Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 15 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, November 3, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 6:30 p.m. to study Bill S-14, An Act to amend the National Anthem Act to reflect the linguistic duality of Canada; to study and report upon the operation of the Official Languages Act, and of regulations and directives made thereunder, within those institutions subject to the Act, as well as upon the reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage; to conduct the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-11, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (promotion of English and French).
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Chair) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I need your consent to revise the agenda. First, I would like your consent for the first item on the agenda to be the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-11. Second, Bill S-14, An Act to amend the National Anthem Act to reflect the linguistic duality of Canada, and we'll hear evidence from the Honourable Senator Kinsella, the bill's sponsor.
Third, we'll hear from Mr. Hilaire Lemoine, Director General of Official Languages Support Programs, to answer our questions regarding the concerns we heard from Western Canadian witnesses. Do you agree to adopt the agenda?
Senator Comeau: We generally meet at 4 p.m. It's already 6:30 p.m., and we have three items on the agenda for this evening.
The Chair: Yes, and I think we can do those three items in an hour at most.
Senator Comeau: I got up at five this morning, and we've already worked several hours. If the House begins sitting on Monday, we may have to reconsider the hours we'll try to offer as senators. We're already divided in three right now. That's just an observation, and we have to be quite aware that we can also exhaust ourselves.
The Chair: We are all very aware of that. I hope we can finish the meeting in an hour at most. Shall we move on to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-11?
Senator Comeau: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-11?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some senators: Carried.
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that this bill — is there another one? No. Okay.
[Translation]
The Chair: Shall the title be: An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, promotion of English and French?
Some senators: Carried.
[English]
The Chairman: Is it agreed that this bill be adopted without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: I thank you and I congratulate Senator Gauthier for introducing Bill S-11.
[English]
We are now ready to listen to Honourable Senator Kinsella. I think he should take the position of the witness at the end of the table.
I want to ensure that we have resolved the interpretation problems.
[Translation]
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella: Madam Chair, Bill S-14 is very neat and simple. Everyone has attended a hockey match or another public event. This happens frequently back home, in a bilingual province such as New Brunswick, where the national hymn is sung. In our bilingual communities, a certain percentage of people sing in English and the rest in French. We witnessed an exemplary experience at the Montreal Forum, where everyone sang the national anthem together. Some of the lines were in English, others in French. To my mind, it's a symbol of national unity to see all participants singing in both official languages. This is only an option. We have the national anthem in English and the national anthem in French. This provides a third option, in the circumstances, as I have described them. It's very practical and it does not affect the English or French national anthems in any way.
[English]
Indeed, we had a public function in the Senate chamber a few months ago where the national anthem was sung, and it was a pity that we were all not singing from the same song sheet. I think that for those of us who come from bilingual communities, it is perfectly natural. The views expressed on the principles of the bill are very supportive.
I was quite pleased to have the opportunity to table at second reading debate — and I trust that if it is not before this committee I can table it now, Madam Chair — a letter from the office of the Honourable Sheila Copps, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to whom I wrote about this bill. The second paragraph of the letter said that Ms. Copps appreciates being advised of our views in this matter. It should be noted that the minister supports this bill and feels that this initiative is an excellent way to promote Canadian identity. The national anthem is one of Canada's best-known symbols, and for that symbol to further reflect our linguistic duality is certainly important.
Honourable senators, it is as straightforward as that. I would be happy to answer any questions from honourable senators.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, do you agree that the letter that Senator Kinsella mentioned should be appended to the testimony that we hear today?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
Senator Comeau: I listened to the presentation in the Senate very attentively. From the objections I heard, they seem to believe that it would be mandatory to sing this anthem. Is it mandatory?
Senator Kinsella: No, it's not at all mandatory. We have two versions in the present act. During the Senate debates, I learned to avoid the term "version." So we have the national anthem in English and the national anthem in French.
This third option is to give people, when they're used to it, as in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, the option to sing a version using some lines in English and some lines in French.
Senator Comeau: We can sing it in English or French or, as has often been done, like in the Tower of Babel, when people don't know the words to the anthem.
Senator Kinsella: This is one of the situations in which the Senate can show a little leadership and provide the model of a version that everyone can sing regardless of their preferred official language.
