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, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

1535

The Chair (Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.))

Mr. Francis Potié (Director General, Association de la presse francophone)

1540

1545

The Chair

Mr. Serge Paquin (Secretary General, Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada)

1550

The Chair

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie (Responsible for National Development, Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Robin Cantin (Communications Director, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada)

1555

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

Mr. Francis Potié

1600

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Francis Potié

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Serge Paquin

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

1605

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Serge Paquin

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

1610

Mr. Serge Paquin

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Serge Paquin

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Serge Paquin

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

1615

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Francis Potié

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie

1620

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Serge Paquin

Mr. Francis Potié

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Francis Potié

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Francis Potié

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Francis Potié

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Francis Potié

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

1625

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie

The Chair

Mr. Serge Paquin

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Hétu (President, Mayor of Hawkesbury, President of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell; Acting President, Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario)

The Chair

1635

Mr. Jacques Hétu

The Chair

Mr. Marc Cousineau (Law Professor, University of Ottawa)

1640

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Andrew (Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa, and Co-Chair of the City of Ottawa's French Language Services Committee)

1645

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Hétu

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Hétu

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Denis Pommainville

1650

Mr. Jacques Hétu

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Denis Pommainville

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Denis Pommainville

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Denis Pommainville

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Denis Pommainville

1655

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Denis Pommainville

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Réjean Nadeau (Director General, Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario)

The Chair

Mr. Réjean Nadeau

1700

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Parisien (Director General and Clerk, United Counties of Prescott and Russell, Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario)

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Réjean Nadeau

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Marc Cousineau

1705

Ms. Caroline Andrew

The Chair

1710

Mr. Réjean Nadeau

The Chair

Mr. Réjean Nadeau

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Jacques Hétu

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Jacques Hétu

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Jacques Hétu

Mr. Réjean Nadeau

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1715

Mr. Jacques Hétu

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jacques Hétu

Mr. Denis Pommainville

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Réjean Nadeau

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Jacques Hétu

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Jacques Hétu

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Jacques Hétu

Mr. Marcel Proulx

1720

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Andrew

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Jacques Hétu

Mr. Réjean Nadeau

Mr. Raymond Simard

Mr. Réjean Nadeau

The Chair

1725

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

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

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 005

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[Translation]

The Chair (Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.)): Order, please. Since we have a reduced quorum, I move that we now begin today's meeting.

We will be hearing two groups one after the other. The testimony of the first will be from 3:30 to 4:30 and at 4:30 we will be hearing from the AFMO, the Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario. The witnesses we have before us now are just as important. This particular group was in touch with our office to request a hearing. I have to admit that we did not have time for a meeting of the committee beforehand. For that reason I asked the two committee vice-chairs for their approval to receive the witnesses now before us and of course they did agree.

That being said, we will be hearing today from the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada, the Association de la presse francophone and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. I'm informed that the Association de la presse francophone will begin. You have the floor.

Mr. Francis Potié (Director General, Association de la presse francophone): Thank you.

My name is Francis Potié and I am Director General of the Association de la presse francophone.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank you for this opportunity to present to the Standing Committee on Official Languages a pressing issue relating to francophone media in a minority setting. First of all, I would like to thank you for the interest you have shown to the francophone media in a minority environment.

Our intervention follows upon the announcement made on March 14 by the Hon. Stephen Owen, Minister of Public Works and Government Services of Canada, of a moratorium on Government of Canada advertising until June 1, 2004 and 15 per cent reductions in advertising campaigns for the next three years. This constitutes a very real threat for the future of francophone media in a minority environment.

To give you some understanding of our situation, you must realize the kind of environment in which the francophone minority media find themselves. For any business in the media sector financial stability depends essentially on advertising revenues. Local advertising is particularly competitive and difficult in view of the disproportionate power relationship with the majority language media. In this particular context, the federal government's media purchases in our francophone press constitute an essential source of revenue and are at the same time necessary for their survival.

The minority official language press benefits from different types of recourse to the federal government. There is the legislative framework, that is the Official Languages Act with particular reference to section 30 of Part IV of the act as well as the federal institutions subject to it. There is the mandate of the Commissioner of Official Languages to follow up on the administration of the act. Recently, in November 2002, there was the Official Languages Commissioner's study on the use of minority press by federal institutions.

There is also the federal government's communications policy as established in 2002 which, in article 23 stipulates:

The purchase of space or air time in the media must include the purchase of space or air time in news media serving the francophone or anglophone minority of a community.

There's also the Official Languages Action Plan. Lastly, in the throne speech, it is mentioned that the government will ensure that minority official languages groups will have at their disposal the necessary instruments allowing their members to make a full contribution to the development of our society.

I'd now like to say a few words about the impact of the moratorium and the 15 per cent reduction for the francophone press. In the short-term, the moratorium is having a drastic effect on the francophone press in a minority environment. It has resulted in a crisis situation whose harmful and disastrous effects are already being felt: there will be layoffs and no publication for several weeks. We are going to have to take corrective measures as soon as possible.

In the medium-term, since the dissolution of Communication Canada, the federal government has shown its determination to set up a more efficient management structure. The announcement of the moratorium, with the implementation of a new coordinating agency by June 2004, will result in a shortfall for our newspapers. We have to be realistic since it is clear that until the new mechanism has been put in place and our attempts to sensitize those responsible for the system produce results, our newspapers will find themselves in an extremely precarious situation.

In the long-term, the 15 per cent cutbacks will simply amount to the slow but programmed death of several of our publications.

The APF has just conducted a survey among its members and our results are particularly eloquent. For most of the newspapers, annual revenue from the federal government accounts for between 20 and 40 per cent of their total advertising revenue. For some, it can be as much as 50 per cent or more. Most of these newspapers are of the view that they can no longer be sure of publishing three months from now.

¹ (1540)

The only alternative being considered is layoffs and if the situation does not improve, we can expect to see certain publications close down. In view of the urgency of the situation, the APF is calling upon the federal government for a waiver of the moratorium or, even better, the lifting of this moratorium for minority francophone media; secondly, we are calling for a waiver for the minority francophone media with respect to the 15 per cent reductions for the next three years. The justification for these claims is to be found in clause 41 of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

Lastly, an essential condition to ensure that the minority language media sector is consulted and considered would be the creation of a structure where it would be represented.

The APF would like to emphasize the fact that as the principal representative in the field of communications within the Canadian francophone community, it must take part in any consultation mechanism established by the federal government, with particular attention to the creation of new management structures, including the appointment of members to the coordinating agency.

My friends from the ARC will be talking to you later about a committee that is to be set up.

In conclusion, I would like to remind you that we are appearing here in a spirit of collaboration and dialogue as well as respect. In our view, it is urgent for the federal government to preserve a fair balance among its various objectives and the situations it must deal with, and remain an efficient, present and attentive partner to the needs of minority francophone media.

I'd like to thank you for your attention, ladies and gentlemen of the committee.

¹ (1545)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Potié.

Of course, we will listen to all the witnesses and then we can use the rest of the time we have available for questioning.

The next witness will be Mr. Serge Paquin.

Mr. Serge Paquin (Secretary General, Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, thank you. It is comforting to see that there are three members present here around the table with the privilege of having a francophone community radio station in their constituency. I cannot emphasize how important these radio stations are for the economic, cultural and social development of your communities. They are communication tools that in my opinion are extremely important for the Canadian francophone community.

First of all let me describe our profile quite briefly. We have 33 members, our network is constantly evolving and developing. There are 18 stations on the air that are linked now by a satellite network, RFA, le Réseau francophone d'Amérique, providing several services. Over the years, we have set up a number of SMEs throughout the country. We have over 110 permanent jobs within our network and over 100,000 hours of volunteer service. These are people in your communities who are working to develop this medium and they are doing it brilliantly.

I'd like to refer you to the document that was distributed to you. I won't go into detail on the financial situation. However, I would like to mention that at the present time our radio stations are not receiving any subsidy from the government, other than startup funding for capital costs where the government does in fact provide a 50 per cent contribution. At the present time, these radios do not receive any subsidy either from the federal or provincial governments for their operations and it is important to mention this. Often people believe that community radios are funded by the government but that is not correct.

As for the alliance, as you can see, 18 per cent of our funding comes from the Department of Canadian Heritage. So it is clear that we have been able, over the years, to diversify our funding and not depend solely on the government.

The reason why we are here today can be found in the graph on the following page indicating that national advertising accounts for 18 per cent of our radios' advertising. That is a large amount for small- and medium-sized radio stations. Obviously, the larger radios are able to come up with other sources but for the small- and medium-sized ones, the moratorium and reductions that have been announced could have very harmful effects on operations and services provided to the community. Of course, radios that are lucky enough to post a surplus, —and there are several of them, —re-invest this money in services to the community.

For almost four years, we have made repeated attempts to sensitize the government to the fact that our radios are not receiving a fair and equitable share of federal government investments. We met the deputy ministers of Heritage Canada, we created committees to study the matter and we have worked very hard to bring about a change in communications policy. We were successful in obtaining favourable provisions in this policy.

