Official Languages Committee on May 15th, 2008

[Diane Côté]

I think there's a difference between local projects that are respected by the agreements and the design of the agreements. In the brief we submitted, there are a few more details on the subject, but perhaps I can cite some examples.

Some provincial and territorial communities would like to sign much broader agreements with the Government of Canada and the provincial governments. That's not currently the case, but that's one of the possibilities we would like to explore.

As Mr. Comtois said earlier, other communities would like an agreement actually signed between the Canadian government and the provincial and territorial community. That would involve not only the commitment of the Department of Canadian Heritage through its Official Languages Support Program, but also all the programs that support the development of the provincial and territorial communities. So that would involve the commitment of Health Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Human Resources and Social Development Canada, economic departments and so on. All that should be in an actual agreement. That's what we mean by asymmetry.

[Stéphane Audet]

From our perspective, there have definitely been some regional variations that were much appreciated, and we expect to be able to continue this positive effort with the Department of Canadian Heritage. The mechanisms of the agreement that were established jointly with the Department of Canadian Heritage work very well. The community is satisfied with those mechanisms. It isn't the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique itself that is responsible; it receives a mandate to executive them. There is a vast community forum that includes the member associations of the federation and non-members. There are indeed more informal groups. The cooperation is thus even greater. We have a big legislative assembly that deliberates, and a provincial cooperation committee is then elected. We've developed mechanisms, and that works well.

The Department of Canadian Heritage has let us negotiate with it, and we are very satisfied with that. We are very much attached to a particular situation in British Columbia: one person among us works for the community, and her goal is to achieve greater interdepartmental cooperation. So we have an employee, in the context of this agreement, whose work is to assist the Department of Canadian Heritage in achieving greater cooperation among the various federal departments. That's very useful. A bridge is being built between one person from the Department of Canadian Heritage and another from the community. That's very effective. It helps the departments and the community to stay in touch, to see what the priorities are and to collaborate better.

We have another situation that is dear to us: we are building ever closer ties with our provincial government. It is very important for British Columbia that we be able to innovate and be a bastion of innovation and that we test new approaches that go beyond the usual framework. We are convinced that the department shares our opinion on that.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

To answer your question about how there hasn't been a one-size-fits-all or how it hasn't worked in Quebec, I think one has to look at the investment in English-speaking communities of Quebec of the action plan on official languages in 2003, which, relative to other sectors, was quite negligible. We did well in health, but other than that the investment was poor.

Why did that happen? That happened for a number of different reasons, not the only one being that the community was not ready for, and could not answer, the important questions being posed to it about how much and what it needed to make it real. For the collaboration agreement or accords that regionalize Quebec, it's hard for Quebec communities to engage with the Government of Canada on what is needed in Quebec. For us, there has not been enough creative thinking around how Quebec's collaboration accord could fit into a national and a regional perspective so that we have both pieces.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Lebel.

Now we'll begin our second round with Ms. Marlene Jennings.

Welcome to the committee, Ms. Jennings.

Pardon me, there has been a change. It's the turn of Mr. Rodriguez instead.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning everyone. Listening to you, I get the impression that the consultation has suffered a certain setback. That comes up regularly. I don't sense that you feel the government is treating you like full-fledged partners. I don't sense that at all.

As regards the one-size-fits-all issue, I asked Mr. Hubert Lussier the question when he appeared the day before yesterday. He answered that there were five components in the agreements. The first three are identical for everyone because they concern general terms. However, the last two necessarily take into account the situation of each province or territory because they address objectives.

Is that in fact how you see it?

[Some voices]

Yes.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

All right. My next question is for the anglophone representatives from Quebec. When I recently spoke with some senior members of the community, I noted a certain concern about health services in their language. Some concerns emerged from those discussions. It's when they consult a doctor that they feel most vulnerable.

In my view, there are two areas where the official languages are really important: health and justice. When something makes us nervous or concerned, we would like to be understood in our language. In the case of health in particular, I've personally heard a lot about that. The aging community wonders whether they will have access to services in their language so that they are well understood when they need it.

Is that widespread?