Senator Comeau: Have you heard any objections? People could come and tell us whether they have any objections.
Senator Kinsella: In some parts of the country, lawyers from unilingual communities, and they're a minority, prefer to have the entire anthem in English or French, as the case may be.
Senator Comeau: That doesn't prevent them from singing it.
Senator Kinsella: If they want to continue singing the national anthem in English or French, the can do so.
Senator Comeau: I've attended a number of events where people suddenly decide to switch from one language to the other, and I've observed that half the people don't make the switch. It's a bit embarrassing to see that we can't sing the same version of the national anthem and that there is no standard. So you're proposing a standard?
Senator Kinsella: Yes.
Senator Comeau: That standard would apply to Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and elsewhere, and people would follow the same anthem from language to language?
Senator Kinsella: Precisely. I think such a standard would support the national identity and national unity. On the one hand, if you look at the words of our national anthem very closely, this version is very inclusive. It avoids the problems that some Canadians perceive in the English version, for example.
Senator Comeau: But you don't change a word?
Senator Kinsella: No.
Senator Comeau: Since we're in a country that has two official languages, it's high time we went ahead with this kind of initiative. I would like to congratulate Senator Kinsella for introducing this bill.
The Chair: I congratulate you as well. This bill is very forward-looking. Have you had any reaction from organizations such as the FCFA or other organizations representing the minority communities?
Senator Kinsella: I've received a number of letters and e-mails of course. I believe those messages are 99 percent in favour of the bill, which is logical. You can see it every Saturday night on Hockey Night in Canada.
Senator Léger: You said the word "version" shouldn't be used. I got a hold of the English and French versions this morning. In light of your remarks, I thought there was a bilingual version, but I was unable to obtain it from your office.
Senator Kinsella: I belong to the school of thought that believes a poetic text should not be touched. I accept the text of the national anthem in French, and I don't wish to alter its content. The same is true of the English text.
Senator Léger: I've just been handed your version of the national anthem with the music.
Senator Kinsella: Our approach is a practical one, in the context of public events attended by a mixed crowd that speaks both official languages.
Senator Léger: I now have the three versions. When you change the national anthem, the music is stronger than the written word. When you start to sing "O Canada", the music itself is what makes a national anthem, and it transcends the words.
Is the level of bilingualism in Canada ready to adopt a bilingual version? Let's set the question of good will aside. Unfortunately, I've heard, and perhaps others have heard as well, people pronounce the French words in an almost incomprehensible manner. When you sing the words of our national anthem, it's not just a little song. There's a certain pride associated with the national anthem, as there is with the flag. And as Canadians, we are proud to sing our national anthem. I'm thinking of the Olympic Games in 2010, among other things. It seems to me you sing with all your heart when you possess your language.
I have some reservations. Is the country ready to sing a bilingual version? I don't think the national anthem should be a way of doing bilingualism. I want bilingualism, of course, but it's the music that speaks. You often see that at events where there is piano music. And the farther away you are from your country, the more you sing with heart. Do you have any comments?
Senator Kinsella: I accept your remarks and all the psychological and emotional factors. At the Olympic Games, when a Canadian wins an event, people sing the national anthem. In those cases, you can see from their lip movements that the champions aren't following the words.
Senator Léger: I don't think that's important if you sing from the heart. My argument is this: the value of a song — and I respect bilingualism — lies in an inner explosion.
Senator Gauthier: First I would like to congratulate you. You met the challenge. I think we'll have to face more complications if Canadians have to get used to signing the national anthem in both official languages. That's the challenge. I don't know whether we'll be able to do it. French is no problem for me, but I find English a bit of a problem. Anglophones may have some trouble, for example, with the words "ton front est ceint." There's a risk of suggesting another meaning. They won't know what they're saying, unless they're shown.
For example, I'll tell you a brief story. When I gave courses at the university, at the end of each class, I challenged anyone in the room to write the words to the national anthem without a mistake and said I would take them for a meal at the parliamentary restaurant if they did. In 30 years, I never lost the bet. The task isn't as simple as it seems.
The House of Commons sings the national anthem once a week — at least it did when I was there nine years ago. Do you think the members from all parties will sing the national anthem you're submitting to us here, or that one member will sing in English and another in French? Because the House of Commons will have to study this bill.
