Thank you. It might be useful for the committee members if I gave a demographic and historical overview of the Franco-Saskatchewanian community; however, I would suggest a different kind of overview; over the next few minutes, I would like to give a broader historical context for the action plan.
Social change generally occurs over 20 years. I want to go back to 1947 to better show you where we started in order to better plan our future. You will see why I want to do this.
The first period runs from 1947 to 1967. In 1947, Canada passed the Canadian Citizenship Act, which defined for the very first time who was a Canadian citizen. Prior to 1947, we were British subjects. During the 1960s, we had the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, and the adoption in 1964 of the Canadian flag, an essential symbol of the Canadian identity. Also during the 1960s, the first nations won the right to vote. During the period between 1947 and 1967, we laid the foundation for citizenship today, from the recognition of the rights of first nations, to linguistic duality and multiculturalism.
In the period between 1968 and 1988, the Official Languages Act, the Multiculturalism Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were enacted.
During the period from 1989 to the present day, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was implemented with, in particular, school governance, the Dion Plan and the development of the Réseau santé en français.
During this 60-year period, the institutional basis of the notion of citizenship defined in the 1940s by people such as Popper, Tawney and Marshall was developed. You will no doubt recall that T.H. Marshall, in his fundamental article on citizenship and the social classes, had defined citizenship as having civil, political and social dimensions. But the fundamental rights associated with the notion of citizenship are constantly evolving. Increasingly, they are defined not in terms of legislation or actions which are discriminatory in their intent or in their impact, but rather through inaction or non-intervention, by way of legislation, programs and actions that failed to prevent negative and discriminatory effects, or by the absence of essential legislation or initiatives.
Furthermore, philosophers such as John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice in 1971, introduce a number of principles of social justice underlying the notion of citizenship. Among other things, John Rawls says that social and economic inequalities should be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
For francophone minority communities, this principle will translate, for example, into programs that, instead of trying to ensure pro-rata uniformity, will take into consideration the risks, degree of institutional atrophy, the costs of social and geographic dispersion and historical costs. In other words, there should be a kind of linguistic equalization formula to take into consideration variations, risk factors and the scope of the challenges faced by these communities.
In conclusion, we—and I'm including the individuals around this table, the federal government, provincial governments and the communities—are outlining and defining the substance of the notion of citizenship for the coming decades. This notion will be much more complex, variable and flexible than in 1947. The rights conferred by citizenship will force the various levels of government to address their inability, their hesitation and refusal to intervene when they should have. They will be more responsible for what they do not do than for what they do do.
It may be time to review various studies, including that done by Senator Simard, Bridging the Gap, published in 1999, in which we can find various subtitles such as these: “The Federal Government—Architect of weakening Communities”, “Decommitment and offloading by the Government of Canada”, and “Project-Funding Policy“, to name just a few.
We should remember that, just like the effects of Indian residential schools established from the 1840 to the 1960 will be judged not on good intentions from 1860 but rather on today's moral and legal standards, the Dion Plan will be judged not on the good intentions of governments from 2003 to 2008, but rather on the impact of the plan in 2023, 2033 and 2043. I would ask you to reflect on the principles of social justice that should guide both governments' and communities' actions.