Official Languages Committee on May 15th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I invite committee members to take their places since this morning we have a long list of witnesses from across the country.

Welcome to the 33rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Today, members and witnesses, we complete our hearing of the evidence of organizations from across the country on the Canada-community agreements. We are finishing—I would almost say—in a fireworks display of witnesses.

We have Mr. Comtois, who is here on behalf of Ms. Cadieux, from the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario. From the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse, we have Mr. Jean Léger. From the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA, we welcome Ms. Diane Côté. From British Columbia, we have Mr. Stéphane Audet, from the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique. Then we go back east to welcome Ms. Cyrilda Poirier, Director General of the Fédération des francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador. Lastly, we have the Quebec Community Groups Network, represented by its President, Mr. Robert Donnelly, and its Director General, Ms. Sylvia Martin-Laforge.

I wish you all the warmest of welcomes.

We'll begin in reverse order of my introductions. The last will be first. The Quebec Community Groups Network will speak first, then we'll go up the list.

I invite you to tell the committee your comments and thoughts. That's how it will be for all our guests. Then members will be able to proceed with the discussion and question period.

So Mr. Donnelly and Ms. Martin-Laforge, from the Quebec Community Groups Network, please go ahead.

[Robert Donnelly, President, Quebec Community Groups Network]

Monsieur, merci.

Mr. Chairman, members of Parliament, colleagues, and friends from other official language minority communities, good morning. Thank you for this opportunity to start the day--fireworks, I guess, maybe, but a lot of speakers, yes.

It is a pleasure to be with you today. My name is Robert Donnelly, and I am president of the QCGN, Quebec Community Groups Network. I'll talk about that a bit more in a minute. With me is Sylvia Martin-Laforge, our DG. I would also like to acknowledge Nancy Peppy, president of the Regional Association of West Quebecers, a member organization of the QCGN, who is with us in the audience today. I thank her for coming and taking the time to be here.

QCGN brings together 29 language community organizations across Quebec that are dedicated to supporting and assisting community development and enhancing the vitality of the English-speaking minority communities in Quebec. The QCGN encourages and promotes participation by government departments and agencies for the development of the English-language minority communities. We also aim to promote dialogue and mutual understanding between the linguistic communities in Canada.

The English-speaking communities of Quebec have evolved significantly over the years. Many communities have moved from identifying themselves as anglophone communities to now identifying themselves rather as English-speaking communities. More than semantics, this evolution in terminology reflects a move toward greater inclusiveness and recognition of generational, ethnic, linguistic, and socio-economic diversity.

Our member organizations are active throughout the regions of Quebec from just across the Ottawa River in the Gatineau Region to the Gaspé, from the West Island of Montreal to the Îles de la Madeleine to the Lower North Shore to the townships, and Quebec City--where I live--in sectors ranging from arts and culture to heritage and to health and social services, just to name three. The common thread woven through our organizations is a deep commitment to building strong English-speaking communities throughout Quebec.

The Canada-community agreements or collaboration accords have been an important tool for us and a satisfactory initial step for the QCGN, including recognizing the QCGN as the official interlocutor between the federal government and the English-speaking communities of Quebec. There have definitely been some positive results from these accords. The QCGN and our member organizations have been able to develop programs and policies that have had clear and direct positive results for our members and our communities.

As the government prepares for the future, we feel that there are some important changes that should be made to these arrangements that will help the English-speaking communities of Quebec to move forward. The QCGN is enjoying a period of growth. You heard me mention that we have now 29 member organizations. Less than a year ago, there were only 22 member organizations in the QCGN. We have completely restructured. We have a new set of bylaws, new governance, and a new head office in Montreal. This is a reflection of the growth in community awareness among Quebec’s English speakers. There is also a growing public recognition for the work the QCGN does.

The following is a quote from a Montreal Gazette editorial piece entitled “Anglos need calm defenders”, published on March 4, 2008:

We're happy to...acknowledge that the QCGN has been doing a calm and careful job of building the connections anglophones need.

No single voice can speak for all Quebec's anglophones, but different groups with energy and a pragmatic focus on what's important to us will carry us a long way, especially if they communicate and co-operate together. We need groups, plural, to protect and promote our community.

It is essential that the government provide us, thus, with adequate resources to nourish and sustain this growth and to support our community development.

Funding is of course important, but there are other resources that are equally as important, such as flexibility, access to key decision-makers, and, above all, equity. Under the current arrangement, the QCGN deals with the Department of Canadian Heritage at the regional level. We are seen as simply a regional provincial association. While it is true that our membership cannot by definition cross the borders of Quebec, we believe this is a limiting, restrictive implication for the QCGN and our member organizations and communities.

