Official Languages Committee on Jan. 29th, 2008

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

How do you explain the $187-million amount?

[Bruce Manion]

It was just for the first period. It was a mid-term evaluation for the years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. As I told you, it is a normal spending profile for this program, especially if we consider that we normally see that new programs are implemented somewhat slowly. After that, the spending curb goes up.

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

Can you tell us where the blockage occurs? The money is there, the budgets have been adopted, and the communities are telling us that when the budgets run out, they have to get a line of credit to continue their operations. But the money is there, the budgets have been adopted. So who is blocking the communities? Is it the department? Is the government? This is one of the problems. Communities are expected to take charge and to have an action plan. But if the funding is provided late and the people are forced to turn to lines of credit or to proceed with lay-offs at the end of the program, in reality, the program is doomed to fail. We did not hold in camera meetings, but the people from the affected communities whom we met with publicly clearly told us, everywhere we went, that the money is coming in too late. So I ask the question: Who is holding up the money? Is it the department or is it the government itself that refuses to issue the cheque?

[Bruce Manion]

There are several causes for the situation you are describing. It is not unique to the Action Plan for Official Languages. The situation was noted in the report that was tabled last year on all of the federal government's grants and contributions processes. An independent panel prepared a report showing that our processes are quite cumbersome. They are slow-moving, and we are unable to guarantee multi-year agreements. There is recourse to project funding and not to operational funding. So the same criticism exists elsewhere in the machine of government. Yes the approval process is somewhat slow, and we see that especially with new programs. Of course we have our own internal approvals, Treasury Board approval, etc., but once launched, there is still some slowness, some inertia on the part of the federal machine and as a result operations are not at an optimal speed. We see that within—

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

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that is—

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin, you may continue on the next round.

We will now go to the government side. Mr. Lemieux, the parliamentary secretary, has the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presentation this morning. You have given us a good overview of the action plan.

Can you describe existing mechanisms that support communities in their consultation work and that allow for cooperation between the government and our official languages minority communities?

[Hubert Lussier]

All kinds of consultation mechanisms exist, and they vary by department. My colleagues will perhaps add some clarification. The mechanism at Health Canada is often recognized as one that is highly appreciated by communities. The department has created two committees that meet periodically, one for the anglophone community in Quebec and the other for francophones outside Quebec.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada has created an equivalent one for francophones outside Quebec. Both officials and community representatives sit on the committee. Together, they define the objectives and sometimes determine program mechanisms.

At Heritage Canada, the mechanisms are somewhat similar. There is a coordination committee for anglophones from Quebec and a coordination committee for francophones outside Quebec. Beyond that, for a host of specific problems—that is the case for culture, for example—there are working groups made up of community members and departmental representatives, and sometimes several departments are involved at once.

Culture is an area where there is a lot of this kind of cooperation. For example, my colleagues from Heritage Canada sit on working groups with people from the Canada Council for the Arts and people from the communities, and the National Arts Centre, or Telefilm Canada, etc. There are countless models that vary from one to the other, but they have been set up over the past five or six years and continue to evolve.

[Jérôme Moisan]

I will add that at the secretariat, we manage an annual process, which takes place in the spring, involving consultations of officials from each department that has received funding from the action plan. A day of meetings is set aside for representatives from francophone communities outside Quebec, and a day of meetings is set aside for anglophones from Quebec. Last year, we were innovative. We held a day of meetings with groups interested especially in issues involving linguistic duality. That included groups like Canadian Parents for French, people from immersion, research institutes on bilingualism, and so on. The goal of these consultations is to see where they are at with the action plan, what the priorities are, what we can see from that and what we could improve. It is another mechanism for dialogue with the communities to get an update with them and their representatives on an annual basis.

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

You work with the communities. How do you find their general understanding of our action plan? Do they understand it well? I have noted an increase in spending each year. At the start, in 2003-2004, expenditures were $55 or $56 million, and in 2006-2007, expenditures are now approximately $213 million. Based on your experience, is there a good understanding of the action plan and the initiatives?

[Bruce Manion]

In general, yes, even if it is not equal among all groups and communities. The representatives and organizations representing the communities, like the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne (FCFA) and the Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN), do have a very good understanding of the action plan and of programming that stems from it. During the discussions, they did, nevertheless, make several suggestions to improve these programs. We talk with them quite regularly. In areas where programming is relatively new, there are some challenges. There were some challenges as regards the launching and awareness aspects, for example. I think that the communities' understanding is, nonetheless, on the high end.

