LANG Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

0905

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard)

0910

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

The Clerk

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

The Clerk

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

Mr. Derek Lee

The Clerk

Mr. Derek Lee

The Clerk

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.))

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

0915

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Christian Sylvain (Director, Corporate Policy and Planning, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Christian Sylvain

0920

Ms. Anne Gilbert (Department of Geography, University of Ottawa; Research Director, Interdisciplinary Research Center on Citizenship and Minorities)

0925

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

0930

Mr. Christian Sylvain

0935

Ms. Anne Gilbert

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Anne Gilbert

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

Mr. Christian Sylvain

0940

Ms. Anne Gilbert

Mr. Raymond Simard

0945

Ms. Anne Gilbert

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Anne Gilbert

The Chair

Mr. Christian Sylvain

0950

The Chair

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

Mr. Christian Sylvain

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Christian Sylvain

0955

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert)

Mr. Christian Sylvain

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Anne Gilbert

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Anne Gilbert

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Ms. Anne Gilbert

1000

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Anne Gilbert

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Anne Gilbert

Mr. Yvon Godin

1005

Mr. Christian Sylvain

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Anne Gilbert

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Anne Gilbert

The Chair

Ms. Anne Gilbert

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1010

Mr. Christian Sylvain

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Christian Sylvain

The Chair

Mr. Christian Sylvain

The Chair

Mr. Christian Sylvain

1015

The Chair

Mr. Christian Sylvain

The Chair

Ms. Anne Gilbert

The Chair

Ms. Anne Gilbert

The Chair

Ms. Anne Gilbert

The Chair

Mr. Christian Sylvain

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby (Vice-President, Research, Canadian Institutes of Health Research)

1020

1025

The Chair

Ms. Michèle O'Rourke (Associate, Strategic Initiatives,Canadian Institutes of Health Research)

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Mark Bisby

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1030

Mr. Mark Bisby

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Mark Bisby

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Mark Bisby

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1035

Mr. Mark Bisby

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Mark Bisby

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Mark Bisby

1040

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Mark Bisby

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Mark Bisby

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Mark Bisby

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Mark Bisby

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Mark Bisby

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Mark Bisby

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Mark Bisby

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Mark Bisby

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Mark Bisby

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1045

Ms. Michele O'Rourke

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Michele O'Rourke

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Michele O'Rourke

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Mark Bisby

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

1050

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

1055

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

Mr. Mark Bisby

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 034

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard): Good morning, everybody. Honourable committee members, I see a quorum. We can therefore proceed to the election of the chair and vice-chairs.

[English]

Once the election of the chair and the vice-chairs is completed, I will invite the newly elected chair to preside over the meeting.

[Translation]

Are there nominations for president?

Mr. Simard.

¿ (0910)

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): I nominate Mr. Bélanger.

The Clerk: Are there any other nominations?

[English]

Nominations are now closed.

[Translation]

It is therefore moved that Mr. Mauril Bélanger be elected chair of the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I hereby declare Mr. Mauril Bélanger duly elected chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

[English]

Now we can proceed to the election of vice-chair on the opposition side. Are there any nominations for the first vice-chair?

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): On a point of order, would the clerk explain why the chair is not presiding over the election of vice-chairs?

The Clerk: Because it's in the Standing Orders that the clerk presides over the election of the chair and the vice-chairs.

Mr. Derek Lee: Would you read it, please?

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I have a different point of order.

Mr. Derek Lee: If it's any assistance to the clerk, Marleau and Montpetit very clearly state that once the chair is elected, the chair presides over the election of the vice-chairs.

The Clerk: One at a time.

The Clerk: All I can say is that the Standing Orders have been modified since that was written by Marleau and Montpetit. The direction we have is that the clerk presides over the election of the chair and the vice-chairs.

Mr. Derek Lee: Your direction doesn't come from members of Parliament, it comes from the clerk, and members of Parliament run this committee. Would you please read me the words that allow you to preside over the election of the vice-chairs?

The Clerk: Standing Order 106(3) says:

the clerk of the committee, who shall preside over the election, shall announce the candidates to the committee members present and provide them with ballot papers;

That's if it's a secret ballot.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. So it's not 100% clear.

I'll let the chair and the clerk work this out so that we don't take any more time.

Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): If you don't mind, Mr. Lee, and if members of the committee have no objections, I will preside from here on in.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: You had a point of order, Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: On the second point of order, I think there is no provision in the Standing Orders that says you have to re-elect your vice-chairs. Only the chair has to stand through the election when we reconvene.

The Chair: No, we have to reconstitute the committee, which means the officers of the committee--

Mr. John Herron: On that point I checked with the clerk of the environment committee, and I suspect we play by the same playbook.

At any rate, go to it, if you like.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, I know there have been...and we shouldn't get all tangled up in procedure, if I may say so, but the point I'm going to present here is that Standing Order 106(2) reads this way:

At the commencement of every session and, if necessary, during the course of a session, each standing or special committee shall elect a Chair and two Vice-Chairs, of whom the Chair and one Vice-Chair

and all of that. This is the commencement of a session...or, if necessary, after a summer recess. That's why we're proceeding with the reconstitution of the committee.

Mr. John Herron: Well, I'm just saying there are two different interpretations from the same two individuals who do the exact same job in two different places.

The Chair: Yes, I understand. We'll proceed with the elections anyhow.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: On a point of order, just because I'm fighting this, I want to make it known that we are not reconstituting the committee. We adjourned in June. We've come back to work. The standing order you just read says we will elect vice-chairs “if necessary”. If none of the vice-chairs has fallen off the committee roster, then I maintain it's not necessary to re-elect a vice-chair.

If the chair wishes to go through the exercise, I'm willing to acquiesce at this point in time.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: I understand where you're coming from, and the chair here is quite sympathetic to that. I think this exercise is rather futile. Having just been re-elected, I can feel more secure in saying that. However, that said, if the chair has to be re-elected, it would stand to reason that the vice-chairs might also have to be re-elected. In this case, though, I've not sensed any desire to change anything.

I'm a bit at the mercy of the committee here. I'm going to ask Monsieur Sauvageau to speak, and then we'll take it from there.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate you on being elected. I believe that the committee has to follow the letter and the spirit of Standing Order 106(2), which reads as follows:

Each standing or special committee shall elect a chairman and two vice-chairmen, of whom two shall be members of the government party and the third member in opposition to the government, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 116, at the commencement of every session and, if necessary, during the course of the session.

In my opinion, that is the approach that the committee should take, it is what we have always done and what we should continue to do, unless the Standing Orders...

The Chair: As far as I know, that Standing Order has not been amended. I will therefore make a ruling and we will proceed to the election of the two vice-chairs, beginning with the opposition vice-chair.

Are there any nominations?

Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I nominate Mr. Yvon Godin.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any other nominations for opposition vice-chair?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Congratulations, Mr. Godin.

Now, are there nominations for government vice-chair?

Mr. Simard nominates Ms. Thibault.

Are there any other nominations?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Now with respect to procedural rules, can we continue to use the ones that we used up to now? Mr. Sauvageau so moves.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

The committee is functional once again.

We can now begin our meeting. I would invite the witnesses to come to the table.

If I may, I would like to take a few moments to give people an overview of what the committee has done, is doing and will continue to do.

Last spring the House of Commons referred to the committee the subject matter of a bill that would add a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act, that new principle being respect for our linguistic duality. The bill itself has been withdrawn from the Order Paper, but the committee is tasked with reporting by the end of October on this issue as well as on health care in the minority official language.

To that end, the committee has met with representatives from official language communities, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne and its components, as well as the Quebec Community Group Network and its components. We have heard from officials from a number of departments, including Health, Canadian Heritage and Finance. So we have met with many people, and one question we would now like to consider is research. It is a bit complicated, since we have never before invited—as far as I can remember—the research councils to appear before us.

Our meeting today has two objectives: first, to determine whether the research councils are meeting their overall obligations with respect to linguistic duality and the Official Languages Act, and also to explore—because that is all we are doing for the moment—the contribution of the humanities and health research councils to the health of minority official language communities. I hope that this gives you some context.

We will first have a presentation by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and then one from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Are the representatives of the Health Research Institutes here? They have not yet arrived. We will therefore start with Ms. Gilbert and Mr. Sylvain. I do not know which of you would like to speak first.

Mr. Christian Sylvain (Director, Corporate Policy and Planning, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada): I will go first.

The Chair: There will be a question period after your presentation. You have the floor.

