Official Languages Committee on March 1st, 2012

[Stephen Johnson]

In fact, we allocated all the moneys necessary to that pilot project, but there was money left near the end. So we identified other research projects in that same area of interest. In fact, we didn't need all the amounts that had been allocated at the start of the Roadmap.

As regards the other initiative, we had a little more time to put it in place. That is why we spent less at the start than toward the end of the five-year period.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Trottier, go ahead, please.

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

Thanks to our witnesses for being here this morning.

I found your speeches very interesting. My first question is for the witnesses from the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development.

How long have you been at that department? Were you there in 2008 or before that?

[Stephen Johnson]

Yes.

[David McGovern]

Yes.

[A voice]

Personally, I wasn't there.

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

Could you describe the deficiencies that were there before the Roadmap was implemented?

We are here today to evaluate the Roadmap. What changed as a result of its adoption? You no doubt previously worked to support the linguistic communities.

In fact, it's not just a matter of money, but, with regard to the process, what changed as a result of the Roadmap, in 2008, and since that time?

[Stephen Johnson]

I have worked at the department for about 10 years. So I was there when the Roadmap was established.

On the one hand, there was less of an impact on the department because, for a long time, it had had activities designed to support the communities. A number of those activities continued. We did not receive supplementary funding, but we continued to use our own funds, which had been allocated to the department. In that perspective, we more or less continued our activities.

On the other hand, in terms of the horizontal collaboration across federal departments and the various ADM committees and working groups, it has provided a really interesting opportunity for us too. It's provided a larger framework within which we have been able to talk about our own initiatives, to situate those, to share and discuss information. For example, in the last couple of years we launched an interdepartmental research committee to look at the various research that all the departments do. I think some of those types of cross-federal government institution activities

are in place partly thanks to the Roadmap, which encouraged us to adopt a more comprehensive approach throughout government, in addition to our individual responsibilities.

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

Thank you.

My next questions are for the Treasury Board representatives. I very much appreciated the fact that you quantified things in your speech. We always wonder whether it is possible to have performance indicators to determine whether there has really been progress in the linguistic communities across the country. I believe you are doing a good job.

Are there these kinds of reports for all the departments? Is this included in the performance reports throughout government? Is it somewhat like security, which is an important issue in all departments? Are there these kinds of measures, these kinds of indicators everywhere?

[Ross MacLeod]

That reflects the government's overall performance. We use the data to provide important figures. For the performance of each department, we use a sample of one-third of the departments every year. All departments will be covered after a three-year cycle.

I would add that the performance of the 46 federal organizations is monitored as part of the Management Accountability Framework under Parts X and IV, which concern communications with the public and the provision of services. That's reflected here. The performance of each department is analyzed by the Treasury Board Secretariat, and that will be included in the results forwarded to the deputy head of each department.

Lastly, I would emphasize that the results and performance evaluation under the MAF are part of the evaluation of every deputy minister for [Editor's note: Inaudible] at the end of the fiscal year.

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

I am asking you roughly the same question as I put to the HRSDC representative. Since 2008, has the Roadmap changed matters within your department? Has the Roadmap helped correct any deficiencies that were there before 2008?

[Ross MacLeod]

Yes, there are two aspects. First, there was an increase in funding allocated to the Treasury Board. That was necessary to assist us in understanding the changes that occurred in human resource management in government and the changes in responsibilities between the deputy ministers and the centre.

There is another aspect, which follows from the same idea. Our meetings with human resources employees were an opportunity to work in a more concerted way with other departments to assist them with horizontal advice, for example, and in group work to develop best practices that we can share with the human resources champions and the human resources and official languages structure in each department. For me, that was an integration.

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

Could you briefly describe certain weaknesses in the Roadmap? What is missing? We are considering a next version of the Roadmap, a five-year program. What could we change to improve the program?

[Ross MacLeod]

I would ask my colleague, Mr. Tremblay, to answer your question.

[Marc Tremblay]

Some improvements should be made not so much to the Roadmap as such, but rather to our own world. Under Parts IV, V and VI, the annual reports that the institutions are required to submit are an opportunity for us to identify problem areas, not only from time to time—because there are individual weaknesses—but in a collective fashion.

