Official Languages Committee on June 12th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Good day everyone, and welcome to the 58^th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Today, we continue to hear from witnesses on the Court Challenges Program. First, I want to welcome our witnesses: Ms. Sylvia Martin-Laforge from the Quebec Community Groups Network, Ms. Lise Routhier-Boudreau from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, accompanied by the Director of Communications, Mr. Quinty.

We have the privilege of a witness from the Canadian Constitution Foundation, Mr. Christopher Schafer. He is the director of this organization. Welcome.

Furthermore, joining us by videoconference, we have the Acting Director General of the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, Ms. Ghislaine Foulem.

Good day, Ms. Foulem.

[Ghislaine Foulem, Interim Director General, Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick]

Good day, everyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Welcome to our committee.

Before giving the floor to Ms. Sylvia Martin-Laforge of the Quebec Community Groups Network, I want to remind the committee that we have to vote at 11 a.m. and I would like us to set aside a little bit of time before then. The clerk informed me this morning that Minister Verner would be available to meet with us on June 19. So, I would like to have your opinion on this and verify whether we could suspend our deliberations on the Court Challenges Program in order to hear from her.

Furthermore, as you know, there is the case before the courts regarding the Court Challenges Program. According to the procedural manual Marleau-Montpetit, there is a convention that must be followed regarding cases before the courts. This is first and foremost a voluntary restraint on the part of the House to protect an accused person or any other party to a court action or judicial inquiry from suffering any prejudicial effect from public discussion of the issue. I will leave it up to your good judgment and I hope that I will not have to intervene. I simply want to remind you to use your judgment in deciding what questions to ask.

Sylvia Martin-Laforge, you have the floor.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge, Director General, Quebec Community Groups Network]

Members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, good morning, bonjour.

On behalf of the Quebec Community Groups Network, the QCGN, and its member organizations, I wish to thank you for inviting me to speak to you about the ramifications of the government's decision to abolish the court challenges program.

My name is Sylvia Martin-Laforge,

and I am the Director General of the Quebec Community Groups Network.

The network currently brings together 22 sectoral and regional organizations from the English-speaking minority communities of Quebec. The QCGN was established in 1995 and promotes the vitality of English-speaking minority communities.

I'll do my best with the few minutes that have been allocated to me today to demonstrate some of the successes of the CCP and its importance to English-speaking communities of Quebec.

As I said, the network was established in 1995. It has been an active member of the program since 2001. The QCGN has also had a representative sitting on the CCP's advisory committee on linguistic rights since 2002. This advisory committee keeps the court challenges program aware of the preoccupations of its members, particularly on behalf of both official language minority communities.

Let me be up front. I guess it's no surprise to you that the QCGN supports the CCP in its entirety and hopes that the Government of Canada will acknowledge the detrimental impact of its decision and act immediately to reinstate the program. Had the government consulted the QCGN or any member of its organization prior to the cancellation of the program, the government would have realized that it had monumental impacts for advancement of the rights of English-speaking minorities of Quebec.

Here are a few representative examples. In Chiasson v. Quebec, the Quebec Superior Court held that there were limits on the power of the Office de la langue française. It declared that the charter of the French language did not allow the Office de la langue française to prevent any employer from providing English-language programs in the workplace where French-language programs were already available to employees.

In Quebec v. Blaikie, the portion of the same law that made French the only language for all provincial laws enacted and the only language of Quebec courts was also struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. This example provided the groundwork to allow anglophones in Quebec the fundamental right to be heard in the language of their choice before the courts of Quebec.

As a follow-up to Quebec v. Blaikie, the Quebec Court of Appeal, in its decision rendered in the case of Cross in 1998, held that the government, in particular the Attorney General, had the duty to assign cases to a crown counsel who could conduct the proceedings in the official language chosen by the accused.

These cases are examples of the advancement of rights of the English-speaking minority in Quebec. In these instances, those petitioning the courts to have their rights recognized did not have the financial means to do so. The court challenges program helped them achieve the justice they sought. I wonder how these decisions could have been rendered without financial assistance from the CCP.