The English-speaking communities of Quebec have proven to be key partners for the government in promoting the Canadian values of linguistic duality and bilingualism. As the latest census data indicates, 70% of anglophone Quebecers were bilingual, almost double the level reported in the 1970s. Among the 15 to 24 age group, this figure jumped significantly to 84%.

In the promotion of these Canadian values of linguistic duality and bilingualism, the English-speaking communities of Quebec wish to be key partners with the federal government. We believe we have developed a certain expertise over the years that we want to share with our national partners in the federal government, as well as with key stakeholders at other levels of government and pan-Canadian organizations.

The QCGN met with Mr. Bernard Lord and presented him with a brief in his national consultations for renewal of the action plan on official languages. We were delighted to see some of our comments reflected in his report. We shared with him some of our expertise on issues that are important to members of our communities, and also, I believe, made a contribution to the national discussion on official languages.

We will continue to offer our expertise, opinions and, above all, our willingness to cooperate with the federal government in moving the national debate forward. It is important to remember that there are English-speaking Quebecers also spread out across Canada who are interested in this debate. All of us are looking forward to Minister Verner's final report and decisions.

By placing the QCGN on the national stage, we think we will have a more effective partnership with the federal government. We, like the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada and Canadian Parents for French, need access to key decision-makers who help shape policy that directly affects individuals in our communities. The decision-makers in Ottawa would then be put in a more direct relationship with us and would have the opportunity and would have more policy input from us on how to promote these key Canadian values.

The English-speaking communities of Quebec are blessed with strong institutions that are deeply rooted in the province. It's the old cliché of “What's the problem? You're in Quebec. You have everything.” Our health care and education institutions, for example, do play key roles in the lives of many people in our communities. It is seductive to think that simply because of our strong institutions our communities face no community development challenges.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Donnelly, you have two minutes to go.

[Robert Donnelly]

Thank you.

In his presentation to this committee on April 3, Mr. Régis St-Pierre of the Association of franco-yukonnaise mentioned the research of Dr. Rodrigue Landry from the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities. Dr. Landry often states that institutional infrastructure does not necessarily equal community vitality, and that's what our interest is--community vitality. An empty school, an empty church is still an institution, but it cannot contribute to vitality.

The 2006 census definitely contained some good news for our communities. There was a net increase in population growth for Quebec’s anglophones. At the same time, we need to consider a few points.

One, among anglophones aged 25 to 29 there was a net loss for our community of almost 1,000 people. These are no doubt some of our brightest well-educated community members.

Two, among Quebec’s anglophones, 61% of those whose top university degree was a bachelor's degree had moved to other parts of Canada. Among those with a master's degree, it was 66%. Among those with a PhD, it was 73%. So who's staying? The category most likely to remain in Quebec, amongst the anglophone and English-speaking communities, is the high school dropout. Only 40% of those left. So you can see what it does to the community and the building of vitality.

I do not mean to sound alarmist or create a false sense of panic, but our communities do face serious challenges. The QCGN would like to add its voice to those of the many other groups that have presented to this committee in reiterating some key points.

One, one size does not fit all. The government must take into account the unique reality of each official language minority.

Secondly, regarding access to funds, these envelopes must be simplified. The government can play an important role by lightening the administrative load and simplifying the process. When an organization spends half its money filling out application forms and report forms, and the staff have time for only that, it hinders the ability to work and do well.

Finally, the QCGN is currently in discussions to move beyond being a regional client of the Department of Canadian Heritage, and consequently a regional client of all other Government of Canada departments, to become, we hope, an equal partner with the federal government and other stakeholders in national policy development. We are asking for your support, members of Parliament, in our efforts to be recognized at the national level, where the policy decisions that have such a profound impact on our ability to work on community vitality are made.

I would just like to take this opportunity to invite you, the members of this committee, to come for a few hours to Montreal if it can be fitted into your schedule. We would be happy to organize a meeting with a good cross-section of our 29 members so that you can hear firsthand portrayals and information on the issues and the concerns.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly, for your testimony and your invitation. That will be taken into account.

We now go to Ms. Cyrilda Poirier and the Fédération des francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador.

[Cyrilda Poirier, Director General, Fédération des francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador]

Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee today. Knowing that I couldn't add anything new to the list of complaints you've already received, I preferred this morning to share with you examples of what managing the collaboration agreement and contribution agreements in Newfoundland and Labrador represents for us in terms of time and energy. I also wanted my presentation to be brief, preferring to develop the subject during the question period.

Before coming here, I took the time to read our collaboration agreement carefully. I stopped for a long time at paragraph 17, which recognizes the contribution of the Canadian community sector, which remains, and I quote: “[...] a key provider of services in the minority official language”. The question that comes to mind is this: if we are recognized as a provider of services, shouldn't we be given the necessary tools and resources to be able to provide those services? Let's not forget that the government has ultimate responsibility for official languages. The obligation to provide services falls to it. For decades, the government has shirked that obligation by simply handing it over to the volunteer sector and non-profit organizations, without however giving them, or giving us, the necessary financial resources to do the job. We have never been greedy in our demands. We simply want reasonable financial resources to enable us to carry out our mandate as a “provider of services”.