Senator Kinsella: I believe that if we can agree on a bilingual version, I'm convinced that everyone will accept this division of English and French lines in the text. And within a year or two, everyone will be signing the same words together in the House of Commons or in any circumstance or public place.
A number of countries have more complicated situations. Some countries have three or four languages, and their national anthems switch, from line to line, from English to Swahili or to another language. I believe that's the case in Belgium and Switzerland. In fact, the challenge isn't a big one from a teaching point of view. We're talking about 20 words. We spend several billions of dollars on public education in Canada. What's the point of that expenditure if our system can't teach 20 words?
Senator Gauthier: Would you be ready to support a motion introduced by the committee that the Senate, in future, sing the national anthem you propose at least once a week.
Senator Kinsella: Yes I would.
Senator Gauthier: That would be the test. We'd have a good debate. This will become the official national anthem. The word "official" means authorized by a higher authority. It's Canada's official national anthem. Coming back to your preamble, you talk about linguistic duality. Do you think that, in future, we could require that, if O Canada!, the official national anthem, is sung in all official ceremonies of the Senate and Parliament of Canada, that it be in both official languages?
Senator Kinsella: Consider the July 1 holiday. It takes place on the Hill and is organized by the Department of Canadian Heritage; we start with the national anthem. It is very easy to have this bilingual version using big screens. I anticipate that everybody would sing and it would be a symphony, the greatest Canada has ever seen.
Senator Gauthier: Do you agree with me that, once we've passed this bill, we make a recommendation that this be Canada's official national anthem? I have reasons for asking you that. You see where I'm coming from.
Senator Kinsella: We can have this model as the bilingual version, for those who want a bilingual version. There are a number of bilingual versions. The version sung in Montreal is different from the one we sing in New Brunswick. At all university convocations, we sing the national anthem in both official languages, but it changes from year to year through revisions. It's up to us to provide an official model. This isn't mandatory. There's no penalty if we want to sing it another way. But it's up to us in the Senate to set an example, a model. I'm convinced that Canadians will accept it.
Senator Gauthier: You're an academic, a university professor. There used to be a test in Ottawa. All students had to write an official languages test, Anglophones in French and Francophones in English. They eliminated it and I'm sorry they did. Some students recently came to me and spoke about that test. Now they're thinking the University of Canada. I told them to start recognizing both official languages in their national anthem. I also told them to ask students who receive degrees to be a bit tolerant of and proficient in both official languages. This model is a start; I'm going to send it to them tomorrow.
Senator Beaudoin: There's a part in English and a part in French. I think it's the best of all solutions. I don't think it makes any sense when you're at a big assembly and some sing in English and others in French. It's a matter of who sings the loudest and that's not always the one with the best voice. It's terrible.
Another solution would be to do the national anthem entirely in French, then in English afterwards. That would be the best solution. People aren't patient. I'm less certain than you are that they'll sing it your way. Even if only 50 or 60 percent sang you bilingual national anthem, it would already be better than what we have now. At worst, those who can't sing a word of French or English would sing in their own language. We have the worst system in the world. Everybody sings in his own language and it makes no sense. It's not nice. If great geniuses such as Mozart heard that, they'd be furious.
I think your proposal is very good. You may be more optimistic than we are. There will always be someone at the back of the room signing in another language than English or French. If we have a chance to convince Canadians to sing part in French and part in English, we will have succeeded and that will be tremendous. Then, the national anthem will definitely be in both languages. I'm going to vote for your bill.
[English]
Senator Kinsella: I will just make the comment, Madam Chair, that I am expected back in the chamber in five minutes.
I always recall the work of the great American psychologist William Alport, the author of several books. He makes this observation: What comes first, state ways or folkways. That research points out that by and large, if the state sets the pattern, it will indeed change comportment. That is why I am optimistic.
If we adopt, in Senator Gauthier's words, an "official model" that is bilingual, I think we will be surprised to see how behaviour will embrace the change.
[Translation]
The Chair: It happened when we wanted to adopt the metric system. The government wanted to impose that system.
[English]
Senator Keon: What effect will this have on Senator Poy's bill? We have official French, English and bilingual versions, and then Senator Poy's version.
