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, October 21, 2003

0910

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

Mr. Edmond LaBossière (National Coordinator, Intergovernmental Francophone Affairs (Provinces and Territories of Canada))

0915

0920

0925

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

0930

M. Edmond LaBossière

0935

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

M. Edmond LaBossière

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

M. Edmond LaBossière

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

0940

M. Edmond LaBossière

Mr. Raymond Simard

M. Edmond LaBossière

0945

Mr. Raymond Simard

M. Edmond LaBossière

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

M. Edmond LaBossière

Mr. Yvon Godin

M. Edmond LaBossière

0950

Mr. Yvon Godin

M. Edmond LaBossière

0955

Mr. Yvon Godin

M. Edmond LaBossière

The Chair

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

M. Edmond LaBossière

1000

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

M. Edmond LaBossière

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

M. Edmond LaBossière

1005

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

M. Edmond LaBossière

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1010

M. Edmond LaBossière

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

M. Edmond LaBossière

The Chair

1015

M. Edmond LaBossière

The Chair

M. Edmond LaBossière

The Chair

M. Edmond LaBossière

The Chair

1020

Ms. Kim Harrison (Executive Director, Committee for Anglophone Social Action)

Ms. Stella Kennedy (Board Director, Health and Social Services, Committee for Anglophone Social Action; Social Worker, Centre Jeunesse Gaspésie-Les Îles)

1025

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1030

M. Benoît Sauvageau

Mme Kim Harrison

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mme Stella Kennedy

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mme Stella Kennedy

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Kim Harrison

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mme Stella Kennedy

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1035

Mme Stella Kennedy

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Kim Harrison

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Kim Harrison

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Stella Kennedy

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Stella Kennedy

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Stella Kennedy

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Stella Kennedy

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Stella Kennedy

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Stella Kennedy

Mr. Raymond Simard

Ms. Stella Kennedy

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

1040

Ms. Kim Harrison

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mme Stella Kennedy

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Stella Kennedy

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Stella Kennedy

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Stella Kennedy

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Stella Kennedy

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Ms. Stella Kennedy

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

1045

Ms. Kim Harrison

The Chair

Ms. Stella Kennedy

The Chair

Ms. Stella Kennedy

The Chair

Ms. Stella Kennedy

The Chair

Ms. Stella Kennedy

The Chair

1050

Ms. Stella Kennedy

The Chair

Ms. Kim Harrison

The Chair

Ms. Stella Kennedy

The Chair

Ms. Stella Kennedy

The Chair

Ms. Stella Kennedy

The Chair

Ms. Kim Harrison

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

1055

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 038

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, October 21, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): This morning we begin our last meeting with witnesses on the study on the subject-matter of Bill C-202, that is to say the addition of a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act, the principle of respect for linguistic duality. As the House has referred this matter to us for study and report by the end of October, we will proceed with the study of a report starting tomorrow.

We'll be hearing from two witnesses this morning. The first is Mr. Edmond LaBossière, National Coordinator of Intergovernmental Francophone Affairs for the Provinces and Territories of Canada. Then we'll have representatives of the Committee for Anglophone Social Action (CASA), Ms. Kim Harrison and Ms. Stella Kennedy, both from the Gaspé Peninsula.

Mr. LaBossière, I understand that you cannot speak on behalf of the provinces, and that's not at all what we expected of you this morning. If the questions are such that you are unable to answer them, we will understand. Instead we're seeking to understand the situation respecting health services in French outside Canada for the linguistic minorities, and particularly the state of mind of governments, at least as far as that can be understood and described. We'll ask you to make a presentation, then we'll go on to questions and answers, as usual.

The floor is yours, Mr. LaBossière.

Mr. Edmond LaBossière (National Coordinator, Intergovernmental Francophone Affairs (Provinces and Territories of Canada)): Thank you very much, Mr. Bélanger.

First, as you noted, I can't speak on behalf of the provinces and territories, even though I work for them.

I hold a position that was created two years ago and to coordinate and plan intergovernmental cooperation action.

However, on the basis of experience, observation and practical considerations, I can talk about the question that is before you, that is to say access to health care and services in French. I'll also ask a question: what do we need to ensure health care and services are provided in French?

The report of the Consultative Committee for French-speaking Minority Communities referred to three important elements. Perhaps it was said in other words, but they were essentially government commitment or political will and community commitment or participation. The community must be a player in every necessary action and structure. I won't address those three points directly, but I want to refer to them in what I have to present to you.

Government commitment, I believe, is expressed through certain important things, certain frameworks. In talking about those frameworks—there are four of them. I'll also touch on points of particular interest to you, that is to say the mechanisms that are currently in place across the country to provide health care and services in French.

A political framework is needed to ensure the services in question are provided. The political framework may be an act, constitutional obligations, a detailed policy, a statement or a clearly expressed position. Whatever the case may be, some political framework is necessary. We know that such a framework exists in many governments, but that's not the case across the country.

We know the realities are very different across the country. When you look at the situation in New Brunswick, you see that strong positions have been adopted to ensure minority services, but, in fact, the services have two linguistic groups in that province. In other provinces, such as Ontario, there is a French Language Services Act. So there's an act that permits and facilitates health services in French. An act was also passed in Prince Edward Island, but it has not currently been fully proclaimed. The act is proclaimed when authorities are sure that a particular aspect of the act will be implemented.

There are also obligations to ensure services in French in the Northern Territories, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, because they are federal territories.

When you talk about health services in French, the other provinces—I exclude Quebec, of course—haven't necessarily passed equally strong statutory measures. Manitoba has a policy on services in French which has been in effect for 14 years now, and the situation has advanced as a result of that policy. Other provinces have put certain things in place, but do not have substantial legislation. Saskatchewan adopted a language policy a few weeks ago. So some things are developing in that area.

A political framework is necessary if we want to facilitate the planning, provision and delivery of services in French, but a rational or philosophical framework is also necessary. I use that word because you can have a lot of nice words on paper, but there also has to be a concept of what services to the Francophone community mean. There are important elements in that framework. You have to talk about active offer. Active offer means that services are highly accessible in the community.

¿ (0915)

We know where the Francophone communities are in this country. Let's look at where the French-language schools, the minority schools, the schools of Canadian Francophonie are. That will give us a very good idea of the places where health services must be provided in French. Active offer is not a question of measuring demand. Instead the idea is to see that there are French-language communities grouped together in many parts of this country and to offer services actively where those communities live. I can address that question in much greater detail if you wish. Offering services where the community exists is a very important element. Where possible, there must be fully bilingual or Francophone entities to provide services in French effectively and at all times.

The philosophical framework is as important as the administrative framework. Things must be put in place to ensure that we can examine the entire question. All governments in the country now have what can be called a Francophone affairs office. They call it the Office des affaires francophones in Ontario, the Secrétariat des services de langue française in Manitoba and the Secrétariat francophone in Alberta, and so on. So there's some kind of office that can handle the administrative side, but we need more than that. We need French-language service coordinators in the departments concerned. In this case, we're talking about health, but there are also social services, which are often related to health. There's also education, early childhood and so on. So we need French-language service coordinators in the departments and agencies. We also need them where responsibility for health care belongs to regional authorities, to regional boards. We also need, within those organizations, some kind of structure that can handle the planning and administration of French-language services. That's the administrative aspect.