That is fine but it remains at the policy level. When we come to the implementation of this policy, we realize that there are problems. We realize that we do not quite know how we fit into all of this. There are no mechanisms. There is obviously quite a gap between policies and actual investments. Such investments will have to be made much more astutely for us to obtain our fair share.

For example, in 1998, the government spent $100 million on advertising, and of course we are not referring to sponsorships. Out of this $100 million, the share of APF and ARC amounted to $1 million. If we represent 3 per cent of the population, in all fairness to taxpayers, we should have been receiving at least $3 million. We are therefore at one-third of the aim we would like to achieve. It may not be possible to obtain $3 million but if we look at the statistics on the page under the heading "Where things stand", we see that the federal government spends in the neighbourhood of $152,000 or $121,000 a year on 20 radio stations. Out of a budget of $100 million, this does not amount to a great deal. We think that in all fairness this amount should be increased.

So there is some problem of ambiguity. I'll now turn the floor over to my colleague Béatrice who has been working for four years in the development sector and who has come to grips with a number of problems.

¹ (1550)

The Chair: We will now hear from Ms. Béatrice Lajoie, responsible for national development. I'm tempted to say that Ms. Lajoie is one of my constituents, but since I must be completely impartial as chair, I will simply think it.

Ms. Lajoie, you have the floor.

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie (Responsible for National Development, Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada): Thank you. I know that time is limited, which is both a good and a bad thing.

I have been working for almost five years and I am surprised to find that I still have to come down and debate this subject or to have to meet ministers or senior officials and still go over the same things.

I am told that we are unique, different and special and that we do not fit into the media environment. We have problems with official languages because as representatives of minority communities, if advertising is broadcast on one of our stations, then it must also be placed in the English-language stations.

We are not asking for charity but for a share of the advertising budget. Out of a total of $100 million or $150 million, our 18 stations obtained $100,000. I cannot emphasize how insignificant an amount this is.

I've been told to knock at the doors of the departments. For the past two years, these departments have been unwilling to put advertising on our radio stations for fear that they may be tapped on the knuckles by those responsible for official languages. In other words, we are at an impasse. We are going round in circles. No one wants to take responsibility for this problem. It's as if someone were responsible for bringing the turkey for Thanksgiving and let it drop with all the other guests unhappy and ready to pick it up but unwilling to get their hands dirty or burnt. So the end result is that we are being starved for lack of funds.

We haven't come here to criticize or to complain but to tell you that there is a simple way for a national organization to obtain funding without having to beg. We are talking here about advertising funds. Private radio stations, media and advertising agencies receive their commissions whereas we are not getting anything.

That is what I wanted to say. We've worked hard to make this phenomenon known and we do have problems when it comes to official languages. In the final analysis, should we not present ourselves as non-profit organizations rather than news media for the community? In this way, we might be able to avoid problems. At the present time we do have one, and in my opinion, someone will have to come up with a solution. In our view, it is easy: with 4 per cent of the advertising budget, we would not have any reason to complain.

I'll stop here, in view of your limited time but I think that I have made my message clear in the short amount of time available to me. We are not asking for a special project or money from some other sources, we only want to have our share of the advertising. How can we get it? It's up to you to decide.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Lajoie. We'll now give the floor to Mr. Robin Cantin, Communications Director of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. Welcome, Mr. Cantin.

Mr. Robin Cantin (Communications Director, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada): Good day. I won't repeat what my colleagues have already said. I would simply like to draw to your attention one or two points that we in the Federation consider important.

First of all, I'd like to remind you that the francophone community media have become an important instrument for strengthening collective identity and they are indispensable partners in any national initiative aimed at supporting the development of the francophone and Acadian minority communities.

Our media are called upon to play an essential role in a great many initiatives. Community efforts in education, in health, in immigration or in making government services known to our people require efficient communication with the French-speaking public. Over the years, we have discovered that our community media, radios, weeklies, are extremely efficient in communicating with this particular public.

You will note that the sectors for development that I have just mentioned occupy an important place within the official languages action plan of the federal government. I would go so far as to say that any weakening of our community media networks, a likely effect of the action taken by the government with respect to advertising, will make the implementation of the action plan more difficult. If we now lose our community media, it will be difficult for us to make the francophone public aware of the new French language health services that we hope to provide in the coming years.

In the long-term, a large part of the action plan is based on the provision of services that must then be advertised to the public and on changing certain attitudes among the francophone population. It will quite simply be impossible to do an effective job without the presence in each of the provinces and territories of francophone community media. A number of these media are hardly able to make ends meet. The federal government has hit them with a series of blows in its decisions to dismantle Communication Canada, the moratorium on any new advertising projects and the reduction of the overall advertising envelop for a long period of time.

We therefore find ourselves in the uncomfortable position where a series of federal government decisions have had a significant negative impact on minority francophone and Acadian communities. The government's constitutional obligations and its commitments to our communities, as reaffirmed in the most recent throne speech, give us reason to hope that you will lend an attentive ear to us, both in the party in power and the opposition.

The FCFA of Canada therefore joins its voice to the voice of the APF and the ARC in asking you to examine with us the measures that must be taken to ensure that our media networks do not suffer as a result of decisions that were probably taken without any consideration of their impacts on the official languages communities.

I would like to remind you that a bit less than a year ago, we did appear before the same committee to talk about the Canadian Television Fund. There have been cuts to this fund and the impact on independent francophone producers outside Quebec was expected to be extremely serious. Your committee was the cornerstone of the solution that was developed at the time, namely to set aside a separate budget envelop in this fund for independent producers. You demonstrated that as parliamentarians, you were able to take swift and efficient action. We hope that we will be able to work with you to the same end in this particular instance.

Thank you.

¹ (1555)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cantin. Thank you for your comments about the committee. All those who worked over the past years will be happy to hear that. I was not a member. I was playing a rather different role at the time but I am quite pleased with your observation.

We'll now begin our questioning. On my list, the first name is Mr. Sauvageau. You have the floor, Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your presentation. It is quite pleasant—if I may use the term because I realize that the situation is an unpleasant one for you—to see that you have concrete projects and are not just building castles in the air. You are informing the committee about a particular situation as well as concrete solutions. As Mr. Cantin said, there is an example to be given.

You talked about the moratorium and the 15 per cent reductions over four years. Can you tell us what actually this amounts to? Mr. Paquin or Ms. Lajoie talked about $150 million in advertising spending. If there is a 15 per cent annual reduction over four years, how much would that amount to?

Mr. Francis Potié: Of course, it's only an approximate figure. But I know that the company representing the francophone and bilingual newspapers, previously known as OPSCOM, had annual sales of approximately $1 million to the federal government, to its agencies, to everything that was described as federal and came under the Official Languages Act. So this would amount to approximately $150,000 in annual revenue reductions and I think that what was particularly striking in the case of our newspapers is that this reduction was made so suddenly. I've been involved in several consultations and there is no more money coming in. When you are used to something, when you have built up...

º (1600)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Before the moratorium and the 15 per cent reduction, did the government comply with its legislative obligations relating to advertising in the francophone media?

Mr. Francis Potié: I'll speak for the press because I know in the case of radio, it is not the same situation. Obviously there are grey areas or situations where opinions differ, but generally speaking in the francophone press, section 30 of the Official Languages Act was applied. The mechanism in place was Communication Canada as well as Mediavision responsible for oversight. When there was a true difference of interpretation, the Commissioner of Official Languages would be involved, would carry out an investigation as necessary. I am talking about newspapers.

The monitoring method is fairly simple. A paper copy of the English newspaper is taken and it is shown that the add was not published in French. We do have this advantage over community radios.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Let's suppose that previously x amount was provided, say $652,000 a year. This figure is just an example. This amount would have been minimum compliance with the act. Of course we do try to improve things regularly but if at the time, minimum requirements were not being fulfilled and you now have a 15 per cent cutback, then there is another problem. There are two problems. But you were saying that this is not the case.

What is the situation for radio?

Mr. Serge Paquin: The radio situation may be a bit different in view of the fact that the total amount, as I said, is $120,000 or $125,000 a year. However, the moratorium could result in a loss of $30,000 to $40,000 and the 15 per cent would amount to another $30,000. But you're already starting off from such a low level... Of course it is much more difficult for the radios to carry out monitoring. You would have to listen to all the English-language radio stations, something that is not so easily done.

The fact is that the legislation is not applied as systematically in the case of radio as it is for newspapers. So this is a shortcoming when its comes to the legislation. There is no legislative obligation for radio as is the case for the printed press.

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie: However, two years ago, we sat down with the people from Communication Canada to explain our problem. At the time, it was Mr. Gagliano, and then after that it was Mr. Boudria. We requested $500,000 from the advertising budget so that departments could advertise on our radio stations in order to promote programs, etc. That was accepted, we had a contract number that was given to Mediavision, and the project got started one year later. It was to begin in April, but it began in December. It was to be spread over a year and a half. But since December 13, everything has come to a halt.