Mr. Christian Sylvain: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would like to thank you for having invited us to appear before you today to provide an update on the contribution made by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to research on official languages, bilingualism, and minority-language communities.

My name is Christian Sylvain and I am responsible for strategic policies and planning within the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; I have with me today Ms. Anne Gilbert, who is a professor at the University of Ottawa and a researcher in the subject field. Her specialization is the vitality of linguistic minority communities.

Before explaining the council's involvement in these issues, I would like to explain exactly how the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council operates, its mandate, and its objectives. I will give you a brief overview before describing the type of official languages research that is funded by the council.

I believe that you have been given a document that is similar to this PowerPoint presentation. I will not review the entire document today, but you may want to refer to it. I will simply highlight some of the points.

I would first like to point out that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council is the only federal agency that has a mandate to support research and research training in the field of social sciences and humanities. This includes a broad spectrum of disciplines, from literature to geography, to history, archeology, demographics, psychology, political sciences, economics, as well as—and this is often overlooked—more professional fields such as law, education, and computer and management sciences. These are all part of the research community that the council represents.

Page 4 of the document will give you a good idea of the size of the research community, which represents more than 18,000 faculty out of a total of 34,000, and approximately 40,000 full-time graduate students in Canada's universities. This means that the council represents a little more than half of the grey matter in our country's universities. Year after year, through a proven and very rigorous peer review system, the council supports about 5,000 of these individuals, graduate-level researchers and students alike.

On page 7 you will find the list of granting programs through which the council supports this research community. This includes basic research—which essentially applies to individual researchers—as well as more targeted and strategic programs through which research teams are brought together to examine specific themes or problems. These will change over time, and the council tries to choose subjects that will be of interest to governments, as well as the public and private sectors.

I must also point out that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council is also responsible for the Canada Research Chairs Program which was created two or three years ago with the aim of establishing 2,000 research chairs in Canadian universities. Four hundred of these chairs are in the field of social sciences and humanities. The SSHRC also manages the Indirect Research Costs Program, which became a standing item in the Canadian government's 2003 budget.

For 2003-2004, the council's budget is $195 million, which is slightly less than $200 million, invested in these programs. What kind of return do we expect on these investments?

On page 5 you will find a list of the deliverables we hope will result from our investment. We are seeking excellence through high-calibre research. Indeed, this year, a British study on social sciences has demonstrated that when it comes to research in this field, Canada ranks third internationally in terms of excellence. We can make a little bit go a long way. But we want to ensure that the research will lead to something useful, particularly when it comes to policy-making. We want to create ties with communities and government groups. Moreover, our mandate involves providing advice to the Minister of Industry, Mr. Speaker, something we do in a number of ways. This means that the SSHRC is involved at a number of levels within the federal government.

Now, what about the support given by the SSHRC to training and research in the area of official languages and bilingualism?

Pages 11 and 12 will give you an idea of the types of activities that we support. Over the past five years, the SSHRC has funded about 150 projects representing a total investment of about $10 million. Earlier this year, the council decided to make a priority of official languages within its strategic theme relating to culture, identity and citizenship. Page 12 gives you an overview of the type of research that we fund. This involves writing skills among francophone students in New Brunswick, the links between language and identity, as well as issues relating to governance and community vitality.

This might be a good time for Professor Gilbert to take over; she can provide a better idea of the types of research activity that this represents as well as the impact of this research, after which I will be prepared to answer your questions.

¿ (0920)

Ms. Anne Gilbert (Department of Geography, University of Ottawa; Research Director, Interdisciplinary Research Center on Citizenship and Minorities): Thank you.

I would like to introduce myself. My name is Anne Gilbert and I am a geographer by training. I am involved with the CIRCEM, the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research on Citizenship and Minorities at the University of Ottawa. I have been studying francophone minorities for almost 20 years. For the first five years I was the research coordinator for l'ACFO, l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, and since 1991 I have been a professor at the University of Ottawa and I continue to work very closely with organizations representing the francophonie in Ontario and in Canada.

I am not the only one doing this type of work. By our own estimates, at the University of Ottawa alone, there are some 50 active researchers studying Canada's francophone communities. If we include all of the research on minority language education and in linguistics, there are as many as 150 or 160 researchers. Last year I organized a meeting of researchers in this field at the University of Ottawa and I had a list of 150 names. These people are at the University of Ottawa, as well as in other Canadian francophone, bilingual, or unilingual universities, as well as in Quebec universities, because there are a large number of us studying francophone minorities. I have not counted the colleagues who are working on the anglophone minorities in Quebec. Therefore, there are people within Quebec who are examining the francophone minorities, as well as a number of researchers in many English-language universities in the rest of Canada.

What are we working on? Mainly two broad issues. First, we are trying to understand who these minorities really are and how they are developing in number and in percentage. We know that numbers are important, if only to determine the level of government services, for example. We are also trying to determine how they are developing in terms of space, their distribution, as well as the effects these migrations have on new francophone communities in Ontario and elsewhere, particularly in western Canada.

Secondly, we are trying to understand the factors that affect their growth. This includes demographic elements. In my opinion, one of the things that is of great concern to researchers at this time is the aging of francophone communities. Immigration is another factor. We know how important this has become, particularly for the Official Languages Commissioner, for whom immigration is a leading concern.

There are therefore demographic factors as well as community resources. This involves institutional completeness and resources in various areas. There is a growing interest in francophone entrepreneurs. We are also examining areas such as health, a timely theme for this committee. And we are also interested in the effects of on-line access to francophone organizations, associations and institutions.

Among the growth factors, there is the issue of the role of rights and statutes as factors in maintaining the vitality of a community. The new Canadian Institution for Research on Linguistic Minorities which is located in Moncton has made this its principal theme: that is, rights and legislation, as well as issues relating to attitudes, motivation and commitment, as well as identity. My colleague Roger Bernard had begun an in-depth examination of these issues. This is also something that is of great interest to the Heritage Canada research team, who wants to better understand motivations. I know that there has been talk of undertaking a country-wide study, particularly among our youth, to understand how these communities see themselves.

Finally, I can speak to the usefulness of our work. Not only do we find it interesting and stimulating, but we truly believe that it will serve a purpose. That is what is special about researchers involved in the study of minority francophone communities: most of them are determined to produce knowledge that can help in making the right decisions, knowledge that will promote a greater development of these communities and explain how to go about doing so. I could tell you about how some of us have provided planning support for the Canada-community agreements. We are not cut off from the real world and from the decision-making process, because we work quite closely with Canadian francophone organizations and with their government partners.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Good morning. In a moment I will tie my questions in to today's subject.

First of all, I would like to tell you how happy I am to meet both of you on a personal as well as a professional level. I feel the same way about the Social Sciences and Humanities Council, an organization that I had already heard of. I must admit, however, that I had never given very much thought to its mandate nor to its objectives.

You stated earlier that your annual budget was $200 million and you implied that this was a small amount, probably in comparison to the G-8 or the OECD budgets. But according to your math, $200 million over five years would represent $1 billion. You said that $10 million was invested in official languages research. If you have a modest budget, than the amount that is dedicated to official languages is just as small. I would like to hear what you have to say on that.

Moreover, since your research is, undoubtedly, useful and relevant, I would like to know whether Minister Dion, in drafting his action plan, referred to research that was done by the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada so as to show the connection between the researchers and the application of the research. In such cases, politics can be put to judicious use. I know it sounds like I am straying from the subject, but I am about to make my point.

I know that Ms. Adam, for whom I have the greatest respect, from time to time requests a study on immigration or education within francophone communities, for example, and I would like to know whether there is some relationship between these government representatives and the Social Sciences and Humanities Council. Could you give me a brief answer? That was my first comment; then I would like to deal with rights and statutes.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Christian Sylvain: I will try to be as brief as possible. Indeed, the council's budget for 2003-2004 is nearly $200 million, but it was half that five years ago. The council has evolved incredibly over the past few years, but so has the demand from the research community. I will go back to this issue later.

The funding for research into official languages may appear to be modest, but personally, when I saw the figures, I found it quite remarkable that such an investment was being made in these issues. There are thousands of research topics, and this is why I find it interesting that we are investing what are, after all, reasonable amounts of money, at least that's the way it seems to me, in this field.

As for Minister Dion, he met with the SSHRCC board of directors last March to provide an outline of his action plan. We in the council prepared a type of update on research into official languages. I have not yet mentioned this, but you have before you a document on the research funded by the council over the past few years. The report covers four areas. First of all, there is a lack of research on official languages, and that appears to be caused by a scarcity of researchers in this field. Ms. Gilbert referred to this phenomenon earlier. So we could fund a bit more research, but the community has to be able to provide the researchers.