The successes of both official language minority communities are also important to the vitality of English-speaking communities of Quebec. Many examples—as in the case of Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia, which found that the government had the duty to create institutional structures to ensure quality education for children of official language minorities—have given us the opportunity to build bridges with francophone minority communities across Canada and learn from their experience to the benefit of the English-speaking minorities of Quebec.

Predicting the future is never an exact science, and that is particularly true with respect to both politics and law. I'm sure you would agree with that. One can never have an idea of when something untoward might happen—a law passed, a workplace rule introduced, an SOS Montfort of our own—that goes against one's constitutional rights.

The beliefs expressed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as in the Official Languages Act form the basis of Canadian society and guarantee the right to minority communities to challenge any element of legislation or action taken that goes against those fundamental principles.

It has often been said that governments exist to protect the rights of minorities, or that a democracy can be measured by how well it treats its minorities. The QCGN hopes that the Government of Canada will abide by that principle in the future.

Last, I wish to reiterate the importance for the Government of Canada to make a better effort to consult at times when it chooses to make major changes that will affect official languages in minority communities. Such practice could have avoided the controversy that arose from the cancellation of the court challenges program.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for granting me the opportunity to speak to you today. I hope that my appearance marks the beginning of a dialogue with this committee on this and other matters pertaining to the advancement of linguistic duality in Canada and English-speaking minority rights in Canada.

Thank you. I look forward to questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Madam Martin-Laforge.

We'll now proceed with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. Ms. Routhier-Boudreau, would you please take the floor.

[Lise Routhier-Boudreau, Vice-President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, you invited us to appear this morning and set out our views on the repercussions of abolishing the Court Challenges Program. The FCFA would like to thank you for giving us this time.

My name is Lise Routhier-Boudreau. With me is Serge Quinty, our Director of Communications. After the presentation, we will be very pleased to answer your questions.

At the outset, I would like to point out that the FCFA is currently the plaintiff in a case seeking to overturn all decisions made on September 25, 2006, including the decision concerning funding for the Court Challenges Program. You will understand that we cannot comment on the case, which is now before the courts.

Rather, in the few minutes I have today, I will attempt to provide a brief overview of the issue, and begin by setting out the principal gains that we owe to the Court Challenges Program in the area of linguistic rights. Second, we will look at the repercussions we feel abolishing the program will have.

The Court Challenges Program has been an essential instrument in both clarifying and furthering linguistic rights of the francophone minority in all francophone and Acadian communities of Canada.

Many language-related cases have been heard and settled with support from the program. Those cases include a significant number of landmark cases, which have made it possible for us to manage our own schools—for example Mahé versus Alberta, the reference regarding the Manitoba Public Schools Act, the Association des parents francophones de la Colombie-Britannique versus British Columbia, and many others. Other cases, such as Doucet-Boudreau and Arsenault-Cameron, have made it possible to specify the government's obligation in the areas of school and schooling language rights.

At present, there are over 600 French-language schools outside Quebec. This morning, I would like to ask all committee members the following question: if cases like those I have listed could not have been brought before the courts, would we now have as many French-language schools across Canada? I am taking the liberty of asking you this question, but I'm also taking the liberty of believing the answer is most likely no.

The Court Challenges Program has also made it possible to clarify government obligations in the area of providing French-language services. You are all familiar with the well-known Montfort case, which made it possible to save the only French-language teaching hospital west of Quebec. Then we have the Beaulac decision, which clarified the language rights of a defendant, while setting out the principles and interpretative framework applying to linguistic rights in Canada as a whole. Court proceedings were instituted by the Fédération Franco-ténoise in 1999. The case, which was heard in 2006, led to a decision by the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, recognizing that the territorial government had an obligation to provide its citizens with French-language services. Unfortunately, however, the Government of the Northwest Territories appealed the decision, and it will now be difficult for the Franco-People of the North to cover the costs of this new stage in the legal proceedings.