There's a fourth kind of framework, which is the structural aspect, which is similar to the idea of facilitating structures stated in the report of the Consultative Committee for French-speaking Minority Communities. Facilitating structures may vary enormously from region to region, but here we're talking about practical mechanisms for ensuring that services are provided in French.

So we need a plan. The plan may be such that we talk about hospitals that are designated to provide services in French, clinics, other delivery points, positions, public nurses, for example, homes or centres for long-term care and so on. We must have a plan for all that. That's where we have to work with the community to more effectively plan priorities and essential aspects for ensuring that practical services and services that meet community needs are provided. In many cases, the idea would be to focus on primary services first of all. In other regions, where there are much larger Francophone populations, it's easier to ensure secondary services and very high-level services for the minority community. We can also plan French-language services at those levels more comprehensively. But if we understand the community properly, we have to start by seeing to primary care and community health. That's critical.

Are the elements we need in political, philosophical, administrative and operational terms already in place? Are there enough elements at the present time to enable us to move ahead in implementing those four frameworks? The answer is yes and no.

¿ (0920)

As I told you, some provinces already have many things in place and are doing a great deal to ensure that services are provided in French in health and many other fields. Sometimes it's merely a matter of refining, reinforcing and improving what's in place. In other regions of the country, however, many of these elements are lacking. In some cases, no political framework has been established by the provincial government. As we don't know very well what the province is prepared to do, the task of people who have to plan and look at how to provide health services in French is not a simple one. It's not easy when you don't really know your government's position. It's not easy either for the community to move ahead with the government when the political framework is not clear or adequate.

The philosophical framework depends somewhat on the political framework because the two are closely related. So I repeat that the idea is to actively offer services, offer services where the consumers of those services are and create fully bilingual entities where possible, or Francophone entities in other cases, to ensure the services in question are provided. From an administrative standpoint, some things are in place in all provinces. However, others must be added with regard to coordinators, people who will handle these questions in a very intense way. From an operational standpoint, there are major deficiencies in many regions of the country; there is no detailed plan for services in French in many parts of Canada.

What can we do to remedy this situation? We need commitments, incentives, measures that will encourage people to move forward a bit faster and in a more obvious way. That may be where intergovernmental cooperation comes into play. Intergovernmental cooperation can help to correct certain deficiencies and facilitate the addition of the elements currently missing. We know there are currently a number of agreements, very general agreements on health in the broader sense, that do not address the Francophone community. There are also specific agreements, including those that address minority education and the advancement of official languages. Some things can be used, but others have to be added to a number of those agreements.

The agreements that are of a very general nature, such as those that refer to health in the broader sense but do not specify the community needs, could include elements that address the question of the minority community, the French-language community. Those agreements currently contain very few of these elements. The other, more specific agreements, such as the agreement on education, may be used to facilitate the training of health professionals, but those agreements are currently aimed mainly at the primary and secondary schools and, in part, French-language colleges and universities. However, I'm not sure that enough elements are in place to ensure that the health in French file is advancing in real terms. As to agreements for the advancement of official languages, such agreements now exist for all the provinces and territories of Canada, the last one having been signed with British Columbia a year and a half or two years ago. However, the amounts of money involved are not enormous, varying from roughly $1.4 million to $350,000.

¿ (0925)

Not much can be done with that amount of money. It is true that the federal Action Plan talks about increasing the envelope for the Official Languages Promotion (OLP) agreement, but it's not a large increase. I believe we're talking about raising the amount from $12 to $15 million a year.

However, certain provinces—I'm thinking, among others, of Saskatchewan, which has just adopted a language policy—want to increase services in French. Thus they are very much interested in expanding the agreement and increasing action to promote services in French. In spite of it all, and I find this encouraging, a certain culture favouring cooperation between governments appears to be developing in Canada.

I can cite, for example, the Ministerial Conference on Francophone Affairs, which was created in 1994 and which I dare say began to expand in 2000. More substantial issues appear to have been addressed at the 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 conferences. In addition, in Saint John's in 2002, the ministers and members of Parliament present signed a declaration of government principles concerning Canadian Francophonie; we're talking here about government leadership. The fact that all the provinces have signed an agreement and published principles designed to develop Canadian Francophonie and to enable Francophones, individually and collectively, to live and develop in French across the country is really something promising.

This year, in Winnipeg, the adoption of the first intergovernmental action plan gave the ministerial conference a slightly different orientation. This is an initial plan, and some will see nothing grand in it. In fact, what constitutes the plan is not extraordinary in itself, but the fact remains that we've started with an intergovernmental action plan that makes it possible to be aware of collective efforts. In many cases, authorities want to proceed in this manner in cooperation with the federal government.

I'm telling you about that because I think it's encouraging to see that governments appear more disposed than previously to cooperate with each other to advance the important issues for Canadian Francophonie.

I could address other questions, but I'm going to stop instead and invite you to ask me for details on specific points you would like me to clarify.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. LaBossière.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Good morning, Mr. LaBossière, and welcome to the committee. You are the last witness to speak on the subject. I would like to ask you a few questions.

You are very much involved in issues which are mainly provincial, but which have a direct link to the federal level. When the federal government signs an agreement with the provinces, does someone from the organization ensure that the official languages aspect is respected by it? I'll give you a few examples.

In Toronto in January 2003, the provincial premiers signed an agreement on the Canada Health and Social Transfer. In your view, in that context, did the federal government consider compliance with the Official Languages Act or the advancement of the official languages as required by the Official Languages Act? If not, what did your organization or the people concerned with Francophonie do to sound the alarm and let the federal government know that it had failed to discharge its obligations?

Do you know whether, in the context of the recent establishment of the National Health Council, compliance with the Official Languages Act and the federal government's obligations under that act were mentioned?

Furthermore, do you know whether, where the federal government is the only stakeholder with regard to health care in French—for Aboriginal people and veterans, for example—the Official Languages Act is complied with?

In other words, it goes without saying that I would be in favour of greater cooperation between the federal government and the provinces on health care and respect for French. However, I would first like to know whether the federal government, where it is solely responsible, has laid down principles that it wants to propose to the other levels of government.

¿ (0930)

M. Edmond LaBossière: As I was not involved in the discussions, I can't say whether anyone addressed the subject. However, if you look at these texts and agreements, you see clearly that the question of Francophone communities was discussed very little.

However, before answering some of the questions in detail, I want to tell you that, when certain agreements are signed in some regions of the country, offices, authorities and officials have made sure that certain agreements contained clauses for the Francophone community. I'm thinking of agreements on immigration, among others. In the federal-provincial immigration agreements signed by a number of provinces, you find clauses referring to the need to consider the Francophone community. So, yes, people, governments and offices sometimes concern themselves with this, on the federal and provincial sides. In other cases, it's perhaps not as clear.

In the case of a federal-provincial agreement more specific to a province and where the province has previously adopted a fairly clear position on the question of its Francophone community, that province may more automatically be concerned about its Francophone community. Where an agreement is negotiated between the two levels of government and the province has not yet put in place the political framework I referred to earlier, the province does not necessarily think of it automatically. I don't blame people particularly; I'm simply saying that, in those provinces, there is not yet a culture that encourages people to think of it automatically. Now is it up to the federal government to raise this question? In some cases, I don't think it would be bad for the federal partner to examine this question more specifically.