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

Can you give us some concrete examples, tell us about some real success stories that would not have taken place in the official languages minority communities without the action plan? Can you give us details on some projects that have yielded concrete results?

[Bruce Manion]

I will leave it up to my colleague Hubert to talk about our programming. I will, however, say that in the area of health, we have noted some substantial progress, especially regarding the development and solidification of networks, in addition to capacity, within the communities, to use these networks to provide better health services. The communities themselves recognize that this is a highly significant result. Of course, that creates pressure for completing a second phase. Around the table, that accomplishment is often referred to as one of the best examples of significant and concrete results.

[Hubert Lussier]

I will give you one or two very concrete examples. The action plan has created some leeway financially that has made it possible to fund projects in school community centres. Two of these centres are in New Brunswick, one in Fredericton and one in Saint John, and they have seen their funding increase. Some centres have been built in Saskatchewan. Quebec already has Community Learning Centres. A somewhat similar network is being created for the anglophone community in Quebec. In short, the action plan has allowed for the creation of seven or eight school community centres.

I would like to draw your attention to an aspect that has received very little visibility, but that has made it possible to help provinces go farther in terms of services offered to the community. For example, New Brunswick has adopted legislation dealing with services in French. We were in a position to help with the implementation of that legislation by developing a series of tools in French for the Acadian community in that province.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemieux.

That completes our first round. We will now start the second round with Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you for joining us this morning.

You have talked about successes that have helped move things along. We have talked mainly about health, but I would also like to address the issue of education. I would like to know if, in your view, being able to offer schools to minority francophone communities is part of what we might call successes.

[Hubert Lussier]

It is both a success and an essential service for the future of the communities. Enabling these communities to have educational institutions of their own that offer quality programs for the entire time children are in school is key. In that regard, we can say that the plan has made a difference.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

You said that offering services in the languages of the communities was something crucial. Actually, they cannot, in the area of education, defend themselves in court against provincial political authorities. They have been deprived of these tools that they used for building the foundations of their community.

Mr. Lussier, you commented that the Court Challenges Program should not have been cut, because it was helping certain minority francophone communities to build or to preserve the heart of their community and thus to avoid a heart... condition, shall we say. In any case, I appreciated your comments on this matter.

Earlier, we discussed the yearly spring meetings in which the communities take part. Are these communities and their various organizations being consulted? Are their needs evaluated in a global way, or in a more restricted sense?

[Jérôme Moisan]

Traditionally, every spring, we invite about 40 francophone community association representatives. Thus, we are in touch with the entire membership of the FCFA associations, which includes all the representatives of provincial or territorial organizations, besides the representatives of sectors, which include literacy federations, francophone parents' associations, etc. We are casting a fairly wide net. We are doing the same thing with the Quebec anglophones.

As I said earlier, last year we contacted a number of new stakeholders to discuss the issues of bilingualism with them. Thus, we can take the national pulse, because we have francophone representatives from every province, as well as representatives of the various sectors in the provinces.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

This is how the department is taking the pulse of the various communities. It is clear that we are casting a fairly wide net. Earlier, you also mentioned the new action plan which is to replace the former Dion plan.

The Standing Committee on Official Languages also travelled to the communities to meet with them and to assess the situation. Probably, you consulted them along with various organizations. You must also have found, generally, that we cast a fairly wide net because we visited locations all over Canada. Thus, we also cast a fairly wide net to be sure that we get a clear idea of what the communities need, what they are asking for.

Do you agree?

[Bruce Manion]

Yes.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

We agree on both points. The department has the task of meeting these organizations every spring. Moreover, the Standing Committee on Official Languages is in charge of meeting with organizations even more directly in the field. I wonder how this will turn out. You usually do this in the spring. However, the issue of the Standing Committee on Official Languages is not a new one. But putting all these things together, we cast an even wider net.

This brings me to the following question: If we cast our nets wide as you also did, what was the purpose of asking the former premier of New Brunswick to travel all over the country right away and to do everything all over again, while we could have drawn up an action plan today for the next fiscal year beginning on April 1?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. D'Amours, your time is up.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Already?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I now give the floor to a member from the governing party.