One of the aspects of the collaboration agreement that it is hard for us to understand is the mechanism for allocating funding to the province. The francophone and Acadian community of Newfoundland and Labrador has a global development plan that the community organizations have developed together. However, the community has no impact on the decision regarding funding for the various programs or projects submitted by it. Instead, authorities have preferred to put in place an evaluation and recommendation committee consisting of people who are well intentioned, I'm sure, but who don't know us, are not active in our community and very probably have not taken the time to read our GDP. And it is they who are asked to make decisions that will affect our resources, our actions and our synergy for one year, by giving them the mandate to decide on our priorities, to determine funding levels and to make decisions that will have an impact on the vitality of and sustainable social change in our community. In our opinion, the community itself is in the best position to understand its needs in order to define priorities and ensure strategic, sustainable social change. We can no longer afford to operate in this manner with an entity that does not communicate with us, that does not come and gather more information, that does not take the trouble to explain its decisions to us.

The section of the collaboration agreement entitled “Canadian Heritage's Responsibilities”, paragraph 179, on page 32, also drew my attention, and I quote: “Canadian Heritage is responsible for determining procedures and tools relating to the presentation and analysis of requests [...] Tools will be developed with due attention to simplifying the administrative requirements [...]” Our collaboration agreement was signed in late October 2004, and to my knowledge, the funding request forms have not changed since they were imposed on us some 15 years ago. Whether it's for one or 10 requests submitted during the year, whether the amount requested is $250,000 or $25,000, the application forms and administrative requirements are the same. Every request must be accompanied by Appendix A, the information in which changes little or not at all during the year, which must be accompanied by the minutes of the annual general meeting, the statutes and by-laws, the latest audited financial statements, and letters of support from partners. Compiling all those documents and completing the information section can take an average of half a day per request.

Here's a concrete example: Appendix B of my organization's operating funding application takes me an average of 15 days to complete, and it takes another 10 days or so, twice a year, to complete the report on results, or, if you will, Appendix F. In the circumstances, can you tell me where you can see the notion of simplifying and a concern to lighten the administrative load? It must be understood that a number of our organizations do not have the human resources at their disposal to complete these applications and are right to find it abnormal that so much time and energy should be spent on completing these forms.

In addition to the collaboration agreement, I also read with a great deal of attention the contribution agreement for our 2007-2009 programming. And by the way, Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the Department of Canadian Heritage for making the wise decision in 2007 to grant us a multi-year contribution. This operating method enables us, as managers, to adopt a longer-term vision and to better invest our time and energy. However, it is still unfortunate that we are not granted a small reserve at the end of the year to cover delays in payment by Canadian Heritage. Those delays cost us an average of $15,000 a year in interest charges. That's $15,000 that we can claim from Canadian Heritage, $15,000 that we could, without any problem, invest elsewhere for the benefit of our organizations.

In rereading the contribution agreement, I got stuck on section 12, on page 9, which reads: “Any overpayment remaining owing and unpaid shall carry interest calculated and compounded [...]” So it's completely ironic to read that we could be asked to pay interest if we were late in remitting overpayments, when Canadian Heritage can afford to delay payments, force us to negotiate lines of credit or, as I have had to do myself, advance funds to my organization from my personal line of credit in order to pay our employees' salaries.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, to help not only my own, but also all the other official language minority communities in pursuing our mandate as service providers, Canadian Heritage, first and foremost, need only increase the programming support fund, lighten the managerial and administrative load related to the collaboration agreement, ensure that funding is accessible at the start of the fiscal year and ensure that there is a strategic and efficient use of funding to guarantee the vitality of our communities.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Ms. Poirier.

Now from the Atlantic, we go to the Pacific to hear from the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique and its director general, Mr. Stéphane Audet.

[Stéphane Audet, Executive Director, Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of the board of directors of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, I would like to offer my very sincere thanks to the members of the standing committee for the enlightened, determined and proactive leadership they have shown to date in their proceedings during this 2nd Session of the 39th Parliament. The entire community is monitoring your proceedings, and we assure our organizations are well aware of your efforts and of the enormous job you have done and of the subjects you have covered. We appreciate that, and I wanted to acknowledge it on behalf of our community. It goes straight to the heart.

Our federation is a coalition of 35 institutions and organizations, both francophone and francophile—I want to tell you this—that are dedicated to increasing the offer of services and activities in French.

In British Columbia, we are going through a particularly accelerated development cycle. Our francophone community is undergoing explosive change. Our community infrastructure, however, is still very young, as you must know. We have been in catch-up mode for the past 10 to 15 years. Our institutions are young, our progress is recent and, in some instances, uncertain.

