[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 16, 1996
.1547 
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Order, please. We have with us this afternoon representatives from Alliance Quebec, including the president of the Quebec Farmers Association.
[English]
We've spent considerable time reaching quorum. That being said, I would invite our witnesses to proceed.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest (Stadacona): Senator Roux has been delayed in the Senate because of a vote.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I see.
[English]
Mr. Hamelin.
Mr. Michael Hamelin (Chairman, Alliance Québec): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin with an apology. Alliance Québec was offered this opportunity to present its concerns and its report on the implementation process of part VII of the Official Languages Act only six days ago. Several dates were suggested, and unfortunately this was the most convenient for us.
[Translation]
Unfortunately, we did not have enough time to submit our brief before this afternoon. I know that one party in particular wanted to read it ahead of time. All I can do is apologize and say that while we are here this afternoon, we had very little time to prepare our presentation.
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Hamelin, we recognize that this was done on short notice. It was the request of the committee. I have to advise you that for brevity, we're looking at a fifteen-minute presentation in order to proceed with questions. There's no doubt in our minds that you will be un bon témoignage for our committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Hamelin: I just wanted to inform you about the circumstances.
[English]
It's almost been two years to the day since our last appearance before the committee in 1994. At that time we had observed in our brief a real concern that we as Alliance Québec felt about language matters. We were particularly concerned that a fragile balance that had been established between the interests of French-speaking and English-speaking Quebeckers was being challenged by the militant minority in the separatist movement.
Since that date, the election of the Parti Québécois government, the staging of a referendum, and the replacement of the premier and his battles with his party have offered proof of the reasonableness of our concerns two years ago.
[Translation]
At the time, we were concerned about the promise made by the party which was then in opposition to focus on the linguistic balance that was obtained under the 1993 amendment to the Charter of the French language. As we predicted, that is exactly what the party now in power is threatening to do.
The results of the October 30, 1995 referendum have magnified the concerns of the English-speaking communities in Quebec. The very institutions that we have built within our communities are now under attack for political and financial reasons.
We are here today to say that the presence of the federal government and its bilingual services in most parts of Quebec are an important cornerstone of support for English-speaking communities.
.1550
We want these services to be maintained and improved. We want the achievements of the Official Languages Act, its primacy over other federal statutes and its contribution to the daily life of official language minority communities be recognized throughout Canada, but especially in Quebec.
[English]
The thrust of our presentation therefore focuses on what is planned and what is rumoured. Various reports suggest that a first ministers conference this spring could see some progress on dossiers of long-standing friction between federal and provincial levels of government. New understandings are promised on jurisdictional disputes. In some cases, if all goes well, whole areas of federal concern will be transposed to the provinces under the Canadian Constitution.
Progress in the common wisdom means devolution of powers, or at the very least an exclusivity of powers conferred to one jurisdiction. If the changes that are forecast come to pass, we want to be very sure that the progress that has been made in Canada on language matters is not halted or reversed because of changes in the control and management of public services. In short, we want Parliament and the legislatures across Canada to guarantee us, as Canadians living in linguistic minority communities, that the rights we have fought for under the Official Languages Act are continued, even in areas where the federal government should cede its jurisdiction, and of course in those cases where services are privatized.
To begin this discussion, we should look at the Official Languages Act and its implementation. The reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages on the respect for the act will be followed by a more detailed statement of our concerns. We will then welcome questions.
The first thing is what the law aims to do. The act provides the assurance of services in the minority official languages across Canada. Sections 41 to 45 were enacted to further the basic principle of linguistic duality across this country.
There are real concerns about the changes the act is making in Canada's government services. But it is clear that while these barriers exist and while they are supported by some members of Parliament, they are falling one by one. The statute will, as it must, have a life outside the statute books. The report of the Commissioner of Official Languages has no shortage of information about the failures and frustrations being faced on a daily basis.
We wish to point out what the application of part VII can mean to all communities like our own. Section 41 says that the Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada, and to supporting and assisting their development and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society. Section 42 spells out the role of the Secretary of State of Canada, now the Department of Canadian Heritage, in promoting a coordinated approach to the implementation of section 41. Section 43 offers practical areas of activity that, when undertaken, can advance the quality and status of the use of English and French in Canadian society. Section 44 provides that there will be an annual report to Parliament on matters relating to official languages. Section 45 urges federal officials to act in conjunction with provincial and municipal officials to ensure that communities receive the types and systems of educational services they need in their official language.
This, then, is the context of the implementation of plans for the development of the capacity within the government for enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada, and supporting and assisting their development. It is nothing short of national survival.
The communities that benefit from this act... It might be expected that all Canadians are aware of their cultural and linguistic diversity. In fact, there is evidence that few of us are aware of the strength of linguistic duality within the country. It's necessary to repeat some of the figures for the benefit of those who doubt that Canadians, real Canadians, are helped each day by the commitment of the federal government to linguistic duality.
In Canada today, about one-quarter of the population speaks French as a first official language. About two million Canadians are members of linguistic minority communities. They are a larger group than the population that resides in six of Canada's provinces. More than 4,400,000 Canadians, one in six of all us, speak both English and French. The rate of personal language duality, bilingualism, is highest among the young, which I think is most significant, from 15 to 19 years of age. Perhaps more than anything the major achievement is that 2,779,000 Canadian children are studying second languages, and 2,135,000 are studying French.
Among the more than seven million Quebec residents, the English-speaking communities of Quebec number 800,000, spread unevenly across the length and breadth of the province, from Gaspé to the Ottawa River, all the towns of the north and all the regions of the south, in Quebec, Val-d'Or, Baie-Comeau, as well as the west island and suburbs of Montreal.
[Translation]
Over 60% of English-speaking Quebeckers are bilingual, and national statistics show that bilingualism among young Quebeckers in increasing.
.1555
Statistics from the Conseil de la langue française show what in Quebec today the average income of a unilingual francophone is higher than that of a unilingual anglophone.
