Official Languages Committee on May 13th, 2008

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

So that's none of your responsibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

That completes Mr. Godin's question period.

Mr. Lafontaine, where are you from?

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

From Moncton.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

From Moncton.

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

Canadian Heritage's Atlantic regional office is located in Moncton.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

That's what we assumed.

We will now turn to the government with Mr. Michael Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to split my time with Daniel Petit.

The first point I want to make is that when I look at the funding breakdown across the country, I see that the four western provinces receive about $11 million, groups in Ontario receive about $5 million, and groups in New Brunswick receive about $3 million. What seems particularly odd to me is that there are 200,000 francophones across the four western provinces, yet they receive $11 million in support, while 500,000 francophones in Ontario receive only $5 million in support and 250,000 francophones in New Brunswick receive $3 million in support. So on the one hand we have a group of francophones in the prairies, 200,000 strong, who receive $11 million, while in Ontario and New Brunswick there are 800,000 francophones who receive $8 million--in other words, only one-fifth of the support per capita that francophones in the four western provinces are receiving.

That seems to be a very incongruous and disproportionate amount of support for francophones in certain regions of the country and not in others. It seems to me we're putting francophone communities in New Brunswick and Ontario at a disadvantage vis-à-vis those communities in the four western provinces.

My second point is that when I look at the funding for the anglophone community in Quebec, I find a similar pattern. There are 1.4 million anglophones in Quebec, and they receive only $4 million in funding. Maybe it's because we don't think allophones are really anglophones, and they don't deserve support as a minority community, in more than one sense of the word, in the province of Quebec. I hope that's not the case, because I think when we're looking at funding minority-language communities, we're looking through the lens of dividing the Canadian population into anglophones and francophones; we're not playing the game of anglophones, francophones, and then allophones, but the allophones really don't deserve the support because they're not really of the two official languages. I would hope that in the province of Quebec, or elsewhere in the country, that in calculating the distribution of funds for minority-language communities, the allophone population, for example, in Montreal, would be treated as an anglophone community in a minority situation.

So these numbers seem completely unbalanced in terms of support for official language communities, and in particular for official language francophone communities in Ontario and New Brunswick and for anglophone minority communities in Quebec.

[Hubert Lussier]

That's a very good question, which I struggle with in my discussions with representatives from the communities themselves. There's no perfect allocation. You can argue from the point of view of numbers, as you just did, or from the point of view of need. Unfortunately, need is not as easily pegged as numbers.

Let me start by saying that the numbers we use are based on first official language spoken. We also track mother tongue, but from the point of view of defining the communities, more and more it's first official language spoken. Therefore, an immigrant coming to New Brunswick from North Africa, who has Arabic as their first language but speaks French, will be counted as part of...and the same thing in every other province. Of course, it will be English in Quebec.

As I said earlier in a response to a question from Mr. Godin, the determination of the envelope weighs the need and challenge of given communities. That is inversely proportional to the kinds of services and institutional support they get from their provinces and municipalities. It will be stronger in Quebec, Ontario, and New Brunswick than in western provinces, which are the examples you used. That's why there is this disproportion.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have two minutes left, Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I'm going to supplement Mr. Chong's question.

In the province of Quebec, Statistics Canada considers me an allophone because my mother tongue isn't French. Mr. Rodriguez has the same problem because he's also an allophone. We know the two languages and we can function on both levels. When my community deals with Canadian Heritage, it can do so in English or in French. It can get grants from both sides because Statistics Canada doesn't identify us in the right place, or at least because the question is poorly put.

The allophone communities in the Montreal area are very powerful. They dominate virtually all of central Montreal, and their mother tongues are Arabic, Armenian and every other Middle Eastern language.

You're presenting your official languages support program. I have two official languages. How do you go about allocating the funding? As Mr. Chong said, we have a problem. You can identify me as part of both the anglophone and francophone groups. My community carries enough weight to go to one side or the other. How do you go about ensuring that the money is really allocated to official languages? Do you understand what I mean? If I have something to ask you, I'll organize matters so that you can give it to me.

[Hubert Lussier]

That's a good question. The answer is easy. First of all, I'll throw the question back at you by asking you how you answer Statistics Canada when you check the little box marked “first official language spoken”. But the real answer is that we rely on the community to define its members. Some communities in Saskatchewan—that some of your colleagues know well—increasingly tend to include in their definition people for whom French is not their mother tongue or even their first official language spoken, but who are francophiles. They are making major efforts to include in their cultural, youth and other events young people and citizens who are learning French, in order to reach out them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

[Hubert Lussier]

We feel it is their responsibility to determine to whom they offer services. But to conclude on this point, the numerical criterion on which we rely is the first official language spoken, as Canada understands that term.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Lussier, for answering succinctly.

We now start our second and final round. We'll begin with Mr. Brent St. Denis.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for being here today. I believe you stated that the agreements... there are five elements in each agreement which are the same everywhere, but there are other sections that address the differences among the regions.