Senator Kinsella: It will have no impact at all. The two are attempting to do quite different things.
Senator Keon: I appreciate that you do not want me to use the word "version," but I cannot think of another word to describe them all. If Senator Poy's version is approved, it will simply be the English version.
Senator Kinsella: Both these bills have to make it through the House of Commons, so we will see.
Senator Keon: Congratulations.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My first reaction to the bill was quite positive, because I was thinking of Western Canada, where we have very little French and very infrequently hear the national anthem, O Canada!, sung in French. It's sung in English at most public events. That's how it works in Western Canada.
However, when I sing O Canada!, it comes from the heart. When I sing it in French, it comes from the heart. When I sing it in English, it doesn't come from the heart. It's the same thing as the Lord's Prayer. I really want to recite it from the heart in French. It's just words in English.
I can only think of what Senator Léger said a moment ago. A song like O Canada! has to come from the heart, the guts. The bilingual text, sung in English and French, would be another approach, a third option. I think Senator Gauthier's comments were interesting when he asked whether the text should become the official version and whether, as a test, the Senate would be ready to sing in English and in French every week. I'm not sure we'd immediately say yes to those two questions. I'm not sure that everyone would agree. What do you think?
Senator Kinsella: French is my third mother tongue. I had to study the national anthem in French. I began thinking about the French words and I said: "terre de nos aïeux," that's good. That forced me to think about the French words. We studied the national anthem in French and the national anthem in English and reflected on the words of each version. When we think of the real meaning of those words, it's beautiful in both languages. It's a question of choice. It's another option. The idea isn't to force anybody.
[English]
Senator Kinsella, I understand you have to go back to the chamber, as you have duties. However, let me congratulate you again. This is a very special, positive project. Could we invite you again? Perhaps you could come back, because I feel that there are other questions that senators might like to ask. I have a feeling that you might get another invitation to come and share some of your concerns with us. We will be in touch with you.
[Translation]
Senator Beaudoin: I had a question.
The Chair: Senator Kinsella has to go back to the Chamber.
Senator Beaudoin: I do too. We all do.
The Chair: I understand, but it's at the request of the witness. If you want an additional two minutes, I grant them to you.
Senator Kinsella: I would prefer to stay here all evening if we can finish the work.
Senator Beaudoin: My question is very simple. If we put the two versions together, if your option was adopted one day along with that of Senator Poy, would it be possible to have both at the same time? In other words, there would be a series in English and a series in French.
All Senator Poy wants is to change the words "thy sons command," so that women are on the same equal footing with men. That makes a lot of sense. If the two could be put together, that would be good. I believe it's possible.
Senator Comeau: No.
Senator Kinsella: The bill presents a model of a bilingual option. In the present act, we have two versions, the English version and the French version. We can choose to sing it in English or in French or one after the other if we want.
This bill is only a bill to give us a common model, for a third option. It makes no change to the text of the national anthem in English or the text of the national anthem in French.
Senator Léger: You just answered my question. If I understand correctly, a version in English only, if we wish, or a version in French only, if we wish, that's the same option. The second option is to sing both in full in English and in French. That's bilingualism. Did Calixa Lavallée in fact write the French version?
Senator Kinsella: That's correct.
Senator Léger: Is it a translation in English or from another poet?
Senator Kinsella: It's from another poet.
Senator Léger: What right do we have to officially pick at this poetry here and there, to take one line and leave three lines. Is it legal?
Senator Kinsella: It's legal, if we want to have a model that people can use in Canada.
Senator Léger: Both authors are dead; that's why we'd have the right.
Senator Beaudoin: Calixa Lavallée composed the music to the national anthem. Judge Adolphe-Basile Routhier wrote the words.
I studied that on the question of copyright, but the problem doesn't arise in Senator Poy's bill because we're going back to the original version. That's what's good in his bill. I think it's completely reconcilable with Senator Poy's bill. There's a part in English and a part in French. The English part won't change, and Senator Poy would like only to change a few words "thy sons command."
The Chair: Senator Kinsella, would you like to respond to Senator Léger?
Senator Kinsella: In what way?
The Chair: Senator Léger asked the question about the music.