So we received about $150,000 of the $500,000 in that budget. But we were always nervous about this project, because we were told not to talk too much about the fact that we were getting some radio advertising, because that would cause problems if the English side found out.

To be honest, I would say that the 1 800 O-Canada advertising, which aired on all radio stations across Canada for three weeks, was repeated for three weeks by us in an attempt to meet the needs of radio stations. But we always had the feeling that there was a sword hanging over our head. Our problems were with official languages.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If I understand correctly, you are basically requesting a set amount, or a set percentage of the overall amount. Do you know where to turn in the federal government? Are you addressing your requests to the person responsible for implementing the action plan, Pierre Pettigrew? To Ms. Scherrer? To the Minister of Public Works, or the President of the Treasury Board?

Assuming your request is for a set percentage of the total communications budget, to whom should that request be made?

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie: In my opinion, before, it was the responsibility of Communication Canada, and now it's the Department of Public Works. That's my opinion.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Proulx, you have the floor.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming to meet with us today.

Ms. Lajoie, I have a quick question for you. In your presentation, you mentioned a potential audience of 400,000 listeners. How many listeners do you actually have?

º (1605)

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie: To be honest, once again, it depends on the region. If we are talking, for example, about maritime radio stations, in Cheticamp, Nova Scotia, the audience ratings are 95 per cent, if we are talking about CKRO and CJSE, the audience ratings are 80 and 85 per cent.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Excuse me. When you talk about a potential audience of 400,000, is that for all of Canada?

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie: Yes.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: All right. So let's talk about all of the listeners across Canada. What is the actual number of listeners?

Mr. Serge Paquin: The number is around 280,000.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: All right.

Ms. Lajoie, I'm not criticizing you, I'm just trying to understand. You say that you get wrapped over the knuckles by official languages. You told my colleague that the problem lies with official languages. What do you mean by that?

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie: It may be more of a matter of interpretation. It's not that the Commissioner of Official Languages is doing anything wrong, that officials are doing anything wrong or that elected officials are doing anything wrong.

We're just wondering what we can do to avoid having problems with official languages when it comes to advertising on our stations. And we can't get a clear answer, because in a way we are media in a minority setting. So we are media.

If we are to be media, then we get compared with large media, which we are not. We are a not-for-profit organization. We are media and we serve the communities. My question is this: What should we do to avoid being wrapped over the knuckles by official languages? If we advertise, then there also has to be advertising on English radio. And if there is no English community radio in a region, they won't use our station because there is no English radio counterpart.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes, but you're in French radio. In the geographical areas you serve, surely there is English radio. It may not be community radio, but surely there is English commercial radio. So why is official languages a problem for you? Whether they advertise in English or not, that's not your problem.

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie: It becomes my problem, because if a department has $45,000 for advertising, for example, and it wants to reach francophone communities with its $45,000 budget, it can't, because it has to advertise on English radio too. So its $45,000 becomes a $300,000, and there you have it. The problem is that it can't advertise on French radio alone.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Chairman, surely there's a way for us to raise this issue with the Department of Canadian Heritage.

The Chair: No, it's not Canadian Heritage; it's Public Works.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I know that it's Public Works, but if we talk to Canadian Heritage about this minority language issue in certain areas, surely we will find a way to get around this problem and to give Public Works some authorization or interpretation so that French-language community radio doesn't fall victim to bureaucracy and legislation, which are surely out of sync.

The Chair: I quite agree, and I can already see things to put in our report once we finish hearing from our witnesses. But is that all right for now?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Fine.

Thank you, Madam.

The Chair: Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): First of all, I'd like to thank you for coming to our committee today. I'd like to continue along the same lines as Mr. Proulx. I find it hard to understand what the problem is with official languages. As you said, you're not blaming the Commissioner of Official Languages, you're not blaming the officials, you're not blaming anyone, but there's something the matter and I can't see why. But I'd like to ask you a question: Are there English community radio stations? Do you know if there are any?

º (1610)

Mr. Serge Paquin: In Canada, the community radio movement is mainly francophone. There are, to my knowledge, two English community radio stations, one of which is in Vancouver. What there's a lot more of on the English side in terms of not-for-profit radio is campus radio, radio stations associated with universities. But I would say that community radio as such is a very francophone phenomenon, but in Quebec, where there are 24 or 25 stations, and outside Quebec, where there are close to 20.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There are a lot of anglophones in Rivière-au-Renard, in the Gaspé area. Is there a community radio station in that area?

Mr. Serge Paquin: There are a few community radio stations, mainly in the Lower North Shore area, in Harrington Harbour and Saint-Augustin. As I said, there are more English campus radio stations in Quebec, but community radio stations as we know them, as we develop them in our network, like you have in your area, are not at all a widespread phenomenon in English Canada.

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie: Could I add something?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes.

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie: When we initially had problems with Communication Canada over the $500,000, we said that our counterparts were community radio stations. Basically, if you want to advertise on French-language community radio stations outside Quebec, our counterparts are English-language community radio stations in Quebec. So we sought out four English-language community radio stations in Quebec. We had 18 radio stations and we went ahead with that. Then we were told that it didn't work like that.

Mr. Yvon Godin: They said that it didn't work like that, but do you know why? Do you remember?

Mr. Serge Paquin: There came to be a lot of suspicion around advertising and sponsorships. Officials at Communication Canada were virtually walking on eggshells. Béatrice tried to explain that if they had advertised on French-language community radio stations and that an English-language station in Winnipeg heard it, that station would have wondered why it didn't get similar advertising and would have made a complaint that would have put Communication Canada in an awkward position. We tried that with the English-language stations in Quebec because that's what they wanted. We made an effort. We sought out English-language community radio stations in Quebec and did a campaign with them, but then they said that it no longer worked like that. Nobody really wants to identify exactly what our place in the whole system is. We have attempted to do things, but always very cautiously. We have even done doubles, repeating campaigns to help ourselves out. People were sympathetic with our cause and saw that we had a shortfall, but no one wanted to commit. That's why one of the solutions is to strike an interdepartmental committee that could be headed by Heritage and bring together Public Works, Treasury Board, Privy Council Office, Canadian Heritage, the APF and the ARC, to identify potential solutions. There must be some. You have some ideas. Without getting too complicated, we should easily be able to find a niche and get our fair share. That's all.

How are we going to do that? That remains to be discussed. I don't have any miraculous solution. We've tried to find solutions in the past, but were unsuccessful.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Ms. Lajoie, you were saying that you weren't here to beg, but perhaps solutions other than sponsorship could be contemplated. We aren't the ones who caused the sponsorship scandal, but you know where we are at today. Maybe the solution is to seek recognition from the federal government, through Canadian Heritage, without sponsorships, of our French-language community radio stations outside Quebec or English-language community radio stations in Quebec. We need to come up with a new solution, instead of saying that we are now going to invest in these community radio stations.

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie: I can tell you, though, that Canadian Heritage...

Mr. Yvon Godin: You're not begging, because it's taxpayer money.

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie: Right. Private radio stations have money and we don't.

Mr. Yvon Godin: The thing to do is ask the government; government is responsible for distributing money for the good of Canadians.

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie: But I do want to say that Canadian Heritage is solidly behind us.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, but that doesn't help, because you're here. If the department were behind you, you wouldn't be here. So there's a problem.

The Chair: Mr. Godin, if I understand correctly, the problem today is not support from Canadian Heritage, but the fact that they've been hurt by a unilateral cut in advertising. That cut had a far greater negative impact on them than on anyone else. That's the problem.

º (1615)

Mr. Yvon Godin: I agree, Mr. Chairman, but we're not the ones who caused the scandal and we're stuck with it today.

The Chair: It's not about sponsorships either, it's about government advertising. It's not the same thing. We are talking about programs to encourage employers to hire a summer student, for example. It's about regular government advertising campaigns. That's what they're complaining about, not the Sponsorship Program, because they weren't involved in that.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to start an argument with you, but in their presentation, they said that it also had to do with sponsorships. Comments were made earlier about sponsorships.

Mr. Francis Potié: Our analysis may be faulty, but our take on the moratorium and 15 per cent cut is that these are in reaction to all of the difficulties surrounding what is now known as the sponsorship scandal. I should point out that in terms of advertising, and I'm speaking on behalf of the APF here, there has never been any scandal or controversy. Everything is completely by the book and always has been.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That's what I'm getting at. There hasn't been any scandal here, but yesterday, when we met with the Auditor General, she said that the government was establishing controls that make no sense because some people fouled up. Action has to be taken against those people, but you can't completely eliminate government accountability. You'd have to read the Auditor General's speech from yesterday; she said that it's important not to bring the machinery of government to a halt over that.

The Chair: Could you wind up?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes. You know that I never give you a hard time, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you. It's just that the clock seems to be working against us today, it seems to be speeding up on us.