In the case of a slightly more comprehensive agreement, in which there would be something for all the provinces and territories, there is still work to be done with regard to this question of the Francophone community. However, even in the case of a comprehensive agreement, there are things that can be done when the federal and provincial governments want to ensure services in French are provided to the French-language community. That also happens.

You referred to the Agreement on the National Health Council. To date, we've heard nothing on the need to take services in French into account.

¿ (0935)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Pardon me for interrupting, but our time is limited. I find this is a good example of writing one thing and doing the opposite.

In the Throne Speech, the government told us that the official language communities would be important for it. At the same time, yet another committee was struck to write the Dion Plan, which came out in March of this year. In January of this year, the orientations had been quite clearly defined, and the consultations with the Francophone communities had been carried out. At the same time, agreements were signed on such matters as the Canada Health and Social Transfer. The government disregarded what it had written in the Throne Speech and neglected to take into account the official language communities and the Official Languages Act. More recently, the National Health Council was created, disregarding what was written in the Throne Speech and in the Dion Plan. The government wrote one thing and did the opposite.

You didn't answer my question. Where it is solely responsible, that is to say with regard to hospitals and health care for Aboriginal people and veterans, does the federal government meet its linguistic obligations? That's my first question.

Here's my second. The Dion Plan, the first anniversary of which we'll soon be celebrating, provided for funds for health services. I spoke with people from Manitoba last week, and they told me they had not yet seen any action to implement the Dion Action Plan in the field with regard to health, among other things. Do you think anything has been done in that regard?

We'll have a second round, and I'll have a question to ask our researcher at that time.

M. Edmond LaBossière: First, with regard to the veterans and Aboriginal people question, I don't feel I'm really able to discuss that because my work focuses more on Francophone affairs.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, but...

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, we're going to let Mr. LaBossière answer, please.

Mr. LaBossière, please continue.

M. Edmond LaBossière: I'd simply like to say that I don't really feel able to answer that question on veterans and Aboriginal people.

You also asked whether they had begun to do anything with the amounts of money identified. I believe we're talking about $119 million in the federal Action Plan for health and $75 million for training. Work is currently being done by a consortium of French-language universities and colleges. So work has begun in that sense. I don't think you can say there have already been substantial results, but it's encouraging to see that this effort is being made in a much more concerted way between the colleges and universities.

The consortium came and made a presentation to the ministers in Winnipeg a month ago, and the ministers were encouraged to see this cooperation developing between the colleges and universities. So we should anticipate that fairly good results could come from that effort. The colleges and universities have thus received initial support under the federal action plan.

There are also amounts for networking, but I don't know the exact figures. The initial amounts were used to help the Francophone communities across the country structure themselves and act jointly by talking not only with members of their communities, but also with political decision-makers and other persons very much involved in health issues.

The Chair: Mr. LaBossière, we'll come back to you.

Mr. Simard, go ahead.

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. LaBossière. You said earlier that Manitoba had had a language policy for 14 years, and Saskatchewan for a few weeks. That raises interesting challenges. But where is health in all that? We're obviously talking as well about education, social programs and so on. Is health a priority?

¿ (0940)

M. Edmond LaBossière: It appears that, in the discussions held at the Ministerial Conferences on Francophone Affairs since 2000, what was mainly discussed were the issues of early childhood, health and economic development. They also talked about Francophone immigration and, more recently, Francophone cultural development and access to the justice system in French. So some important issues for the Francophone community are currently on the table.

At those conferences, they also discussed issues which each province and territory must address individually. It's more recently that they've begun to discuss collective action, which does not prevent further individual action. So there is an interest in seeing progress on those issues.

However, it's recognized that progress will be made at different rates depending on the context, political or otherwise, of the various regions. In Winnipeg, for example, they talked about seriously studying the possibility of having a regional or even national phone line on health in French. I think it would be more of a regional line in Western Canada.

We see that they're starting to establish that kind of line in Manitoba. Could that line also serve Francophones in Saskatchewan? It's a question worth exploring. Could the line also serve Francophones in the Northwest Territories? That should be studied.

Even if we say we want to study it, there are things that should be seriously considered, such as what are the legal implications, and a thousand and one other questions. At least we are interested in seeing whether we can use resources to provide services of this kind, while somewhat disregarding borders.

Could other parts of the country, like the Atlantic region, do the same thing? It's possible, but that remains to be seen. But health is definitely a priority. How fast will it go in each region? I can't tell you at this point.

Mr. Raymond Simard: You talked about our communities. We know where our minority communities are. If I understood correctly, you mean that services should be offered where numbers warrant. I don't want to put words in your mouth, of course, but some witnesses here don't find that acceptable. We have laws protecting people in minority communities, such as the Canada Health Act and the Official Languages Act. Do you think it's acceptable to serve communities only where people are? As a committee, we have a mandate to examine this question and to see whether it is acceptable to offer minimum health services only where numbers warrant.

M. Edmond LaBossière: I didn't use the expression “where numbers warrant”. I simply said we know where the Francophones are. When we see where the French-language schools are in the country, we already have a very good idea of the places where we should consider offering services in French in the broad sense. That does not exclude people scattered across a region from having access to services in French. In some cases, they may have remote access, by telephone, the Internet and so on. Others may have to travel a little. There may also be mobile teams that travel around certain regions.

When you see where the French-language schools are, you already have a good indication for planning basic services and seeing that they are offered in those regions. I simply mean that we don't need to try to measure demand. We recognize that there are Francophones who want to obtain services in French where there is a French-language school.

¿ (0945)

Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you. Witnesses have told the committee that there are various options for ensuring services in French are actively offered in the health field. For example, it can be done under the Canada Health Act and the Official Languages Act. Other witnesses said that, even though it's a provincial jurisdiction, the federal government invests large amounts of money in the field and bonuses and penalties could be used. They even went so far as to say that. I'd like to know your perspective on this.

M. Edmond LaBossière: We can do certain things that are not very expensive to ensure services in French. In saying that, I don't want to suggest that we don't need to invest large amounts of money. Sometimes when there's a plan for services in French, positions are designated, which implies that there are people to fill those positions. If bilingual persons occupy those positions, it's often not more costly. It's merely a question of conceptualizing and deciding on the places where the services should be provided. However, there are costs associated with planning and conceptualization. Certain services should perhaps also be restructured, and there may be costs there.

So I'm saying that it must be ensured that sufficient amounts are invested depending on the context and the slightly different realities of each region of the country. It's quite possible that different amounts will be necessary to ensure services in French in a region of the Atlantic and in a region of the west or in Ontario. In eastern Ontario, where there are a quarter of a million Francophones living in a region, entire institutions can be designated to provide bilingual services or services in French. It's not at all the same thing in a hospital in a western Canadian city. What will have to be done in that context to provide services in French? The situation must be studied together with the provincial community in order to come up with a plan.

The costs associated with the designated bilingual positions are lower than one might have thought. Among other things, with the Gauthier Report and the Chartier Report in Manitoba, things have been done that did not cost a lot of money after the commitment was made to plan and conceptualize services in French. Money will be necessary, of course. In some cases, it will be possible to use existing amounts, but in others, money will have to be added to envelopes or new envelopes must be created. Perhaps a health in French program will have to be established, similar to the program that exists in education or in other fields. The possibility of establishing a health program in French should not be overlooked.

Mr. Raymond Simard: I'll come back in the second round.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Simard.