[Robert Donnelly]

As regards quality, that's one of the sectors where there has been the most progress in recent years, thanks to the Community Health and Social Services Network (CHSSH), one of our members, which works with Health Canada. A lot of money is invested in that field. In the very isolated rural communities, a lot of progress has been made on this issue, particularly on ways of obtaining services in English for people, especially seniors. We know that's fundamentally important. You can say that's been productive.

To get back to your question on the one-size-fits-all issue, we've discussed that more at the national level. I'll take the liberty of talking about it at the regional and municipal levels. There is a strategy for retaining youth, and that's the Vitality Community program. Youth are important. We must retain young people, and a strategy that works in Gatineau won't necessarily work in Gaspé or the Magdalen Islands, where the situation is different.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Audet, is your organization a partner or was it consulted on the Olympic Games? Are you working with the organization responsible for preparing for the games with respect to bilingualism?

[Stéphane Audet]

The francophone community of British Columbia was involved before the games were even won. We sat on the committee in order to ensure that Canada and Vancouver could get the games. We're very directly involved as a partner.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Are you satisfied?

[Stéphane Audet]

We have a collaboration agreement with the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (VANOC). We're working virtually on a daily basis with games organizers to ensure that bilingualism is respected in every area of activity, in every activity that is carried out during the games. We're getting excellent cooperation in that regard.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Do you think we'll have games that respect linguistic duality and that are held in both official languages?

[Stéphane Audet]

To date, in terms of planning, VANOC has been peerless. It has managed to develop an official languages reflex. Currently we're seeing a possible slide between planning and actual implementation operations. We have some concerns in certain areas: health, safety and services for athletes and families.

VANOC is a very well managed organization, and Canadian citizens can be very proud of that. However, the extensive use of private sector contractors and subcontractors is a major concern. When the games begin, will those contractors and subcontractors be able to provide the services? On that day, citizens won't be able to tell the difference between a VANOC employee and one from a private company. So we have some concerns, but we're working with these people virtually every day to ensure that everything goes well. These games belong to all Canadians. We didn't want to be just a watchdog, but rather a partner in the success of those games.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Petit, go ahead please.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Good morning and thank you for being here today. I'll try to ask a brief question in order to allow everyone to speak.

I had the opportunity to visit mainly eastern Canada. I met Mr. Donnelly at one point. Submissions were made to the government.

You say you are no longer partners; you seem to be “outside officials” of Canadian Heritage. That's what I understood. That seems to irritate you, and I understand your situation.

You nevertheless have some freedom in the approach you take in your requests. There are a number of levels, and you do business with a number of departments. Mr. Audet, Mr. Comtois or Mr. Léger spoke about that earlier. Someone even said that he was only receiving $2 million from Canadian Heritage, but $5 million from the other side.

You seem to be saying that you are indirectly officials of Canadian Heritage, but what is your relationship with the other departments that deal with you, such as Citizenship and Immigration and Health Canada? Do you feel free or not at all? You seem to be demanding a little more room and to be criticizing the fact that the money doesn't come. That problem seems to have been around for many years. I wasn't here before. You seem to criticize the bureaucracy for being slow. We won't hide it from you: I come from the private sector and I understand you. I won't make a big deal out of it; I did that for long enough.

How do you operate? Could someone give us an idea?

[Jean Léger]

I'd like to draw an analogy with the automotive industry. As Henry Ford said, you can have any colour Ford, as long as it's black. The collaboration accord consisted of five parts. Parts I, II and III were unchanging, and Parts IV and V made it possible to add little stickers here and there. That's the first thing.

One of the important aspects of the agreement was working with the other departments. That's what we want to do, because we are still limited to working with Canadian Heritage. That's fine, it's making some effort, and we've had a relationship with it for a number of years. The situation isn't ideal, but it's going well enough because it nevertheless gives us some funding. We're working on the global development of our communities. We must talk about immigration, health and all that, but the discussions, the dialogue or the collaboration with the other departments remains to be developed. There isn't any real involvement by those departments. We would like Canadian Heritage to support us in that respect, but it doesn't know how to position itself. There's a contextual problem.