In short, we have no doubt that, since it was established in 1978, the Court Challenges Program has done a great deal to foster the development and enhancement of francophone and anglophone minority communities in Canada, and thus contributed to fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society. Its contribution to the vitality of francophone and Acadian communities is immeasurable. Thus, it is logical to arrive at the conclusion that eliminating the Court Challenges Program would have profound repercussions on those communities' survival.

Our government has said many times that it would pass constitutional laws, and then comply with them.

However, the history of the Court Challenges Program shows that, in spite of political will that goes in the right direction, statutes and regulations might need clarification in the area of language rights or the right to equality.

Moreover, the federal government cannot make the commitment of ensuring that provincial and territorial governments also pass legislation that protects and fosters the interests of minorities and disadvantaged groups. Yet 80% of language rights cases funded under the Court Challenges Program targeted provincial and territorial governments.

We should bear in mind that only the courts have authority to interpret statutes and to determine whether those statutes are constitutional. The government cannot provide an advanced guarantee that a given statute is constitutional.

Now let's take a look at the repercussions abolishing the program will have, given the dozens of cases that have made it possible to clarify and consolidate francophone minority rights and to further the development of communities. At the time the program's funding was cut off, there was still a great deal of legal effort required to ensure that francophones can fully enjoy their constitutional rights and achieve genuine equality, as set out in the Canadian Constitution and the Official Languages Act.

We have already mentioned the case between the Franco-Northwester community and the Government of the Northwest Territories, which will be appealed. Other court cases under way include Paulin versus New Brunswick, Caron versus Alberta, and the school surtax case in Nova Scotia. Those cases, like the cases before them, could well further the recognition, interpretation and application of language rights in francophone communities, and especially enhance those communities' ability to live in French.

Our work will not be done until such time as we achieve genuine equality between English and French, and full access to services in French, services that are of equal quality. The courts are never our first recourse, but we must all agree that, so far, they have been the entity that has enabled minorities to exercise their rights.

Until today, Canada has been to be a model in the way that it treats its minorities. And the Court Challenges Program has been invaluable in facilitating the interpretation of the Charter's written and unwritten principles. It is quite true that Canadians are extremely proud of the rights guaranteed under the Charter, but we must still ensure that those rights are applied and respected in practice.

To date, the CCP has supported groups representing ordinary Canadians, who would not otherwise have had the means to have their constitutional rights, which are guaranteed under the Charter, recognized and respected. Without the CCP, communities would have had difficulty in finding the financial resources needed to remind the federal government, as well as provincial and territorial governments, of their constitutional obligations and responsibilities in the area of language.

In conclusion, I should say that eliminating the Court Challenges Program is a clear failure on the federal government's part to fulfil its obligations under the Official Languages Act. In fact, eliminating the program with no consultation—a program that has played an essential role in the development of francophone and Acadian communities—is an act in breach of Part VII of the Official Languages Act, and in breach of the government's commitment to support the development of minority communities.

For all the above reasons, as indicated by Graham Fraser, the Official Languages Commissioner, in a speech at the Sommet des communautés francophones et acadienne, the government would do well to take rapid action in reviewing its decision to abolish CCP funding.

Thank you for listening. Thank you Mr. Chairman. We would be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Ms. Routhier-Boudreau. We will now move to Mr. Schafer, of the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

[Christopher Schafer, Director, Canadian Constitution Foundation]

Thank you and good morning.

My name is Christopher Schafer, and I'm a lawyer at Gowling Lafleur Henderson, in their advocacy and government relations practice group. Today I'm here as a director on the board of the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

The Canadian Constitution Foundation exists to protect the constitutional freedoms of Canadians through education, communication, and litigation. Among other things, the foundation supports equality before the law, equal rights and equal opportunities for all Canadians, and special privileges for none. The foundation is supported in the work it does by Canadians who voluntarily donate their money.

The Canadian Constitution Foundation supports the elimination of the court challenges program. All Canadians, through their tax dollars, have paid to advance the public policy agendas of various special interest groups who received court challenges program funding, whether they agreed with those agendas or not. This is unfair.