In the circumstances, some problems have persisted. We are thinking of active offer. Although service is generally offered actively, we see that there are certain weaknesses in personal service, for example. We can also think of meetings, with regard to language of work. This may seem a somewhat trivial subject of interest, but we must consider creating a workplace conducive to the use of both official languages. Employees often report that it is in meetings that they do not feel fully supported in exercising their rights. These are factors that we can identify. There is still work to do in this area.

We are able to take steps to improve matters through the interdepartmental coordination networks, by working with the deputy ministers and deputy heads. So work has not yet been completed on this, but improvements are constantly being made over time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

We will take a brief five-minute break.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We are continuing the 28^th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Mr. Weston, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks to our guests for being here today.

I am a member from British Columbia and am very much interested in the vitality of the French language in our great country. I am also convinced that, even though we have the best possible program, it isn't just the government that will contribute, through its programs, to the vitality of the official languages in the minority communities.

If we don't ask the right question, we will get an incorrect answer. What are we doing in the communities to elicit a response from the private sectors, from people, parents in the schools, students, businessmen and women about what motivates them to learn a second language? What are we doing to trigger a response?

My question is first for Mr. McGovern. Can you imagine any indirect responses linked to your program? I think that, ultimately, success will be

in the hearts and minds of Canadians, not necessarily from the programs. Are we winning the battle that way? Can you give me some comment? Then I'd invite the other panellists to respond.

[David McGovern]

Thank you very much. That's a very thoughtful question; “hearts and minds” is not something I'm usually asked to respond to.

HRSDC really is the department that provides a human face on the federal government for many Canadians.

With respect to our road map engagement, it's actually framed by our responsibilities under part VII of the Official Languages Act. I can actually tell you with some certainty that I am not the best person to respond to the hearts and minds question, but I would like to give you just a sense of what we are doing to engage communities across the country with respect to our initiatives.

I mentioned the enabling fund in my opening remarks. The enabling fund actually lets us strengthen the capacity of networks that we find right across the country to mobilize support for community economic development projects. We create various partnerships among the private, public, and non-profit sectors, and we try to leverage resources from other levels of government and from the private and non-profit sectors.

In our child care pilot project, which is a research project, we're really looking at assessing the impact of French language preschool programs, and we're doing it from the perspective of looking at the linguistic and cultural development of those children.

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

If I can interrupt, I noticed there was no British Columbian participation in that, so certainly I invite you to go further west if you can.

[David McGovern]

I love British Columbia.

The six francophone communities we're looking at now are sort of ranging in a relatively restricted area—we've got New Brunswick, Ontario, and Alberta—but the research work that's done is replicable across jurisdictions. It's not confined to research that's only relevant to francophone minority communities; it's also replicable with anglophone minority communities.

On the family literacy initiative, again, it's an extremely important initiative under our road map work, because it gives families access to literacy services for francophone households in minority settings. Again, it helps to strengthen the networks and to create these new partnerships that really allow people to leverage the literacy services, the programs, to specific needs such as immigrants, where we've noted there's a real demand, and it provides an increased access to the family literacy training for qualifying trainers.

Then, finally, the fourth initiative we have is related to strengthening the capacity of non-governmental organizations for early childhood development. Again, this initiative is intended to identify existing resources for training in francophone early childhood development. We're looking at identifying the existing research on the subject, but then we're looking at developing an information-sharing mechanism. So it's not just confined to specific areas; it can actually be used across the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Aubin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, everyone, and thank you for the reports you have submitted. I am going to spend all my five minutes discussing the School of Public Service with Ms. Cantin. I hope you won't hold it against me, gentlemen.

When I study the issue, it seems to me there are two approaches, one of them being the dream that all future public servants will come to us already bilingual and that your services will not be required. However, I get the feeling that dream is far from a reality, although it appears the government views matters differently. Indeed, it seems there will be less and less need for your services starting on April 1, which concerns me.

Can you confirm that all of the $2.5 million allocated to the pilot project with the universities, which ends on December 31, has been spent and that the project was fully realized?

[Nancie Cantin]

Thank you.

The project will end on March 31, not December 31. As I said earlier, since the project ends on March 31, the evaluation is currently underway.

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

I was just talking about budgets. Have the funds been allocated?