The Action Plan for Official Languages has expired, and we're going through a major period of uncertainty. Those departments don't know at all what to do with the communities. I'm afraid, and I'm calling on the government to come out with the Action Plan for Official Languages. The government's lack of action is literally killing the communities. I wouldn't like the government to use the coming issuing of the Action Plan for Official Languages as a carrot. We need it now, not in six months or after the next election. Otherwise we'll lose the collaboration already underway under the Action Plan for Official Languages that has expired, and everything will have to start over. That's a bad investment for the communities and for the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Léger.

Ms. Mourani.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all for being here today. I admit that you've enlightened me enormously.

I'm going to present my questions and comments all together, and you can then respond to them. I'm speaking to Ms. Poirier, Ms. Martin-Laforge and Mr. Donnelly.

Earlier Ms. Poirier and Ms. Martin-Laforge said that the problem is really services in the regions. I would tell you that the services in the regions unfortunately don't concern only anglophones, but francophones as well. It seems to me to be more of a problem of services in the region than a linguistic problem. That's my opinion; you can elaborate on that subject. However, Mr. Donnelly said that there was a lot of progress on health in the area of services in English in the regions. So it seems to me that some services have nevertheless been improved, and I congratulate the organization in question.

Let's also consider Quebec's situation as a whole: primary schools, secondary schools, universities, hospitals, research centres, community centres and businesses where people don't even speak French. I know of them personally. Montreal should normally be a French city, but it isn't; it is distinctly regressing with respect to French. It is hard to be served in French in Montreal, hard to get an answer in French first, and in English second, as though the first language was English and French came afterward. I have a lot of difficulty understanding and even believing that there is a danger for English in Quebec.

Furthermore, when I check the grants that were made by the Department of Canadian Heritage to the Quebec Community Groups Network, we're talking about a collaboration agreement, from 2005 to 2009, of $13.5 million. On August 13, 2007, $684,390 was given in the form of grants, and $558,250 was announced on February 29 of this year. As far as money goes, I think that's not bad for a Quebec group that represents about 27 or 29 organizations.

In conclusion, I admit, Mr. Martin-Laforge, that I find it hard to understand your presence here as a representative of the Quebec Community Groups Network—it's a pressure group, a lobby group, in a way—and your appointment to the Conseil supérieur de la language française. What I can't understand is how you can advise Minister Saint-Pierre and therefore defend the French language and at the same time defend anglophone minorities. I find it hard to understand all that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Ms. Mourani.

For the information of committee members, the division bell rings at 10 in the morning when the House resumes its proceedings and normally at the end of the day. When it rings that way in the middle of the day, it may mean that parliamentarians are being called to vote. We'll check. In the meantime, we'll continue our proceedings, and I'll keep you informed.

[Sylvia Martin-Laforge]

I don't think I have a choice but to answer at least part of that question.

With respect to my nomination as a member of the Conseil supérieur de la langue française, I have been nominated as a Quebecker, as an independent person--we are meeting tomorrow, in fact--and as a person who brings advice, counsel, and long-time expertise to that place of work. There are colleagues around the table who know that I have worked tirelessly in Ontario as a director of policy au ministère de l'Éducation de langue française en Ontario.

So I believe it's a question of equity. I believe I have an opportunity to bring my experience to work on language policy, whether it be in English or in French. For that I think I am well-suited. The minister has said I was well-suited and has offered me the opportunity to be a member. I have a deal with them: if I believe that at some point we would say something that would be in conflict with the council, we have an arrangement where I would either take a leave of absence or leave. But I think they regard my presence as an opportunity to hear both sides of the story.

That's number one. Secondly, around Montreal, and around what is happening in Quebec, there was a greater Montreal community development initiative in Montreal. There was a wide report. There are many statistics that float around regarding English-speaking communities. I think it would be a mistake to pin the blame on English-speaking communities about what is happening in Montreal. It's an economic issue. It's a much more complex issue. It has nothing to do, really, with the communities we are serving.

We are working in community development. We have lots of opportunity to see that people are leaving. We have young people who are poor, who are disenfranchised. We have old people who can't get access. There are lots of experiences.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Ms. Martin-Laforge.

We will now move on to Mr. Godin.

I'm still waiting for more information on this ringing bell.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

The ringing bell is a call for a vote. I just checked it.

I'm checking the time it will take. In 30 minutes, Mr. Chairman, we have the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I'll explain the procedure. The vote will be held in 30 minutes, won't it?

[An hon. member]

Yes.