Official Languages Committee on Feb. 16th, 2012

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

Actually, there are a number of ways of doing it. Combining all of those ways is what is going to help us be more and more comfortable. As was mentioned earlier, we have summative evaluations. There will also be a horizontal evaluation to help us group everything that was accomplished through the Roadmap and put it in a global perspective. There is also the work of the committee and the accountability I was talking about. I feel that all those methods can help us determine how to achieve the objectives that we have set up. Each tool, each method, has its limits. That is why, by having access to more sources of information, our confidence level goes up.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Is there a more effective performance measure? How do you decide what works and what doesn't?

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

Objectives are identified for each of the 32 programs in the Roadmap. Initially, we specify which indicators will enable us to measure the extent to which each objective was achieved. That is the slightly more technical part. It comes with the summative evaluations. When we do those evaluations, we go into the field and, using the pre-established objectives and indicators, we try to measure all that. We then report our findings.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Overall, is the Roadmap a success?

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

I am waiting for the evaluation reports to see that. Having said that, we have some anecdotal information, basically success stories. We know there are a lot of encouraging comments. You have also heard some in this committee. So it is looking very promising at the moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Weston, the floor is yours.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us today.

As we study the Roadmap, I keep remembering that there are two philosophical approaches. There is the approach where we develop great programs with taxpayers' money to promote both official languages in our great country. And then we have the approach that starts with the consumers, students in schools or clients who want to receive services in both languages.

A school in Whistler in my riding wants to teach French, but it is coming up against difficulties because people are wondering what the actual need for French is in Whistler, British Columbia.

When you coordinate programs, do you think about the people who do your work, who promote the use of English and French in Canada without government support and without taxpayers' money? Do you think about the people who do this work without our money? Do you encourage them with the programs that we have?

[Yvan Déry]

The short answer is yes. We are doing that and we are working at various levels. As we have mentioned, we work with provincial and territorial governments. At that stage, we don't think that we are working closely with the parents from Whistler who want to have an immersion school or the parents from minority groups who want to have schools in those minority languages. We work with organizations on the ground. We work with the Canadian Parents for French network and with second-language teachers across the country. We give them the tools and the support they need. The people on the ground will create the demand.

We're working on supply and demand.

It is more complicated. We would like to stand behind every parent who wants their child to learn French in an immersion school or in an intensive French course. It would be great to be able to be in every living room and to get into each and every head to promote those objectives, but our way of reaching those people is through organizations that work on the ground. The mission of Canadian Parents for French, which has been around for a number of years, is to promote the immersion model, to encourage parents by supporting them and providing convincing arguments.

Yes, your kid can learn French even if you don't speak French yourself. Your kid can go to a French school. It will be beneficial not only for his learning of French but also his learning of mathematics and other topics. Immersion just broadens the mind. That message is not a message that is relayed only by bureaucrats sitting in Gatineau or bureaucrats sitting in departments of education throughout the country; parents are pushing this message.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

And it makes them very happy. I can attest to those efforts. I am a member of Canadian Parents for French. The people from the association were here. They came to my office. But more specifically, our family took part in a Canadian Parents for French camp in northern British Columbia.

I think the true measure of our success is when people do it without support from politicians and bureaucrats. If our Roadmap can recognize the real progress of people working along those lines, perhaps that will make all politicians and all taxpayers even more happy.

[Yvan Déry]

I quite agree.

What those organizations tell us is that, on the ground, it is not necessarily always money that they need. What they need is support at the level of major institutions. In terms of bilingualism, they have to have the impression that it is alive and well nationally. That has to be the case so that those people, in their own areas, can convince their neighbours to finally make the decision to get involved. The work of the committee and the work that we are doing are part of that and of the Roadmap. The commitments that successive governments have made and will continue to make are also part of the undertaking. But, you are right, it has to get to the people. We are trying to make that happen, but a number of players need to work together.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay, thank you.

Your turn, Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, welcome and thank you for being here.

Since we started this study on the Roadmap, I have had a great many questions on the methodology, and this morning, I am exploding with them.

Do you really believe that everyone who has come before our committee would have had the same comments and would have provided the same testimony, knowing what we know now?

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

No. That is why we told them about it. Honestly, we looked at the way in which this study that the committee is doing evolved in the first weeks, in order to get a kind of idea of what it would look like, what the nature of the testimony would be and which witnesses would be invited. In that way, we would also be able to evaluate the situation a little and to be assured that we had a reasonable response.

When we got to—

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Let me interrupt you for a few seconds.

Did you say you told them about it?

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

Yes.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

So they knew their testimony was going to be used—

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

Let me finish my thought.

I told them about it after we had formed an opinion about the way in which the committee was going to conduct its study. As I said just now, with the benefit of that hindsight, around the time of the holidays, we communicated with the associations to tell them about our intention.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Lussier, during your exchange with Mr. Bélanger just now, you said that, besides our committee's work that you were going to use, there were going to be a lot of other sources of information. Can you give us some examples of how pertinent those sources of information are?

[Hubert Lussier]

Just now, my colleague Jean-Pierre made reference to the consultations held by the departments responsible for Roadmap programs, such as Health, Citizenship and Immigration, and Human Resources and Skills Development.

In the case at hand and in the case of the programs that Yvan Déry talked about, we have regular consultations with the non-profit groups that we support. They may deal with minorities or they may be groups involved with linguistic duality. We consult with the provinces. Just recently, we came out of a series of consultations, not only with the provinces, but also often with school boards. We have quite an extensive list of regular consultations.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Great, thank you.

So according to the information I have received, this would mean the holidays were three weeks ago, but whatever.

When you talk to me about departmental evaluations, it is also a problem for me. In fact, the whole methodological framework of the evaluation that has to produce this mid-mandate report, one that will probably be either really late or really incomplete, is a serious problem for me.

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

The witness says that he advised the communities. It has just been acknowledged that that was about three weeks ago. But we had already met with all the communities. So the communities were not aware that their comments could be used for that evaluation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Godin, but that is more a point of information.

Let us go back to Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In a Heritage Canada document entitled “Report on mid-term consultations”, I find some interesting things. It says, for example:

2011 marks the halfway point of the Roadmap and is the year to examine its operation and progress…

I will skip a bit as we are pressed for time.

To that end, in March 2011, the Official Languages Secretariat (OLS) developed a methodological framework in order to hold effective consultations with stakeholders.

Could we have that methodological framework?

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

Yes.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you. We can get it quickly, I assume?