The changes are truly remarkable. They can be explained in part by the persistence of the federal government's language policies. However, the foregoing does not mean at all that we can say: ``We have succeeded; there's nothing more to worry about.''
On the contrary, we are deeply concerned about the specific, real problems in achieving linguistic duality, if the objective is that everyone feel comfortable in Canada, regardless of their official language.
However, we do have to recognize the successes of the Official language minority communities for what they are: successes.
[English]
The concerns should be studied with a view towards overcoming them.
The position of the Commissioner of Official Languages is that the situation among English-speaking Quebeckers is still difficult. The 1995 report from the commissioner notes that we have too few members of our community in the public service, although more are now present in the federal institutions.
Generally our community of Quebeckers is well served in its own language, with notable and persistent lapses, but the bulk of the commissioner's report and the concern of our community in matters pertaining to services that are missing deal with the position of French-language services in Canada. I want to reiterate that Alliance Quebec is of the view that the lack of French services is the correct focus of the commissioner's attention as regards federal government services.
The examples of Air Canada and its feeder lines offer cogent examples of our concern that with changes in the operating management of a crown corporation, the hard-won rights for linguistic duality are threatened. The threats are found everywhere, even in Lester B. Pearson International Airport. That is unacceptable and should change.
The same concern arises with the report on Canada Post complaints, reported at page 35 of the report. Alliance Quebec has met with Canada Post officials and found that there are real attempts to see that services improve. Despite these efforts, the rate of complaints has gone up 18% over the last year. This is perhaps not a final benchmark of success but is one that bears watching.
One of the most pressing problems facing Canadians in their desire to see linguistic duality flourish is the absence of reasonable French products in the electronic information processing services.
The focus of concern now is the Internet, where the commissioner has opened a separate investigation of 20 federal institutions that make use of the interactive system but not always with great respect for their responsibility for the protection of linguistic duality.
It is no secret that Quebec government officials are growing concerned about the absence of French text, and especially French instructional material, for all computer services. It is hoped that diligent and coordinated work by both levels of government may see advances in the linguistic duality component of the system.
As always, the concerns are that the part VII responsibility of the federal agency or institution is being given less than adequate profile in management decision-making. Our concern is that could be a major reduction of responsibility if the government is not called to act now.
[Translation]
The recent reports of the Commissioner of Official languages contain some disturbing comment about the impact of implementing regulations under part VII of the Act, and the resistance the federal government is encountering in this regard.
In his report entitled Implementing Part VII of the Official Languages Act, 1988, on pages 10 and 11, the Commissioner sets out a number of reasons to explain why efforts to increase bilingual services in the federal government failed on a number of occasions in the past. These problems can be summarized as a lack of will based on a lack of control.
The report emphasizes that a focus is now being given in the form of coordination by department, which his required to report on the implementation of Part VII. The Commissioner suggests that more be done along these lines.
[English]
At page 14 he offers the following recommendations:
- The Privy Council should ensure that, in the process of preparation of submissions to cabinet,
the internal procedures of the Department of Justice include careful attention to Part VII
implications of a) draft legislation, b) draft regulations and c) draft agreements between the
Government of Canada and other jurisdictions (provinces/territories). Similar requirements
should be established for all draft agreements concerned with the transfer of powers or
programs from a federal institution to the private sector or to the co-operative or
non-governmental sectors.
Merci. Thank you.
.1600
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you.
We'll begin with our first round of questioning. Normally the way it functions here is that the first round is 10 minutes for each side. Then we go to a second round of five minutes each.
[Translation]
Mr. Marchand.
Mr. Marchand (Québec-Est): Welcome, Mr. Hamelin.
[English]
You mentioned in your opening address that the implementation of part VII was a question of national survival. Would you elaborate on that?
Mr. Hamelin: I think the fact that what the Official Languages Act in part VII is trying to do in encompassing and expanding its mandate beyond just the simple areas it's been involved in through other government departments would make it more significant in terms of its application to various minority communities.
Therefore, the fact that with the application of part VII various other ministries that have not necessarily been associated with the use of the Official Languages Act would now have a role to play in that is I think significant. If you get into areas of other government departments that have day-to-day reach with people, Canada Post as a corporation, for example, or Justice...
So the fact that you now see in this section the expanse of the Official Languages Act through the rest of the federal apparatus is an advantage, and an important one, for the communities.
Mr. Marchand: The FCFA, the francophone organization representing various minorities throughout Canada, came to this committee some time ago and said they established that the ministries were rather confused about the application of part VII, sections 41, 42 and 43, and that they seemed not to know exactly what the application of that law meant.
Do you agree? Do you think the government seems to be utterly confused about part VII?
Mr. Hamelin: I would suggest that we're still going through growing pains in that particular area. We certainly have some incidents where we've had meetings...and the Department of Canadian Heritage has been very helpful in putting together meetings with some of the various ministries. Certainly from our perspective, outside of seeing some of the action plans, actual day-to-day contact between, say, groups like the FCFA, us and the various ministries does not happen on as regular a basis as it probably should. Is that just the fact that we are still going through the early stage of this process? I don't know.
Clearly the Department of Canadian Heritage has been sensitive to that, as has the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, but I think getting this inculcated within the culture in the ministries is the problem we're seeing at this point.
Mr. Hugh Maynard (Member, Advisory Council, Alliance Quebec): Perhaps in addition to that I'd say that the concern even more so is as the powers and jurisdiction devolve from the federal to the provincial level how sections 41 and 42 will apply.
I'll give you a very good example our association has dealt with over the last year. There is a Canada-Quebec entente in agriculture in terms of research and evaluation. That has been a responsibility administratively of Agriculture Canada.
In the renewal of that entente last year, the administrative portion of it - specifically, promotion and publicity - was handed over to the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture. Previously, whenever there was promotional publicity that related to English-speaking farmers and participation in the testing network that was available, Agriculture Canada was always very good about fulfilling its obligation to ensure that English-speaking farmers had an equal opportunity to hear about the program and to submit applications. When that program was given over to the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture, all of a sudden advertising came out in the French language but not in the English language. Our association and its members were completely forgotten and had no opportunity to participate in that program.