Mr. Simard.

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

You've answered most of my questions. In French-speaking Manitoba, this moratorium and the cuts affect us, not only in terms of our newspapers and radio stations, but also in terms of all of our community organizations, for example, in the areas of tourism and economic development. There is a brochure that was supposed to be published, and they took back $72,000 of the $275,000 that we were supposed to have for the brochure. That affects us greatly, and the people who made those cuts surely didn't think about that.

If we were to lose our newspaper, La Liberté, we could never get it back again. So it's really urgent. It's not as if our newspapers had anything to fall back on. Swift action is required. I don't think that it is up to Canadian Heritage to pick up the slack. I think that it is up to the government to invest and advertise in French and English newspapers. I think we need to focus on that and also make sure that our francophone organizations are properly funded, because that is the root of all of our problems. We are always put in very tenuous situations. Year after year, we have to go looking for new sources of funding. I think it's going to take a lot of time and effort to come up with more stable arrangements.

In French-speaking Manitoba, we've focused on culture, education and the economy, and our next priority should be communications. Obviously, we're not going to abandon francophone organizations, we're going to act accordingly. I think that we have some work to do and that we should report here, to the Official Languages Committee, and not take forever about it. I completely agree with what you said and I think that we should take action.

I don't think people realize how much it affects small francophone communities when things like this happen. People always think of the big picture and English media, not of the effect this has on us. I completely agree with what you said and you can always count on my support.

Thank you.

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie: I'd like to add to that. As I said earlier, to us, the APF and the radio stations, it's a natural and ready means of survival. It's a natural product, because the government does advertising. If we had an advertising budget, as you said, Mr. Simard, we wouldn't need to be here today. It would be ongoing every year, because it would only make sense for community radio and the APF to have their little share of the advertising. It's important to understand that this money goes back to the community and volunteers. It's not money that we put in our pockets, because we're not private companies. The money goes back to the communities. The government kills two birds with one stone with this money.

º (1620)

Mr. Raymond Simard: I also think that it's important for official languages. How can we encourage our communities in minority setting if we don't have the means to convey the message? It makes no sense. I think that the people who did this weren't thinking about the consequences of what they were doing. As you say, this represents a far greater percentage of the budget of francophone organizations than of other organizations. For example, our radio station, Envol, is losing $40,000 and it cannot withstand that. It's totally unacceptable and I think we have to do something about it.

I thank the chair for inviting you so soon.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: My question is for Mr. Potié and the others who are here. What percentage of the overall advertising budget should go to francophone communities for newspaper and radio adds? Is it 1.5 per cent, 2 per cent or 2.7 per cent? There was a suggestion that a committee be formed. I'm sorry, but you can form a committee and in...

Mr. Serge Paquin: I have a suggestion to make. If the francophone communities outside Quebec make up 3 per cent of voters, 3 per cent of the budget would be fair. With 3 per cent of the budget, I believe that we would be completely... We are talking about all of the media, including the ARC, the APF and also those who aren't here, because there may be some newspapers that aren't represented. Given that we are 3 per cent of the population, 3 per cent of the budget would be fair, in my opinion.

Mr. Francis Potié: I'd like to provide clarification about what I call the control mechanism. There's a policy that aims to treat francophone and anglophone communities equitably. It's important for me to make it clear that for newspapers, the existing mechanism, or the one that existed and is now being restructured, generally works well.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If you get 3 per cent, are you going to have more money?

Mr. Francis Potié: If we get 3 per cent, we will probably have more money, it seems to me.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Things would go more smoothly.

Mr. Francis Potié: They would go more smoothly. What's complicated is finding a way to follow up on that. I think that the problem, in terms of radio stations, is that it's impossible to monitor how fairly the system operates, because we certainly don't have time to listen to all of the other radio stations to find evidence of unfair treatment.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: There are two problems: there's a money problem and...

Mr. Francis Potié: In the short run, there's one problem...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If you asked for 3 per cent of the overall advertising budget, that would be fair. It wouldn't be charity, it would be fair. Once you get that money, you'll have to form another committee and talk.

Mr. Francis Potié: But the short-term problem is that 3 per cent of nothing is still nothing. That's the problem with a moratorium in the short run.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So we have to lift the moratorium and give you 3 per cent. Okay.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Those are the questions that I wanted to ask.

Here's what I take from your group's grievances. We are not talking here about subsidizing community radio or what have you. That's an interesting debate, but a debate for another day. At issue here is providing the Canadian public with information through government advertising. We're talking about a constituent sitting at home listening to Cornwall community radio, for example, or reading a newspaper from my riding and finding out about government programs through this advertising.

Serving a minority community is not quite the same as serving the majority. Like we say where I come from, the majority can switch TV channels and hear the same ad 16 times in 15 minutes. In a minority community, if there's no advertising and if the community radio station or newspaper is the only media in our language, we are not well served. Right? That's the first thing.

Then, in order to solve the problem, if I understood correctly, two things are required. First, the moratorium should be lifted for your clients. Second, the 15 per cent cut should not be applied even if the moratorium is lifted. Those are the two requirements, right? Okay. I wanted to have a better grasp of the scope of your demands.

º (1625)

Mr. Raymond Simard: There's also a need for more stable long-term funding.

The Chair: That's another matter that has nothing to do with advertising. We are dealing here with complaints about government advertising. Funding will have to be the topic of another debate.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Mr. Chairman, we could include that in our report.

The Chair: We can include whatever you like, but right now, we're discussing advertising, right?

Ms. Béatrice Lajoie: As Mr. Simard said, if there were a separate envelope for media, which could be 3 per cent of the advertising budget, that would solve our problems. That's extremely important, in my view.

The Chair: You are referring to 3 per cent of the advertising budget. That's all very well and good, except I have a problem with the way Mr. Paquin, I believe, presented the situation. He said that you reach 3 per cent of the public, but that implies that those 3 per cent get 100 per cent of their information through community programming, which is not necessarily the case, because they can also get that information through other media.

Mr. Serge Paquin: Please understand that the APF is everywhere, in each province and territory. In the medium-term, community radio stations will be able to reach almost 80 per cent of the population. Of course, we cannot reach everyone in society, but if we add our medium to those which are not represented here at the table, because there are others, we are able to reach the vast majority of francophones living outside Quebec.

The Chair: Fine. Thank you very much for your presentation.

This is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, you said you were grappling with an urgent problem, but we said yes immediately, which meant that you did not have a lot of time to prepare. If we did not give you very much time to prepare your presentation, we do apologize. On the other hand, you managed to make your case very quickly, and I hope that that compensated for the other situation I have just described.

Thank you very much.

We will now ask the next group of witnesses to please come to the table. While they are doing so, I would like to draw the attention of committee members to the fact that Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier's Bill S-4 has been sent to the House and that I introduced it today. I am the sponsor of the bill, which is seconded by Mr. Proulx. There is an information kit available for each member of the committee, and I would ask Ms. Chartrand to leave them on the table. If members wish to discuss the issue with their respective leaders to get the bill passed, it would be greatly appreciated.

Dear colleagues, we want to give the next group of witnesses one whole hour of our time. But that will not be possible if you do not come to the table right now.

º (1629)

º (1631)

The Chair: This afternoon, we will be hearing from the Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario, which asked to appear before the committee some time ago. Committee members may remember that we discussed this issue at a meeting held a while ago. You will recognize some of the witnesses, including Mr. Jacques Hétu, who is the President of the Association and Mayor of Hawkesbury, and who is also the President, or reeve, as some people call it, of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell.

Welcome, Mr. Hétu and members of your delegation.

You have the floor, Mr. Hétu.

Mr. Jacques Hétu (President, Mayor of Hawkesbury, President of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell; Acting President, Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario): Thank you, Mr. Boudria.

Members of the committee, it's a pleasure to be here after having asked to appear. I would like to introduce the people who are with me. Mr. Denis Pommainville, who is the Mayor of the Municipality of Nation and member of the board of the AFMO; Ms. Caroline Andrew, Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Ottawa and member of the research team on instruments and linguistic support in the municipal sector; Mr. Marc Cousineau, Law Professor at the University of Ottawa and, in particular, a great defender of the Montfort Hospital; Mr. Stéphane Parisien, Director General and Clerk of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell and treasurer of the association; Mr. Réjean Nadeau, Director General of the Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario.

The purpose of the presentation is to increase the awareness of the members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages on the municipal sector within the framework of Part VII of the Official Languages Act, to discuss linguistic rights in Ontario's municipal sector, and to explore how the municipal sector can support the government in Canada in implementing the action plan on official languages.

The Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario was created in 1989 under the leadership of Ms. Gisèle Lalonde. Her objective is to maintain and improve the governance and delivery of municipal services in French and English within the designated regions in Ontario listed in the French Language Services Act of Ontario.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Denis Pommainville.

The Chair: Mr. Pommainville.