At the same time, we are experiencing significant demographic changes with the arrival of numerous interprovincial migrants and immigrants who have specific needs.

Our population is increasing, as are the expectations and needs of our community: nearly 300,000 British Columbians report that they have a good knowledge of French. Three hundred thousand people is a lot, and the number is constantly increasing. A new francophone identity is being born in British Columbia, a francophone identity of the Pacific, which is very interesting and different from what is found elsewhere in the country: not better, but definitely different.

The Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique plays a special role in this infrastructure. Our federation has a mandate and responsibility to negotiate, sign, manage and evaluate the present collaboration agreement with the Department of Canadian Heritage, which was signed in 2005. The community voted to give us the same mandate for the previous two Canada-Community Agreements.

We are about to complete an evaluation of the agreement and resulting mechanisms. Consequently, today I am able to present some findings and conclusions validated not only by our federation, but by all our regions, sectors and target groups as well.

In general, everyone agrees on the importance of signing agreements that formalize the partnership between the federal government and the francophone community and guide their actions toward strategic issues and priority actions.

For our francophone community, these agreements constitute a public commitment to act and be responsible for achieving results that are deemed significant for the French-speaking citizens of our province.

The community sector agrees that there has been a re-expansion of the francophone community in British Columbia since the first Canada-community agreement was signed in 1994. All our main sectors—education and training, arts and culture, economic development, health and immigration, to name only a few—have experienced accelerated development.

The community has managed to diversify its partners. The federal departments and agencies subject to section 41 of the Official Languages Act are now investing more in our community every year than Canadian Heritage. In 2006-2007, those departments invested nearly $5 million. Canadian Heritage has invested approximately $2.6 million a year in our community.

The community has also benefited from a strengthening of its ties with provincial government departments through the federal government's signing of the first Canada-British Columbia Agreement on the Promotion of Official Languages in 2001. A francophone affairs program was established at the province's Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat. An elected representative was made responsible for francophone affairs. The second agreement, for 2006-2009, was signed and is about to expire. The renewal of that agreement is of capital importance for us.

Those are the positive aspects.

However, the community has identified many deficiencies in the last collaboration agreement that we think must be corrected. We must have a Canada-community agreement, not merely an agreement that contains no multi-year financial commitment. The annual budget granted by Canadian Heritage, which now fluctuates between $2.6 million and $3 million a year, is inadequate. Taking inflation into account, that budget has not increased since 1999.

The Bank of Canada website shows the amount of funding granted by Canadian Heritage for francophone affairs in 1999. The current amount is lower than that. And obviously the community has vastly evolved since that time.

The administrative processes are too complicated and application processing too slow. My colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador told us about interest charges. In 2005-2006, our association paid $60,000 in interest, which represents approximately 12% of the annual project budget for British Columbia. That's a waste of public funds.

These factors limit our ability to plan for the medium and long terms. They also result in the exhaustion of our staff and considerable uncertainty about our future as francophones and as builders in the heart of the Pacific francophone community.

Our civil society is exhausted. We are unable to pay our staff well. On Monday, I received the findings of a study on the working conditions of our francophone community staff. They are overwhelming. The average salary of managers in our network is $44,000 a year. And yet 96% of employees have a postsecondary education, and 36% have done postgraduate work. The turnover rate in our francophone community is 62% over two years. Try to plan for the medium and long terms when you constantly have to start over. Sixty-two per cent of employees work overtime on a regular basis. A large percentage of our organization's employees work on a volunteer basis. A number of leaders lend money to their association and use their personal credit cards and lines of credit to enable activities to continue, whether it's in the area of training or services offered to citizens.

For some time now, Canadian Heritage has systematically violated our agreement and our cooperation mechanisms, which were established jointly with that department. Funding is granted, often to our surprise, without it being consistent with community priorities. Those funds managed by the Ottawa office of Canadian Heritage do not comply with our project evaluation mechanisms. Those investments do not have the structural effects that the funding of Canadian Heritage and community priorities under the present agreement would have.

Accountability is still based far too much on activities rather than results. Reports must focus on the achievement of medium and long-term results. We need to focus more on the strategic effects, transformation and impact of our actions on citizens, not just evaluate how many citizens have taken part in a given activity.

Our agreement provides for a joint evaluation. As there appeared to be little haste or interest on the department's part in proceeding with that evaluation, we had to hire an independent evaluation firm to do it. We have therefore begun the evaluation because it was important for us to be accountable and to see whether we had met our commitments. We hope Canadian Heritage will do the same.

In our community, there are two solutions. First, there is an interest in greater regional independence. The government should enable the regions to innovate and adapt their intervention model to their situation and to the needs of their population. In that way, the regional offices and the community can work together and develop innovative ways to serve citizens.