Mr. Godin.

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

Welcome, Mr. LaBossière. You talked about provincial responsibilities, and Mr. Sauvageau said that the federal government had to encourage or even force the provinces to discharge their official languages responsibilities. It is important that the federal government itself respect official languages in its own institutions. Do you agree with me that it would be very helpful to start with that?

M. Edmond LaBossière: As I mentioned a moment ago, it's the government's commitment that is important. That government commitment is expressed in all kinds of ways. I believe we're seeing a certain commitment at the federal level, as is the case in a number of provinces and territories. However, I admit that there are deficiencies on both sides in a number of cases.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Can you explain to us what the federal government's commitment is for you? We don't seem to be seeing results. Is the federal commitment just nice words in the House of Commons? What are the commitments you're seeing? Commitment and results are two different things.

M. Edmond LaBossière: I could say that there are a lot of deficiencies here, but I can also talk about things I consider positive. In my view, the Official Languages Act was an expression of the Canadian government's commitment a long time ago. The strengthening of that act is also evidence of commitment. The federal action plan does not necessarily make it possible to do everything and may not be sufficient in many respects, but it's a plan we can work with to improve certain things. But we also need other steps and other agreements. If a program is developed or more specific agreements are entered into in the health field between the federal government and the government of the province, the two orders of government will commit themselves on certain questions. For example, if a Canada-Manitoba agreement is signed on health services in French, I think both governments will want to sit down and take a serious look at what that might mean, as was done in education and in other fields. That requires a lot of resources and many other things, but you have to start somewhere. We must build on what's already been done and improve on what's in place, or else find new ways of doing things, because the deficiencies are quite flagrant in certain cases.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Yvon Godin: But how can you build and establish new things when the political will isn't there? I don't want to change the subject, Mr. Chair, but let's consider the example of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspectors. The Francophone municipalities of the Acadian Peninsula, in New Brunswick, went to court because the Agency had transferred services from Shippagan, New Brunswick, to Shediac. They won their case and the federal government appealed. How can you advance as a minority if the federal government appeals every time you win something in court? The federal government says it's committed. It issued the Dion Plan and is allocating millions of dollars to the advancement of French, but it fights us in court. I don't want to change the subject, but this is a question of political will. Does the political will exist or not?

I'll give you a second example, the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission. The Elections Act clearly states that the Commission may consider the community of interest. Currently in New Brunswick, the Association francophone des municipalités is fighting the federal government in court because the Commission did not consider the community of interest so as to give Francophones the opportunity to remain in Francophone regions. Once again, the federal government is going to intervene and say that that shouldn't apply. How can it say, on the one hand, that bilingualism exists in Canada and that the two languages are respected and, on the other hand, go to court against the communities that are demanding that they be respected?

Do you think the government should set an example on occasions such as this to show that it is really advancing both official languages? Don't you think this shows that it's doing the opposite of what is on paper or of the nice words in the Throne Speech?

M. Edmond LaBossière: I think that history is full of examples of government actions that were not always favourable to the Francophone community. Many government actions in provinces and regions have not been very glorious.

But I'm an optimist in the sense that I like to look at the positive side and work to improve things. Of course you have to consider the faults of the governments. You mention a few areas that should perhaps be explored further. I don't know enough about those cases to be able to tell you that's terrible or that it's not acceptable. It probably isn't in many ways. But what do you do in order to move forward? That's really the question that interests me.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Yvon Godin: So you move forward.

Earlier you said that, in some places, training should be offered, that is to say a new institution opened or something done. For example, it's recognized that there could be Francophone schools and Anglophone schools in some places, as there could be Francophone hospitals and Anglophone hospitals, or bilingual hospitals, where staff would be bilingual. We don't want to make all Francophones Anglophones, and we don't want to make all Anglophones Francophones. Here we're talking about a service that governments will offer the population of Canada, where two peoples, Anglophones and Francophones, are officially recognized. Those people must be able to have a service.

Now governments must come to an agreement in which that is taken into consideration in amounts of money that are paid. There is an act. The idea is not just to be optimistic or positive and to work in that way. If I'm driving on the road at 120 km/hr. in a zone where the speed limit is 100 km/hr., I'll be stopped, because that's the law. The law isn't just optimistic; it doesn't say that I should be given a chance, that it takes time and that you'll have to educate me. It's the law. If the police stop me, it's going to cost me so much, and I'm going to lose points.

You say that we have to take our time, be optimistic and work together. I think there's a little too much of that in your speech. Instead we should remind our governments that we have an Official Languages Act. What's the real program? How are we going to reach our goal?

M. Edmond LaBossière: I agree with you on many points, Mr. Godin. I think that, in certain cases, you have to move forward in a much more determined way in order to advance the issues, but, in other cases, the reality is that you have to establish much more solid bases. I'm going to be very honest with you: you many not be able to move things forward very quickly in certain parts of the country but, in other cases, the will and the frameworks I referred to earlier are there.

Are there things that could be done on the federal side? Probably. National measures are needed to move certain questions forward. The Francophone community question should be automatically put on the table in many circumstances. It may not be enough right now to ask that question in many discussions with the other partners. We have to look at that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. LaBossière and Mr. Godin.

Mr. Bellemare, go ahead.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. LaBossière, it warms my heart to see that we have someone responsible for intergovernmental Francophone affairs here. With regard to health services for the linguistic minorities, if an intergovernmental health cooperation program were introduced, in what areas do you think cost-sharing would be possible? I'm going to name a few in order to help you. Would they be primary care, home care and community care, human resources and training, intake facilities, training, networking, telemedicine or research?

M. Edmond LaBossière: There's probably a little of all that. When you look at a French-language services plan for a region, the persons responsible for those issues and the group concerned, which is the Francophone community, are often able to say what's a priority and essential in the first place.

In some cases, a little can be done in all those areas, and, in other cases, action can be based on community health and primary care. If you start from scratch in a region or a province, some communities and people will tell you that primary care is important or even fundamental. In a region where a lot of things are already in place, people will tell you that it's necessary to improve certain things to a greater degree than in primary care.

I can't tell you that such and such a thing should be emphasized at the national level. We know that community health and primary care are the basic elements, but let's let the communities and their governments, provincial or territorial, meet with the federal government to take a serious look at what can be done in a region during a particular period. A five-year plan is established. For example, a five-year plan was established in Saskatchewan. That plan for providing health services in French won't be the same as a five-year plan established in New Brunswick or Ontario. Those plans will be different. Let's let each province establish the plan that makes sense there. The provincial and territorial governments are telling the government to give them flexibility because the situation is not the same everywhere and they aren't all at the same level with regard to services in French and Francophone affairs.

Yes, there could be a national agreement or a program, but it should allow for a great deal of flexibility in order to enable things to develop at a pace that makes sense and is realistic for the region.

À (1000)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I think your answer on the flexibility question is very reasonable, but, having experience at various levels of government, we all know that it's always a question of money. The federal government always talks about partnerships, but partners often can't afford it to be financial partners since they receive a host of funding requests.

Should the most necessary things be targeted? Should we start with community care or health care? Shouldn't we target one of those elements or both, depending on the needs of each region? Shouldn't the federal government say it is ready to pay the full cost of a one-year, two-year or even three-year pilot project and that it will subsequently establish a partnership with the province if the need has been proven? What do you think of that?

