Official Languages Committee on Oct. 27th, 2016

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our two witnesses for being here.

I did not understand the Minister, Ms. Joly, when she said the provinces had to be consulted before “by and for” was applied. These are federal programs that are offered to organizations, not to provinces. Why would they not be able to apply “by and for”?

[Hubert Lussier]

There are obviously a lot of scenarios. Some programs are exclusively our responsibility, while, under others, it is the provinces that deliver a particular service with federal government support. So there are many service delivery levels. The “by and for” question has come up in relation to immigration and employment support. It is a tangled issue involving many levels.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

If we consider the example of your programs, you can include in your calls for tender the requirement that the work must be done by and for the organizations of the official language minority communities. There is nothing preventing that.

[Hubert Lussier]

Yes, that is our responsibility.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I have been an MP for a few years now, and I am beginning to understand this issue. However, there is one subject I do not understand and that is the roadmap.

In financial terms, does the roadmap represent an improvement over the official language support programs, the OLSPs, or does it just move money around? Is the roadmap just a showcase?

I do not understand exactly what it is.

[Hubert Lussier]

I can understand this is a bit hard to follow.

The current roadmap is essentially a presentation of funding that was increased in the early 2000s and that, to a large degree, has been preserved. In many cases, it has been preserved by programs that that have been amended and improved over the more than 10 years these action plans have been in existence. The reality is that the roadmap's funding existed before the roadmap itself and has been maintained by the government, which has turned it into its roadmap.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

In reality, there was never any increase.

If you look at the total amounts of the regular budget and those of the roadmap for 2003-2004, the year it came into force, you see that the budget declined by 3.7% relative to 2002-2003. Consequently, I realize that the roadmap is more of a showcase than an increase in the total amounts.

[Hubert Lussier]

I would like to clarify one point with regard to the figures. In the second roadmap, which is essentially the third action plan for official languages, certain amounts that were previously included and that concerned the administration of programs were cut.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Exactly.

The roadmaps preceding that of 2013-2018—I am talking about the roadmaps, but there was also Stéphane Dion's action plan for official languages and so on—included a management framework. The first and second roadmaps contained a management framework that showed more precisely where the money went. The accountability was clear. However, we are still looking for the management framework in roadmap 2013-2018.

The Commissioner of Official Languages also asked you when you would adopt a management framework. It is almost 2017, and this roadmap is coming to an end, but there is still no management framework. I look at the files and I see the researcher has done an excellent job. Starting in 2011-2012, when we want to know where the regular budgets are, we manage to find amounts, but when we want to know what amounts are specifically allocated to the roadmap, we do not have the slightest idea. Since 2011-2012, there have been no figures on the additional roadmap strategy. We find that nowhere and we understand nothing. That is why I am telling you that the roadmap is frankly just a showcase.

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

I would like to address two or three points that I hope may clarify matters.

There is a management framework. Unlike in the first and second roadmaps, they were the subject of specific publications. In the first roadmap of 2008, more particularly, there was a separate document. I have it in my briefcase. It is literally the management framework. In the 2013 roadmap, in accordance with directives and procedures, the management framework was included in the submission to Treasury Board and totalled 600 pages. That document concerns evaluation, accountability, and so on.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Gauthier, for the benefit of all committee members, would you please send us that management framework via the clerk?

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

I will check to see whether that is possible. Cabinet has designated this document as confidential. That is why, for the moment, it has not been published.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

How can we, as MPs, look at accountability if the part concerning official languages is not in the public domain?

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

As regards accountability—and this is true for all the roadmaps—you can consult the table included in the departmental performance reports. These reports present expenditures for each initiative. There is also—

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

But that is not detailed. We need—

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

It is indicated for each initiative. Exact figures are provided for expenditures that correspond to each of the elements of the action plan.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

The fact remains that the management framework helps determine whether accountability is adequate.

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

The management framework implements the mechanisms. So they exist, play their role, and are accessible. In particular, they concern evaluation and annual financial accountability. The annual report now even includes accountability for roadmap activities. As you have no doubt noticed, a number of passages refer to roadmap initiatives. Accountability is provided for and the framework that presents the—

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Please understand. Pardon me, Mr. Gauthier, but I am out of time—

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Choquette, please—

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I just want to say—

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Choquette, we must move on to the next speaker.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

My speaking time is unfortunately up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Lefebvre, go ahead.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The minister explained in her speech that the Official Languages Act enables families to receive services in French. Now the children of those families are starting their own families. I can identify with what she said.

I come from Kapuskasing, a town in northern Ontario. My parents did not have access to a high school education in French. Since the federal government provided assistance to the provinces so they could offer secondary education in French, I went to high school in French at that time, in the late 1960s. I even studied law in French at university. It is because the federal government supported the provinces in this way that I was able to do it.

One of the current problems is early childhood, and the minister discussed it. Consider the example of my godson. My sister-in-law was looking for a French-language day care centre in the Sudbury region but could not find one on time. My nephew therefore went to an English-language day care in an exogamous home. As a result, when he started school, his French was at 20% of the level it might have reached.

Several witnesses have spoken about early childhood in recent weeks. Early childhood is a provincial jurisdiction, but the Commissioner of Official Languages recommended in his report that the federal government work with the provinces on this issue.

The new action plan states that early childhood must now be a priority. How could Canadian Heritage and the Official Languages Branch support this new program?