Lastly, there is a lot of talk about grants. We are becoming service providers. We believe that the federal government should create an investment fund in each province and territory to promote the capitalization of economic projects that will enable the francophone community to be a credible economic partner at the municipal and regional levels.

We must go beyond grants and provide the communities with the financial means to take charge of themselves, to invest in projects and to contribute to the economic development of their municipalities, regions and provinces. That will enable us to have more influence and impact on citizens and to ensure our continued existence.

I'll stop here. Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Audet.

We'll now hear from Ms. Diane Côté, the representative of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, and its Director of Community and Government Liaison.

[Diane Côté, Director, Community and Government Liaison, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to be here today to talk to you about FCFA's perspective on the collaboration agreements. As I am very much aware of the limited time that is allotted to me, I would like to refer you to the brief that we have submitted, and here I will merely provide an overview of the main issues.

The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, represents 12 provincial and territorial organizations that currently deal with the federal government under the collaboration agreements. FCFA's membership also includes nine national organizations, some of which also receive support under the Community Life - Cooperation with the Community Sector component of the Official Languages Support Program.

The FCFA therefore plays a support role for its provincial and territorial members in the implementation of the agreements and a liaison role with the department's national office. It works to increase the awareness of the administrative and political machinery to the need for greater investment in order to enable community organizations to better serve their clientele. We also work with the department identifying agreement implementation issues and examining other collaboration models that could meet needs more effectively.

The component of the Official Languages Support Program dedicated to collaboration agreements and support for national organizations representing francophone and Acadian communities has had an annual budget of $27 million since 2005-2006. That amount has been increased by a portion of the $30 million investment over two years, that is only about $3.5 million a year, announced in the 2006 budget.

In anticipation of the renewal of the agreements in 2005, the francophone and Acadian communities put the cost of meeting their minimum needs at $42 million a year. A quick calculation shows a shortfall of $11.5 million that is growing steadily because of the impact of inflation and a higher cost of living on the real value of those amounts.

Those investments represent an extremely important lever for the community institutions and organizations. They provide them with a funding base that they can use to form other partnerships and look for other sources of funding to support their community.

Here are some of the main impacts of the funding shortfall. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the communities to meet the growing public demand for services, activities and programs in French, and the communities are facing a large number of burn-out cases and experiencing difficulty renewing their leadership. You've heard some of my colleagues mention that to you.

In early spring 2007, the FCFA, with the support of Canadian Heritage, conducted a consultation aimed specifically at identifying the challenges involved in implementing the collaboration agreements and possible short- and medium-term solutions.

Except for the level of investment issue, which was not on the agenda during those discussions, and which we've just talked about, we can sum up the consensus on problems related to the agreements in three broad categories: first, a step backward in terms of control and autonomy; second, administrative burden in terms of both application processes and accountability; and, third, the need for a more flexible approach that meets the unique development needs and situations of each provincial or territorial community.

Let's start with the issue of control and autonomy. One of the biggest changes brought about by the collaboration agreements was the elimination of joint committees. Under the Canada-community agreements, the community and the department discussed and jointly decided on funding recommendations, but the collaboration agreements call for the creation of a community recommendation committee. The communities view this change from a decision-making body to a purely advisory body as a major step backward that gives the department the freedom to independently review applications and make funding decisions that could ultimately be at odds with the communities’ recommendations. The communities fully understand ministerial prerogative, but some also go so far as to question the role and the real importance of funding recommendation committees because their impression is that the Department of Canadian Heritage will act alone regardless.

Second, administrative load and delays are major irritants for the communities and community organizations. Since the Policy on Transfer Payments was adopted in 2000, the department has undertaken a full review of the way it deals with community organizations. The new imposed procedures have significantly increased the amount of time organizations have to spend on funding applications and reporting and have also increased processing times for applications and delayed the issuing of cheques. The communities fully appreciate the importance of accountability. However, they would like to see more flexibility and decisions based on real risk management rather than arbitrary and universal rules.

Lastly, since we're talking about greater flexibility, it must be emphasized that, despite the consensus on the main themes applicable to all francophone and Acadian community organizations, the day-to-day reality of each organization is anchored in its particular geographic, political, cultural and social circumstances. It is important that the department take these differences into account in designing its programs. Together with the department, the FCFA is currently overseeing a study to identify other collaboration models that would enable the communities to progress at their own rate while meeting departmental accountability requirements.

In closing, we will say that it is essential to identify the mechanisms that will make it possible to meet the challenges involved in implementing the collaboration agreements, particularly as regards better recognition, in practice, of the symmetry of needs and realities, better control by the community of its own development and a lighter administrative burden in terms of management and accountability processes. The federal government must also act quickly to stabilize the organizations' funding and to put in place measures that will enable it to work with the communities in future to evaluate and adjust investments as needs require.

