There are programs for young interns, with all kinds of criteria, but these criteria are directed at the majority and are easy to meet. For example, in my community, I have to hire francophone graduates, but there are substantially fewer francophone graduates than anglophone graduates. So, right from the start, my choice is more limited.
Second, if I want to hire a graphic artist, the fact that there is no graphic artist course offered in French in Sudbury is not taken into consideration. However, according to the criteria, I cannot hire someone from outside the region; I must hire someone from Sudbury. This situation is not working for francophones outside Quebec. This works for the majority because courses in Sudbury are in English. They have the choice, but I don't. However, there would be an easy way to resolve such situations.
Recent decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada—I am thinking in particular of the Summerside ruling—give clear guidelines with regard to the treatment of official language minorities. Justice Bastarache explained at length in the decision that equal treatment does not mean the application of the same criteria. He even added that, often, in order to resolve an unfair situation, more had to be given or given differently in order to achieve equality. This seems clear to me but it doesn't seem clear to the people developing such programs within the government.
Public servants tend to generalize and to try to ensure that everything is equal for everyone. Yet, legislation and these decisions allow for different treatment. We must remember that official language minorities have a very long road to travel.
So, the Dion plan has had no impact on francophone communities in Canada, first because it was countered by this immobility within government, by this decision to treat everything equally, which penalizes francophone communities. Another flaw with the Dion plan—I think that Mr. Potié alluded to this earlier—is the communications sector but this is not being talked about. We are talking about health and education, justice, immigration, which are all provincial responsibilities, it should be noted, which means that money is being given to the provinces, that spend it the way they want.
In some cases, such as in Ontario, the money was used for education, for French programs within the school boards. So much the better. In other sectors, I have no idea what happened. Mr. Potié referred to that too. Nowhere does the Dion plan indicate for whom this plan was developed and what is being done with the money. Some $750 million are being spent but people are not being told how that money will be spent. Yet, I don't think that anything needs to be hidden.
I'd also like to talk to you about communications and I would remind you that, in 2004, Mr. Potié from the Association de la presse francophone made a presentation on the slow but programmed death of a number of publications. For example, two years ago, I purchased the only business magazine published outside Quebec, Le lien économique. When I purchased this publication, I did my homework. Mr. D'Amours, if he is still here, will certainly understand that the BDC would not provide funding for the purchase without first being provided a business plan. The plan was based on figures I had obtained from the company I was purchasing. So the business plan highlighted various contributions from the federal government, which constituted a certain quantity of advertising. It wasn't huge, but it was something. Since I purchased the magazine in 2004, the federal government has purchased only 1 advertisement in 15 issues. I move a hair, and the magazine will probably close forever. This is the only such magazine outside Quebec.
The other problem concerns the Publications Assistance Program, which Mr. Potié talked about. As I own two publications, Canada Post's withdrawal of its 25% share in this program means a net loss of over $40,000 for me. Le voyageur, and Le lien économique have never had profits of more than $40,000. So we have one of two choices: we stop publication or we increase our prices.
Our community will absorb the price increases up to a certain point, but there comes a time when this no longer is an option. Yet, this is a publication that, within eight years, has increased the number of subscribers by 650%. So this means that there is interest. We started with 2005 households and we are now at 15,000 households. So the demand is there. The world wants it. We will be unable to keep it alive if programs such as the Publications Assistance Program are cut.