M. Edmond LaBossière: Here again, I must say that I don't agree on the idea of setting money aside for a certain segment of services because situations are too different from place to place in the country. My colleagues in the provinces and territories simply tell me we can't have a national program that will apply in the same way everywhere because the reality...

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I'm going to restate my question.

If the federal government went into the communities to meet doctors, users and those who are a bit politicized or well informed of Francophone issues, or Anglophone issues in Quebec, and those people said that, in their community, such and such a thing should be done in order to take the first step in the right direction with regard to health services delivered to minority Francophones or Anglophones, the federal government could say that such and such a project requires so much money, that it is ready to implement that project if the provincial government permits it, that it is prepared to fund it throughout its entire duration, be it one year, two years or three years, provided that, at the end of that time, the province decides whether it wants to continue the program. At that point, knowing that the province still has financial problems, the federal government would be ready to enter into a partnership agreement which ultimately would be a financial agreement.

What do you think of that?

M. Edmond LaBossière: I agree that's one way of doing it. Money has already been granted to the communities to help them with networking. The networks work very well, and they'll manage to define priorities and needs. If they've worked effectively with the health partners and government partners, there should already be a consensus at the provincial or territorial level between political decision-makers, the community and the people responsible for health services in some area.

The federal government should be prepared to support a plan that has been developed. Certain plans may perhaps demand the earth, in that people will request fantastic sums, but, other plans will recognize that you have to start out with some amount of money in order to move the issues forward.

Partnership is very possible. Partnership is already being developed, but flexibility has to be permitted because partnership can be very different from region to region. That's why I say we have to work on the structural framework I referred to earlier and develop plans, but that must be done involving the community and the government's concern in order to ensure that things get done.

À (1005)

The Chair: You may ask a final question, Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: We know the provincial governments are often lacking money. A lack of money means a lack of stimulus. To guarantee that those services are offered, shouldn't the federal government take the initiative of doing everything to ensure that's done? It's the federal government's money and it's giving the province a gift it can't refuse. You have to start somewhere, but the provinces never start. They feel they don't have enough money, that they're going to do it next year, that they're going to study the situation and so on.

M. Edmond LaBossière: Indeed, if the federal government suggested that it was truly ready to work on partnerships and plans, this initiative would probably be welcomed, unless it's understood that that may be of very short duration. The message I'm hearing from the provinces and territories is that the Canadian government measures and incentives don't last. Money is granted for a certain time, expectations are created, things are started up, then it pulls out. If the federal government offers them something, the provinces and territories will ask it whether it's going to be for the long term. If the federal government intends to take part for only three or five years, the provinces and territories will be very hesitant to start up something they'll have to pay for in full once it's implemented. Once something's in place, it often grows and requires more resources.

I hear that message and I pass it on to you. If the provinces and territories establish a program and the federal government can really move things forward, it has to do something to encourage them, to help them and to facilitate things for them at the outset, but it must be there for the entire duration of the program. The federal government must be there for the long term.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. LaBossière and Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Sauvageau, I'll give you the time to ask a brief question, and then I'll give the floor to Mr. Simard. After that, I'll ask one or two questions and then we'll finish.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: May I make a comment to Mr. Bellemare before asking my question?

It seems that every time something doesn't work out, the federal government has to put its nose into it, even though health is a provincial jurisdiction. If the reverse were true, the provinces would come and see us about the Sponsorship Program, the RCMP and National Defence. But it's a one-way street. Only the federal government puts its nose into the provinces' business when it thinks things are not working out.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In provincial politics... [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. LaBossière, here's my question, to which I don't want an answer. I was thinking that you could tell me about the lack of respect for Francophone minority veterans, in Manitoba or elsewhere, even though health care is a federal jurisdiction in that area. Even though the health of a veteran in Manitoba is under federal jurisdiction, that veteran is above all else a Francophone. You were unable to tell me about that, but that's all right. So I'm going to move on to something else.

Two important commission, Kirby and Romanow, issued recommendations on health. Our committee must also table a report. Should some of the recommendations of those commissions respecting Francophone minority communities be studied by our committee on a priority basis?

À (1010)

M. Edmond LaBossière: I appeared before the Kirby Committee, at least before the subcommittee chaired by Senator Morin, and addressed a number of points which I have spoken about today. Among others, I mentioned that, by drawing a parallel between education and health, one discovered that the measures applied across Canada did a great deal to advance education in French. Consider, among other things, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Program in education, which have resulted in major progress in that respect.

If we talk about a parallel between education and health, we also have to look at the health side. On that subject, I'll say once again that national measures and programs will be necessary for health in French to progress much more quickly than it is right now.

It remains that the provinces are showing a certain degree of openness in this respect. Some have even informed the federal Health Minister that they were ready to seriously consider the idea of a special agreement on health in French. Little has been done to date, but the provinces and territories are beginning to appear somewhat open. This may be the opportunity for the federal government to promote this issue a little more aggressively, if I can use that expression.

The Chair: I've just been informed that another committee is meeting here at 11:00 a.m. I'm going to have to pick up the pace. I apologize for that. Mr. Simard, quickly.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Mr. LaBossière, you mentioned that the situation differed from province to province and that we had to adjust the rate at which we progress accordingly. I think that's really the central question in the debate today.

It could be argued that minority Francophones and Anglophones have a right to receive health care in their own language in their own environment. Is it reasonable for us to ask Saskatchewan Francophones to wait five or 10 years for the same services as are being provided to Francophones in Manitoba and New Brunswick?

That, I think, is really the basis of the discussion. Does the federal government have a role to play in this respect? As a result of the situation today, the provinces are moving forward at different rates, but I'm not sure that we, as members of the Official Languages Committee have to accept that as an unchanging fact. It should be seen whether the federal government can help restore a form of balance.

M. Edmond LaBossière: I meant that something must be done with regard to health services in French right across the country. However, what's done in New Brunswick won't be identical to what's done in certain western provinces, for example. That could be basic services in French, whereas other regions will instead consider improving health services in French at other levels.

In each of the communities, services in French will be established on the basis of current priorities. That may not be considered as being as advanced as in other regions; in those circumstances, the pace will seem different. That doesn't alter the fact that services in French will have to be integrated everywhere, in a manner appropriate to the region, and that it must not take more time in one region than in another. However, the plan will be different from region to region.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. LaBossière, I gather from your comments that the provincial governments will henceforth be more in favour of the idea of providing health services to the linguistic minority communities. In addition, an openness to partnerships with the Government of Canada is becoming apparent, but only if there's long-term funding. No one wants temporary measures or pilot projects.

Lastly, you referred to the need to use incentives, by which I imagine you meant cash transfers. Do you think there are any other forms of incentives, and, if so, what are they?

À (1015)

M. Edmond LaBossière: I don't have any definitive answers, but I believe we must start taking a more serious look at some of these questions. They are very often discussed in an ad hoc manner, but, if we want to develop provincial-territorial partnerships with the federal government, we have to sit down and take a serious look at what's meant by partnership. Are there any new ways of doing things that we haven't yet sufficiently explored? So there may be things that should be examined more closely in that area. Should it be done with the Privy Council, with Heritage Canada, with Health Canada? I'm not sure, but we have to start studying that question.