The research community is really scattered throughout the country; researchers are isolated and they work in small teams. The situation in many universities, or even throughout the country, is that there is no critical mass making it possible to form research teams or carry out research programs. So even if the council wanted to fund such teams, it could not do so.

Another aspect of this update, that you yourself mentioned, Mr. Sauvageau, is a lack of indicators. Indeed, we do not have any indicators enabling us to gauge the vitality of these communities in minority language situations. Nevertheless, Ms. Gilbert may be able to comment on this issue more specifically.

Since the beginning of the summer, the council has been negotiating with Heritage Canada and the Intergovernmental Secretariat, in this case, Mr. Dion's group, in order to launch a joint initiative aimed specifically at rectifying these shortcomings in our system. First of all, we want to revitalize the research community. We want to work towards preparing successors; because we need to ensure that the researchers who are entering the system, namely students at the doctorate level, are interested in these issues. And we want to create a network amongst the researchers who are too isolated and to ensure that there is a link between the research problems that we are finding in this area and policy development that may have an impact on the communities.

The details of this joint initiative are not available yet as we are still in the process of negotiating. It will nevertheless be a partnership agreement with these two other groups. We will try to significantly increase the SSHRCC investment in research. We will probably be adding five, six, seven or eight million dollars to the $10 million budget we have been working with over the past five years.

This was a quick answer to the many aspects you raised in your question. Ms. Gilbert may have some details to add, particularly with respect to the question about Ms. Adam, the inquiries, the indicators and so on and so forth.

¿ (0935)

Ms. Anne Gilbert: I believe that the question dealt with the ties between the various government agencies. Clearly, I'm not the most knowledgeable one to talk about this, but I am very much aware of the efforts that are being made. There is a tremendous amount of discussion taking place. We are invited to participate in these discussions as researchers, but the matter of the budget is a fundamental issue in all these discussions. There is agreement about what is necessary and about what needs to be done, but there is still no agreement about the way to pay for this research.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

Mr. Sylvain, I haven't studied this, but, at first glance, it seems to me that a significant intervenor is missing, namely Statistics Canada, in order to come up with indicators along with Heritage Canada and Mr. Dion. You just have to make sure that you don't doctor the questions as Statistics Canada will perhaps provide you with better indicators. But that is not a budget item. This is an opinion and I am sharing it with you. It would also be easier, and then you could adjust the budgets based on good questions that would be asked by Statistics Canada. When the questions are too relevant, you either fiddle around with them or you simply remove the important player, Statistics Canada, and try and turn it over to a political organization that will be able to ask the questions it wants and obtain the answers that it is hoping for.

As far as vitality factors are concerned, you talked about rights and laws. I am now doing to focus more directly on the objective of our study.

So that we don't reinvent the wheel, could you tell us whether, as researchers, you are aware of any studies that have been done on the federal government's legislative obligation to intervene in areas under provincial jurisdiction in order to guarantee the rights of francophones?

I know that this is an issue or subject which is not clear. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act guarantee certain rights to the communities, but there is also the Constitution which, through sections 92 and 93, confers certain areas of jurisdiction to the provinces.

Are you aware of any studies that have been done on this issue, either by the council in Moncton, or by the University of Ottawa, that we are unaware of and which could be useful to us in this report?

My question is aimed specifically at you, Ms. Gilbert. If you wish to add anything, Mr. Sylvain, I would be pleased to hear what you have to say.

Ms. Anne Gilbert: We carefully read the recent legal decisions concerning official language communities and their education rights, in particular, but looking at the broader issue of the Montfort case as well. Some legal experts are studying that case carefully in an effort to try and determine what impact this will have.

I could send Mr. Bélanger or the clerk a list of the most recent studies. It is difficult to answer that question now, but I know that this is a fundamental issue. What do all these various decisions mean and how are we to interpret them so that they will be as useful as possible when we apply them to a wide variety of files?

The Chair: Mr. Simard.

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Sylvain and Ms. Gilbert.

You have to some extent answered my questions, but I am going to ask you two questions that are a little bit more precise.

You talked about the 2,000 chairs and the 400 chairs in the social sciences and humanities. In your presentation, you also mentioned the support for institutions and the assistance provided to small universities.

As regards the 400 chairs, I would like to know if there are any criteria set to ensure that the institutions in minority situations are represented.

For example, I am thinking of the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface and the Faculté Saint-Jean in Edmonton. I know that it is very difficult for these establishments to obtain chairs; normally, they compete with the University of Toronto.

I would like to know if, in principle, there really is support for institutions in a minority situation.

Mr. Christian Sylvain: With regard to the chair program, chairs have been allocated to universities across Canada on the basis of the research grants they have obtained in recent years.

With the program in its current form, the past determines the future, as it were. This does not help smaller universities which have less research capacity. You are absolutely right. That is why when the program was designed 6 per cent of chairs—120 chairs—were set aside and not allocated on the basis of previous performance, as measured by grants received from the three federal granting councils. They were allocated on the basis of applications for the chairs submitted by smaller universities. In other words, 120 chairs have been set aside for the smaller universities, and they can get those chairs if they can show that they have a research plan and the capacity to make use of the chairs. That is how we succeeded in bringing some equilibrium to a program that initially appeared to favour large universities.

¿ (0940)

Ms. Anne Gilbert: I'd like to add something here, because this gives me a chance to talk about some problems experienced by small universities, where most researchers working in French are based. Most of them are in small universities, where the priority is on teaching undergraduates. Professors there give five or six courses a year; compare that to a professor who is also a known researcher teaching at the University of Toronto or in other major universities—he would have to give only two or three courses a year. The smaller universities do not have masters and Ph.D. programs, within the framework of which most university research takes place. It is while doing their masters and Ph.D.s that students make contributions, and that professors organize research work.

This means there is less research experience in small universities, where most Canadian francophone researchers can be found. This relative lack of research experience could hinder them in obtaining grants from the council that aim for excellence. This means we are in a somewhat different niche.

We should also bear in mind the fact that research is heavily committed, often in cooperation with organizations or governments. Research that meets specific needs is not necessarily the kind of research that leads to publications in recognized channels. The research leads to reports, but not necessarily to publication. As a result, when it comes to SSHRC competitions, those who do research on francophone minorities and are extremely skilled do not always meet grant criteria.

If I may, I would also like to comment on something I experienced myself, on something that seems to reveal problems with the system. I came across a project I considered excellent. The project was recognized by assessors as being an excellent one as well. I played an active role; I was the project promoter. It focused on health and the francophonie within the framework of the Community-University Research Alliances Program, which comes under the SSHRC. We were researchers who fit into the program very well. The program had been designed for us. The project was assessed very positively, and we received proper recognition for content. However, when it came to assessing the research team, which was made up of individuals who were very skilled but who perhaps did not meet the criteria as well as individuals in teams from major universities, we did not quite make the grade. We came in just under it. There is a grading system, and we received a letter explaining that we had scored 81, while the last CURA project funded had scored 83. So in terms of content quality, we did very well, but our research team did not quite meet the criteria.

This year, we reapplied for a grant under the same program. We were smart, we worked the content to raise the score and were somewhat opportunistic as well. We asked several highly experienced colleagues, probably those who could be the best, to withdraw and included some colleagues who had more experience. We went with people who had the most research experience—in other words, the most work published in recognized journals—to raise our team score in the hope that we would get the grant this time. I wanted to tell you about this experience so that you can understand the environment in which we work.

Mr. Raymond Simard: I know the system quite well. For instance, I know St. Boniface College quite well, and I know the researchers there. They have a very good reputation. It's like the chicken and the egg: if you don't give people a chance to demonstrate their abilities and publish, then they have no chance when new chairs are announced. I am a bit disappointed.

Secondly, you talked about the aging of francophone communities. That is something I am particularly interested in. As far as I know, in Winnipeg the age group 65 and over accounts for 16 per cent of the city's population, while in the francophone community it accounts for 25 per cent of the population. That is a considerable difference.

There is one thing I would like to know. Once you study what you study and do your research, where does the information go? When you do your research and publish but it doesn't go anywhere, what does anyone get out of it? Not much. What are your research results and where do they go? What can we expect from your research results?

¿ (0945)

Ms. Anne Gilbert: As researchers, we have two main goals: official publication in academic journals so that we can continue and improve our careers, and dissemination of our research among users. That is why programs like CURA, which focus more on dissemination to users, are of particular interest to us.