I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Ms. Côté.

Even though there are a lot of witnesses this morning, we can see a certain agreement on the issues.

Now we'll go to the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse.

Mr. Léger, go ahead please.

[Jean Léger, Executive Director, Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Committee members, colleagues, thank you for having me today. I want to pass on the greetings of our Acadian and francophone community and of the president of the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse, Mr. Désiré Boudreau.

As you know, our community comprises slightly less than 33,000 francophones and nearly 100,000 non-French speakers. Our organization, FANE plays the role of mouthpiece of the Acadian and francophone community and represents 26 organizations representing most of the aspects of our society and all its regions. All these organizations, like FANE, play a role and work tirelessly for the community's development through the major support of many volunteers, not to forget, of course, that of the federal government and provincial government.

You have asked us to share with you our reaction to the Canada-community agreements or collaboration agreements. As you may know, the community in our province was the last to sign the new generation of binding agreements between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the community. My argument will enable you to get a better understanding of the reasons why we did not sign the agreements as soon as the other provinces. I will also explain the changes that we wanted to make to what was proposed to us. I will make comments on the agreements signed in the past, and I will also have suggestions to make to improve the government's performance and to enhance the benefits for the community and the federal government with a view to the next round of agreements.

I could entitle my presentation, “What's in a Name?” an English expression that I think says a great deal. The community used to sign Canada-community agreements. Now they are collaboration agreements. The differences between the two are many and significant. The major difference lies in the fact that the Canada-community agreements were signed by the Government of Canada, represented by Canadian Heritage. Now the collaboration agreements are signed by Canadian Heritage. Does this mean a withdrawal on the part of the federal government? Do we really want to make it so only one department has responsibilities toward the community? Where did Canada go?

In the Canada-community agreements, the government signed with the community, whereas, in the collaboration agreements, it's signing instead with the community sector. To my knowledge, we're still talking about official language communities, not official language community sectors. Was the idea to downplay the importance of the document and of the community's potential recourse for enforcing the agreements? I believe there was a legal commitment that the Government of Canada no longer wanted to bear. We would probably have to talk to Crown attorneys or Canadian Heritage in order to get the inside story.

Under the Canada-community agreements, amounts of money were allocated, but that is not the case under the collaboration agreements. Mr. Lussier and Mr. Lafontaine emphasized that fact this week before this committee. This is important. With respect to funding allocated to the communities, any flexibility in negotiations in order to link it solely to program funding through the contribution agreements is taken away, with all the complications that can have for the organizations.

Furthermore, the new agreements do not address a number of aspects that are important for our community, which is a major deficiency for us, a stumbling block that we have tried to avoid through very tough negotiations at the political and bureaucratic levels. First, we wanted to include provisions to reduce the burden on us of the complex funding applications process, for both applications approval and reporting forms. This point was very clearly highlighted by my colleague from Newfoundland.

We also wanted to obtain a review mechanism for the amounts allocated by Canadian Heritage, the purpose being for organizations whose funding applications are denied to be able to have their applications reviewed before a final decision is announced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

In our opinion, the community mechanisms, particularly the global development plan, which is very important for the communities—it is in fact our community road map—enable the community to establish its priorities. However, this has been eliminated under the collaboration agreements, as well as the funding that was associated with the agreements. Under the new agreements, no additional amounts are available for this purpose, which could well impose an additional burden on the community, which does not have the resources to bear it.

Now let's talk about collaboration. The collaboration agreements between the community and the Department of Canadian Heritage are associated with the management of a few programs, including the community component of the Official Languages Support Program. Under section 42 of the Official Languages Act, the interdepartmental role of the Department of Canadian Heritage in government is, in principle, carried out under the newly signed agreements. Unfortunately, this isn't being put into practice, for lack of time and money, on both the community and Department of Canadian Heritage side. Consequently, the implementation of section 42 of the Official Languages Act, again from a community perspective, must be more clearly defined and the new agreements could be useful in achieving that objective.

The next agreements should also contain evaluation mechanisms for identifying the advantages and disadvantages that those agreements have brought to the community. This is an essential procedure because, if results under those agreements were not good, that would mean that the agreements were indispensable to the Department of Canadian Heritage for internal administrative reasons, but not necessarily for the community. I hope I'm wrong, but that remains to be determined.

We signed the agreement only six months ago. The short period of time during which our community has been part of the agreement is not the best indicator of success. In spite of that, nothing has really changed in the past six months. As you will understand, the community and the government would like these agreements to produce tangible results for community development and vitality.

There should also be specific provisions in the agreements for the organizations' operation and essential survival needs. In our view, with inadequate funding, a number of organizations are having trouble carrying out their mandates and are becoming a burden to manage for the community as a whole, while, of course, burning out volunteers. These operating problems exhaust staff, thus causing staff turnover and a burden for the community. This isn't a good investment even for the government.