I know that, at the ministerial conference in Winnipeg, it was said that they wanted to

develop strategies for interdepartmental and intergovernmental cooperation that particularly ensure partnerships with the provinces and territories to facilitate full implementation of the federal Action Plan for Official Languages.

So it's recognized that there is a federal Action Plan for Official Languages, but that many of the issues concerned are also provincial and territorial matters, such as health, early childhood and so on. So we have to look at how we can seriously develop real partnerships which will advance the issue. That's a question we want to study, and it's one of the messages that was sent at the Winnipeg conference.

The Chair: All right.

I have two questions to ask, but I'm going to have to let them drop. Perhaps you could share your answers with our researcher.

First, there's a lot of talk about intergovernmental cooperation. Is it possible to consider a horizontal form of intergovernmental cooperation, that is to say between the provinces, and not strictly a vertical, that is to say federal-provincial cooperation? For example, would the information line be an interprovincial cooperative effort in the West? That was my first question, but we won't have the time for you to answer it.

Second, I listened carefully when you talked about the kinds of agreements that exist. If I understood correctly, you said the entire question of health transfers should be examined and should eventually include questions of a linguistic nature.

M. Edmond LaBossière: You must understand that I'm not speaking officially on behalf of the provinces and territories, but, in practical terms, if we want to advance the issues of concern to the community, we have to consider basic issues when we talk about federal-provincial agreements in many areas.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. LaBossière, and thank you for coming.

Committee members,

[English]

we have our next two witnesses with us, so we'll just take 30 seconds to change the sitting and carry on.

[Translation]

Mr. LaBossière, have a good trip back. Thank you very much. If you have other things to share with us, don't hesitate to send them to the clerk.

M. Edmond LaBossière: Very well, thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

I apologize for running over on the first part of the meeting.

Madame Kennedy and Madame Harrison, welcome. You're here representing CASA.

You saw the procedure; we will let you speak and then we will ask questions, which you can answer to the best of your ability.

We thank both of you very much for joining us here today. Please proceed.

À (1020)

Ms. Kim Harrison (Executive Director, Committee for Anglophone Social Action): Thank you for allowing CASA this opportunity to present an overview of health and social services in the Gaspé region.

CASA represents the English-speaking population of the Gaspé. One of our primary mandates is to ensure that individuals receive access to health services in the English language.

Ms. Stella Kennedy (Board Director, Health and Social Services, Committee for Anglophone Social Action; Social Worker, Centre Jeunesse Gaspésie-Les Îles): Good morning. I would like to talk to you about the access to services in Quebec in English.

Bill 142, which was adopted in 1986, provides the right for English-speaking persons in Quebec to receive health and social services in their language. In 1989 the government adopted 11 regional access plans, whereby institutions in each region identified services they were providing in English. Each régie régionale has the responsibility to ensure that these institutions respect the plans. In addition, in 1991 the legislator established an advisory committee to the government regarding the dispensing of health and social services via these access plans.

In 2001 this committee, of which I was a member, resigned en bloc. The committee felt the political climate at the time did not allow it to effectively represent the anglophone community or allow it to voice the community's concerns at a ministerial level. In recent years the provision of health and social services has undergone a great deal of governmental reorganization. We Gaspésians now receive services on a regional and an interregional level.

We have felt the impact of such political decisions. We are referred to institutions designated to serve our area but not necessarily designated to provide these services in English. We are referred to institutions in Rimouski or Quebec City. These institutions are often unilingually francophone. These cities are not part of an anglophone Gaspésian's culture. We tend to identify more with Montreal; it is historically our natural destination.

Bill 142 is essentially a solid, legal guarantee for anglophone minorities in Quebec to receive health and social services in their official language. However, the bill has been difficult to implement on a stable and continuous basis. For example, the transfer of funds between different levels of government and the dispute over management of these funds have resulted in many regions, ours included, no longer having either access plan committees or regional coordinators responsible for the implementation of these plans. There is difficulty in renewing the plans every three years as stipulated by law. New and innovative services are not included in these plans. Government institutions have merged, some have ceased to exist, and some serve new territories.

These factors are not taken into account in Bill 142. These problems have to be addressed in order for the anglophones in Quebec to continue to receive the health and social services in their language as guaranteed by law.

I would like now to share with you some of CASA's recommendations.

We believe that changes in the health system have to involve the local level, but we also believe that the legislation must guarantee rights, and we recommend that Health Canada, probably through Bill C-202, guarantee existing services as well as ongoing new and innovative services for minority groups.

We recommend that social services as well as health services be included in the bill.

We recommend that an effective networking system be implemented to encourage sharing of knowledge and services so organizations and institutions at all levels are sensitized to the needs of the anglophone communities via community consultations.

We recommend that the English-speaking population be informed of the range of health and social services they're entitled to receive and of where they can receive these services.

We recommend that the English-speaking population be enabled and encouraged to take part in the administration of health and social service institutions.

We recommend that funding for research, promotion, and prevention programs be allotted for the English-speaking minority, especially in small regions such as ours.

Thank you.

À (1025)

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Kennedy.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I have a problem. I have two tables for the same year that contain different statistics. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Good morning, ladies, and thank you. I listened to your presentation carefully, and, for the benefit of the committee and the Anglophone community of the region you represent, as well as for the Francophone communities, I would like to ask questions in order to draw comparisons. Am I mistaken when I say that the Anglophone population of the Gaspé Peninsula, your region, is approximately 10,000 inhabitants? Wasn't the population 10,000 in 1996 instead?

An hon. member: — [Inaudible—Editor]—

À (1030)

M. Benoît Sauvageau: That's it.

Have you conducted comparative studies on the services available in your community and in demographically similar Francophone communities? For example, I'm talking about the services provided to a Francophone community of 10,000 inhabitants in northern Ontario or in Manitoba and services offered to 10,000 Anglophones in a region of Quebec. I'd like to have a comparison in that regard.

If I'm not mistaken, Ms. Kennedy, you said that CASA was underfunded. I don't want to dispute funding. However, on September 29 of this year, the Department of Canadian Heritage granted you financial support of $162,750 to enable CASA to continue its community action program. I'm not criticizing and I'm not disputing that funding, but have comparative studies been conducted on the amounts given to Francophone minority groups of approximately 10,000 inhabitants to see whether your group is underfunded or overfunded relative to those groups? That's an interesting question.

This is where my two tables are somewhat contradictory. I'm going to use the first one that was given to me. You referred to Anglophones who say they are dissatisfied as a result of Bill 142 in Quebec, but a survey was conducted by CROP and the Missisquoi Institute in June 2000. You're undoubtedly aware of that, and you'll tell me what you think of those percentages. It was said that, in area 11, that is to say Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, 86 percent of Anglophones said they could see a doctor who spoke their language, that 84 percent said they received services in their language at a CLSC and that 100 percent said they had access to Info-santé in their language; that was also the case of 73 percent of those people in emergency rooms, 87 percent regarding night care at a hospital and 100 percent regarding private nursing services. In the Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine area, there is an Anglophone community of 10,000 inhabitants. Have you conducted comparative studies on similar Francophone communities?

Mme Kim Harrison: You're talking about region 11?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Your region is Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, isn't it?

Mme Stella Kennedy: Yes. And what table do you have?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: There are two. I was given two. The one you have states that it's 83 percent for doctors, 70 percent for CLSCs, 60 percent for Info-santé, 58 percent for emergency rooms and 82 percent for private nursing services.