Nobody's suggesting that the testing network in Lac St-Jean should be advertised in English, because according to ministry records there's one English-speaking farmer in Lac St-Jean. But when there is a program that's available in areas such as the Gaspé, where there are some 100 English-speaking farmers, and in the Châteauguay Valley, where there are some 500, surely that information should be available so those producers can have a chance to participate in that program.
.1605
The concern is how sections 41 and 42 will apply when those responsibilities are transferred from one jurisdiction to another. I think it comes back to the recommendation of the commissioner: it's very important that the privy council ensures that before a program is transferred in terms of jurisdiction or responsibility, some accommodation is made to make sure that minority languages, no matter which province they're in, are served to the same extent that they would have been had it been the responsibility exclusively of the federal department.
Mr. Marchand: Do you think, Mr. Maynard, that francophone farmers outside Quebec are better served than the English farmers in Quebec?
Mr. Maynard: I don't think it's a question of being better or worse. I don't think one group or the other should be served less just because one has a lower standard. I certainly would agree with you that if it's the same situation in Saskatchewan or New Brunswick, then the same standards ought to apply. The provincial ministries that are responsible have the same obligation as what we would feel to be essential in Quebec.
Senator Corbin (Grand-Sault): I can answer for New Brunswick. We get pretty good service in French.
Mr. Marchand: In New Brunswick, yes.
Mr. Hamelin earlier mentioned that the situation in Quebec for anglophones is difficult, and I sympathize. He was saying particularly that in the public service, for example, according to the commissioner in his last report, the percentage of employees in the public service was only about 5%, which is lower than the percentage of anglophones in Quebec.
One thing that I thought was objectionable in his report was that he did not take account of the number of public servants in the Hull area. If you include the number of anglophone public servants in this area, then it's far superior to the percentage of the population of anglo Quebeckers. In other words, the percentage of public servants in the federal public service is higher than the population of English Quebeckers. In any event, that's a moot point and a detail.
I'm wondering if you think that as a community in Canada, you are on average better off than francophone communities outside Quebec, with the exception maybe of New Brunswick?
Mr. Hamelin: We get into this discussion a lot. You have to examine the fact that different communities have different lives and different experiences. The experience of the English-speaking community in the last 20 years is one of a community that has been slowly losing its institutional base, its population base. That's causing a crisis, be it for English-speaking Quebeckers who live in places like Val-d'Or and the Gaspé, where the communities are older, the problems are growing, and the hospital situation is a major crisis as well. Certain legislation has been passed that the English-speaking community has not been dealt with, that we've had to fight in the courts and the court of public opinion.
So you don't have one experience there that you can compare to another experience that's completely different, with a community that constantly has to keep fighting. You can't ask if you are better off. They are different experiences. If you take the approach of recognizing that these are communities with different histories, going through different phases of their existence, maybe there is a way to recognize that both of these communities, which have an important role to play in Canada, can continue to exist. But you can't ask if this is better, if that is better, if this is green, if that is red. Life doesn't work that way. It's a bit more complicated.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Please close in 30 seconds, Mr. Marchand.
Mr. Marchand: There are so many things to say. I'm changing to another subject, actually. I can't pursue that subject.
What you would suggest to help the implementation of part VII, of section 41 in part VII? It is self-evident that nothing has been done so far, and what has been done demonstrates the confusion in the federal government. But I would like to ask what you suggest. For example, should we suggest that there be an inspector? Should we suggest that a new ministry be set up precisely for that section? Do you have any thoughts on that?
.1610
Mr. Hamelin: Hugh, do you want to handle that particular question?
Mr. Maynard: I think it's unfair to say that nothing has been done. I think you're quite right - there are some areas where more needs to be done.
An example in our case is FORD-Q, the Federal Office of Regional Development - Quebec, which declined to participate in the meeting organized by the Department of Canadian Heritage in December for English-language community groups to meet with representatives of federal departments to talk about sections 41 and 42. They have yet to respond to requests to hold a meeting with our network. They must be criticized, as any other federal department in any other province.
However, on the other hand, as a result of that meeting Industry Canada has now been in contact with a few groups over a number of issues related to Internet development, and has been in communication with those groups as it never would have before.
In response to your question, I don't know if I would use the word ``inspector'', but I think each department should have person a in charge of the relationship with the minority language community so that it's an easy access to funnel information. Rather than going the formal route of complaints with the Commissioner of Official Languages, they could get on the line and try to solve problems before they start.
Second, there must be an obligation that before any legislation, as the commissioner pointed out, can be either adopted or transferred to another jurisdiction, there must be some development of minority language status for the implementation of that program.
Mr. David Birmbaum (Executive Director, Alliance Québec): As we have said before this committee before, there is a need for a bigger stick. We respect that Canadian Heritage has taken a very active role in trying to make sections 41 and 42 come to light. But we've said there's a need for privy council responsibility here so that the departments, beyond having to present annual reports to Parliament, are accountable for their activities in this area across the country.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Before I pass to Mr. Allmand, I understood that FORD-Q has not responded to your request. Is that correct?
Mr. Hamelin: Yes, of the Quebec community groups... We had a meeting scheduled with various departments and FORD-Q did not -
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): How long ago was this request made?
Mr. Hamelin: December.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Very well. Mr. Allmand.
Mr. Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): There has been a suggestion from time to time that the anglophones in Quebec really do not need the provisions of sections 41 and 42; that they're surrounded by Ontario, New Brunswick, New York, Vermont; that there are all sorts of English influences coming into the province; that there's no danger of assimilation; and that there's really no grave threat to the English-speaking community in Quebec.
I'd like you to respond more specifically to that. If you have the figures in your memory, could you give us some statistics on the decline of the population, not only generally in the province but in areas where there was historically a strong presence - the eastern townships, the Gaspé, other parts of the province? Also, are there statistics on the closing of institutions - schools, hospitals, social service agencies and so on? Many of them, by the way, were built by the English-speaking community. I know that in Montreal, St. Mary's Hospital, the Montreal General Hospital, the Royal Victoria Hospital and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which is about to be closed, were all built by the community.