Senator Léger: As regards the music, it's clear; Senator Beaudoin corrected me. As for the words, you say we would take them as a whole? Did a specialist choose the lines that would be in French and the lines that would be in English?
Senator Kinsella: It was in consultation with a number of persons, musicians and teachers. We carefully listened to the version at the Corel Centre in Ottawa because they sing a bilingual version there, the version at the Bell Centre in Montreal and the version at Université Saint-Thomas in New Brunswick. In some of the bilingual versions, the first half is in English and the second half in French. Others switch languages every two or three lines. It's not standard. One of the important purposes of this bill is to provide a common model.
Senator Comeau: Madam Chair, you suggested inviting Senator Kinsella to a future meeting. Did I understand you correctly?
The Chair: If the committee members are in agreement, yes. Thank you very much, Senator Kinsella.
Senator Comeau: No, wait! Senator Kinsella is here and he just told us to ask him questions if we had any.
The Chair: We have another witness, and Senator Kinsella has to go back to the Chamber.
Senator Comeau: Scarcely a few minutes ago, Senator Kinsella told us that he was ready to spend the evening here if necessary.
The Chair: He asked to return to the Chamber around 7:00 p.m. and it's already 7:10.
[English]
Senator Kinsella: The issue is that we would like to see clause-by-clause consideration of the bill begin. The bill has been before the committee for a long time.
[Translation]
Senator Comeau: If we have questions, we could ask them now, and that would complete his evidence.
[English]
The Chairman: We will have to hear other witnesses on the bill before we do that.
Senator Comeau: Do you have any idea who the other witnesses are?
The Chairman: It will be someone from Canadian Heritage.
[Translation]
We were to hear from Mr. Moyer, Assistant Deputy Minister for Canadian Identity, but our agenda has been changed.
Senator Comeau: We're doing a bit of everything this evening. The procedure is quite hard to follow.
The Chair: I agree, but the fact that we did not receive permission to sit at the scheduled time resulted in changes to our agenda. I'm going to ask Mr. Lemoine, Director General of Official Languages Support Programs, from Canadian Heritage to join us.
Mr. Lemoine, we've asked you to appear in order to clarify certain points about the role of the Department of Canadian Heritage with regard to education agreements. I say "education" because that was the purpose of the committee's trip to Western Canada. The targeted official languages programs, more particularly the Official Languages in Education Programs.
A number of groups expressed their concerns. The concerns varied. For some, it wasn't clear, for others it was administrative red tape at Heritage or funding and the agreements. Do you have a presentation to make to us on the subject, or do you prefer simply to answer our questions?
Mr. Hilaire Lemoine, Director General, Official Languages Support Programs, Department of Canadian Heritage: Madam Chair, I didn't intend to make a presentation. Instead I would like to devote as much time as possible to answering your questions.
During your trip to the West, people from the department monitored your debates. So I have a fairly accurate idea of the kinds of questions that were raised.
The Chair: I'll start with a general comment that I heard concerning Heritage Canada and Minister Dion's action plan. For people working in the communities — in many instances people who work for organizations as volunteers — there is some confusion. A certain amount of money is provided for programs in Mr. Dion's action plan. There's some confusion between Mr. Dion's action plan and Heritage Canada's role.
Mr. Lemoine: First, the Official Languages in Education Program has been in effect roughly since 1970. It's a program that's renewed by Cabinet roughly every five years. It's a program which, without necessarily being statutory, will be reviewed by the government every five years. It has always been renewed with a funding level varying by period.
The Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for managing that program. It's a federal-provincial program based on agreements with each of the provinces and territories. The federal government's Action Plan for Official Languages does two things. First, it expresses the federal government's wish to adopt a concerted approach to official languages. It identifies the minister responsible for official languages and key ministers who work with him. It also identifies a series of departments. A certain number of departments are named in the action plan with specific mandates. Funds have also been allocated for some of those departments.
The Department of Canadian Heritage is a major player in the action plan. While discharging its responsibilities and mandate with regard to education, the action plan, under its education axis, provides the Department of Canadian Heritage with additional funds and an enriched mandate with regard to our existing agreements.
The funds provided for in the action plan will be administered by the Department of Canadian Heritage within the framework of its federal-provincial education mandate, and those funds will enrich what the department has already done for a certain number of years.