This unfairness can be illustrated by example. Under the section 15 equality provision of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, human dignity is the central element of equality. In order for an impugned government action to constitute an infringement of section 15 equality rights, the action must be held to detrimentally impact a claimant's human dignity by perpetuating or promoting the view that an individual is less capable or worthy of recognition or value as a human being or as a member of Canadian society.

For some, such as those groups that have historically obtained funding under the court challenges program, human dignity is violated when, for example, receipt of welfare is dependent on participation in job training programs. For them, a welfare law that reduces welfare payments for those who refuse to participate in training-related programs offends human dignity because human dignity can only emanate from the state via bigger government and related expenditures. For others, however, such welfare laws enhance human dignity because they foster independence rather than dependence, and feelings of self-worth rather than self-loathing. Thus, while the pursuit of human dignity is capable of manifesting itself in the pursuit of substantive equality of result, in the opinion of some, it is also, I argue, equally capable of manifesting itself in the pursuit of individual liberty and equality of opportunity.

To solely fund those groups that argue that only one vision of human dignity exists under section 15 of the charter is unfair. In the case of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, it arose from a court challenge launched by Nisga'a Indian Chief Mountain and Nisga'a matriarch Mercy Thomas, who continue to challenge the Nisga'a Final Agreement for violating their constitutional rights. This is a current, ongoing battle in the courts. They've persisted in their challenge for over seven years without any government funding, relying on the generosity of Canadians who continue to donate money to this cause voluntarily.

Despite any litigation funding from the court challenges program, Chief Mountain's constitutional challenge continues to advance. This is the way it should be. Chief Mountain is, arguably, more disadvantaged than any of the groups that received court challenges program funding in the past. Members of linguistic minorities in Canada are far more numerous and have far more resources than Chief Mountain and Mercy Thomas.

Government funding in respect of language issues and minority rights invariably advances a particular philosophical viewpoint to the exclusion of others. Constitutional issues are animated by numerous perspectives, not only that of the government and particular minority, or in this case, the language group, but by the interest of other minorities and the interest of members of a minority group who do not feel represented by the group pursuing the litigation in their name.

Canadians should not be compelled through their tax dollars to contribute to causes with which they disagree. Canada's Constitution belongs to all Canadians, not just those who agree with the ideology of the court challenges program. The elimination of the court challenges program has put all groups on an equal footing, at liberty to raise funds from their own supporters to support their own causes. This is fair.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Schafer, thank you for your comment.

Ms. Foulem, can you hear me properly?

[Ghislaine Foulem]

Yes. Can you hear me?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Yes, Ms. Foulem, we hear you very well. Please go ahead with your comments.

[Ghislaine Foulem]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone.

On behalf of the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, I would first like to thank committee members for this opportunity to present our position on the Court Challenges Program and its importance to all official language communities in Canada.

My name is Ghislaine Foulem, and I am the Acting Director General of the SAANB.

As you know, the SAANB is a provincial organization that defends and promotes the rights and interests of the Acadian community in New Brunswick. In that capacity, it has a number of times received support from the Court Challenges Program, support that made it possible for us to achieve significant gains for all Acadians and francophones in the province.

If you would allow, I will give you a number of concrete examples that demonstrate how important the Court Challenges Program is.

In 2001, we received CCP support for the Charlebois case on bilingualism in municipalities. That support enabled us to obtain amendments to the Official Languages Act of our province. For almost eight years now, the SAANB and a resident of New Brunswick have been seeking to have the RCMP recognize its linguistic obligations in providing police services on behalf of the province of New Brunswick.

The Federal Court ruled in our favour, but Justice Canada and the RCMP appealed the ruling. In October of this year, the case will come before the Supreme Court. That proves how well-founded our arguments are. It goes without saying that, without CCP support, we could not have waged the legal battle needed to achieve respect and recognition of the principle of equality for official language communities found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under sections 16.1 and 20, as well as in the New Brunswick Official Languages Act.

A number of other court challenges have been made possible by the CCP, including a challenge to the federal riding boundary map that enabled us to keep communities of interest together, the case of the Forum des maires de la Péninsule acadienne versus the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the case of parents in Saint-Sauveur who fought against closure of the town's school.