There are two tables and thus two interpretations, but both show quite large percentages of people who said they received services in their language. Has a comparative study been conducted of Francophone communities with the same demographics to see whether their satisfaction rate is greater or less than that observed in the Gaspé region, in Quebec?

Mme Stella Kennedy: Mr. Sauvageau, I'm not aware of studies that might have been conducted in the case of Francophones in other provinces.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: All right. You say you're underfunded. Do you know what funding is offered to Francophone groups?

[English]

Ms. Kim Harrison: We don't know if we're underfunded compared to francophone groups. I think what we want to get across is that we're underfunded in terms of ensuring that health and social services are adequate for English speakers.

We have four different mandates, and health and social services only makes up a small part of what our group must do. We can't dedicate 100% of our time and 100% of that $162,000 solely to health services.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I think it's hard to say that you're underfunded when you haven't checked. You may be underfunded, but you may also be overfunded relative to similar groups with your demographics. Do you dispute or accept the survey conducted by the Missisquoi Institute with regard to the satisfaction rate of the Anglophone communities in Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine with regard to services provided? Is the survey accurate?

Mme Stella Kennedy: The survey is accurate, but they surveyed a very small number of people in the Gaspé Peninsula. The survey just barely met validity standards. That's why we would like an exhaustive study to be conducted in our area. If I'm not mistaken, the Missisquoi Institute called people from the Matapédia region, where there are a lot of Anglophones; those Anglophones also received services in New Brunswick. I don't mean that the survey isn't valid, but it would be quite interesting to have a more exhaustive study of the entire Gaspé Peninsula.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Would you agree to reciprocity? In other words, for each dollar invested in a study, survey or assistance for your Anglophone community, should the same amount be given to Francophone communities? Would that be one of the recommendations of your institution? If you are underfunded or properly funded, that's all right, but if you're overfunded, before you receive a dollar more, shouldn't the Francophone minority communities receive the equivalent of the amount you receive?

À (1035)

Mme Stella Kennedy: I think everyone should have the same rights.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That's very good. I have no other questions.

The Chair: Mr. Simard.

[English]

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

I'd like to better understand the demographics in the area. I know what's going on in my area in Manitoba, but I'd like to know if in Quebec, for instance, you find the anglophone community in certain specific communities, or are they spread out in the whole area?

Ms. Kim Harrison: It's very spread out. There are probably five pockets of anglophones, but it's very spread out.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Five “pockets”. Is that five towns, or are they all over, in the rural areas as well?

Ms. Kim Harrison: The whole area is a rural area, but there are English communities in each town.

Mr. Raymond Simard: And within those English communities, are the health services not adequate? You would think if you have a group of anglophones in one area you would be able to produce bilingual doctors and nurses. Is that not happening?

Ms. Stella Kennedy: It's not happening, no. Our population is small. The Gaspé coast covers 500 kilometres. I'm from the town of Gaspé. I'm 200 kilometres from Kim in the town of New Carlisle. Then there's the Matapédia area, which is another 150 kilometres down the coast. The north side of the coast has no anglophones at all. So the numbers are really small. The numbers in general are small on the Gaspé coast anyway. Even francophones have to go outside for specialized services. We're not unique in that aspect.

Bill 142 doesn't specify “where numbers warrant”. When the first access plans were drawn up, our numbers were higher. So we really can't complain a whole lot about the services that are there and that are guaranteed—and the institutions do make a valid effort to respect these plans. But bilingual staffing is becoming a really big problem. As we said in our brief too, Gaspésians are becoming more and more bilingual. Sometimes it comes down to the question, do I want quality care and I don't care in what language, or do I want my care in English? I had to make the choice personally a week ago.

Mr. Raymond Simard: I understand what you're saying. We do it all the time.

I was just reading the notes here. I've probably answered my own question. Is the anglophone population aging as well in that area?

Ms. Stella Kennedy: Yes, it is.

Mr. Raymond Simard: And the young people are leaving the area, and that's probably one of the reasons as well why we have, for instance, fewer bilingual nurses and bilingual doctors.

Ms. Stella Kennedy: Yes.

Mr. Raymond Simard: You obviously speak to other groups in Quebec that do similar things to those you do. Can you tell me if they're facing a similar situation in other areas, or is yours worse than the norm, let's say?

Ms. Stella Kennedy: I would say the lower north shore is worse off than we are.

Mr. Raymond Simard: It's worse off than you are?

Ms. Stella Kennedy: Yes, they're even more isolated, their population is even smaller, and they are not as exposed to the other official language as we are. So they face different problems, or face them more so.

Mr. Raymond Simard: But as a rule, in a city like Montreal or Quebec, the anglophones would probably be in a position to find the service they want in their language.

Ms. Stella Kennedy: Yes, and at home.

Mr. Raymond Simard: So this is an issue or a problem that is specific to the rural areas?

Ms. Stella Kennedy: It is, yes.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you very much. Merci.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bellemare.

[English]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: This will be a mix of specific questions. I certainly sympathize as a Franco-Ontarian with your situation. I believe in compassion, I believe in justice, and I believe in fairness. Sometimes I ask myself what is occurring to citizens in the Chandler-Gaspé area, as I question myself about what happens in Ontario. It always comes down to money, money, money, and where you put your priorities, as far as governments go.

If there were a specific first step.... Often we have to move in baby steps in order to go some place. You have a long-term objective, but you need to get there. To get there can be a real impossibility on occasion because of the fights you encounter.

I noticed one fight when someone brought up the question of a survey. A survey is good today; a survey is good tomorrow; a survey is not good the day after. A survey is good on the day you make it, if it's not challenged. You pointed out some flaws in that survey. In all surveys, it's always the same thing. People who go by surveys insist it's the opinion of some people—a small percentage of people—and they extrapolate it into mathematical figures. I don't think people should establish policies only by surveys, but rather by the human need and the service you should and can provide.

If you could gain something, no matter how small it is, what would it be in the Chandler-Gaspé area as far as services en anglais are concerned, for those who need the services en anglais in health?

À (1040)

Ms. Kim Harrison: Perhaps these government institutions—the CLSCs and the hospitals—could hold community consultations and speak with the English population to see what they want.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Can you tell me what CLSC is?

[Translation]

Mme Stella Kennedy: It's a centre local de services communautaires.

[English]

It's a local health clinic.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Who runs those?

Ms. Stella Kennedy: They're government institutions.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes, on the provincial scale, but at the local level is there an elected committee?

Ms. Stella Kennedy: There is a board of directors.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Are the board of directors elected at large, or are they appointed?

Ms. Stella Kennedy: They're elected. The law changed not long ago. They're elected and can be co-opted or appointed too.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Have guarantees been given in the Chandler-Gaspé area to the anglophone community? I would say the “anglophile community”, because I always use “francophile community”—and the numbers are getting bigger, by the way. If you use “anglophile” instead of “anglophone”, you'll increase your figures automatically.

I lost my train of thought; I'm sorry.

Ms. Stella Kennedy: There is a spot on these boards where, if the board feels a certain sector of the population is under-represented, they can “co-opt”. They can invite a representative of the organization—

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: You say it “can”. Has it been done? Has it been needed?