We don't always succeed in doing what we would like to do. We are subject to all kinds of restrictions. Perhaps we don't always get our results out as much as we would like, but I think we can still be proud of what we do accomplish, particularly in small universities like St. Boniface College, which has closer ties with its community than the major universities. When we talked to people in St. Boniface College about our work on francophone health, they said they were not the best people to contact. They told us to call the hospital directly because that is where their partners were. On the whole, there is a good network everywhere. We don't perhaps recognize all our partners, and the network is not always evident. We perceive universities as being very distant and not very useful in advancing some projects, but I think that these are really prejudices, no more.

The Chair: One last short question, Mr. Simard.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Are any efforts made to forge partnerships, between the University of Ottawa and colleges in the west, for example, to ensure that smaller universities are involved in research?

Ms. Anne Gilbert: I think that we are seeing more and more of that, because the granting councils are forcing us to do it. We recognize that a multidisciplinary team has much greater potential. First of all, we encourage experts to communicate. We also encourage teams made up of researchers from a number of universities. In Quebec, research is funded by a single organization, but outside Quebec, there is no organization other than the SSHRC that can fund research, and that is quite unfortunate. Quebec has the Conseil québécois de la recherche sociale, which is a very important body. The Conseil will no longer fund individual research; people have to work in teams. If they do not work in teams, they do not get funding. That is the direction in which we are moving.

The Chair: Mr. Sylvain, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Christian Sylvain: Yes, I would like to add three comments on research capacity, which is a very important issue. Yes, it is disappointing, but we should not give up either. There are things we can do. For years now, the SSHRC has been providing financial assistance for all research establishments in Canada, small or large, so that they can do house research without participating in major competitions. The purpose of this approach is to develop research capacity. But we have to find more suitable formulas.

Ms. Gilbert mentioned CURA, a program established by the SSHRC several years ago. Its full name is the Community-University Research Alliances Program, and its purpose is to hook up suitable researchers with communities that have specific problems. In CURA's early days, it was not the major universities who received funding; rather, it was the small universities and colleges, because the links that were being forged tended by their very nature to be in small communities, where small universities and colleges like Saint-Boniface College were well established. In fact, some 30 per cent of all CURA projects are in small universities.

I should also point out that it is not always a funding issue. Ms. Gilbert talked about having to develop a research culture in small universities. That is something to which the SSHRC can contribute, but the development of that culture will also depend on an institutional framework. There are other factors involved.

The SSHRC can accept only 40 per cent of the funding applications it receives, in comparison with 70 to 75 per cent of applications approved by granting councils in engineering, natural sciences and medicine. Yet your peer review boards recommend 30 per cent more projects than those which received funding, but we simply do not have the money to cover them all. Those projects are just as good as those which are funded, but for one reason or another they do not get money. Many, many research projects worthy of support are being carried out in small universities. Why do we not fund them? Often because the research environment there is weaker than it is elsewhere, and the risks are greater. This is why we want people to network, to forge links among one another. That is SSHRC's goal. As much as possible, this is what we try to do.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Like my colleague, I am somewhat curious about the Moncton project. In my view, the Moncton institute has enormous potential. I think I can say that today, the people of New Brunswick are more bilingual than they used to be, and this has been achieved primarily because of our French and English immersion systems. But we might lose the advantage we have on that score because many anglophones studying in French immersion programs have no opportunity to use French later in their lives.

[English]

I know the University of Moncton has just recently discussed having a joint program with Mount Allison University whereby you could actually study in French at Mount A, so that those students who had studied in immersion programs could go to an English university and be able to maintain their language. Is SSHRC looking at opportunities—because we have immersion programs all over the country, and even British Columbia has had some fabulous success as well—whereby we can find ways to partner with francophone universities so that students are able to continue their language and hopefully speak a little stronger French than I do?

Mr. Christian Sylvain: All I can say about this is that SSHRC is a federal agency funding research and research training, so of course we do support all kinds of research activities at Mount A and at Moncton.

In fact, Rodrigue Landry, director of the centre you mentioned, has received many research grants from SSHRC over the years. The centre itself hasn't yet put in place its research program, I believe, and has thus not received funding from the council. But it's certainly eligible for it.

We do promote linkages between universities and encourage them through our programming, but language immersion programs are not eligible for funding by us; only research on those issues is.

Mr. John Herron: The research is the real concern for me. There are 14,000 people who speak both languages in Fundy Royal now, the anglo bastion of the province. On paper New Brunswick has been bilingual for a number of years, but I think in reality I can say it is more and more so now.

I'm just frightened that these students who graduate from the immersion programs—and it's increasingly been the majority of the students now—could lose that advantage. I think it's very important from a research perspective that we actually track that, as the years go by, because really the first immersion programs are still only about a decade old.

It would be very curious to track where those students are now and where their French is right at the moment, too. I think there's an immense opportunity there for life-long learning, in particular for ensuring that we maintain the unique advantage we have in my province and enhancing it elsewhere in the country.

[Translation]

The Chair: Are there any further comments?

[English]

Mr. Christian Sylvain: I'll just very briefly mention that the joint initiative with Heritage Canada and PCO I mentioned earlier seeks to do just that—to build research expertise and prepare the next generation of researchers to ensure that we get at those questions you mentioned in the case of New Brunswick, for example.

The other thing you'll find in your deck also is a couple of slides on what has come to be called the SSHRC transformation. I don't want to get into this—we don't have time—but one of the things we want to accomplish there is to revise the way we train students, particularly at the graduate level, in cultural fluidity. Bilingualism is clearly an objective of the way we want to approach research training in the future.

¿ (0955)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. Sylvain, you have given us a list of projects supported by your council. These involve research on Canada's linguistic duality. This is for a four-year period. The list seems to include a number of the items that we have discussed. What percentage of the applications submitted to your council on a yearly basis would this represent, for example?

Mr. Christian Sylvain: I don't have the numbers with me, but I could provide them or send them to the committee. Mr. Sauvageau said earlier that we had invested $10 million out of a total of $500 million or $600 million over the past few years, but I don't have the figures that relate to the number of applications.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: We would like to have information on the proportion of applications submitted, not only in this field but in this one particularly, and we would also like to know how many were accepted.

Ms. Gilbert, you mentioned a project you are in charge of involving the health of francophone communities. Did I understand that correctly? If so, can you elaborate?

Ms. Anne Gilbert: We have brought together a group of researchers from seven universities, from Winnipeg to Moncton, including four research centres in Ontario and a research centre in Quebec, at the University of Montreal, who do work involving the health of populations. These researchers all share a common interest, namely, to try and understand the health dynamic amongst francophone minority populations, including the health of the people, their responsibility for health care and institutionalization in the health care field.

The aim of this project is to establish a research capability in this field, something that has not been well developed until now. We undertake a great deal of research in education, which is fundamental to maintaining official language communities, but very little is known about the health of these minority communities. We have brought together some 20 specialists from these seven universities who, together, will set up a certain number of projects.

I am rather proud to say that we have set aside part of the funding for this project, a very small amount, to allow for meetings and for networking, because we realize that this is important. We are trying to earmark $150,000 out of an annual budget of $200,000 for the research itself, namely, to pay the research assistants who will be going into the field to conduct studies, ask questions, try to find answers, and to do this in close cooperation with our partners in the communities. Within the next five years this research should help us to begin to better understand their direct involvement in health care and the relationship between this involvement, and the real as well as the perceived needs.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you very much. I think that project is very interesting. I hope that at some point, we will have the opportunity to look at the results.

Ms. Anne Gilbert: Certainly.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: It is fine for the moment, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Thibeault.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to the committee.

Ms. Gilbert, you said you come from the University of Ottawa, did you not? You also said that there were people working for the minorities in Quebec and you stopped there. Later, you mentioned other universities in Canada. I got the impression you were saying that the most intensive research was being done in Ottawa and in Quebec. I would like to find out more.

Ms. Anne Gilbert: I probably went too fast because, in actual fact, the University of Moncton is one of the main places where research on francophone Canada is being done. There is research going on in many Ontario universities like the Université Laurentienne where there are major teams. At the University of Toronto, there is the CREFO, the Centre de recherches en éducation franco-ontarienne, where they are looking at the whole question of identities. There is also another rather important group at the Collège universitaire. It is a far bigger network than the one in Ottawa which is the one I perhaps know best.