Where there is likely confusion is in the proposed administration of the funds provided for in the action plan for education. The aim of the action plan was to draw a distinction between the existing program or the statutory programs of the Department of Canadian Heritage, the present agreements — what we commonly call the memorandum with the Council of Education Ministers and the bilateral agreements, which is still administered by the Department of Canadian Heritage — and the new funds in the education envelope, which is called "targeted funding" in the plan, intended for minority languages and targeted funding for second language. Where there is confusion is in the way in which all that will eventually be matched.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage wrote to the provinces on March 25 to clarify the approach and reiterate what was already set out in the context of the plan, that is to say that the current agreements with the provinces and territories will stand, that the funds will stand and that the agreements will be renewed every five years as they have been for some time now. In addition, the Department of Heritage will be responsible for managing two specific amounts of targeted funding, one for minority language and the other for second language. Those two funding blocks will be administered on the basis of a certain number of priorities that will be discussed with the provinces.
In actual fact, there is a risk of tending toward a system of two-tiered agreements with the provinces and territories, that is to say that what has been done for a certain number of years will continue. We are currently negotiating with the provinces and territories to pursue that component. In the context of the targeted funding, there will also be agreements with the provinces, but for very specific activities that are stated in the action plan.
We've agreed with the provinces and territories that those funds under the action plan will have to go through the provincial governments. That procedure will have to be nailed down by agreements. The amounts will have to be paid for specific initiatives based on urgent needs and current priorities.
The Chair: I understand people's confusion. The funding is part of a proposal to Treasury Board. The Treasury Board Secretariat decides on how those amounts will be allocated.
Mr. Lemoine: The Treasury Board Secretariat must give us authorization to spend these amounts, somewhat as if we were going to make a withdrawal from our bank account. The Treasury Board Secretariat has to ask us in what context we intend to spend those amounts. At that point we're going to specify spending conditions. That's the role of the Treasury Board Secretariat.
Senator Chaput: My questions concern the education agreement that we hope will soon be renewed.
Interim funding is planned for 2003-2004 because the agreement won't be renewed until 2005. What kind of criteria will be used for the purpose of granting interim funding? During our trip to Western Canada, a number of groups told us about their concerns about what current-year interim funding will be based on.
Mr. Lemoine: Indeed, Heritage Canada has agreed to extend the current agreements, which normally expire in March 2003. New agreements should have gone into effect starting in April 2003, but the negotiations were not very far advanced. The delay was caused in part by the action plan, which confirms other funding. Consequently, we agreed with the provinces and territories to extend the present agreement for one year on the same terms and conditions as those in the existing agreement.
So the budgets remain appreciably the same in each of the provinces. However, we are asking each of the provinces and territories to submit a revised action plan for the current year to us to show what the funds will be used for. The allocation is similar to last year.
It's hard for us to change the ground rules when an agreement is extended. We anxiously await the outcome of the negotiations for the next agreements. We hope some improvements will be made to the agreements under discussion.
Senator Chaput: Do you know whether the criteria used for this interim funding will be developed on the basis of funds spent during the last year of the agreement?
One group mentioned to us that, if that were the case — and it would appear that is the case — the amount provided for in the agreement is frequently higher in the first year. If the sole basis is the last year, the organizations may be underfunded, which could jeopardize certain programs. Have I correctly understood?
Mr. Lemoine: You're referring to one case in particular. Indeed, the federal government and the government of a province did agree on a five-year project with a postsecondary institution and funding was approved for five years. When that funding was extended for a further year, the logical way to propose that funding was to repeat the amounts from the final year. It turned out that expenses incurred by that institution during the final year were higher than had been anticipated. Consequently, the federal government and the province concerned are discussing the best way to resolve the situation.
So there are some exceptions which will have to be examined on an individual basis. Fundamentally, the agreements, as signed, in general, and not specific initiatives, must be extended for the initial amount. We're working with a financial envelope that has not changed relative to the last year.
Changes in funding from province to province presuppose that you take away from one in order to give to another. We wanted to avoid this type of distribution in the context of a one-year extension because it would be hard to measure the increase of one province to the disadvantage of another.
That's the situation. However, we're examining specific cases such as the one you referred to.