Ms. Stella Kennedy: Yes. CASA has been asked to recommend people to these boards. We say in our brief that to be a member of these boards—the meetings are all run in French—you have to be bilingual. You have to be interested; you have to spend the time; and you have to have the time to spend. We're having trouble recruiting people, really. It's not necessarily because they're not wanted on the boards, but there's a problem with mobilization also.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you. Do you have a final question, Mr. Bellemare?

[English]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: What can be done that you think is very practical? You're on the ground. You know best. We're over here where everything appears to be perfect to everyone else, and expensive. But you're on the ground over there. What is it that you would recommend to us that we could recommend in the report we're about to write on how to improve the health services in the Chandler-Gaspé area because of the lack of services that you have now and the problem of numbers? “Where numbers are warranted”, I find is a very mean-spirited phrase in my vocabulary. What is it that we could put down?

À (1045)

Ms. Kim Harrison: As I said before, we need to start with more communication between the government institutions and the population. There are 50 social services groups out there, and most English speakers don't know what they do or that they even exist, because there's no English publicity.

The Chair: Thank you. I have a few questions, and perhaps Monsieur Sauvageau will want to come back.

Number one, on the matter of the questions raised by Monsieur Sauvageau for the matter of financing, are you members of QCGN?

For the record, QCGN is on the record repeatedly complaining, or stating, to be fair, that the level of financing that francophones outside Quebec obtain versus the level of financing obtained by anglophones in Quebec is substantially less in the case of anglophones for overall financing support from the Government of Canada. That's QCGN's statement, and presumably they back that up with figures and numbers.

Number two, on the chart that was referred to by Monsieur Sauvageau--and we'll make sure you have a copy of that--I'll go back to the Institut Missisquoi.... Of the 16 regions, he referred to one, the one you're in, but of the 16 regions, these are the rankings. The high rankings in terms of overall ranking, 3; the average ranking, 2 of the 16 regions; the weak ranking, and yours was one of those, 2; and the very weak, 9. So that is the overall picture of that survey, and I think that was useful to put on the record as well.

I'd like to know, if you keep asking that the first thing you'd like to see is further consultation, am I to understand that access plans, which are the basis of the implementation of Bill C-142, were done without consultation?

Ms. Stella Kennedy: The original ones were done with consultation. We all know that these access plans are now four years old. It's getting more difficult. We don't have a regional coordinator any more. We don't have the regional committee. We did have these two services. There is somebody at the Régie régionale who is responsible for this dossier and we have a good working relationship with him. He's responsible for a lot of other dossiers, so this has been sort of let go.

The Chair: I should know this, but I don't. How often are these plans to be reviewed?

Ms. Stella Kennedy: Every three years.

The Chair: So the first time there was appropriate consultation. For the renewal there hasn't been?

Ms. Stella Kennedy: It's supposed to be in the workings. We have talked with the Régie régionale, but we haven't met yet. The person responsible for this dossier at the Régie sent a survey to the institutions at the beginning of the summer to see where they were at. The plans have not been renewed, so it's a file we're working on.

The Chair: Has your group been involved with the following? In the action plan that was made public in March of this year by the government, there was a certain sum of money over five years allocated for training, or a retention, in the case of Quebec, of $75 million, if I recall. Of that, $12 million was to go for the use of the anglophone community in Quebec. Do you know how that money is to be used and whether or not you will see some of the benefits of that money in terms of providing greater accessibility to people who can help you in the language of your choice?

Ms. Stella Kennedy: That's the sum of money the QCGN is going to be acting as trustee for.

The Chair: No, I don't believe so. The last I heard is that McGill University might be the one that's involved in managing that.

So you haven't been involved in that?

À (1050)

Ms. Stella Kennedy: No.

The Chair: Okay. You may want to follow that up.

My final question is on your second recommendation, or one of your recommendations, that if the Government of Canada were to try to improve, through whatever legislative measure, the lot of anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside of Quebec in terms of access to health services, you would also like to see that happening in social services. Would you please elaborate a bit on that?

Ms. Kim Harrison: Preventive programs that address the roots of problems, such as substance abuse, alcoholism, and social problems, do not exist at all for anglophones in the Gaspé. So I think services like those would definitely have an immense effect on improving the health of the English population.

The Chair: So where do people get help now, if any?

Ms. Stella Kennedy: A lot of people fall through the cracks. If you need an English psychiatrist, you have to go out of the region, or if you're lucky, you will have services through a translator. One hospital in Maria has a translator.

The Chair: Is that for psychiatric services?

Ms. Stella Kennedy: Well, if you want it; she's there for whatever.

I'm a social worker in youth protection, and we have English social workers. That's covered.

But as Kim said, a lot of the other services offered by community organizations, or the private sector—which we have very little of in the Gaspé—fall through the cracks. We just don't have the services.

The Chair: Are there any court challenges coming up as a result of the lack of services that are supposedly guaranteed by the law?

Ms. Stella Kennedy: No, not in our area.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Kim Harrison: I think English people have lost the skill to demand the services. The institutions think all is well and the community is well served. That's one of the main problems.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Since I'm a Francophone, allow me to speak in French. We have simultaneous interpretation. We are the champions of the advancement of that language. I thought I was talking about your organization, your community, your demographic reality, and I was given another table. So I'm going to refer to the other table. When you consult the table that you've presented us, you see that the total satisfaction rate is 72 percent.

I would like to clarify my question. I asked what amounts of money your organization received, not what amounts the entire Anglophone community of Quebec received relative to the Francophone communities of Canada as a whole. I would like us to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges because I think there's a difference between being Anglophone in a minority environment in this Anglophone sea of Canada and North America, and being a Francophone in a minority environment in Saskatchewan or in the Northwest Territories. The Chair will no doubt agree with me on that point.

With regard to the amounts of money that are not the same, one could think that, since the Government of Quebec respects the rights of the Anglophone communities, the Anglophone communities must spend less in order to promote their rights. I'm thinking of Bill 142 on health, which exists in Quebec alone, and of the Anglophone school institutions in Quebec, which have been in existence for a longer time, I think, than the Francophone school institutions in the other Canadian provinces. That's one thing.

Now I'd like to ask our researcher whether it's possible to have a similar table for the satisfaction rate, number of doctors and services provided in French in the other Canadian provinces. I'm not asking you because it's not up to you to provide me with those figures. In that way, we're going to be able to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Simard, you have the floor.

[English]

Mr. Raymond Simard: Maybe just one final comment.

In my riding of Saint Boniface, we have the Saint Boniface Hospital, which hires some 4,000 or 5,000 people. We had in effect lost control of the hospital in terms of the community; they were offering virtually no services in French. We did mobilize and we did put people on the boards.

So I just want to make a comment that it is important for you to mobilize and to have your point of view put forth on these boards. I think you have no choice but to do that.

I think anywhere in Canada our aging population has a right to service in their language. When you're ill, not feeling well, dying, or vulnerable, you should have the right to the service in your language. That's just a final comment I'd like to make.

À (1055)

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, would you care to add anything else?

Madame Kennedy or Ms. Harrison?

I want to thank you both for taking the time to join us today and for adding to our reflection on the state of health services for linguistic minorities throughout the country.

I would like to advise my colleagues of the committee that we will be getting a first draft of the report tomorrow morning before noon, and I would hope that tomorrow afternoon, when we meet in camera, we can go quite a ways in reviewing that draft document.

To our witnesses this morning, thank you very much again. Thank you very much for coming today.

The meeting is adjourned.