À (1000)

Mr. Yvon Godin: Could you tell me a bit more about the problem you had to face? You said that you were having problems in getting a project accepted and that you almost had to change it and adapt it so that it would be accepted and even include new people. Mr. Chairman, it would seem that when people in our major centres make decisions, they are awfully afraid of dealing with the regions. It is as though the regions were going to steal their jobs. It is as though by giving something to the regions, they were going to be losing something of their own. But in truth, you get your material in the field. You cannot catch fish on Yonge Street in Toronto or on Sainte-Catherine Street in Montreal. Where you catch fish is in my neck of the woods.

Ms. Anne Gilbert: If there are any.

Mr. Yvon Godin: If there are any. There are not many anymore, but that is where you catch them anyway. The same goes for this case. When you talk about minority regions, you have to physically go to those minority regions. That is the best place to develop quality researchers like Michel Doucet, at the University of Moncton, who is working very hard examining the situation of francophone minorities.

Some good decisions were made in New Brunswick. We deplore it when we see the government going to court to argue that the rights of minorities should not exist. It is like swimming against the current. The government says it agrees with minorities, but when they win in court, it fights them so that they will not be able to enjoy their rights.

The government gives a lot of money to universities but it is as though it wanted that money to go to the large centres where, apparently, the best teachers and best institutions are to be found. It is the same thing when you want to create jobs. The best place for that is Toronto, Montreal, Calgary or Vancouver. I think this should be done in the field. Should we not recommend that the government put more emphasis on our regions? Do you understand my question?

Ms. Anne Gilbert: I tried to give a quick explanation to Ms. Thibeault to the effect that seven research centres, one in Quebec, were actually meeting. So we have already been able, outside of Quebec, to get together a group of specialists on the health of francophones.

But we also had to face the fact that we don't have much research experience in that area. You have to be realistic. So we had to define health as broadly as possible, find colleagues of ours in political science and sociology who were also interested in health but in the broadest possible sense of the term. There is a group of researchers at the University of Moncton who had done some work on that question, but from the point of view of social economy and community organizations being responsible for development. It's a very active group that played a very important role in drawing up the application. My closest partner was Marie-Thérèse Séguin from the University of Moncton.

The researchers from the other universities were also invited but research capacity is uneven, and we have to quietly try to correct that but we also have to live with that fact.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Sylvain is the one who spoke about the 6 per cent of chairs that have had to be reserved. Don't you already have a problem when you have to reserve 6 per cent? Why isn't the program pan-Canadian? Why can't the regions participate fully in this program? Six per cent is crumbs, leftovers.

I repeat that the research has to be done in the field where you have the problem. I don't think the problem is here in Ottawa. You'll find the problem in the Acadian Peninsula where they're fighting just to get French. The problem is in Saint-Jean, in the Bay of Fundy. It's out in the regions in Manitoba, in Saint-Boniface. That's where you have the problem. Six per cent is being set aside for the outlying areas and we're all proud of that, but... Don't you think that that 6 per cent shouldn't even exist and that we should actually say that there is a total amount of money, that everything is going to be re-evaluated and that we're going to have a program for Canada as a whole?

À (1005)

Mr. Christian Sylvain: You're quite right. I can only agree with what you have said. That's why I emphasized before that the 6 per cent only represented one program. We're not the ones who conceived this program, but it is there to remedy the fact that the small universities don't have a huge research capacity. If we went by what they did in the past, they would probably get nothing. But we're still giving them a certain number of those chairs.

We have to work on creating capacity for those universities. You're quite right in saying that the problems are to be found in the Acadian Peninsula and Baie Sainte-Marie. Those establishments have to be able to come and knock on the doors of the council in Ottawa to get research grants. We're ready to listen to them. In any case, as I was saying before, the CURAs which serve as a funding model for those small universities are working remarkably well.

So we have to continue building our research capacity. One way of doing it is to create critical mass. When you only have a researcher here and a researcher there, it's not enough to get a research team together. They're not all at the same place because the university centres of Shippagan or Edmundston aren't big establishments. As Ms. Gilbert was saying, those people do a lot teaching. They don't have a lot of time to put into research, but they do have skills that tie in with the community. What should be done? We have to put them in touch with their fellow researchers elsewhere and organize the whole thing. The joint initiative I spoke of before is there to create that capacity.

Mr. Yvon Godin: How can the Shippagan campus of the University of Moncton be competitive given that you could not get approval for a project that you found good, as you said yourself? There are some high-placed researchers or decision-makers who do not want to let go. Is that not what is happening?

Ms. Anne Gilbert: I don't think it is about people who do not want to let go. It has to do with a certain definition of university research.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Who defined it?

Ms. Anne Gilbert: This is not even a Canadian issue, but rather an international one. I do not think we can change the rules of the game radically. We must rather ensure that we are increasingly able to be in the game at this level. The University of Moncton has only existed for 20 years. We are creating an Acadian capacity through institutions such as the University of Moncton, and we must continue to do that. These institutions have produced many people with undergraduate degrees. However, we must now move to the next stage. We must train people at the masters and doctorate levels, people who will become professors and will be able to do research.

If I had to convey one message, I would say that the support of the SSHRC is very important to us because it helps us train our students and attract them into our projects. In a department like mine, geography, I have one main way of attracting students to come and do some work on francophone minorities, and that is the projects I can offer them—namely, summer jobs, and research jobs. This year, I managed to attract four masters' students with an SSHRC project, because I offered them an opportunity to visit four francophone communities next summer. We will be spending three weeks in Baie Sainte-Marie and three weeks out west, with a colleague from Alberta, and we will go to two communities in Ontario as well. It looks like an interesting research project. All of a sudden, the subject is becoming popular.

The Chair: The committee has been trying to travel for a long time, but we have not yet succeeded.

Ms. Anne Gilbert: Ask the SSHRC to help you out.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We could ask the SSHRC, or we could ask the Canadian Alliance to change its mind.

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I have two very brief questions. I have looked through the research projects that have been done. In both cases, could you send us the research, if any has been done, on the federal government's role in areas affecting official language minority communities that come under its exclusive jurisdiction, such as hospitals for veterans and aboriginal people? These are areas where there are no jurisdictional squabbles and where the courts have not been involved. In areas where the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction, how does it ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act? That is my first question.

I have a more specific question for Mr. Sylvain. As a federal institution, you are required to promote sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act. How is that reflected in the analysis of research projects in small universities or universities located in minority communities?

À (1010)

Mr. Christian Sylvain: It is reflected first through our efforts to promote our programs in small universities. People have to be aware of the rules of the game. We work very hard to ensure that the rules of the game are properly understood in small universities, where there is less support for research activities.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Excuse me for interrupting you. In your criteria, which you could perhaps send us through our clerk, there is certainly a reference to sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act, and that's what the members of the committee would like to see, I believe.

Mr. Christian Sylvain: All right.

The Chair: On that very subject, with your permission, I'd like to thank our researcher Mr. Ménard whose overview of both councils was very good. Later we will be meeting a representative of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, but first I think we must congratulate the Social Sciences Research Council of Canada for its approach, because not only does it meet the requirements of the Official Languages Act in terms of operations, hiring, language of work and service to the public, but it applies these same policies for managers even when this is not a requirement. Based on Mr. Ménard's analysis, I say bravo. If everyone did what you do, we'd all be better off. I wanted to point that out because I think it's important.

Ms. Gilbert, I wanted to tell you that it is true that the commissioner paid special attention to immigration matters, as did parliamentarians. The legislation was amended with their help and it does contain obligations with regard to linguistic duality. I'd like to point out that our colleague Ms. Thibault was a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration at the time.

The fact is that our committee examined the issue of immigration before broaching the issue of health care. We produced a report and we expect to receive the government's response to it in early October. Much more in-depth research could be conducted on this topic, which brings me to the following. Take a quick look at the list that you provided us with, Mr. Sylvain. I also consulted a list that came from the Minister of Industry and from the Secretary of State for science, research and development. This was the list of doctoral and graduate scholarships that have just been granted to the University of Ottawa. I read it quickly.

It doesn't contain much on immigration, and even less on health care. The biggest priority of language communities both anglophone and francophone is health care. The issue of education is not totally solved, but most of the work has been done. We've demanded that our rights be respected and there are school systems everywhere.

Mr. Sylvain, could you tell us to what extent the council can direct research so that it genuinely corresponds with the priorities of these communities, such as health care, for example? It is not appropriate to intervene in the selection process of your research projects, but if we consider the type of project Ms. Gilbert was mentioning, could we take a regular look at the direction the council's research work is taking?