Mr. Denis Pommainville (Mayor of the Municipality of Nation; Member of the Council of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell; Director, Eastern Region, Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario): The working document which you have before you contains demographic data with regard to francophone Ontario. As you know, according to Statistics Canada's most recent figures, there are about 533,000 people in Ontario whose mother tongue is French. However, you have to take into account the fact that there are more people who speak French in Ontario than those mere 500,000. It has now become clear that about 1.319 million Ontarians, born here or elsewhere, have learned French in Ontario or who spoke French when they came to Ontario. This means that just over 10 per cent of Ontario's population understands French or can speak it.

Before municipal reform was implemented several years ago, there were over 800 municipalities in Ontario. Since the municipal mergers, there are now just over 400. At that time, downloading took place, which means that many responsibilities were transferred to the municipal level. Many provincial responsibilities were downloaded on Ontario's municipalities. New municipalities were created under the mergers, and the francophone character of certain municipalities was greatly diminished.

In 2001, Ontario passed an Act to amend the Municipal Act, which means that municipalities can now adopt not only resolutions in French and English, but also regulations. We will come back to this issue a little later in our presentation.

The problem is that there is a lack of training. Often times, our clerks do not have the right background or training to draft regulations in French. We will talk about linguistic measures in a few moments.

º (1635)

Mr. Jacques Hétu: I will ask Mr. Marc Cousineau to continue, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Fine. Mr. Cousineau.

Mr. Marc Cousineau (Law Professor, University of Ottawa): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good afternoon. It's a pleasure for us to be before you today to basically try and convince you that you have the constitutional obligation to consider the delivery of French services in the province's municipalities since you have become involved in the municipal sector of the province.

As a preamble, I would like to make a few brief comments. First, our brief is not a legal opinion, nor is it a legal brief, it merely lays out the main thrust of a legal argument which, in my opinion is very solid and could easily be presented before the courts to ensure that services are indeed delivered in French in Ontario's municipalities.

Second, the brief does not contain an exhaustive list of potential legal arguments. There are many more. However, since this is not a brief and we are here simply to make a presentation, I chose to address only the main arguments.

For instance, here is another argument which is not contained in the document. I am simply mentioning it to show you that there are other arguments.

The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court is very clear. From the moment the government decides to act, it must do so in a non-discriminatory manner. When the government decided to give grants to New Brunswick and to the City of Ottawa, it decided to intervene in the municipal sector. The government therefore has the obligation to do so in a non-discriminatory manner, generally speaking, rather than in a discriminatory one.

I will now briefly present to you the major thrust of our arguments as outlined in our brief. I will begin by two arguments, which, in my opinion, are the main ones which should be invoked to ensure that services in French are delivered in the province's municipalities.

First, we simply ask that the general rules of statutory implementation be applied. I am speaking to people who know more about statutory interpretation than I do; you are therefore more familiar with the rules of statutory interpretation. The fundamental rule of statutory interpretation states that all legislation must be interpreted as per the objectives of the legislation. What are the objectives of the legislation?

As you know, section 2 of the Official Languages Act states the purpose of the act. I will not read this section, since it is contained in the brief, but its purpose is to support the development and protection of linguistic minorities.

That is why, when asked to interpret section 43, which addresses the principle of the subject, we will insist on this basic principle of interpretation, that is, that the section should be interpreted to favour the preservation of francophone minorities outside Quebec.

Second, and this is not limited to the principle of interpretation, there are also other principles. For instance, I deliberately excluded case law, except for two Supreme Court rulings which you are familiar with, the Beaulac and Arseneault-Cameron decisions, because they both clearly and unambiguously state that, in the matter of linguistic provisions, the interpretation must always favour the protection and vitality of linguistic minorities.

Consequently, section 43 should always be read in light of its purpose, which closely resembles the purpose contained in section 2.

The third principle of interpretation which I would like to address is the one outlined by the Supreme Court in its Quebec Secession Reference, in which the court affirms that these unwritten fundamental principles of the Constitution may also be used to interpret legislative texts.

The fundamental principle we are most interested in is, of course, the principle of protection of linguistic minorities, which is clearly set out in the reference on Secession. I repeat, it is used to interpret section 43. If I read the wording of section 43, though this is not the moment to do so, I can easily claim, and I hope I can convince you of this, that it creates a legal obligation, perhaps even a constitutional one, if not clearly a constitutional obligation.

When you decide to implement a municipal initiative, you must take the issue of minority protection into consideration and take the necessary measures as a result thereof. In the case of municipalities, it's very clear, as we will explain a little further on: this issue relates to display services in particular, which you are very familiar with.

I would briefly like to add that our second argument deals with the well-known fundamental principles, which were invoked by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Montfort Hospital case. I'm not inventing this. The Ontario Court of Appeal and the Ontario Divisional Court both agreed on this interpretation. I will quote the ruling, which is binding on both the court and legislators:

The unwritten principles of the Constitution do have normative force.

As a consequence, every time you act, you must act in light of these principles, which are not only principles of interpretation, but constitutional principles.

I repeat, under the principle of the protection of linguistic minorities, the federal government, as well as each provincial government, must take into consideration, in a concrete manner, the issue of linguistic minorities every time it acts. It is not enough to take the principle into consideration; the government must also take concrete and real measures. If it does not do so, it is not acting in accordance with these famous fundamental principles.

º (1640)

I'd like to make another point on fundamental principles. Contrary to what several jurists think, I am convinced that these principles define Canada. Fundamental principles are the most important principles defining us. Therefore, these principles are not only binding but they are the most important principles of our Constitution and we must do our outmost to protect them in order to ensure the protection of language minorities. Even though it may not be the time, I could explain that we are the ones who define Canada to a large extent. If you take no account of the minorities in your initiatives, there will be no one else to protect them in your stead.

Let me add one last point relating to the famous power of disallowance. If I mention it, it is not to ask you to invoke the power of disallowance because since we are not dealing with a provincial act, it does not even apply. I mention it simply because it is in the 1867 Constitution and it is accepted by constitutional historians and jurists. The federal government gave itself the power to disallow provincial acts. Even though it is now obsolete, it does not change the fact that that was the spirit of the 1867 act. Everyone now agrees that the main reason for the power of disallowance was to protect minorities. When the federal government renounced the power of disallowance in the entire Riel affair and the Manitoba legislation, it basically abandoned the fiduciary power that it had taken on in 1867. Although the power of disallowance may be obsolete, I sincerely believe that the fiduciary power of the federal government towards minorities still exists. It takes a number of forms. You already exercise it to a large extent and the office of the commissioner, one of your instruments, also does so. So you have implicitly accepted this power of disallowance.

So, to some extent, we are here to ask you for something, but we also have very strong legal constitutional support for our position. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any other speakers before questions? Ms. Andrew, you have the floor.

Ms. Caroline Andrew (Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa, and Co-Chair of the City of Ottawa's French Language Services Committee): Let me just add one comment about the study that we undertook for the Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario, among the member municipalities, on the issue of services in French. The study demonstrates that there is a willingness on the part of municipalities to provide services but that because of decentralization in Ontario, they have financial problems and are not in a position to offer enough services. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that the municipalities often have similar needs. So the logical approach would be to offer the municipalities of the association, province-wide, a series of tools and linguistic support, such as translation, terminology and training, which have been mentioned.

The study is being completed in an attempt to establish a precise measurement of the actual costs of bilingualism at the present time. The first part of the study demonstrates the need to have more language support and instruments as well as the interest of providing them as part of a program for all municipalities of the association, to avoid duplication of services and to ensure greater efficiency in the services provided by different municipalities. Thank you.

º (1645)

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Andrew.

Mr. Hétu.

Mr. Jacques Hétu: Mr. Chairman, should I present my conclusion immediately or at the end?

The Chair: You may say a few words at the end, but do you wish to sum up your colleagues' testimony? If not, we may start our questioning immediately.

Mr. Jacques Hétu: Let us start with the questions, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I don't have any questions.

The Chair: No questions right now.

He is entitled not to ask any questions. It isn't a sin.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I've been here for several years now and that's the first time it's happened!

The Chair: I'm sure you will recover. In the meantime, you may ask your questions.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank you for appearing before the Standing Committee on Official Languages. It's interesting to see francophones from somewhere other than Quebec, no offence intended for people from that province. This gives us a chance to observe that the problems you are facing are the same that we experience.

Act 88, which was entrenched in the Constitution, was of great assistance to us. I come from northeastern New Brunswick and people were proud of finally achieving that result. It means that municipal by-laws henceforth had to be drafted in both languages. We told the federal government that it would cost us a lot of money to do so and we needed help from the head office. Transfers were made to the provinces. It was the provinces who applied for it and that was an important initiative. I can guarantee that it was of great assistance to us.

L'Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario, which is present here today, includes among others the City of Ottawa. This week the newspapers mentioned a report indicating that federal buildings in Ottawa, when rented for commercial purposes, do not advertise in both languages, whereas in Quebec, in Hull for example, the signage in both languages is almost at one hundred per cent. What do you think of that?