Since you're representatives of the community and not in active politics, could you give us some idea how you see this assessment that there is no real threat? What statistics do you have to show? How do you respond to the decline of the population and the closing of institutions?
Mr. Hamelin: Well, therein lies the threat. The threat is the slow decline and non-existence of the community.
The major figures that are quite stark, if you want to start at the basis, are the school populations. There were over 250,000 students in the system and there are now fewer than 100,000. More than two-thirds of the schools have closed in the last twenty years. That gives you a sense of a community that certainly has been shrinking. The closure of four major health care institutions also affects the dynamic in the community.
Mr. Allmand: You're talking about the province generally and not just Montreal.
Mr. Hamelin: Yes, the province as well...when you get outside Montreal.
.1615
Coming back to your first question, the importance of sections 41 and 42 - and I think you can probably testify more - clearly these are absolutely essential guarantees. When you are in small outlying communities that are downsizing on a continual basis, to be able to have a federal government office that can serve you in your language...is the last vestige of being able to do that.
Again, one of the things we always come back to, and I think is very important to understand, is that we're not talking about the survival of the language as such. There's no question that the English language exists; the question is the infrastructure of the communities we represent. That's one of the most important aspects of our alliance's mandate, to ensure that there are English-speaking communities in the future. It's not simply the question of language. Somehow we get those two things mixed up now and then. It's the importance of being able to have health care and hospitals...
Another study we did four years ago on the attitude of people between the ages of 18 and 25 in an English-speaking community showed that over 75% saw themselves as being outside of Quebec within the next 10 years.
Mr. Allmand: You mean leaving.
Mr. Hamelin: Yes, leaving the province. That's significant. It was done before October 30. I can suggest that we may have some numbers shortly to indicate what is the perception of that group and others in the community since October 30.
There's a significant decline in the community. The maintenance of the guarantees out of the federal government to the English-speaking communities of Quebec are extremely important. As we are in the mode of transferring powers to the provinces, we along with the francophones outside of Quebec certainly are very concerned about ensuring that these guarantees would continue in any devolution. That's one of the messages we brought to the Prime Minister last February.
Mr. Allmand: Would you say, then, that any plans that would be developed under sections 41 and 42, plans that would be directed towards francophones outside of Quebec as compared with plans under sections 41 and 42 for the anglophone communities of Quebec, would be therefore quite different, whereas in the west, say, or in parts of Ontario - and I'm not thinking of the north or the east, but other parts - where there's a real problem of assimilation, a different stress, different programs that might be required in Montreal for the anglophone communities, or even the anglophone communities in the rural parts of Quebec, such as as the Eastern Townships, there would be quite a different approach?
Mr. Hamelin: I think the route we've been going, as both you and David have indicated, there has been some success, and a lot more work has to be done. The idea of bringing the community groups of which we've been a part into a relationship directly with these ministries, in establishing what's going to happen in terms of sections 41 and 42, probably basically means it should be, and I understand is, happening throughout the country. That's important, because clearly, as I said earlier, you can't compare situations. There are different experiences the minority communities live in different parts of this country.
Mr. Allmand: Do you think we can make any significant headway with sections 41 and 42 in an era when governments are substantially cutting back budgets? I think of my own colleague's anglophone newspaper in the Gaspé. They almost had it closed. They were here pleading, I remember.
A lot of these community newspapers, not only English weeklies in Quebec but also francophone weeklies throughout Canada -
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Who had an understanding MP representing them in the House.
Mr. Allmand: - were relying on small grants from the federal government to keep alive, and those grants have been cut. I could give other examples, such as small libraries, minority language libraries, minority language cultural and theatre centres.
Have you discussed this with Heritage Canada? With the cutbacks in money, is it realistic to believe we can really do something under sections 41 or 42, or we going to have to make up our mind to spend some money?
I wish the Reform Party was here to listen to this.
Mr. Hamelin: So do we.
Obviously that becomes a difficult challenge, and certainly our understanding is that there can be ways, certainly at the very base level, that these ministries can work with the communities, in kind, even. I think that's one step.
But you're right that there are two elements of the dynamic right now. The situation of funding, the money question in general, is one. The other one we raised and that I think is also significant is the fact that some of these responsibilities may no longer be federal responsibilities in the future. That becomes, I think, equally as critical an issue for us.
Mr. Birmbaum: But there is an important point here. Groups like ours and the Quebec Farmers Association are well rooted in the communities, and with the proper information and collaboration of many departments we can bring information and access to programs to people, with limited cost.
.1620
The other thing we would argue is that when you talk about an exodus from our communities you talk about tax dollars and expertise and so on. One of the factors that might impede that exodus is assured access to federal services in both languages, and federal commitment to the vitality and development of our communities. If that keeps people here, producing in their home province, raising families in their home province, that's good for the economy and it's good for our society.
Mr. Hamelin: I think it's a question of what we can actually do to assist with government, maybe taking the approach of what's going on out there. I'll give you an example.
One of the things we're working on now is the compilation of a directory of English-language legal services throughout the province. That is going to be a guide to the community of people in both private organizations and community groups, or what have you, who provide either legal or quasi-legal information. That's a resource I think the community can use. Hopefully we're going to be working with Justice Canada in the future on the distribution of some of this information.
So you can see that there are relationships that can work as well.
Mr. Allmand: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Senator Rivest, can we start by giving the floor toMr. Marchand, who will have to leave in the next five minutes? Mr. Marchand.
Mr. Marchand: You are very kind, Senator Rivest.
Mr. Hamelin, you said earlier that anglophones in Quebec were facing very serious problems. You refer, for example, to the drop in enrolment in schools.