Mr. Christian Sylvain: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to point out that the SSHRC has a multiannual implementation plan for the plan of action. On its website, the council has just made public its achievements over the past few years with regard to section 41. I will provide this to the committee, but the information has been accessible to the public through the Internet for several weeks now.

To answer your question, Mr. Chairman, I would say that research groups can join up with community groups through community-university research alliances, or CURAs. Our mandate does not allow us to provide direct funding to community groups who cannot conduct research themselves. However, they can work with local researchers, for example, in order to gain access to research subsidies. This is what Ms. Gilbert did. This is an extremely important tool for community groups.

The SSHRC can also create a strategic project on a given problem and supervise researchers. Researchers do not always work on these issues or may not work in a concerted manner. The SSHRC therefore can and increasingly seeks to draw attention to a given problem or theme, make sure the work around this theme is done and transfer the knowledge to decision-makers. That is what we do.

The Chair: Do your negotiations with Heritage Canada and the Privy Council focus on this?

Mr. Christian Sylvain: Yes, absolutely.

À (1015)

The Chair: So they focus on health and access to health care for minority communities.

Mr. Christian Sylvain: That is one of the issues, but the focus is broader than that. It is about official languages and the situation of minority language communities. So there are a lot of issues being negotiated right now. Health is obviously one of them. I do not know how much money will be targeted to this particular area because it has not yet been decided; we are still negotiating.

The Chair: Regarding the study that Ms. Gilbert mentioned, can we find out when it will be decided whether there will be funding for this or not?

Ms. Anne Gilbert: According to the information I have right now, it will be around the middle of the fall, in mid-November.

The Chair: If that is the case, I would ask you, on behalf of the committee—notice that I am being careful not to get involved in the selection process since this is done by pure review—how long it would be before we had the first results.

Ms. Anne Gilbert: I would say that there is already a fairly detailed work plan right now, since people were preparing for this for over two years. There is already quite a detailed work plan. I think that after one year of work by the CURA group we could expect to have results that we could publish and share with you.

The Chair: If so, could we ask you, if you do get the funding, to share your results with the Standing Committee on Official Languages of the House of Commons? We would very much appreciate that.

Ms. Anne Gilbert: Yes, I have noted your request. I would add that we have now set up a network of people that want to work together. If we do not get the funding, we would look for money elsewhere, from the institutes, for example, whom you will be hearing from shortly. But that is for down the road.

The Chair: Well, stay with us and we will see. This is a very good introduction.

We will now discuss these issues with the representatives of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Thank you, Mr. Sylvain and Ms. Gilbert. People were wondering at first why we wanted to meet with you, but I think we can now see that it was useful. Thank you very much.

Mr. Christian Sylvain: Thank you very much.

The Chair: We will now continue, if you will.

We have with us Mr. Mark Bisby, Vice-President of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and Ms. Michele O'Rourke, who is also with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

You may have seen how the presentations work. We ask you to make your presentation and then we have a period of questions and answers.

I would first like to give you a bit of context. The committee received a mandate from the House of Commons to study the whole issue of health care services for minority official language communities across Canada. We have met with quite a number of people, including community representatives, officials from government agencies, etc. There is the whole research aspect. Committee members will also take the opportunity if they want to ask questions about the operation of the institutes, which are also subject to the Official Languages Act. The questions can move from one subject to another, as you no doubt noticed in the last round.

Mr. Bisby, you have the floor.

Mr. Mark Bisby (Vice-President, Research, Canadian Institutes of Health Research): Thank you very much for inviting me to make a presentation about the role of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The CIHR is the main federal agency responsible for funding health research in Canada. The institutes' mission is to achieve excellence, as measured against recognized international standards of scientific excellence, in creating new knowledge and applying it to improving the health of the Canadian population, providing new health products and services and strengthening Canada's health system.

We have 13 institutes that include the Institute of Population and Public Health and the Institute of Health Services and Policy Research.

We support research in the four major areas of health research: biomedical research, clinical research, research into health systems and services and population health research, that is, the environmental, genetic, social and other factors that influence population health.

À (1020)

[English]

One of our major cross-cutting concerns at CIHR is reducing health disparity and ensuring equal access to health services among Canadian populations. We have at the moment two calls for applications out to the research community that are relevant to this issue.

The first one is entitled “Reducing Health Disparities” and it is intended to increase the capacity of the Canadian health research community in this area. It's supporting, for example, a kind of research program that we call new emerging teams. It is intended to form a team of researchers grouped around a recognized leader in the field that allows a group of lesser researchers to come together and increase their expertise, to increase their standard of research, and also to support researchers who are new to the system, who are coming into the universities in their first university appointments.

The second request for applications that we have out at the moment is a request in the area of rural, remote, and northern health. Here again the emphasis is on the development of research because these are areas of research that need more capacity in Canada. And here particularly, we're emphasizing relationships with communities. So one of the eligible areas of research is research partnerships among researchers at hospitals, universities, and community organizations.

So I think both of these calls for proposal that we have right now are very relevant to the issue of interest to this community.

A year ago Health Canada's two consultative committees on the health needs of linguistic minority communities reported to Health Canada. As a result of their reports, we had some meetings during this past summer led by Hubert Gauthier, a member of the governing council of CIHR, who was a co-chair of the consultative committee looking at the needs of francophone linguistic minority communities. As a result of those meetings, and, I think, as our appreciation that this is an under-researched area in Canada, we've put together a four-point plan to address the lack of strategic information that both those consultative committees identified as necessary to advance the health status of the linguistic minority communities in Canada.

So our four-point plan is this. First, in any future requests for applications that we put out to the research community that deal with issues of health disparities and equality of access to health services, we will include a paragraph on the need to ensure quality of access to official language minority communities. I understand that in our current call there is one application that is addressing this specific issue.

Secondly, we are going to put in place, probably in the early winter, an invitational workshop that brings together the admittedly limited number of health researchers in Canada who have interests in looking at the issue of access to services by the official linguistic minority communities. We are going to put together an invitational workshop to draw up a specific research agenda in this area.

What are the key questions that need to be addressed? We know that we need to collect much better information about the health status of the linguistic minority communities and we also know that we need to look at research into the best types of interventions and at an evaluation of service improvements to see whether there have been increases and improvements in their health status.

Thirdly, we will have a small steering committee put together with representatives from the consortium of francophone universities across Canada, the Société Santé en français, and the two consultative committees, the anglophone and the francophone consultative committees, as well as from Health Canada and Statistics Canada. We have the members of that steering committee now appointed, including representatives from the two consultative committees. I'm currently trying to find a date when we can meet to put the steering committee to direct CIHR's overall strategy in that area.

À (1025)

Finally, we are going to look at the possibility—we'll have to see how the cashflow is this year—of providing a one-time development grant to the universities that are members of the consortium of francophone universities to help them with their networking efforts across Canada and to use it to develop their health research strategies within those institutions. Most of those institutions, with the exception of the University of Ottawa, are small and do not have a well-developed capacity for health research.

Two years ago, we provided similar development grants to all of the small institutions in Canada, including several, but not all, members of this consortium. We feel that there is a special need here. We would certainly be looking to the possibility of providing them with a one-time development grant.

I think, Mr. Chair, that is the conclusion of my presentation.

[Translation]

I will be pleased to answer questions from committee members.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. O'Rourke, do you have any comments?

Ms. Michèle O'Rourke (Associate, Strategic Initiatives,Canadian Institutes of Health Research): No. I would just like to mention that I work for 2 of the 13 institutes, including the Institute of Health Services and Policy Research. In 2001 and 2002, we made a call for applications focusing on improved access to health care for minority populations. We did not target linguistic minorities in particular, but it is a related area.

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You say that you work for 2 of the 13 institutes. I know about Genome Canada, but that does not come under the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Are there a lot of other agencies like that in the health field that come under the federal government but that are not part of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research?

[English]

Mr. Mark Bisby: Il y en a plusieurs. There's Genome Canada. There's the Canada research chairs program, which supports about 35% of its chairs in the field of health. There is the networks of centres of excellence program. There is the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. There is the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which provides infrastructure in all domains, including health.

There are a number of federal organizations that contribute to health research directly or indirectly.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: By the way, I find it amusing to see that one of your institutes is called in French the Institute of Women's and Men's Health, which is a very inclusive title. It covers everyone. The other types of people must be quite rare. So I find that you are very inclusive, which is a good thing.

I now have a few questions for you. Since health is a shared jurisdiction, could you tell me which aspects are under exclusive federal jurisdiction in the 13 institutes that have been created as part of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research?

À (1030)

[English]

Mr. Mark Bisby: The federal power is exclusively to support research. That is our sole mandate.

