Official Languages Committee on May 28th, 2013

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Should we ask the Auditor General to appear before the committee to answer this question?

[Hubert Lussier]

The question was asked in very concrete terms a few years ago when the Auditor General of Canada, after similar concerns were expressed, went to Nova Scotia—where some of the harshest critics are from—to look at how the province was spending money intended for second-language learning. That was long before my time, but he was satisfied with the exercise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Galipeau.

Ms. Bateman, you can make some brief comments. You have the floor.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I would particularly like to thank all the witnesses for the figures and details they have provided and that bring up other issues.

I fully agree with my colleagues, Mr. Dion and Mr. Galipeau, whose comments were very important.

I'm curious. If I've understood correctly, you said on pages 4 and 9 of your document that, for second-language learning, you have spent $86.2 million annually for immersion programs given to over 2.4 million students. But for minority-language education, you have spent $148.3 million for about 240,000 kids. It seems to me that that is an extremely different investment. Could you explain that further?

It is a matter of pride for me. I imagine that Mr. Rothon feels the same as I do in that respect. It is very important to value second-language learning across Canada and I don't think your investment in that regard supports that feeling. Can you provide more detail on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Ms. Bateman.

Mr. Gauthier, you have the floor.

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the one hand, as Ms. Bateman understood it, the $86.2 million is actually used for second-language learning. But it is not used just to fund immersion programs; it is also used for second-language learning in its various forms. The amount is offered to the provinces and territories to encourage them to provide that training, but the basic cost for education is obviously still the responsibility of the provinces.

Basically, we are trying to give the provinces money to try to share the additional costs incurred by second-language learning. That is why the amount is modest, but the ripple effect is what we are looking for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Gauthier.

Next is Ms. Michaud, and then Mr. Dubé.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, I should say that my question is more for Mr. Lussier and Mr. Gauthier.

You have committed to providing the committee with the biennial reports from the provinces, unless a more complete and detailed document is available. Will you be able to provide us with those documents before Parliament rises at the end of June?

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

We will prepare the information as soon as we are back in the office. We will send it to the committee through the usual channels.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you very much.

You said that the biennial reports will be sent to the committee because we had asked for them. However, if groups like the FCFA and Canadian Parents for French submit a request, will the reports be sent to them, as well?

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

The reports are sent by the provinces to the federal government as part of a financial agreement with us. So the information is not necessarily posted publicly or distributed widely. Having said that, a group that tries to get the information could submit a request, which would be reviewed in the same way as an access to information request, which we receive regularly.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Could these groups make the request through the provincial side or through your side?

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

Yes.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

So they could make sure that they actually get the information because, if I understand it correctly, you are subject to certain constraints on your side.

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

Yes.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Fine.

In the accountability method you use to evaluate the various programs, does the Department of Canadian Heritage recommend that the provinces work with the official language communities and groups, such as Canadian Parents for French, to determine the targets, action plans and indicators to use?

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

You raise a good point. We should have mentioned it at the outset.

When the provinces are asked to give us their action plan, we strongly encourage them to communicate with the communities and representatives of groups like Canadian Parents for French to discuss what the plan should contain. We also ask the provinces to give us details about their discussions with those groups. Moreover, the agreement we concluded with the provinces and territories contains a clause stipulating that they must take that step.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Rothon, were you involved in that approach as part of the last report or in recent discussions with British Columbia?

[Robert Rothon]

Yes, but it is important to point out that this is not always the case with all the provinces. Sometimes, the agreement states that discussion with the parents is necessary, but it does not say which stakeholder represents the parents.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I have one last question before turning things over to my colleague, Mr. Dubé.

You mentioned in your description of the accountability system that the various programs in the initiatives funded by the roadmap undergo regular evaluations and audits.

Could you give a little more detail about how frequently these evaluations and audits are done?

Can the committee and the communities have access to this information, if necessary?

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

Certainly.

The internal audits, which are risk-based, are established by the chief audit executive. So it is our internal auditor who determines, based on his judgment, where the focus will be within the department. The frequency is therefore left to the discretion and good judgment of the chief auditor. However, the evaluations are conducted every five years. In addition, an evaluation of official language programs is almost done. It should be published in the next few weeks.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

You said that it is regular, but a program might be evaluated only once in the years covered by the agreement. Is that possible?

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

The program is evaluated cyclically, every five years.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Okay.

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

Therefore, we will have to evaluate the program again in five years, and so on.