Evidence of meeting #10 for Official Languages in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was action.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
10:30 a.m.
Bloc
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Good morning, gentlemen.
My question is primarily for Mr. Manion.
Through the action plan, you negotiate many agreements between the federal government and the provinces. A lot of work is done in provincial areas of jurisdiction: education, health and so on. These areas, given section 92 of the British North America Act, are very delicate subjects in Quebec. We do not want to be interfering in education or in health, but we nevertheless take the money.
Mr. Lussier answered correctly earlier on when he said that there was a transfer of funds. But how do you ensure that the provinces manage the funds that are sent to them for official languages well? Given that I am with the federal and not the provincial government, if we transfer $15, $20 or $30 million, we do not even know where the money winds up. Official languages, which by the way are a federal area of jurisdiction, affect all federal organizations and employees. Mr. Manion, as a deputy minister, perhaps you could help us.
10:30 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Planning and Corporate Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
I am once again being given a promotion. Thank you very much.
It really depends on the area. Certain aspects are specific to agreements with the provinces, but the fact is that it is decided within the framework of bilateral agreements signed in areas of education and health, amongst others. It happens, in health for example, that the networking involves several stakeholders. As far as accountability provisions are concerned, they are found within these agreements. In some cases, we ask for an annual report. We can also ask provinces or other service providers to submit information. The important thing is that the parameters are set out in the agreements.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Before you answer, Mr. Lussier, I would like to emphasize a specific point. We transferred $200 million to Quebec for the integration of immigrants. Of course, we discovered that the National Assembly did not necessarily allocate that sum, which came from the federal government, to the integration of immigrants. Therefore, what do you do? I saw your documents on accountability. You do not work for the provincial government, they can tell you anything they like. They may tell you that they have done so. What do you do to verify if the funds coming from the federal government is being spent in the right area? Perhaps there is something I am unaware of, but it seems in fact that you do not control everything.
10:30 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Planning and Corporate Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Are we in control? No, because the federal system, within which we must work, has limitations. However, we are always dealing with an agreement or an accord between the federal government and the provinces. If these agreements are not complied with, measures can be taken, but it would always be during the renegotiation of these agreements during subsequent years. Obviously, it is not a perfect world in that regard.
10:30 a.m.
Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, Department of Canadian Heritage
A good part of what you are describing relies on a relationship of trust. Here is how agreements in education and in the services area work. First of all, the provinces accept the money that is transferred to them by the federal government because we all have shared objectives. There is therefore agreement on those objectives. The provinces provide us with an action plan in which they indicate where they will be allocating the federal funds, and they commit to producing an activity report at the end of their activities, which will be submitted to provincial accountants and authorities for auditing, an activities report that will describe how the money has been spent.
We cannot, of course, as the federal government, sit down and peer over the shoulders of the provincial auditors. The reports they submit to us are authenticated using proper procedures, and it is on that basis that we make the payments.
I would add one thing. There are a great many different mechanisms that exist, and those in immigration, of which I'm not well aware, are no doubt very different from those that I manage in education, but it has happened to me to get calls from colleagues from other federal departments who want to know how we are working in the area of education. One of those people said to me recently “you're a best practice at Canadian Heritage”. It is rare to hear such a thing, which is why I am pleased to repeat it.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Thank you very much, Mr. Lussier and Mr. Petit.
We will continue with Mr. Gravel.
10:35 a.m.
Bloc
Raymond Gravel Bloc Repentigny, QC
I was listening to my colleague Mr. Nadeau, and I was touched by what he said about his inner suffering. I would like you to respond to what Mr. Nadeau was saying.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
We should perhaps put the official language minority communities question in context.
10:35 a.m.
Bloc
Raymond Gravel Bloc Repentigny, QC
He gave examples. Are the investments made in Canada for linguistic minorities currently producing results?
10:35 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Planning and Corporate Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage
Over the course of our discussions with community representatives, we have found that they are seeing progress. They say that things are not perfect, and that we could always do better with more.
There will always be situations where the rights of the minority to be served in their language will not be respected. That will always exist. It is impossible and unthinkable that that would never happen again.
The communities believe that there has been progress made. I always give the example of health. They have found that there has been very significant progress and they are very proud because they invested a lot of themselves in it. There have been a great many partnerships. They find that the results are very positive. Is it perfect? Far from it, but is that going to lead us to make other investments, during a second phase of the action plan, and to eliminate all instances where individuals feel they are not being well served? Absolutely not. It would be irresponsible of me to say that such a thing is possible and that any program can settle everything, 100%, forever.
However, there is evidence of the results of the present action plan. Communities and other stakeholders are very interested in official languages issues and strongly support the idea that the action plan should be renewed. They are ready to work with us in an ongoing partnership in order to improve the fate of communities and to support linguistic duality in this country.
I know that that does not necessarily answer the question that you raised, but it will however allow for improvements in the situation in the long term.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Thank you very much.
In conclusion, I thank the witnesses for having come to meet with us this morning. As I was explaining to you, this was our first meeting on the committee's recommendations to the minister on the action plan. Your presence was useful and has given us an overview of what has been done over the last five years. I would like to reiterate that the committee supports the development of a second phase of the Action Plan for Official Languages.
Thank you for your attention.
The meeting is adjourned.