This point was repeated in the annual port of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and that's another thing that bothers me a little. Mr. Goldbloom says that the number of students attending English-language schools in Quebec has dropped by more than 55% in the last20 years - from 230,000 to 100,000. That is a fact, but this drop has not been among anglophones. It is attributable to the fact that immigrants to the province, allophones, are being sent to French schools. This was the result of Bill 101 in the first place, and of other measures consequently.
So it should not be claimed that the English-speaking community has lost that many members. The fact is that allophones now have to comply with the legislation and guidelines regarding their integration into a predominantly francophone society.
Second, like Mr. Allmand, I find it unfortunate that some institutions have closed - that four English-language health care institutions in Quebec have closed. However, we must acknowledge that there has been a fundamental change in the whole health care sector in Quebec. Many French-language hospitals have also been closed.
You must acknowledge that you do have a number of health care services. You have229 institutions designated in one way or another to offer services in English in Quebec. Personally, I quite agree with this policy. I think it is good, but I would point out that outside Quebec, services of this type are almost non-existent. If the witness from New Brunswick were still here, you would say that there are only a few hospitals for the minority in New Brunswick. In addition, there are just a few in Ontario and only one in Saint-Boniface. Services of this type for minorities outside Quebec are virtually non existent.
The same goes for schools. Mr. Hamelin says that the English-speaking population has dropped because... I'm getting to my question.
The figures have dropped because of the immigrants. The English-speaking community in Quebec has always had a guarantee of education in its own language right up to the university level. You have always controlled your own school boards, whereas francophones outside Quebec, even today, still do not control their school boards, despite the Constitution.
Their rights and institutions have been disregarded by legislation passed in other provinces. These are very serious facts.
So I think you distort the debate when your community refuses to compare its situation with that of francophones outside Quebec.
.1625
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): So that is your question. However, I would point out to you that our witnesses today represent Alliance Quebec, not ``Alliance outside Quebec''. I think we should be concentrating on the role of Alliance Quebec within Quebec. I believe that your charter defines the province as being your area of activity, Mr. Hamelin.
Mr. Hamelin: Yes, definitely.
Mr. Marchand: I would like to complete my question, if I could. Alliance Quebec is part of Canada, as far as I know, and you are referring to the Official Languages Act of Canada. As long as we continue to ignore part of the problem, we will not find any solutions. As long as people insist on saying the two situations are not comparable, that they are the result of history, we are going to have a problem. If the anglophones in Quebec really wanted to save Canada and solve the problem you mentioned, you would be doing everything in your power to ensure that francophones outside Quebec enjoy the same rights as you.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I hope the Saint-Jean Baptiste Society in Montreal will do the same for the rest of the country.
Mr. Hamelin: Clearly, there's a good relationship between our two groups in certain areas such as the devolution of powers, on which our case was upheld.
I saw some of the statements you made a few weeks ago, Mr. Marchand. First of all, the English-speaking communities do not control their schools. That is incorrect. The communities do not control their schools. There were two denominational school boards for the Montreal region, the CSCM (Montreal Catholic School Board), and the former Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal, PSBGM. Both were denominational school boards, but the English-speaking communities did not control their board. That is why I met with minister Marois last week to get some assurances from her that at some point, we will have genuine control over our schools, over English-language school boards. That is a very important correction.
Mr. Marchand: The Quebec government wants to ensure...
Mr. Hamelin: I'm waiting for the latest results, but this is an important issue. However, saying that there has been a drop in the English-speaking community in the last 20 years... Some have left the province, particularly young people. We did a study in 1992 that shows clearly that there is a crisis in our community. It is true that experiences are different now, because in the past, the anglophone community had community infrastructures, but these have been dismantled in the last20 years.
Four hospitals have been closed. Yes, there were other hospitals in the region, but these four - and Mr. Allmand could tell you about this - were community hospitals. The Queen Elizabeth Hospital was a community hospital. That proves once again that part of our community is being dismantled.
The situation of our community is not the same as that of the francophone community outside Quebec, which is still fighting for its rights. We share some of their causes, which is important for both communities. Our community wants to protect what it has, because there has been a decline in the last 20 years. This is not simply because immigrants are not part of the English-speaking community. The fact is that English-speaking communities are starting to disappear. Outside Montreal, that is obvious, but even within Montreal, the process started a number of years ago.
It's very important that we appear before you today to ensure that whatever happens regarding the devolution of powers to the provinces, the federal government will always be the guardian of our language rights, both for francophones outside Quebec and for anglophones within Quebec. That is very important for us.
Mr. Birmbaum: May I add two small points?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Briefly, please.
Mr. Birmbaum: You should consult your colleagues, including Gilles Duceppe and Francine Lalonde, whom we met a few months ago. They seem to understand us. Perhaps we're talking about a principle when we talk about the Official Languages Act. We're talking about francophones outside Quebec. Minorities are not going to change their own situation. Rather, we have to convince the majority language group - francophones in Quebec and anglophones in the rest of the country.
.1630
They will tell you they think it is quite reasonable that guarantees of services for official language minority communities should be reciprocal and parallel. We're talking about a principle here. What we have to do is convince the majority groups.
If francophones outside Quebec want to advance their cause, they would agree immediately that we have to work together to make certain things happen.
Mr. Marchand: I would just like to express a wish. This is not the place to discuss these issues. However, if there ever were an opportunity to discuss this issue with you, I would like to do so. I think this is a fundamental issue.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Maynard.
Mr. Maynard: Let me give you an example of what we mean by a distorted debate. Using the example of the west-end of Montreal to categorize the anglophone community in Quebec is a distortion of the debate. There is also a rural community which is completely different. There are 2,600 anglophone farmers in Quebec living in an area that is 1,500 km long. Communications are very difficult.
We have one institution, Macdonald College, which is a department of McGill University. In remote regions, it is very difficult for young farmers to get access to training and education. For a number of years, we have been asking for distance teaching. After working on this for five years, we have had no response from the provincial government, which is responsible for education.
However, in both Nova Scotia and Ontario distance teaching is accessible to francophones. That is a good thing. It is a first-rate system of education. The communities I'm referring to need services and infrastructures.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you.