We have also used the Court Challenges Program to conduct legal research on the New Brunswick Regional Health Authorities Act, post-secondary education, and the legal status of professional associations.

We have to acknowledge that, every time the courts rule in our favour, in whole or in part, a large step forward is made towards strengthening the vitality and fostering the development of Acadia and New Brunswick. However, there is still a great deal left to do in the areas of health, education, and the language in which services are delivered, to name but a few, in order to achieve genuine linguistic equality for official language communities, even in Canada's only officially bilingual province.

I will give you one last example which, in our mind, constitutes a breach of the act, for which official language communities are all too often forced to bear the repercussions. As the principle spokesperson for the Acadian community, the SAANB was not consulted in the program review undertaken by the Conservative government. And I should point out that the review led to eliminating support for the Canada Volunteerism Initiative, cuts to Status of Women Canada, cuts to literacy programs, the elimination of international practicum programs for young people, and—at the head of the list—elimination of the Court Challenges Program. Yet, pursuant to the Official Languages Act of Canada, the government has an obligation to consult communities on any political issues, or any program, that might have an impact on them.

The Acadian and francophone communities believe that these measures are undermining the very foundations of our ability to mobilize and defend our rights, though without the Court Challenges Program our communities cannot prove that.

Of course—and I would like to reassure all committee members on that score—neither the SAANB nor the Acadian community sector organizations like to go before the courts as a first recourse to obtain justice. As far as we can, we prefer to work through cooperation, consultation and dialogue. In fact, that is what we did by sending an open letter to the Prime Minister in October, and by taking part in the national movement to counter the budget cuts.

At the initiative of the Moncton University Students Federation and of the Fédération des jeunes francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick, a coalition has been established. In the Atlantic region, the Société nationale de l'Acadie has begun a petition on the Internet, and a francophone team made up of official language minority community representatives has also met with some 40 members of Parliament in Ottawa, members of different political parties, to help them become more aware of the repercussions these cuts are having on their communities. We have not been successful, however.

When the rights of francophone citizens seem to be clearly ignored or violated by the government, which formulates and is responsible for applying legislation, do we have any choice but to go to the courts? But as our case against the RCMP clearly shows, challenging some government decisions is a cumbersome and lengthy process.

Our financial and human resources are extremely limited, and without CCP support we are, in a sense, a hostage, without any ability to defend ourselves. The federal government has an army of legal counsel, paid using taxpayers' money, to defend the decisions that threaten our gains, violate our rights, and run counter to its own obligations.

The Official Languages Commissioner shares the fears of official language communities. Before this committee, Graham Fraser stated that the government's actions, and in some cases the government's failure to act, sow doubt regarding the sincerity of its commitment to implement the new Part VII of the Official Languages Act. Yet we remember the considerable support Bill S-3 received from the Conservatives, who are now the party in power. The Court Challenges Program was the last recourse for official language communities who felt that the authorities had violated their rights.

By refusing to reinstitute the Court Challenges Program, the government is seriously undermining the ability of civil society to express its democratic will, it is undermining the development of our communities, and it is tarnishing Canada's international reputation for justice and democracy.

In conclusion, I would add that the SAANB has every confidence in your committee's work. We are counting on you to persuade Prime Minister Harper to overturn a decision that all official language communities are decrying with a single voice. This is not a question of political partisanship. It is a question of simple justice and fairness.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you for your comments, Ms. Foulem.

We will now begin the first round of questions by members of the committee. The first round is seven minutes, and that includes comments, questions and answers.

Given that my legal education is somewhat limited, I would just like to remind you that we will try to remain focused on political issues, and not stray into legal matters.

Ms. Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question will be very brief, and I would like an answer from Mr. Schafer that is just as brief.

Mr. Schafer, you are the Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation. I noticed that the title appears in English only. Could you tell us what the foundation is, first of all? Generally, when a witness appears before us, he or she introduces the organization. Secondly, can you tell me whether you yourself are bilingual?