In your view, are there any good reasons to improve the differences, to expand the differences, to recognize that the differences are greater than is generally admitted? Are there reasons to expand the specific programs? For example, in my region of northern Ontario, the francophone communities are located in a large territory, but there are francophone communities in the big cities like Toronto, Sudbury and so on, that have needs that I think are different. Are there any reasons to recognize that?

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

Indeed, when you consider the present agreements, they contain five parts. The first part is the purpose of the agreement; the second, common values; the third, that's the principle; in the fourth, there are the commitments to act for both parties, the department and the community; and in the fifth, it's the application of the agreement and the consultation and participation mechanism, and so on.

It's clear that the agreement is in place to define the commitment of both the community and the department to work together on the development objectives that the community has set for itself. Most communities have comprehensive development plans that they have refined over the years. In that respect, Ontario is obviously much more complex than, for example, Newfoundland and Labrador. At that point, in the implementation of the agreement, the groups operating in Toronto will definitely have analytical criteria for their funding, and others, which will not be the same as in a rural region. The agreement doesn't provide a magic recipe for saying how much money would go to a rural group relative to an urban official language minority community group. Definitely, in the next round... Ultimately, it all comes back to how the community, whether it's urban or rural, is able to articulate its development priorities and to how that is then translated into support from the department.

I think it's important to realize that the collaboration agreement is only a tool. We now have a lot more than Part VII. Other federal departments have to play a role in health, justice and a number of other areas. Canadian Heritage is no longer the only funding agency for what is called community development. That's a major shift compared to the years when I was young and the Secretary of State had to fund everything related to the official language minorities in Canada. There was a lot to do with $3 million at that time.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Pardon me. You mentioned that a lot of departments have work to do for the francophone minorities. Who has the role of integrating, of developing a vision to prevent system shortcomings, to prevent holes?

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

Under the Official Languages Act, the Department of Canadian Heritage has a responsibility for coordinating the federal implemention effort and support for the development and vitality of the communities. Canadian Heritage has a responsibility. At the department, we also have—Hubert can talk about this—an interdepartmental consultation directorate that is trying to see how the various federal government departments and agencies can work together to support the priorities that the communities will set for their own development.

[Hubert Lussier]

Indeed, we are in contact with the other federal institutions, or at least with a group of them, to guide them in discharging their responsibilities.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. St. Denis.

We'll now go over to our parliamentary secretary, Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning.

Witnesses from various associations who have appeared before us have spoken about challenges relating to the funding they receive from the government. I noted that, on the last page of your presentation, you talked about positive initiatives to reduce the administrative load. For example, you talk about the possibility of the organizations receiving 25% of their funding at the start of the year. They are also encouraged to submit multi-year requests. You also talk about raising the threshold for grants from $50,000 to $75,000.

First, I'd like to know whether these measures will be implemented this year and also whether the organizations and associations are pleased with those initiatives. Lastly, I would like to know whether other measures have been recommended to the government, but are not included here.

[Jean-Bernard Lafontaine]

As regards the 25% interim funding, we implemented that at least six or seven years ago. We realized that there were delays during elections, which considerably delayed regular funding. So we adopted the interim funding measure to offset that situation. I think it's well received by the communities. They appreciate the fact that, in April, they have the money in the bank to pay their employers and start their programming.

The multi-year agreements were implemented two years ago. As the agreements this year expire on March 31, 2009, the maximum it is possible to get is a multi-year agreement of three years. Five groups in New Brunswick and seven in Newfoundland obtained multi-year agreements of two or three years, which simplifies the process. They don't have to submit a request every year, since the agreement extends over three years. If they submit their activity report and it is consistent with the terms of the contribution agreement, they will receive their money much sooner and much more regularly. In addition, there are fewer reports to submit. They receive 50%, rather than 25%, of their funding in April because the multi-year agreement mechanisms pay out funding faster.

This year, the grant threshold was increased to $75,000. I would tell you off the top of my head that more than half or even more than 60% of the groups that operate on a programming basis receive less than $75,000 a year. The threshold is $30,000 for projects, but, for annual programming, it's much simpler for at least 60% of the groups because they don't have to be accountable, sign an agreement and so on. They simply have to submit a report at the end of the year to state that the grant was used for the purposes of specific activities. That aspect of the arrangement is very much appreciated.

Of course, there are always ways to simplify the process. We are often criticized about the fact that the requests are very complicated to complete and involve a lot of detail. Especially in the case of groups with which we've been doing business for a number of years, it may not be necessary to request so many details.

We're working together with the communities and within the department to try to reduce what we call the administrative load. We know that the communities spend a lot of time resolving administrative details and less doing development. As a department, we are prepared to receive comments and suggestions from the communities on ways to simplify these processes, while remaining accountable to Parliament.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Are you considering the possibility of taking other measures under the next agreements? As you said, that will be in 2009.