There should also be provisions for multi-year funding for the organizations and budgets indexed to the cost of living. That would enable them to manage their funding more effectively and to live in less uncertainty when the agreements approach expiry. The agreements should provide a better framework for the federal government's commitment to support the official languages communities as provided by subsections 41(1) and (2) of the Official Languages Act.

Lastly, the federal government should codify the implementation of these aspects of the act. These agreements could help do precisely that. They could also permit sectoral community development. The idea would be to develop specific agreements by sector under the aegis of this new umbrella agreement with the new generation Government of Canada. Thus, each of the federal departments and agencies would support the needs of the communities with specific programs that would meet the needs of the major sectors mentioned in the global development plan which, I would recall, is our main community road map.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have two minutes left, Mr. Léger.

[Jean Léger]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In Nova Scotia, if the funding goes well, this plan will be developed by April 1, 2009. That proposal would be advantageous for the federal government, since it would make it possible to establish clear parameters for the departments and agencies that have responsibilities with regard to the implementation of section 41, which provides that the government must establish positive measures for the official language minorities in Canada. The communities, for their part, would know what to expect from their relations with the departments and agencies as a whole. That would reduce unforeseen situations and ad hoc efforts on both sides. In short, all that would guarantee greater efficiency and better chances for achieving positive results for the community and the government. We obviously advise that agreements be signed with the federal government as a whole, since a precedent was set with the voluntary sector in 2001.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the next agreements should promote the development of parameters to allow full implementation of sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act by the Canadian government as a whole.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Léger.

We'll now finish off with the vice-president of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, Mr. Jean Comtois.

[Jean Comtois, Vice-President, Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am vice-president of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario.

First, I'll say a brief word about the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, which was established only three years ago through the combination of two major organizations: the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, which was founded in 1910 and was originally called the Association canadienne-française d'Éducation d'Ontario, and the Direction d'entente Canada-communauté Ontario, the DECCO, which was established in 1999 to negotiate the second agreement, the 1999-2004 agreement with the federal government for French-speaking Ontario.

AFO is a new organization that has been in existence for only three years and represents 14 clientele sectors such as seniors, women and youth, and activity sectors, such as the economic community, the health community, the cooperative community and so on. It also represents five regions; Ontario is very large. To promote our collaboration, cohesion and coordination, we've divided Ontario into five major regions.

Our organization also includes—and this is very important—four representatives of the ethno-cultural minorities. Those four representatives are elected by members of those communities. The old stock community thus has nothing to say about the election of those four members; it is the members of those communities who elect them. So that is a general picture of what AFO is.

Very soon, in June, we will be holding our third general meeting. Our meeting today is very appropriate and comes at the right time. If the collaboration agreements are maintained, we will obviously start discussing the new agreement at that meeting. However, we are still lacking any major statements from the government.

The first concerns what is happening with the Action Plan for Official Languages. We have the Lord Report, but no statement has been made about the next plan. It is essential for us to know what is happening because that plan will enable us to develop our own provincial and national plan more effectively.

We must also know whether there will be any agreements. If that is the case, will they be negotiated? We must know that so we can prepare properly.

We've begun to evaluate our activities over the past three years. The collaboration agreement very specifically states that it must be evaluated by both Canadian Heritage and the community. To date, we haven't received any information concerning that evaluation; it hasn't been done. As we are preparing to negotiate the next collaboration agreement, we need to know how useful the present agreement is in order to establish the next collaboration agreement.

I would remind you of an important statement that Ms. Josée Verner made on January 24 last, that the federal government recognizes and wishes to encourage linguistic duality by renewing the Action Plan for Official Languages. It would be helpful to translate that statement into action and for us to know where that action plan will take us.

I'm not going to expand on what the previous speaker, my colleague Jean Léger, said about the previous Canada-community agreements and collaboration agreements. I wouldn't want to repeat what he said so well. I can't speak for my colleagues from the other provinces, but what he said is extremely important, particularly in Ontario. Cyrilda also mentioned a few factors.

I'm going to focus on a few challenges in order to give you a better understanding of what French-speaking Ontario feels about the collaboration agreements.

The first challenge—and the FCFA representative referred to this—concerns the joint committees. The Canada-community agreements provided for a committee to analyze funding requests and recommendations. We had such a committee in French-speaking Ontario during the 1999-2004 agreement and we evaluated it. Since the community representatives who sat on that joint committee didn't have any influence or decision-making power in the analysis of requests and funding allocation recommendations, we wondered whether we should continue to take part in it.

We had a very serious problem at that point as a result of that, and, under the current collaboration agreement, we withdrew from that process. The community does not take part in the analysis of requests or in allocation recommendations because we didn't really feel we were a participant in the process. There were words, but no actions, no decision-making.