Actually, no, that's not quite true. It's to support research and it's also to ensure that the research is translated to the benefit of Canadians. We have a two-part mandate.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Very well. Let us take the example of the Institute of Aboriginal Peoples' Health. Aboriginal health, as we know, is an exclusive federal jurisdiction. Is that correct?

[English]

Mr. Mark Bisby: Yes, exactly.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Unfortunately, neither the federal nor the provincial governments have exclusive jurisdiction over aging, and that is true for the other institutes. So, among the 13 institutes, the only one that works in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction is the one concerned with aboriginal health, if I am not mistaken.

I would like to know whether you are doing any research on the federal government's role in its areas of exclusive jurisdiction for health and on the connection with official languages, for example, regarding aboriginal people and veterans. It seems to me that I am talking to the right organization, since the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which is subject to the Official Languages Act, should be able to act where the federal government has sole jurisdiction. How are the institutes implementing and complying with the Official Languages Act? I would ask you to do a little research into that—I am sure that it will not be too complicated—and send us something through our clerk.

Second, what percentage of the $727 million budget for last year and the $752 million budget for this year is earmarked for studies of francophone minorities? Is it 1 per cent, 5 per cent or 10 per cent? If you do not have the answer today, you can send it to us later.

[English]

Mr. Mark Bisby: We will try to find you the information you seek. There are a number of ways of defining the question about how much money goes to the minority communities. I can say that around 7% of the applications we receive are written in French. Of course, many of them will come from areas that are not minority communities—l'Université de Montréal, for example, or l'Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières. But the number of applications that come from, say, the seven—I think it is—universities that are members of the francophone consortium is very small. L'Université d'Ottawa would account for probably 98% of those applications.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I know that it is 7 per cent and that it was 15 per cent. But I also know that you must remind your staff every day of the promotion that you want to do under sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act as a federal institution. So you certainly must have more specific data on that.

In your action plan, you say that implementing the official languages program encountered some difficulties in the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and that an action plan had been introduced to correct the situation. Could you send us that action plan?

In the action plan, you may talk about the 50 per cent of senior managers that do not meet the requirements set by Ms. Robillard, the Treasury Board President, regarding the level of bilingualism for bilingual imperative positions. One of the solutions in that action plan might be to target a whopping $120,000, out of the 752 million dollars, for language training.

First, in your action plan, do you mention what you are going to do about these 50 per cent of senior managers who do not meet the bilingualism requirements?

Second, do you feel that $120,000 is enough?

Third, has your organization hired any accountants who were not accountants when they were hired but who promised that they would get their qualifications? If not, why?

À (1035)

[English]

Mr. Mark Bisby: We have undertaken a big increase in the number of people who are receiving language training. In my own portfolio, two of the directors who report to me have spent the summer on intensive language training, and when they have concluded that and have passed their exams, they will all meet the language requirements of their positions.

Similar efforts are going on across the organization.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Maybe the snooze function on your alarm clock was too slow, but it has been five years now since the Treasury Board President woke the public service to the importance of having bilingually designated positions filled by bilingual people. You are telling us today that you intend to put something in place. To begin with, the act has been in force for 30 years and, second, the new rule was implemented five years ago. It seems to me that you are slow in waking up.

I saw people react when I asked you how many accountants you had hired on the promise that they would become accountants. Why is it not just as natural for a bilingually designated position to be held by a bilingual person, if it is important? It is ridiculous to think that an accountant who is not an accountant can hold a position as an accountant. Why is it not just as ridiculous, according to the public service philosophy, to put a unilingual person in a bilingual position?

The Chair: Mr. Bisby.

Mr. Mark Bisby: I agree with you, of course. Admittedly, our efforts to improve the linguistic situation within the institutes is not up to date. That said, the most important thing is that the services we provide our clients are now available in both official languages.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: All right. I will get into an argument in the second round.

The Chair: I am sorry, but your time is up. I will come back to you later, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau : Very well. I will argue this in the second round.

The Chair : Mr. Bisby, you may finish your answer.

[English]

Have you finished your response?

[Translation]

Mr. Mark Bisby: All staff in the institutes providing services to clients, who are researchers applying for grants from us, are bilingual. So our clients can be served in both official languages. For example, the peer review committees, which are an essential part of the process of approving or rejecting applications, are capable of reviewing applications in both official languages. We consider that essential.

The Chair: Ms. Thibeault, please.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Good morning to both of our witnesses.

The institutes submit a report every year on official languages, is that not correct? In the 2002-2003 report, you mentioned a complaint filed with the commissioner. Can you explain the nature of that complaint to us? Can you tell us whether, in your opinion, it was justified and if the commissioner has responded?

Mr. Mark Bisby: I do not think so. I am not really involved in the situation.

[English]

I will find the information for you and verify the status of this particular complaint.

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My question is this. You were here, I think, for most of the presentation of our previous witnesses. They spoke of 400 research chairs that were dedicated to the human sciences. I'm assuming that among the 2,000 research chairs our government has committed to there will be some chairs in the health area. I'd like to know if there are some provisions for ensuring that smaller universities in regions are assured of getting some of these chairs.

Mr. Mark Bisby: Yes. Of the 2,000 chairs, 700 are in the area of health. The way the chairs have been allocated is on the basis of the aggregate funding each university receives from the three federal research agencies.

However, there is a pool of chairs—I forget exactly how many; I think it's about 5%—that are allocated specifically to the smaller institutions that would not otherwise qualify on the application of a formula. So in a sense the small universities have been given a preference in being able to nominate faculty members to the chairs program.

À (1040)

Mr. Raymond Simard: I have another quick question as well. You spoke of a one-time development grant to universities that are part of the health consortium—in French, I believe. My question is, where does the funding for this one-time grant come from? It doesn't come from the Dion plan, does it?

Mr. Mark Bisby: No.

Mr. Raymond Simard: It's outside of that?

Mr. Mark Bisby: It would come specifically from the funds that CIHR receives.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Mark Bisby: Our council has a strategic reserve that it can use for opportunities that arise during the course of the fiscal year, and that would be the source of funds for this.

Mr. Raymond Simard: I would encourage you to come through with that; I think it's very important.

Mr. Mark Bisby: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Please excuse my behaviour earlier; I got a little carried away.

You say that you provide services in French to those who request them, but that is not what I am talking about. The Treasury Board Secretariat issued a directive on EX-4s and EX-5s. Senior officials should be those who set the example for other employees; here, I am not talking about service delivery, but about EX-4s and EX-5s. This policy was disseminated three or four years before the March 31, 2003 deadline if I understand correctly. The president of Treasury Board said, about this—and I am sure that she was heard by existing senior officials—that she would no longer tolerate any failure on the part of EX-4s and EX-5s to comply with bilingualism regulations, and she would no longer agree to having EX-4s and EX-5s sent for language training, except in cases where such training was initiated before the deadline.

From what I can see, 11 of your EX-4s and EX-5s were not in compliance with the directives on March 31, 2003. I would like to hear your comments.

Mr. Mark Bisby: Forgive me, Mr. Sauvageau, but this is not true. All EX-4s have obtained the level required in the policies.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: What about the EX-5s?

Mr. Mark Bisby: I do not think we have any senior officials at the EX-5 level in our organization.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: This document here states:

As at May 30, 2003, 11 of its 22 executives did not meet the language requirements of their position (either profile CBC or profile CCC). In addition, the CIHR concedes in its 2002-2003 annual review that improvements are required in its central administration regarding the requirement for supervisors to be bilingual.

Is it true that this is stated in your annual report?

Mr. Mark Bisby: I think there must be an error there. We have only three or four EX-4s, and they have the required language profile.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So check who wrote your annual review. This is on page 4 of your 2002-2003 annual review, dated May 30, 2003. If your people are going to put errors in those reviews, then people who read them and do not work for you are going to take them at their word. The President of Treasury Board probably took you at your word as well. So if you do not have any executives needing language training, you do not need money. Is that why?

Mr. Mark Bisby: There is no problem with our EX-4s. I have our annual review right here.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If you have the review, look at page 4. You will see the figures 11 and 22, both in the English and the French.

Mr. Mark Bisby: Here, it states that 82 per cent of people who are with the institutes and have a bilingual position...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You are on page 7.

Mr. Mark Bisby: No, I am on page 4.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I see. In any case, we will check your program.

I will ask a question that is probably highly politically incorrect. The others were politically correct. My question is for Ms. O'Rourke. If you do not wish to answer, Ms. O'Rourke, please let us know.

