Official Languages Committee on Nov. 27th, 2007

[Graham Fraser]

No, what I said was that funding sometimes comes through in January or February and has to be spent by the end of the financial year, which is March 31. This means that they have a month to spend the money.

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

I agree with you, but that is not what I understood.

[Graham Fraser]

I apologize if I did not express myself clearly.

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

It could be that you expressed yourself very clearly, but that I misunderstood you. Yes, I can sometimes admit my mistakes.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Groups often have to get a line of credit to fund their activities. Then they have to deal with the government saying that they're not producing results. How can you blame them? It's the perfect recipe for bankruptcy.

This is an issue that I would like us to study. How can it be that the government is allowed to release the funding late and then say that the groups are failing?

[Graham Fraser]

There is another point I could add for your consideration. Some representatives of an official language minority group told me that having very limited time within which to spend the money resulted in other negative impacts. The organization in question had planned to hire a community group or a small- or medium-size company in the community as a consultant. Unfortunately, when there is very little time, these small organizations do not have adequate resources to comply with their contract obligations. They are required to go to the big companies. That is another fact that works to the advantage of large companies and to the disadvantage of SMEs in the community.

The Auditor General has published a report in the past about the problem of underfunding, and she recommended multi-year funding. That avoids this type of annual crisis.

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

I am trying to highlight the fact that the government claims that the programs are not working and that is why it prefers to give the money directly to beneficiaries. The programs are not working because it is not giving money to the organizations. Would you agree that could be the reason for the problem?

I am also thinking of part VII of the Official Languages Act. The act was amended in 2005, but there were no consultations. There were no consultations about literacy. During the only consultation process that occurred, people simply got angry. So they gave money to the associations again, and actually even gave them more, in order to keep them quiet. but that is not the real situation. There are two issues: funding and funding on time.

[Graham Fraser]

It is true that the Auditor General has done a more comprehensive study, one that far exceeds my abilities to do a financial analysis of the way in which the program works. I would refer you to the three studies put out by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.

You mentioned the issue of consultation. This is something we discovered when we were looking into the budget cuts. We saw no evidence that there had been any consultation, and we found no evidence of compliance with the obligations set out in part VII of the Official Languages Act. That is why we asked for intervener status.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

We will now begin our third round. Mr. Murphy, a Liberal member, has left.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I will begin, and I will share my time with Mr. D'amours.

Mr. Fraser, you said, and I quote:

At present, a less thorough, even minimalist, application of the Official Languages Act appears to be taking place within the public service

That is a quite a harsh estimate, and disturbing as regards the implementation of the Official Languages Act.

I would like to come back the Court Challenges Program. I am sure you have followed the entire saga on this subject. The government's side has tried to block any debate on this issue, and the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages actually refused to talk about it. He had to resign, and we moved onto something else.

When we resumed our work a few weeks ago, and we asked, once again, that the committee look into this matter, there was, of course, a great deal of resistance from the government members. They were absolutely determined to block any discussion on the Court Challenges Program.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I have a point of order.

We were meeting in camera when this issue was discussed, and now it is being talked about in public.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

That was just a point of order.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

A comparison has been made between the withdrawal of the Court Challenges Program and that of legal aid programs in a number of provinces. Can a parallel be drawn between these two types of programs with regard to the functions they perform in Canada?

[Graham Fraser]

I will consult my legal counsel, but it is important to recall that the Court Challenges Program was set up to protect the rights defined in the charter. The program dealt solely with cases where charter rights were at stake. You might say that those rights were constitutional rights.

[Johane Tremblay]

I would add that the legal aid programs have a very specific objective. Of course, they allow people who don't have the means to do so to access the court system, in such areas as family or criminal law.

What we are talking about here is a program that provides Canadians with reasonable access to the courts in order to have their constitutional rights upheld. Legal aid would not have allowed communities to go to court and ask for their own schools pursuant to section 23. These two types of programs have very different objectives.

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

Mr. Commissioner, have you ever heard of cases where the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages could help groups cover part or all of their costs incurred in defending their rights?

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chairman, our legislation does not allow us to grant financial assistance or pay such costs.

[Johane Tremblay]

I would like to take this opportunity to make a clarification: the commissioner can intervene in a court action intended to uphold constitutional rights, but he cannot initiate such action.

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

Very well.

You have been the Commissioner of Official Languages for the past year now. During that time, the Conservative government has issued a number of confusing messages with regard to official languages.

I would like to know whether the Conservative government consults with you often to see if it is headed in the right direction with regard to official languages or, on the contrary, whether it does not solicit your advice regularly.

[Graham Fraser]

I would say that I meet with ministers and deputy ministers to talk about their departments around the time when the annual report is published.

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

I apologize, Mr. Commissioner, does the government specifically ask you...

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Your time is up, Mr. D'Amours.

We will now move on to the Bloc Québécois. We will hear from Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Would you like to answer Mr. D'Amours? I found that very interesting.

[Graham Fraser]

I have a number of conversations with ministers on specific issues, but the Court Challenges Program includes complaint mechanisms and processes dealing with inquiries and preliminary reports, whereby departments respond, publish reports or other such things. In a process as formal as that, I do not expect to receive phone calls with proposals for this and that. I do not think that would be appropriate.

However, I am often asked to come and speak about programs before departmental management committees. We work with institutions. In my presentation, I spoke about wanting to develop other kinds of intervention mechanisms. Among other things, we have to establish new relationships with institutions in order to make further progress. It is not enough to make reports that address complaints. We cannot simply establish a formal process of complaint-inquiry-report without ever getting to the bottom of things. We cooperate with institutions and are initiating a dialogue with them. We realize there is a systemic problem and we want an in-depth discussion to see how we can address those fundamental problems.