That process should be reviewed. We are not at all sure that going back to the joint committees we used to have is the appropriate solution. If that were the case, we would have to ensure that the community really takes part in the decision-making because that wasn't the case under the previous agreements.

The second challenge raised by the collaboration agreement and the current funding process is the great diversity we have in Ontario. Perhaps I should talk to you about that briefly. You are aware how big Ontario is. You are aware of Ontario's diversity. You are aware of the specific regions of French-speaking Ontario, such as Prescott-Russell, Ottawa, Toronto, Sudbury.

But when you go to Thunder Bay and you see the Thunder Bay area, you see where the francophones in that area are and the territory that an organization called the Association des francophones du nord-ouest de l'Ontario, AFNOO, must serve, that becomes a problem. People say Ontario is very well off. That's true to a certain extent, but look at the diversity, the geographic distribution of French-speaking Ontario. The needs of francophones in Ottawa, as a result of their proximity to one another, are not the same as in northwestern Ontario.

I don't want to dwell on the subject because I won't have enough time. However, I think this very important aspect has to be taken into account, along with the number of francophone newcomers to French-speaking Ontario. That has a very big impact. Look at the number of these newcomers in Toronto and Ottawa. It is our responsibility to serve them: they are part of our community in general.

In many cases, under the framework of the collaboration agreement and the funding we have, funding is lacking to subsidize the programming of those organizations. What happens? We fund specific projects of very limited duration. Things go well for the year when we have the project, but what happens to the organization in question the following year? So we are wondering about project funding and emphasize the importance of multi-year funding for programming, to enable the organizations to plan for the longer term.

We've spoken about global development. I don't want to go back to that. We are evaluating the last global plan. We're going to develop a new one, but the problem is the relationship between our global plan objectives and the objectives we use to make requests. There's no real matching at that level. I don't have the time to dwell on that further.

I'll move on to the last subject I would like to talk about. When the collaboration agreement is redone, if there is another one, let's be very serious about the way that agreement is managed. I encourage you to consult a report that was published not very long ago by Éric Forgues, of the Université de Moncton. Mr. Forgues studied the Canada-community agreements. What he says about the Canada-community agreements is also very valid for the collaboration agreements.

In summary, because I'm short of time—I'm nearly finished—Éric Forgues says that what was done and what was insisted on for the collaboration agreements, that is horizontal management in which the Department of Canadian Heritage and the community took part, was as though someone had said or written something without implementing it. That's important because, through this kind of management in which we must take part because we have a collaboration agreement and because we promote collaboration, partnerships and so on with Canadian Heritage and government officers, we in a way are becoming officers of Canadian Heritage and losing our independence. I think it is and will be important to look at that issue.

In conclusion, I would say that the collaboration accords have not had only negative effects. They have also had some every positive effects on our community. They have led us to work more in partnership, to establish greater collaboration between Canadian Heritage and the community.

There will also have to be a focus on the entire interdepartmental issue because there are resources there that the community could use, and that includes the intergovernmental aspect. These two aspects should be included in the collaboration agreement. That would get the other departments more involved, in view of this new act that requires the departments to support the official language minorities more effectively.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

It is I who thank you, Mr. Comtois. You made your presentation with a great deal of passion.

I'd like us to do three rounds. So things will be quite tight. We'll start immediately with Mr. D'Amours, from the official opposition.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First I'd like to make a brief comment.

It would have been interesting to hear from slightly fewer witnesses today so that we could ask our questions. A lot of things have been mentioned, but, given the large number of witnesses, I'm afraid we won't be able to ask questions on those subjects. We should no doubt consider this kind of thing in future.

The agreements will expire shortly, and I would like to know whether you have begun talks with the government, the department, regarding the next round of funding. Do you think your recommendations, which you've presented to us this morning, have been listened to and considered? Anyone may answer.

[Diane Côté]

Discussions concerning the structure of the agreements are underway, as well as a study on other collaboration methods used in government. As regards funding, talks have taken place. We made it known that we needed an increase, but we haven't yet received a response.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Comtois.

[Jean Comtois]

No, we've received no information and we've had no talks on the subject. We should do that before long if we want to sign any collaboration agreements. For the moment, however, it's total silence.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Ms. Martin-Laforge?

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

In Quebec, we've begun our first round of talks with the people from Canadian Heritage at the national level. The QCGN and our people in the regions are using a kind of hybrid model right now.

With no money put aside for evaluation, our fundamental problem is that we have not had an opportunity to properly evaluate our collaboration accord. We were not included in the original evaluation that was done of the other communities, and the francophones outside of Quebec were not included. We are in an extreme disadvantage in Quebec right now because we have no evaluation.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Ms. Poirier.

[Cyrilda Poirier]

The situation is the same for us. No negotiations or evaluations have been started.