My question is on Part V of the Official Languages Act, which is on language of work. If there are errors in the annual review and everyone is actually bilingual, can you work in the language of your choice? So, do the institutes comply with Part V of the Official Languages Act , which governs language of work?

À (1045)

Ms. Michele O'Rourke: Do you wish to know whether I personally can work in the language of my choice?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Exactly.

Ms. Michele O'Rourke: Absolutely.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: What about the administrative level?

Ms. Michele O'Rourke: There as well.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I see. This means there is probably an error in the annual report.

Mr. Mark Bisby: Perhaps there is, but I would like to see the document you quoted from.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau Of course, thank you.

The Chair: If I may, I would like to put some questions to the witnesses as well.

First of all, with regard to compliance with the Official Languages Act, particularly part IV, which governs services to the public, and part V, which governs language of work, I must say that your performance is not as strong as that of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Can you tell us whether CIHR has an official languages champion, as do many departments and agencies? Do you know what I mean by official languages champion?

Mr. Mark Bisby: Yes, I know what you mean. Unfortunately, our official languages champion left CIHR.

The Chair: When was that?

[English]

When did he or she leave?

[Translation]

Mr. Mark Bisby: About six months ago, I believe.

The Chair: Have you replaced the champion?

Mr. Mark Bisby: No.

The Chair: Do you intend to replace him?

Mr. Mark Bisby: Yes, of course. We have to.

The Chair: I hope so. We would like to see that happen as quickly as possible. In a moment, you will see why.

Our researcher tells us that the Canadian Institutes of Health Research are not subject to the requirement to prepare an action plan. Do you know what I am talking about?

[English]

In August 1994, the cabinet designed a list of some 20 agencies, institutes, and government departments that had to prepare an action plan in terms of their responsibilities under section 41, part 7, of the Official Languages Act. Are you aware of that?

Mr. Mark Bisby: I am not aware of that.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. O'Rourke? So this is true?

[English]

You are not one of those obliged to.

Are you able to speak on behalf of the institute today in saying whether the institute would consider subjecting itself to such a requirement?

Mr. Mark Bisby: Yes, of course.

The Chair: It would?

Mr. Mark Bisby: Yes.

The Chair: Could we expect, from here on, that the institute would do as the humanities research council does, prepare a tri-annual action plan to respect section 41 of the Official Languages Act and post it?

Mr. Mark Bisby: Yes, I could give you that commitment.

The Chair: That's very good. Thank you very much. This will help you, I think, to satisfy my next series of questions on the substance.

Can I conclude that the institutes were having a bit of an awakening in the last few months in terms of paying attention to minority language communities?

Mr. Mark Bisby: Yes, I think that's correct. As I mentioned, health disparities and inequalities in access to health services is a great concern of ours. There are, of course, many other aspects to that problem in addition to the issue of minority language communities. There is the issue of aboriginal people. There is the issue of immigrants and refugees. There are people who have disabilities. There is the increasing problem of the aged in our society. So there are many other dimensions to the problem.

I think it's true to say that consciousness of the needs of the linguistic minority communities was not at the front of the queue. It was really the consultative committee reports Health Canada put in place that raised our awareness of this issue.

À (1050)

The Chair: Could we contemplate the creation of a fourteenth institute at some point?

Mr. Mark Bisby: The institutes are created by our governing council. They have the power to create new ones, to terminate old ones, and to combine them. I think there is always the possibility of entertaining the creation of additional institutes.

The Chair: Has it been considered for this particular purpose?

Mr. Mark Bisby: No, it has not.

The Chair: You've mentioned the four-point plan.

Mr. Mark Bisby: Yes.

The Chair: Any future requests would include this provision in its research.

Mr. Mark Bisby: Right.

The Chair: You're going to have an invitational workshop this winter. It would be interesting if you were to share with us the conclusions, if there are any, at this workshop. It would be appreciated.

Mr. Mark Bisby: Absolutely.

The Chair: The steering committee and the one-time grant, could it possibly be the seed of an institute, in your opinion?

Mr. Mark Bisby: I suppose so.

The Chair: I understand that I'm putting you on the spot.

Mr. Mark Bisby: You certainly are.

It could be. In the initial group of 13 institutes, there were many reasons why those 13 were chosen. Some were chosen because they were obvious. There was already a strong research community in that area, in cancer research, let's say. Others were chosen to stimulate and develop increased research in certain areas. The Institute of Aboriginal Peoples' Health and the Institute of Gender and Health would be examples of those kinds of institutes.

There certainly were at least two motives behind that slate, so it's a possibility. I guess the biggest problem I would see, at the moment, is the very small number of researchers who are actually interested in this issue. That is our challenge.

To possibly create an institute right now might not be the best way to do it. I think we have to start small, and having the steering committee and the workshop that we're going to have, the limited number of researchers, is the way to begin. Perhaps from that we might move on to consider other ways.

The Chair: Here is my ignorance of the way the institutes function. But there are two where I thought this topic we're looking at this morning would have normally been included. You referred to both of them in your opening remarks.

[Translation]

You mentioned two institutes: Health Services and Policy Research, and Population and Public Health.

[English]

Am I to conclude, from your presentation and the answers to the questions, that neither of these two institutes have really paid much attention to the situation of language communities living in a minority situation?

Mr. Mark Bisby: I think they have paid attention to culturally isolated communities in general, but not specifically to the official languages issue. That is what I referred to when I said that over the last six months there has been this awakening to the issue of our obligations, frankly, under the Official Languages Act. As I say, when researchers interested in this area of health disparities think about the list of challenges, official languages communities is not at the top of their list and we have to cultivate that consciousness in them.

The Chair: Back to the mechanics, if you will, our researcher mentioned in his paper that the number of applications in French dropped by half from one year to the next. Could that be at all linked to the fact that you're relying on external evaluators to assess these applications?

Mr. Mark Bisby: Yes. That statistic of a drop of half in one year is puzzling, and we will have to monitor that carefully. But as you may recall, CIHR took over from the Medical Research Council of Canada, and over the history of that organization the percentage of applications that were received in French fell.

I think there are a number of reasons for it. One has to do with the fact that the publication of health research in English is the best way to have your research results disseminated internationally.

À (1055)

The Chair: I'm fishing here, but the institutes must have a mission statement of some sort.

Mr. Mark Bisby: Yes, each of the institutes has a mandate.

The Chair: Are there any references in any of them to linguistic duality being part of the fabric of this country?

Mr. Mark Bisby: No, nor is there anything in the act that created CIHR.

The Chair: That's our mistake as legislators. I think we should make note of that and perhaps make some recommendations to that effect. We'll see in our report.

[Translation]

Does anyone else have any questions?

[English]

Mr. Bisby and Madame O'Rourke, if I can conclude, I don't know if I can speak for all of my colleagues, but my sense is that the institutes have quite a bit of work to do. We're sort of pleased that it's awakened to this work, but we encourage you to go back and rapidly do what you've committed to do in making sure there's a champion in place, and making sure you have an action plan that reflects all of this. Perhaps over the course of the next four or five years we will see research emerge from the work the institutes do that will be very helpful in reflecting this reality that exists in Canada.

[Translation]

Thank you for being here today.

Colleagues, tomorrow we will be hearing people who work in the field, representatives of Montfort Hospital and the Beauséjour Regional Health and Social Services Board in New Brunswick. We were also hoping to meet people from Quebec—representatives of the Lakeshore Hospital. Unfortunately, they will not be able to come. We will see whether we can have them at a later date.

The Consortium national de formation en santé has confirmed that it can be here on October 7. If you remember, the Official Languages Commissioner is to table a report on October 6, and we are scheduled to see her on October 8.

Then there is a break. When we come back, we will have to begin studying the report. Our researcher will try to have a draft report ready shortly before we come back from the recess in the week of October 13.

With your permission, I would like to invite one more witness. This would be a representative of the Conference of Ministers Responsible for Francophone Affairs. The conference met two weeks ago in Winnipeg, and also last year in St. John's. At the time, we discussed health issues.

The representative's name is Edmond LaBossière. He is a government official in Manitoba. He knows a great deal about these issues and could provide an overview of the provincial situation, the situation in provinces with which we have not been able to have in-depth discussions because we had neither the time nor the resources necessary. Seeing Mr. LaBossière might fill in some of the gaps. If you agree to invite him, we could try to fit in him on the Tuesday after we come back. Anything arising from his testimony could be appended to the report.

Thank you. We will be back tomorrow afternoon.

The meeting is adjourned.