I'd like to congratulate Quebec on this point. It is often attacked but we have to admit that they often do a good job. It was published in the regional newspapers. Mr. Proulx may challenge this claim but according to what the newspapers said, the federal government in Quebec was in compliance with the rules, whereas this was not the case in Ottawa.

I don't know whether you are aware of this situation and whether you have any comments to make on it.

Mr. Denis Pommainville: If I may, this involves contracts between the National Capital Commission and its tenants. It therefore comes under the National Capital Commission and the federal government. As far as we are concerned, our jurisdiction comes under the provincial legislation. So we are talking about things that are quite different.

But there is a common thread in that this type of issue is a constant concern for us. Several Ontario municipalities do have significant concentrations of francophones. We wish to provide services in both languages, not only at the counter, with our clients, but also in the field of communication and publications, for example.

What we would like to obtain, and we are making this request here today, is money in order to develop software so that we can draft by-laws in French rather than translate them. A few months ago, the Minister for Francophone Affairs of Ontario, Ms. Meilleur, was willing to release an important amount of money to pay for the cost of translating a part of our present by-laws. We said that this was fine but perhaps we could do something better. We are talking about providing municipalities with a working instrument. In this way, as of today, designated regions wishing to have their by-laws available in English and French would be able to use software to this end. It would simply be a matter of including the appropriate data for the requirements of each municipality. This working instrument could possibly be exported and would avoid the unnecessary duplication of expenses.

It is possible to translate a by-law today but the fact is that if we do not have the necessary resources to translate other by-laws as they are adopted, we will be facing difficulties. However, if we do have a working instrument that can be distributed throughout Ontario and elsewhere, New Brunswick is a good example, since they have implemented a full system there, then things will be that much easier.

Our clerks and administrators are accustomed to drafting their by-laws in English. Quite often, they don't have the appropriate terminology or legal knowledge to draft a by-law that would hold up in court, in the event of a challenge.

In this respect, it is a language instrument that would allow for the development of French-language services.

º (1650)

Mr. Jacques Hétu: Mr. Godin, to answer your question, I would say that whenever we are comforted with this kind of situation, the association makes a point of contacting the appropriate authorities to inform them of the failure to comply with bilingualism requirements.

In my opinion, the situation you refer to means that we must do our duty and advise the appropriate authorities of this breach.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought my colleague was before me.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome, and thank you for appearing to explain the situation to us.

Mr. Pommainville, as I understand your last comment, it would be useful to you if you had available software or another type of working instrument for your clerks and officials in the preparation of texts, not only for by-laws but also for the minutes of your meetings and in order to communicate properly with residents both in English and in French.

Mr. Denis Pommainville: Our agendas and our minutes are produced in both languages, but a few years ago, the Ontario Municipalities Act did not allow us to draft our by-laws in French. Now, we can do it in English and in French, which was not the case previously.

This is a request that has been made by our association for a number of years now. We finally got what we were asking for.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Excuse me. Previously, you were required to draft them in English.

Mr. Denis Pommainville: Only.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: However, you were later on given permission to translate them.

Mr. Denis Pommainville: Yes, but these texts were not officially recognized.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay, but you could have done it. Now you can do it in English, or in English and French simultaneously.

Mr. Denis Pommainville: Yes.

In answer to your question, the University of Ottawa has a legal translation centre. You know that a by-law is a legal document. If it is drafted in one language, there is the matter of interpretation. If it is also drafted in another language, there is the matter of determining which of the two texts is the most favourable. Lawyers are good at doing that. We believe that the French translation of a by-law adopted in English must be legal. The text must be specific and stand the test of legal scrutiny.

So we must have professionals, qualified people to help devise this software so that our clerks, when they draft a regulation, will come up with a text that can be defended in both languages. If there is a difference in one of them, someone will be sure to take advantage of that.

Does that answer your question?

º (1655)

Mr. Marcel Proulx: You have answered my question. Second, how much will it cost? How much do you need?

Mr. Denis Pommainville: That is the big question. No doubt we will need millions of dollars.

Ms. Meilleur... Should I be saying this? Ms. Meilleur wanted to give us $2.5 million for this year. I can't tell you right now how much it would cost to develop that type of software. I don't know if my colleague, Mr. Cousineau, can give you a more specific idea. It will no doubt require a great deal of work because we want a seamless type of program, something that can be used according to the type of regulations we want to draft. We would simply need to input the data for a given municipality. We would need a relatively sophisticated instrument.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes, but when it comes to informatics, it's garbage in, garbage out. And by the way, I have good news for you. There will soon be a language technologies research centre in my lovely riding of Hull—Aylmer. That is just the type of work that will be done in this centre.

What is dangerous is the type of translation that can be found on the Internet. You type in a text and out comes a translation that does not necessarily reflect what was in the original version. But it will be translated. This is the type of thing that the research centre will be working on.

We should keep that in mind. This research centre is a joint venture involving the National Research Council, the federal government's Translation Bureau, which is part of Public Works, l'Université du Québec en Outaouais, etc.

Mr. Chairman, since I know that for once you will not be asking questions, I will use your time to ask one final question. Is that the request being made by your association today? I really want to be sure that I have properly understood you. Is that what you are asking for or is it something else?

Mr. Réjean Nadeau (Director General, Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario): Our basic request involves the interpretation of section 43 of the Official Languages Act.

The Chair: In other words, you are supporting my bill?

Mr. Réjean Nadeau: That's right. Ever since our association was founded, we have been told that section 43 cannot be used by the federal government to justify a transfer of funds to the province and from the province to the municipality. In the linguistic duality plan last year, there is hardly any mention of the municipal level. The grants to Manitoba, New Brunswick and to the City of Ottawa are not mentioned, while the municipal level of government in Ontario provides 50 per cent of programs and services to Ontario residents and Ontario francophones, as do, for example, the bilingual cities in Manitoba, the francophone cities in New Brunswick and those in Quebec.

In short, what we are talking about can also help Manitoba and New Brunswick. We have to be able to do more than simply translate. We don't want “service in French” to become synonymous with “translation”. We are talking about a template that would include funding for translation, simultaneous interpretation, the tools, dictionaries, essentially whatever the city managers need to further the cause.

Stéphane, since you are the director general for the United Counties of Prescott and Russell, perhaps you could give us some examples.

» (1700)

The Chair: If you don't mind, we will come back to that later because this is the end of that question. We could proceed immediately, if you like, because our time is limited. Would you like to do that now?

Go ahead, Mr. Parisien.

Mr. Stéphane Parisien (Director General and Clerk, United Counties of Prescott and Russell, Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario): Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Since the great majority of by-laws are drafted in English, some associations in Ontario work in English and produce templates, legal texts, training and tools to prepare by-laws for presentation to city council.

There are no tools to help us prepare by-laws in French. They do not exist. The language of law is repetitive. Therefore, there are parts of a by-law that can be found in many other by-laws. If we had a tool or a program, it would be extremely helpful in preparing the documentation to submit to council, which would be of the same quality as the documents that we submit in English.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Parisien.

We will now turn to Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I have a few questions and a few comments.

I would first like to say, Mr. Cousineau, that your presentation is very well documented and very informative. I don't want to put you on the spot, but I have a question of a constitutional nature. If we interpret section 43 of the Official Languages Act as you yourself do—I don't have the act here, I am working from memory—it means that next week, we could hear the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the union representing the workers at Hôpital Saint-Luc or representatives of a bowling league, because section 43 includes unions, associations, municipalities, etc.

If we give that broad an interpretation to section 43, then just about anyone in Canada could ask to appear before us. If I am not mistaken, that is what we can read in subsections 43(1)(a) to 43(1)(h).

I have a more specific question for you, thanks to the work done by our researcher. There is a framework agreement between Canada and Ontario on the promotion of official languages which was renewed on December 2, 1999 and represents $1.15 million. Part of that amount has been earmarked for bilingual services in certain municipalities in regions designated by the province.

Is the Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario aware of this agreement? I am sure that they are. How much of the $1.15 million was assigned to municipal services? Were you consulted during the negotiations?

If I have any time remaining after this question, I have another comment I would like to make.

Mr. Réjean Nadeau: We received funding of $20,000 from the Department of Canadian Heritage through the Canada-Communities-Ontario Agreement, and not through the one that you just quoted.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Okay. That is an indirect answer to my question about whether or not you were consulted: you were not. That also takes care of my question on the amount that was granted.

However, in case you are interested, the Canada-Ontario Framework Agreement is for five years. Before Mr. Cousineau answers, I must admit that informatics is quite a challenge for me. Even if I am relatively young, I still have a hard time with it.

I am sure that you have been studying this issue much longer than I have. But we have interpreters sitting in the booth, at the back of the room. You say that it will take a number of studies and many millions of dollars to come up with a computer program. I remember a type of software that provided a literal translation. For example the service translated the name of justice Claire L'Heureux-Dubé by “Claire Happy-Dubé” or the name of the member for Dauphin—Swan River, Inky Mark, by “ink mark”. When you put that on a cassette, that is what comes out. Things get “lost in translation”.