[Christopher Schafer]

The Canadian Constitution Foundation is a relatively new organization. It's a charitable organization. As I stated in my opening oral presentation, it exists to protect the constitutional freedoms of Canadians through three things: education, communication, and litigation. For example, it is holding a conference in the fall in Toronto about liberty. It holds conferences. It creates student chapters at local law schools.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you.

Can you answer my second question?

[Christopher Schafer]

I do speak a little French, but I would not say I am bilingual.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Schafer, you say that you are a foundation. Generally, a foundation receives funds. What is the source of the funding with which you operate?

[Christopher Schafer]

For example, I can go online, and I have donated $25 from time to time, so individual Canadians can fund the organization online, and you can too, if you'd like. We are also funded by different organizations in Canada. We don't receive government funding.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

That's not particularly my....

I would really like to have an answer that is a little fuller, and I wonder if perhaps you're not able to give us the answer that I require here. But I think it would be interesting for members of this committee to have a fuller understanding of your foundation, Mr. Schafer. I understand that individuals can give money, but I'm sure that if you're putting together a conference and so on and so forth for across Canada, and you're paying for a website, it's not the $25 that you're getting from one and the other that is going to pay for all this.

I'd be very interested in your letting the members of this committee, through our chair, have more ample and more specific information as to how your foundation is funded.

[Christopher Schafer]

For example, funding would be available to us, and it has been through such organizations as the Donner Canadian Foundation. That is one organization that contributes funds to our group, and any Canadian who is capable is allowed to log onto our website, where there's more specific information. We have annual reports available.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

The only thing I'm asking, because time is very short, is if you would send that information to the chair, and he will make sure that we get it all. I know you want to explain, but there is very little time.

[Christopher Schafer]

I can undertake to provide an annual report; for example, our most recent annual report.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

My question is addressed to Madame Martin-Laforge. I'd like to say how happy I am to see you here personally, and the group that you represent in Quebec. I'm very happy to see that we are at long last recognizing that linguistic minorities across Canada also include English-speaking minorities in Quebec, and they have their place. Thank you very much for coming here today.

I would like you to perhaps—and we're very short on time—explain to us, in the situation of the English-speaking minority in Quebec and the French-speaking minorities across Canada, what are one or two of the fundamental differences between the two? And there's the fact that you're working together, I know, in some instances, and you might perhaps mention that as well.

The third thing that I would really appreciate your mentioning is, how does the opening of French-language schools in Manitoba, in the Northwest Territories, or whatever, these improvements for the French-speaking minorities across Canada, link into whatever the situation is of English-speaking minorities in Quebec? How are they linked, and what impact does it have on your minority, and what consequences?

Thank you.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

Thank you for that question, because I think you've partially answered the first question by your second question. In fact, there are more similarities between the official language minority communities—the French-speaking outside and in the rest of Canada, and English-speaking in Quebec—than there are differences. Because we are a national minority, we have to be considered as a national minority.

In Quebec there are about one million anglophones, English-speaking Canadians living in Quebec, and by those numbers we compare with francophones outside of Quebec. There are the similarities, and the similarities are important because we need to be treated as a national minority. We are in one province, it's true, but the connections between the minority in Quebec and the minority outside Quebec, the French-speaking, is evident.

When we look at what is happening with the schools, school closures, access to education, access to health care, and that we have an aging community, that we have exodus from rural to the cities, we have a number of dossiers that link us. And for English-speaking minorities in Quebec, we've had a different evolution over the last 30 years, so there is a mythology that there is a lot of difference. There's a mythology that all English-speaking Quebeckers live in Westmount, go to Brome Lake for the weekend, and there's money everywhere. Well, no.

I would ask you to look especially recently. The Quebec Community Groups Network has put together with a Montreal group, what we call the Greater Montreal Community Development Initiative . On our website, on the QCGN website, you can see demographics, about 700,000 people living in Montreal, where there are demographic issues around employability, poverty, lack of access, all of these things, and what it does to the determinants of health. The links and the similarities are important, but the differences I think are more minimal than one would think.