[English]
Senator Keon: One of the areas that all four provinces were deeply concerned about was early childhood education, although perhaps more so in Saskatchewan and British Columbia than in Manitoba and Alberta. They wondered whether this would get any attention in your new negotiations. This seems to be a deep concern out there. Is there any way you can include this in your new negotiations?
Mr. Lemoine: This is an element that will be on the table during our discussions with provincial governments. I think we have to make a distinction between the responsibilities of Canadian Heritage in the area of education, and early childhood programs, which are the responsibility of other departments of the federal government, i.e., Human Resources Development Canada. Our focus will be mainly on working with the school system to establish early kindergarten, wherever this is possible, within school boards. There will be possibilities of assisting provinces in those areas. However, when one talks about early childhood, it goes far beyond that, and we will be working with our partners at HRDC because, as I spoke about earlier, in the action plan, there are a number of new partners around the table in the area of early childhood education.
We have to align our efforts to ensure that we address the issue. It is extremely important to the parents to ensure that their children will be introduced at a very young age to the French language, culture and environment and eventually move into the French schools. Therefore, this is also extremely important for us, and we will introduce measures to encourage that as they enter the school system — whether it is through daycare centres within the school, for instance — and will be involved as a department.
With regard to the broader issue of how to deal with early childhood elements, which are sometimes broader than just education in one language — there are social aspects and so on — this is the responsibility of Human Resources Development Canada.
The challenge here, and we have explained it to community organizations and school boards, is we both have to work together in that area. We will work with them in the area of school boards, in the area of school systems, but HRDC has to take on their responsibility in the area.
That is the approach that we want to take. We have to remember that our agreements in the area of education are with provincial governments. They will be very reluctant, if the system is not in place, to go beyond a preschool program, for instance, what we call pre-maternal. It is difficult for provincial departments of education to act in that area. They will tell us: "This is not our responsibility. It is not the responsibility of school boards per se." We have to say, "Yes, that is correct, but we have other possibilities for assisting community organizations to reach those young children before they even enter preschool."
Senator Keon: Some of the witnesses were very forceful in saying that bringing these children in at an early age is an extremely important component of francophone cultural development. It is something that seems to be falling through the cracks and requires addressing.
Mr. Lemoine: If I may add an interesting thing, Madam Chair, about the new funds in the action plan — we call those "targeted envelopes" — one of the areas that we have identified as being extremely important is to provide assistance so that there are those programs early in the school year.
In the regular agreements that we have with provinces now, given that the budgets have been largely maintained for the past five or six years, it has been difficult to get provinces to shift money and make the effort to the lower age. That is an area to which we will be definitely giving priority in our discussions with the provinces within the context of the new funds that we receive from the action plan.
Again, when Ms. Copps wrote to provincial ministers about these funds, this was identified clearly as assisting with measures to get very young children involved quickly in the concept of French education.
[Translation]
Senator Léger: That seems complicated internally. I'm going to start with the application. You asked them for a revised action plan. Hopes were very high on March 12, when the Dion action plan was unveiled. That's in fact what you're talking about?
Mr. Lemoine: No, it was something else, and I would like to clarify that. Let's set aside the federal government's action plan, the one announced by the Prime Minister in March.
Senator Comeau: We're not here for that this evening.
Mr. Lemoine: I only want to come back to the other action plan. In the context of the agreements we signed with the provinces in 1999, as a result of extensive criticism of the program as it was, the Commission nationale des parents francophones published a report entitled "Où sont allés les milliards?" [Where Did the Billions Go? — Tr.]. Some of you no doubt have heard of it. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages told us on a number of occasions that the transparency in the signed agreements was not always evident.
The Minister of Heritage Canada then required that, before signing an agreement and receiving funds in the context of the program, each of the provinces and territories would have to develop an action plan. For that reason, I want us to separate the two because I sense that I've managed to confuse you further.
The minister insisted that each of the provinces must submit an action plan to the federal government describing what it intends to do with the funds over the next five years and state what amounts they intend to allocate to the plan before paying a cent of the funds under those agreements. We have obtained those documents from each of the provinces.