Let's say that you have $2 million, you have the Internet, you have two, three, four or five translators somewhere, and the municipalities up north, in the centre, down south, west or east or anywhere in Ontario send you their bylaws. With 2 or $3 million, you could avail yourself of the services of a good number of people who could work with you, to prepare, correct, interpret and translate.

I have nothing against creating a research centre to try and come up with something. In five years, once you have found that something, when you type in the name of a councillor, the software will call him “Happy-Dubé” or something like that. And then, you will have to go back to the drawing board. But there is no alternative, which means that...

I had no questions, but your presentation brought certain things to mind and that is why I made those observations.

Mr. Marc Cousineau: First of all, a comment on your last point. I quite agree with you. These computer programs are full of mistakes. But I don't think that that is what we are talking about.

Let me take the example of the situation in Ontario with respect to access to courts in French. The analogy is a rather good one, and I think it can hold up.

Since 1988 French is one of the official languages of the Ontario courts. At the beginning, there were very few francophones, including francophone lawyers, making use of French. One of the reasons given at the time was the fact that there were no models of legal deeds or documents. In other words, if there was a statement or a defence to be drafted with no model available, then the client had to be billed the cost of translation or else it had to be drafted from scratch and there was always the risk of a mistake.

So we created models for legal transactions. These models are not perfect but at least they are a starting point. If we begin with models for municipal by-laws and ask a group of experts to review them and make appropriate changes in keeping with the aims of the by-law, then this can be an effective approach.

I think that we both recognize that we cannot have a software system that will automatically turn out a perfect translation. That would be far too simplistic. We would all be happy if it were possible but we do agree that it is far more subtle and complex and a human being, an expert, is required to go over it.

I think that this will not be a problem. We will need one or two years to set this up and once it is running, it will be quite easy. All these by-laws or model transactions in the case of the legal system are quite accessible. It is in the practitioner's guide and available to everyone. It is of enormous help to people, not only in learning to work in French, but also to make use of the work of their predecessors so that they don't have to start off from scratch every time.

As for your second question, about bowling leagues, etc., once again, I think that we have to have an idea of what the importance of the association, club or institution is for the maintenance of language minorities.

It is now generally recognized by sociologists as well as by the Appeal Court and the Divisional Court of Ontario that in order for francophone minorities outside Quebec to continue to exist, there must be a network of institutions to provide service to them in their language. That was basically the issue in the Montfort case. It is not enough to have services in a bilingual institution because we know what the result is. These institutions must be able to work in the minority language.

When bowling leagues apply for services, the question that you should ask yourselves is what is the role played by this institution in maintaining the minority? With the transfer of responsibilities from the federal to the provincial levels, as well as from the provinces to the municipalities, municipalities are playing an increasingly important role as a point of contact between the State and citizens.

We have to be aware of how things work in municipalities where francophones are a minority. In Hawkesbury or in Hearst, it's easy because generally speaking, they are the majority, but it's quite different where we are a minority. Let's take an example of a young francophone arriving at city hall in Timmins. I'm not very familiar with the situation in Timmins and it might not be the best example, and if so, I apologize, but if a francophone shows up where business is entirely conducted in English, what is the implicit message being conveyed? The implication is:

[English]

“If you want to work in this province, the real language of this province is English.”

[Translation]

You may use your language at school, at church or at home but it is not the language of the State or the jurisdiction.

To curb assimilation—once again, that was the basic principle at Montfort—it is up to institutions to make the minority community realize that it is possible to live in French in Ontario. The higher courts of the province say that there is a direct causal link between the lack of access to service for francophones in public institutions and assimilation.

That will depend on the role of the institutions. We now know that municipalities do play a very large role in people's lives.

» (1705)

Ms. Caroline Andrew: I'd like to add something about the importance of our brief on the issue of demography. It is clear that with intermingling and demographic movements, there is an increasing number of francophones in Ontario living in bilingual municipalities, hence—and this is to emphasize the point you've just made, Mr. Cousineau—the importance of municipal institutions and services for the population in a context where the two groups live together.

Most francophones live in Ontario's larger cities. It is not in the mainly francophone municipalities, but increasingly in the larger municipalities where the intermingling of francophones occurs.

The demographics are an important part of the association's presentation. What will be the absolutely vital regions for the survival of the francophone minority over the next 20 to 30 years?

The Chair: Thank you. Let's try to stick to the time limit. First of all I'd like to ask a question, and then I'll give the floor to Mr. Simard.

Let's go back to the Canada-Ontario Framework Agreement on the promotion of official languages. I'd like to note that additional funding was made available last year for the provision of services in French.

Do you believe that you are receiving your fair share of the money that the Government of Canada is transferring to the provinces for French language services?

We may ask whether there is a sufficient injection of funds from the federal government but we must also ask ourselves whether you are receiving your fair share of this money. The question is for anyone who would like to answer. In fact, I'm asking for your opinion.

» (1710)

Mr. Réjean Nadeau: Mr. Chairman, for eight years now, the Minister responsible for Francophone Affairs in Ontario has had the right of review with respect to those receiving funds.

The municipal sector has received little money under this agreement. We are convinced, in view of the present political situation, that the Minister responsible for Francophone Affairs in Ontario as well as the various ministers in the Ontario cabinet will take on their responsibilities in matters of language and that the municipal sector will be obtaining its fair share of the money from the federal government.

The Chair: You didn't receive your share in the past but you hope that you will as of now?

Mr. Réjean Nadeau: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Simard, you have the floor.

Mr. Raymond Simard: I'd like to thank you for your presentation, sir. My question is similar to that of the chair. Agreements are signed throughout the country, the Canada-Manitoba Agreement being one example. Often these agreements are signed with provinces that show a greater degree of openness or that are easier to deal with.

Manitoba does in fact have a very good relationship with the federal government in this respect. In spite of that, French services at the municipal level in Manitoba are very weak.

How would you situate the province of Ontario with respect to its sensitivity and cooperation with your organization? Have you established close ties with these people? Do you have any ties with them?

Mr. Jacques Hétu: I think that we have to make a distinction between the ties that existed a few months ago and the present ones. Somewhat earlier, there were certain questions...

Mr. Raymond Simard: I also want to know whether there are formal links.

Mr. Jacques Hétu: Formal links?

Mr. Raymond Simard: Yes.

Mr. Jacques Hétu: There were links but was there a follow-up? It's fine to have links, it's fine to shake hands but does something happen afterwards?

We were talking about figures. As a chartered accountant, it's very difficult for me to provide figures without having done a full analysis. We told Ms. Meilleur that we wanted to see money spent as efficiently as possible rather than having $100,000 being spent here and there with everyone doing his little bit on his own. It is better for us to try to accomplish something together and to make use of an overall amount to achieve a greater objective than we would be able to do if we were all working individually.

Mr. Réjean Nadeau: You are quite right, sir, when you say that Manitoba has been more successful than Ontario with the federal government and that is in spite of our efforts, Mr. Chairman, when we consider the number of francophone MPs whose support we were able to obtain for the signing of a Canada-Community agreement with respect to human resources, etc.

However, it is clear that what we are talking about has just as much of an effect on the bilingual municipalities of Manitoba, New Brunswick and Quebec and other provinces and territories, since our needs are all the same.

When we talk about a range of linguistic tools and support, this is just as necessary for Manitoba as for New Brunswick since we all have to face the same challenges in providing service to taxpayers at the local level. In this respect, I hope that we will be able to work better with Manitoba and New Brunswick.

This is part of our informal request when we talk about national consensus building of the municipal sector. We have never had such a meeting. I think that the Standing Committee on Official Languages and the Commissioner of Official Languages would surely be in favour of us getting together in the same room to discuss our problems and the challenges we have to meet. It would cost you a lot less than signing individual agreements.

Mr. Raymond Simard: It would be an interesting exercise. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Godin, you asked for a second turn.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't want to mix apples and oranges but I may have done so in my previous comment. I thought it was unacceptable for you to have to work so hard and then to turn around and see that the federal government in Ottawa is not setting an example. I find that quite revolting.

Let's take a look at what was done in a little province like New Brunswick with only 720,000 people. They seem to be doing something right. Wouldn't it be possible to do something jointly with New Brunswick to set up programs of this type, as in Manitoba? Manitoba may need a program but I suppose New Brunswick already has one. If it is already in existence, why would you have to reinvent the wheel?

I think that the chairman's question is a good one. Ontario has received money but was it spent for francophones as it should have been? Did the municipalities not receive their fair share or was this money not spent for francophones, as occurred in Nova Scotia? In this particular province, money was allocated for francophones but was not spent for the intended purpose. I'd be interested in hearing your comments on this, they may enlighten us.