Senator Rivest.
Senator Rivest: One of the problems that is often mentioned may be related to the pointMr. Marchand was making. Comparisons involving anglophones in Quebec or francophones outside Quebec always deal with official language minority communities. We have to defend what we have. The general trend is toward a deterioration of institutions, and so on.
The main difference between francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec is that francophones often lose their language entirely. We must agree that that problem does not exist in Quebec, not necessarily because it is Quebec, but because of the North American context. However, in a number of parts of Canada, there are no French-speaking communities, because of the low birth rates or because people leave the regions for political reasons. So the problem is one of assimilation, full stop. That is the only difference.
Otherwise, I think the anglophone community of Quebec has some serious problems, and they should not be studied by way of comparison. We must look at them for what they are. Of course, there is a problem with the birth rate. One of the major problem facing the anglophone community is of a political nature, and it is extremely important. People are extremely sensitive to this, not only anglophones in Quebec, but also francophones. Closing down institutions has done considerable harm.
I don't think there was any discrimination whatsoever in the policies of the various governments, in particular the present government of Quebec. I don't think that was the point you were making. I don't think there was any discrimination against anglophone institutions. Some institutions have closed, and that has caused some harm. As our francophone witnesses mentioned, federal cutbacks in some areas may result in poorer services for francophones outside Quebec.
I want it stated clearly before the committee that the hospital closures you mentioned were not discriminatory toward the anglophone community. They happen to be because you live in Quebec, not because you are anglophone.
.1635
Mr. Hamelin: The most important factor for English-speaking communities is the political situation. I don't want to get into politics here, at its recent convention, the party in power in Quebec discussed reexamining guarantees regarding our health and social services networks. What message are they trying to convey?
Senator Rivest: You have Mr. Bouchard's word that he will not do that.
Mr. Hamelin: Yes, but I am waiting to see what happens.
Senator Rivest: That was very dangerous, as you mentioned, because it involved Bill 142.
You referred to the situation of anglophones living in outlying regions. Comparisons could be made to francophones in rural parts of Saskatchewan, who are in exactly the same situation.
You've raised a point that could be very important in the future, if there are any real changes to the Constitution that lead to a devolution of federal programs and powers to the regions, including Quebec. It is very important for farmers living as official language minority communities that the Official Languages Act, in any transfer of powers... I've already pointed out to the committee that when tax collection agreements were signed on the sales tax, the Quebec government agreed that the Official Languages Act would apply. This runs counter to the provisions of the provincial legislation, Bill 101, which provides for some restrictions on communications in English. As far as I know no anglophone Quebeckers or business people have had any problems getting documents in both official languages, even though they live in Quebec.
Second, Quebec administers certain matters that come under its jurisdiction in fisheries. I don't know whether English-speaking fishermen in the Gaspé Peninsula have any complaints about the fact that the Quebec government communicates with them in French only.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I could say something about that. This is an increasing concern among anglophones. They are not getting certain services. I will cover this area in my questions, once your turn is finished.
Senator Rivest: Manpower training is a very important issue in any devolution of powers under the Constitution that might happen not only because of Quebec's demands, but also because of the demands of other provinces. I know that if this is agreed to in Quebec, many anglophone Quebeckers who live in rural areas might think that courses in agriculture in English are simply not available. I doubt that there are many courses offered in English in Saint-Hyacinthe. However, there are many anglophone farmers living in the Hemmingford area.
If there is any administrative or constitutional devolution of federal powers, this committee must ensure that the Official Languages Act continues to apply, and that the Canadian government make this one of the conditions for any such devolution of programs. This would reassure official language minority communities both in Quebec and outside Quebec. Is that one of your concerns?
Mr. Hamelin: Absolutely. That is the most important message. I know that we are talking about sections 41 and 42 at the same time. They are related to devolution. These matters are clearly of concern to us, given the party in power in Quebec. It is absolutely essential that these guarantees be clearly maintained in all negotiations. The same goes for francophones outside Quebec.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I have a few questions for you along the same lines as those asked by Senator Rivest. Could you give us some examples of areas that are being decentralized, from which the federal government is withdrawing? Do you think there will be problems getting service in one or the other of this country's official languages?
.1640
Do you have any concrete examples? We were talking about agriculture. To some extent, health does not come under federal jurisdiction. However, transport does, and there is the whole issue involving VIA Rail and the privatization of federal government services.
We have seen examples in the forestry and mining sectors. I don't know whether the government actually intends to require as a condition for this transfer of authority, that services to the official language minority be maintained.
Do you think this issue is being discussed? Are the federal government and the Quebec government talking about it?
Mr. Hamelin: Yes, that was something we raised with the premier when we met him in February, because it is absolutely essential for our community. At the moment, an anglophone adult cannot take a course in French as a second language.
An unemployed, single parent with two children who would want to retrain for the job market would have to take the training in French. We must have courses of this type in our language. Newcomers to the province have the COFI program, which is subsidized by the federal government. However, there is nothing for anglophones.
This is a very important point that we raise on occasion with the federal and provincial governments. It's like a ping pong game. Since 1993, I've raised the issue at least five times with departments at both levels of government. But we never get an answer.
If, in the future, the federal government gives grants to the provincial government, these issues must be discussed beforehand.
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): In your opinion, what kinds of guarantees do you have if the federal government transfers it to the provincial government? We now know less than 2% of the provincial civil service are...I wouldn't say of English-speaking stock, but have a command of English. I don't know if it has increased since the mid-1980s, but my understanding is if the provincial government were ever given these powers, they would have to substantially increase their number of civil servants who have a perfect command of English.
Mr. Hamelin: From representatives of our community, we're down to 0.08%. It's absolutely abysmal. But whether or not those who are in the civil service have the necessary function to be able to work in English is also an issue.
The federal government has to take the position that this is important enough. That's one of the reasons we're here, and I would suggest it's one of the reasons the FCFA will probably be saying the same thing in the weeks to come. It's absolutely critical that there's some plan d'action to ensure this happens.