» (1715)

Mr. Jacques Hétu: I think that this comes back to what I said previously. I don't want to keep going over the past. What is done is done. Let's take a look at what we can do in the future, otherwise we won't be able to achieve our aim. Our aim is to head towards the future.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Nevertheless, I would like to talk about the past. Was the money used for francophones, but not channeled through the municipalities, or was it not used for francophones at all?

Mr. Jacques Hétu: Mr. Godin, the municipalities did not receive what they should have received, but I can't tell you whether or not the money was spent on francophones. Only the Minister of Francophone Affairs of Ontario could answer that. I don't think I'm in a position to answer that question.

Mr. Denis Pommainville: I can say this: A few years ago, the Association of municipalities of Ontario did not include any francophone element, and the AFMO, the Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario, was created so that we could work together as one. We are now a part of the Association of municipalities of Ontario and our president is a member of the executive board of the association. That shows that we've come a long way. We had to start by being recognized at the municipal level. It is now recognized that we do indeed exist.

Now, we have to fully participate in the Association of municipalities of Ontario. When the association meets with ministers, on the federal or provincial level, or when it is making representations elsewhere, we want to make sure that the association takes into consideration the francophone element. Before, we were not there.

The Chair: If you like, each one of you will be entitled to one question during the minutes remaining. We only have seven minutes until the bell summons us to go to vote in the House of Commons. I only need about a minute to go over the list of witnesses we will be hearing from over the next few weeks. So let's go ahead. Each MP can ask one question during the brief time that remains.

Mr. Proulx, I believe you had asked to speak a second time.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to ask a dozen questions but I will limit myself.

The Chair: Jump ahead to your last question.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Let's be optimistic and consider that everything is in place and everything is working well. Which municipalities could benefit from that? Would it only be the member municipalities of your association, or are you suggesting that any Ontario municipality could decide to avail itself of this program?

Mr. Réjean Nadeau: We are not exclusive. We are above all inclusive, and we are ready and willing to provide the tools to all municipalities who want to benefit, and to work with them. Currently, 39 municipalities in which there are a large number of francophones are members of our association, but if other municipalities wanted to come on board, they would be free to do so. We would be pleased if that were to happen.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I would like to ask you a half-question. There are costs related to that. I presume that in Hawkesbury, you have already done the calculations.

Mr. Jacques Hétu: We have already done so in our area.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: How much does that cost you? The overall picture may perhaps be different.

Mr. Jacques Hétu: I cannot answer specifically on that because there hasn't been a study on the costs. Right now there is a study underway in certain municipalities in order to get a better idea of the situation. It is in keeping with traditions—

Mr. Marcel Proulx: As Ms. Cousineau said, it is easier in your area than elsewhere, perhaps.

Mr. Jacques Hétu: It's definitely much easier. We are a minority in Ontario, but we are a majority in the United Counties of Prescott and Russell. It is a very different problem in our area.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: To answer Mr. Sauvageau, the translation of my resume that is available on the Internet is very poorly done. For example, my place of birth, L'Orignal, is translated as “Moose, Ontario”, and the fact that I have "trois fils", three sons, is translated as “he has three wires”.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here.

» (1720)

The Chair: Ms. Andrew, you wanted to quickly check a point?

Ms. Caroline Andrew: I just wanted to add that the issue of costs was one of the most difficult aspects of the study. It would appear that indeed, in some cases, municipalities have incorporated the provision of services in both languages to such an extent that in the beginning, they had difficulties making calculations.

Therefore the purpose of the extension of the study will be to try to come up with a detailed calculation of the costs. At the outset, people were saying that things had always been done this way. However, they did not consider the fact that the staff had to translate.

I think that this is an important element that we will have to take into consideration if we want to be able to determine the exact amounts. It is the objective of the second part of the study.

The Chair: Mr. Simard, you may ask one last question. Then, before adjourning the meeting, I will take two minutes to inform you of the agenda for the next few days.

Mr. Raymond Simard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am digressing a bit from federal-municipal relations, but I would like to mention that in my city, Winnipeg, if we have services in French, it is because we have a rather friendly bilingual mayor. We worked to convince him that the francophonie was an added value. We now have 16 bilingual municipalities, which was inconceivable 5 or 10 years ago.

I would like to know if you make similar efforts directly with municipalities in order to see if some level of awareness-raising is possible. We would even be willing to finance your efforts.

Mr. Jacques Hétu: We elected representatives consider it our duty to meet with our colleagues and counterparts to educate them, whether it be at conferences or the AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

The last conference was held in Thunder Bay, which became a member of the AFMO, the Francophone Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Because of certain events that transpired, everyone can probably recall Thunder Bay. The City of Cornwall, which is 70 per cent anglophone, also became a member, and will host the AFMO conference from September 14 to 17. I would like to extend an invitation to all members of the committee to attend. That's a free advertisement.

In short, when it comes to working with elected representatives and mayors of municipalities, our approach has borne fruit. In Ontario there has been a change of attitude with respect to this.

Mr. Réjean Nadeau: Sir, I must mention the fact that with each municipal election, we lose a certain percentage of French-speaking representatives, because the number of municipalities has been declining. Thus, we have lost 250 French-speaking elected representatives in eight years.

Mr. Raymond Simard: This is why it is important to educate anglophones.

Mr. Réjean Nadeau: Yes, and they are ready to commit, on condition that they can demonstrate to their constituents that it is possible to cover the cost of membership.

The Chair: Before adjourning the meeting, I would like to clarify that the appearance before the committee of the Minister of Canadian Heritage on March 30^th has been confirmed, as well as that of the Minister responsible for the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada.

On March 31, the Commission nationale des parents francophones will be here; their appearance has been confirmed.

We thought the Minister of Justice would appear on the 31^st. However, it seems that he is no longer available and that he wishes to appear on April 19, following Easter break.

In addition, we are waiting for the Canadian Cable Television Association to confirm their appearance on April 19. Mr. Godin, you had asked me a question regarding this earlier today.

» (1725)

Mr. Yvon Godin: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chair: We do not know. In the meantime, we must set a working agenda according to the days available, and the availability of witnesses. You do realize that after next week, it will not be the fault of witnesses. We will have another two-week break. We will therefore have to deal with that as best we can. We are facing a lot of interruptions. It is nobody's fault. This is just how things are unfolding, these days. We also realize that there may be a longer interruption if an election is called. But in the meantime, I wanted to inform you of the availability of potential witnesses, given everybody's interest in this matter.

I would now like to thank...

Mr. Yvon Godin: Did the Canadian Cable Television Association say that it was not available next week?

Mr. Chairman, we are talking about two groups, francophone and anglophone, who are not able to follow debates of the Canadian Parliament in their language.

The Chair: Mr. Clerk, can you talk to us about that before we wind up? I know that the committee had very specifically recommended that there be two channels.

Mr. Yvon Godin: The government responded to this recommendation.

The Chair: Exactly. Given the importance of this issue, it would be interesting to have the association appear before the committee in the near future.

Why couldn't they come earlier? After all, it's been about three weeks since we asked them to appear.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard): Yes, indeed; however, the association has a representative, Mr. Ken Stein, whom they deem essential, and this gentleman is travelling this week, I believe, as well as next week. This is why they could not come.

The Chair: He is the president, is he not?

The Clerk: I believe he is vice-president of regulations, and he also sits on CPAC's board of directors.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I might have a solution to that. I don't know if this falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, but the government responded to the committee's recommendations by saying that it would get the CRTC to ask cable broadcasters to set up a different channel for each official language. We can perhaps ask the minister, when she appears before the committee, why she did not give the CRTC the order to follow through on what the government had...

The Chair: We will have the opportunity to ask her that, since the next witness to appear before this committee is indeed the minister.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Everything is going our way.

The Chair: Indeed, this minister will be our next witness. Therefore, we will ask her. In fact, we can even ask the minister to prepare to answer this question, or to take the necessary steps that would allow her to provide a favourable answer to our question when she appears next week.

That being said, we must conclude. On behalf of...

Mr. Raymond Simard: Mr. Chairman, we have invited the Minister of Justice. You said that he might be appearing in April. I'm wondering if it would be possible to reinvite the Association des juristes d'expression française. Some time ago, we talked about judicial appointments, in autumn, if I'm not mistaken.

In my opinion, I think it would be useful to invite these people before we hear from the minister, or perhaps we can hear from both on the same day, in order to refresh our memories. I think it's quite important.

The Chair: I would like to, but the next meeting will be held on April 19^th, the week after next.

The Minister of Justice will perhaps be here, as well as the Canadian Cable Television Association, and as we were saying two minutes ago, their appearance is very important and even comes too late. If we delay their appearance even further, we will not be any more ahead.

This is the problem we have. I can only suggest that we meet twice on the week of April 19 to hear from all of them, according to their availability. Does that work?

Mr. Raymond Simard: Yes, that's fine.

The Chair: That being said, I would like to formally thank the representatives of the Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario for appearing. Of course, when the time comes, we will be tabling reports in Parliament, which will be based on the evidence given today.

Since the bell has started to ring, summoning us to vote in the House of Commons, the meeting is adjourned.