Mr. Maynard: Agriculture is my professional area. In my opinion Agriculture Canada has been extremely good at ensuring that the information coming out of the department is generally available in both languages, and they ought to be congratulated. The problem is in the devolution, the downloading, the transfer over, as I pointed out in the previous example - what happens when that responsibility is given over to a provincial ministry.
I'm also a school commissioner, and the same thing happens. There are federal transfer payments in education and health and social services that just go into the general revenue pot, and the reply is ``The money for French second language training is in the general parameters. Go find it.'' Well, with les compressions budgétaires, when everything is being squeezed down, it's difficult to find that money.
As to the Agriculture Canada transfer payments into the so-called adaptation funds, with some of the restructuring of programs in the budget, in all other provinces, that money in large part is being taken for training and readaptation. In Quebec training is a provincial responsibility and Agriculture Canada is not allowed to do training with that money, so we find ourselves at a disadvantage because of a provincial context.
So the guarantee you refer to has to be at the beginning of the downloading. I think it's perhaps a bit funny that one of the best examples of how to devolve the powers is the GST, as Monsieur Rivest pointed out. I have to assume the provincial government would like to have our money, so they want to ensure we can fill out the forms. But when we're asking for service or money, it's not the same situation.
.1645
This is a good example. I was down at the office of Revenue Quebec last week to get GST registration forms for my wife's business - it's grown, and she now has to register it. It was all available in English - fantastic. It's a complicated form. I read and write French fairly well, but there's a limit when it comes to technical questions.
So, yes, they want our money: the service is available. The guarantee question goes back to the beginning of the process.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): This is my last question. The fact that we have now have the transfert social canadien, the block funding of $11 billion a year... Basically it's a direct transfer to the province. In my opinion, there are no strings attached, therefore they can fund whatever program they want without any guarantees of minority language services.
Do you think this block funding coming in from the federal government is improving your situation, not changing anything whatsoever or making it worse?
Mr. Hamelin: Once it gets to this situation, as I think you raised about the general funds, we don't know where it goes. As you said, they then say go find it, but it's not there.
There has to be more of a plan that takes that into consideration. Manpower now appears to be the one area, if there is any legislation out there, that doesn't take care or recognize the guarantees that have to go along with them. That's going to be something certainly our community is going to be fighting against.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Godfrey.
Mr. Godfrey (Don Valley West): Let me follow up on this line of questioning. Suppose there are guarantees passed along with the downloading, if you like. What's the legal status of those things? Is it a gentleman's agreement? Is it enforceable? Is it thought that the guarantee is transferred along with sections 41 and so on of the Official Languages Act? If there's a violation of it, to whom do you appeal? How does it work?
Mr. Hamelin: There have been instances where it has worked. Clearly, in the private sector, for example, when the privatization process began - I remember Teleglobe and Air Canada, and the airports as well - all of that was built into that as an agreement. So it's not a gentleman's agreement, it's a contract.
Mr. Allmand: It's actually in the legislation. It's law we passed here.
Mr. Hamelin: Yes. You can build the guarantees in the legislation; it won't be in a gentleman's agreement. It certainly would then be -
Mr. Godfrey: You can do that with a province. You can say you're going to download this, but in exchange for the money they have to keep behaving as if...and then you just take them to court if they're not living up to their non-gentleman's agreement here.
Mr. Hamelin: Again, it's more than just a gentlemen's agreement.
Mr. Godfrey: That's what I'm saying.
Mr. Hamelin: It's by legislation, and therefore consequences would have to be associated with not respecting those guarantees.
Mr. Godfrey: So the main thing is to get it right at the time of transfer.
Mr. Hamelin: Absolutely - before anything is transferred.
Mr. Maynard: It's too late once the program has been set up and is only available in, say, one language, and I get on the phone and complain. The budget's been set. The publicity's been done. The program has been set up. And I understand that. You can't turn the wagon around and head off in the other direction. It has to start at the beginning.
Mr. Allmand: I should point, Mr. Chairman, on that very point that in the United States in the 1970s, when they were trying to put in their civil rights legislation, the federal government would only give to states if they obeyed equal rights for the black minority. If they didn't do it, they didn't get the money.
I remember I recommended that for linguistic matters in all provinces, but it was thought to be too tough here. I think we're moving to that type of thing.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Maybe it's an idea whose time has come.
Senator Rivest.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: We have to be realistic, because as the Chairman was saying, these matters relate to health care, education and social services. If the Canadian government were to decide not to contribute financially to these programs or to contribute to them only if the Official Languages Act was respected, there wouldn't be that many problems in Quebec, because of Bill-142 on health and social services and because of the guarantees on education for... However, that would never happen in the rest of Canada, except perhaps in New Brunswick.
.1650
I don't think there is any point in creating meaningless, official debates. However, in the case of transfers of authority in the area of social programs or federal-provincial agreements - and we spoke earlier about forestry, mining and agriculture - the federal government must ensure that official language minority communities have the same rights to be served in their language as when the federal government alone exercise this responsibility. In the case of devolution of powers, this would be advisable, not so much for English speaking Quebeckers in Montreal, where services are generally bilingual, but for anglophones living outside Montreal, in the Gaspé peninsula, in the eastern townships and elsewhere in Quebec.
When we talk about anglophones in Quebec, my priority is those living in the regions, not those living in West Island. They have problems too, but we have to help particularly the communities living outside Montreal.
Are you satisfied with the way Bill-142 on health and social services has been implemented in the regions?
Mr. Hamelin: It is very important for the regions...
Senator Rivest: Are people satisfied?
Mr. Hamelin: Generally speaking, yes. There may have been some problems with the implementation of the bill in some regions, but it is important to have a reasonable plan for the anglophone community living in the Abitibi region, eastern Quebec or western Quebec.
Senator Rivest: Were there negotiations on all of these matters?
Mr. Hamelin: We don't have the new proposals, but those put forward by the previous government...
Senator Rivest: I know there was some slippage at the PQ convention. We're not specialists in this area. When you met with Mr. Bouchard when he made his speech at the Centaur Theatre, he was very clear about keeping Bill-142. You didn't find anything restrictive in Ms. Beaudoin's bouquet of measures?
Mr. Hamelin: No...
Senator Rivest: But you do have some political concerns.
Mr. Hamelin: About the resolution that was debated?
Senator Rivest: We should remember that the PQ voted against it.
Mr. Hamelin: Definitely.
Senator Rivest: As for Mr. Marchand and Mr. Duceppe from the Bloc québécois, they should be reminded that their party voted against.
Mr. Hamelin: In view of the time frame for the regional action plans, we do have some concerns.
Mr. Maynard: It's often said that money is required to find alternative solutions. I think that this is obvious. Bill 142 in Quebec is a good example of a communications system between the government and the community for the purpose of developing services.
Secondly, with computer technology we can have access to 1-800 lines, pressing 1 for service in French and 2 for service in English. The person could be in any region. It would even be possible to provide information from Ottawa to someone in Saskatchewan requiring service in French. It would be the same thing for information on Internet. There are other innovative solutions to provide communication and information services. It's always a matter of putting some focus.
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Godfrey.
.1655
Mr. Godfrey: When you talk about community, I understand it in the more virtual sense of the English-speaking community and its institutions. But when you were talking about hospitals, I think you used the term ``community hospital''. I would understand that to have the more literal meaning of neighbourhood or being located in a physical district. When you knock it out, it almost destroys the sense of neighbourhood.
I come from Toronto, where we're closing hospitals too. One can argue that it's destroying a certain kind of community because they were community hospitals. In that second sense of neighbourhood, when you talk about a community hospital being knocked out is there some sense of discrimination? Might one be able to argue that there were also community hospitals for French-speaking populations that were knocked out in a neighbourhood way, destroying the sense of neighbourhood and closeness? Or was there something special about the way it was done to the English-speaking institutions, if you can follow the distinction I'm trying to make between virtual communities and geographic communities?
Mr. Hamelin: We'd never take the position that the whole hospital closure issue was designated against our community. The reality is that its effect on our community was quite dramatic. It was one of the very few issues that mobilized our community, more so as individuals. There were citizens' groups popping up all over the place.
To answer your question, these were quite literally - and I'm sure Mr. Allmand is more expert than I - community hospitals, built from the ground up by these individual communities. There were various family groups that put money together. They were run by the community for many years and were very much part of the geographic territory. The closure of those four hospitals we're talking about in the Montreal area had a dramatic impact on the physical communities of English-speaking Quebeckers.
Mr. Godfrey: Was there also an equivalent with community hospitals on the French side of the linguistic -
[Translation]
Mr. Hamelin: No.
Senator Rivest: There's a very good example of that, the closure of Jeffrey Hale in Quebec City. The Jeffrey Hale was an institution that the English speaking community identified with. They decided to shut it down. That's an example. I was trying to find a case in Montreal but Jeffrey Hale in Quebec is a very striking example. People would identify with the institution and see it as a sign of the continuing presence of the English community.
St. Patrick's church had already been closed. They should have kept the Jeffrey Hale, it was important to keep it because there was an English language community.
[English]
Mr. Maynard: It's an important point. Working more in the educational system as a school trustee, when you close the school you close the community. In the same sense, if you close the hospital without replacement - and I think that's the important point; people don't feel there has been a replacement of that institution - people will not locate there because they don't feel there are services they are comfortable with. More than anything else, that is the concern we have down the road. People will then say that it is not a community they want to be part of, and they will find somewhere else to locate. For many anglophones in Quebec, that will be outside the province.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): What is the role of your affiliates? I'm trying to have a better feeling for the organigramme of Alliance Québec.
Mr. Hamelin: The alliance itself organizationally takes in, as group members or institutional members, various regional groups. For example, CASA is a regional association member of the umbrella of Alliance Québec, and the Voice of English Québec as well. Above all of that -
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): The regional school board of Gaspésie, for instance, where would it fit in?
Mr. Hamelin: It would fit in under CASA's rubric in all likelihood.
But above that, given the move to regroup the other groups in the English-speaking community of Quebec that are also funded by the Department of Canadian Heritage - the repositioning exercise - we have now also associated with groups that are not necessarily directly part of the regional network. They are what we call the sector organizations. That's the group that Mr. Maynard chairs at this time, the Quebec Community Groups Network. They include the cultural and other...QSPELL, for example.
.1700
Mr. Maynard: The Quebec Federation of Home and School Associations, the Quebec Drama Federation, the Quebec Rural Newspapers Association, the Quebec Commerce Association. We have brought the principal community groups supported by the Department of Canadian Heritage into a network for purposes of administration, efficiency and also long-term development of the work, particularly with a view to sharing expertise and collaboration.
Mr. Birmbaum: Each of them is autonomous, though.
Mr. Maynard: Yes.
Mr. Allmand: Some of these regional groups are more autonomous than others.
Mr. Hamelin: Are you going to be specific, Warren?
Mr. Allmand: The English-Speaking Townshippers' Association, I think, existed even before Alliance Québec.
Mr. Hamelin: So did CASA. CASA existed well before.
Mr. Allmand: The Châteauguay Valley group is much more...
Mr. Hamelin: It exists in a different -
Mr. Allmand: It has positions opposite the alliance from time to time.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I regret to inform you that our time has elapsed. This room is reserved for another group.
[Translation]
I'd like to thank you. I realize that notice was rather short. However, we do hope to see you a few months from now. I hope that the committee will be able to maintain direct contact with you to come up with solutions to the problems you are facing.
Once again I'd like to thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Hamelin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As for the brief,
[English]
we will have something for you at least to get back to you.
Mr. Allmand: Will we schedule a meeting with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada?
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): The steering committee will be meeting to look at further proposals for other witnesses to be heard by the committee.
The meeting is adjourned.