I said earlier that, in the context of a one-year renewal, we want to ensure that, if we have to renew the agreement for one year — which we did this year — we don't just pay the funds to the provinces without knowing what they're intended for. In that context, we asked the provinces to add a year to their action plan. The advantage is that plan is made public. The province must make it public. It is provided to the various interest groups, and they can see exactly what the funds paid have been used for and they can ask questions which they previously found it hard to formulate since there were no documents describing so clearly how the funds were used.
The action plan approach within the existing approaches thus has enabled us to show much more transparency to the interested parties and to Canadians. That action plan will be renewed for one year in order to pay out the funds in that year.
Senator Léger: Thank you for drawing the distinction. Now I feel even more like saying "Bravo!" I find that very complicated internally. You must deal with the provinces, with the Department of Heritage Canada, the Treasury Board Secretariat and Human Resources. That must be difficult. So these are education agreements with the provinces.
The Chair: Is Simon Fraser University's special program funded under the OLEPs or through the special minority language funding under the Dion Plan?
Mr. Lemoine: It's funded under OLEP, that is to say the Official Languages in Education Program.
The Chair: Do the same Canadian Heritage employees manage the OLEPs and the minority plan?
Mr. Lemoine: Yes, they are the same employees.
The Chair: I'm asking brief, specific questions. We're expecting there to be a new government. Every morning, the media tell us that we'll be having a new party leader very soon. Could a new prime minister undertake or decide to suspend the program?
Mr. Lemoine: You're not putting that question to the right person.
The Chair: That's an excellent answer. I'd like to ask you a question concerning the people you have in the regions. In the West, is there anyone in the other provinces, in British Columbia, for example? We met the one in Edmonton.
Mr. Lemoine: The Department of Canadian Heritage has five regional offices: the Atlantic region, Quebec region, Ontario region and two regions in the West. Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut form one region; Alberta, British Columbia and the Yukon form another.
There are Canadian Heritage Department offices in each of those jurisdictions. In Edmonton, employees work at the Department of Canadian Heritage and, as in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, people are more responsible for administering official languages programs.
I would like to draw a distinction between community programs and education programs. Negotiations with the provinces and territories on education are conducted at head office in Ottawa, with the support of regional offices. The funding for the provincial associations is directly administered by our regional offices, and head office in Ottawa ensures policy consistency and development.
There are really two systems. In education, the Department of Canadian Heritage, in Ottawa, has always directed them with the support of colleagues in the regions. Simon Fraser, for example, is a project negotiated by Canadian Heritage, in Ottawa, together with the Government of British Columbia, following consultation with the Francophone and Anglophone communities and Simon Fraser, since that's where a project will be set up.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Senator Chaput: This is a clarification question. Under the education agreement, funds are paid out for minority language education and second language education, and that agreement must be renewed.
The Dion Plan provided for targeted funding blocks in education, one for minority language, the other for second language. Will those funds from the targeted funding under the Dion Plan be added to funding paid out under the education agreements? Are these supplementary funds or the same funds shifted from one place to another?
Mr. Lemoine: Those amounts are in addition to the basic education budget for the existing agreements. The five-year minority language education funding of $209 million is added to the basic funding allocated to education agreements. In addition, $137 million comes from funding allocated to the provinces for second language education.
Senator Comeau: I would like clarification on this point. You said that $209 million was added to the basic amount. What do you mean?
Mr. Lemoine: The basic amount under the agreements signed with the Council of Ministers of Education, the provinces and territories for minority and second language education represents approximately $165 million a year.
Senator Comeau: From the federal and provincial governments?
Mr. Lemoine: From the federal government only. It's important to say that we're talking about the base amount. The agreements reached with the Council of Ministers of Education and the provinces concerned a five-year agreement under which the basic budget was approximately $165 million. You multiply that amount by five and add $209 million, in addition to the $137 million.
Senator Comeau: I'm completely lost. We start with a basic amount of $165 million?
Mr. Lemoine: Per year.
Senator Comeau: So that's multiplied by five years. We then add the $209 million provided for under the Dion Plan.
Mr. Lemoine: Yes.
Senator Comeau: For five years?
Mr. Lemoine: Yes.
Senator Comeau: And now what does the $137 million represent?
Mr. Lemoine: It's allocated to second language education and is in addition to the basic amount.
Senator Comeau: Does that mean that there were other figures than those ones? What were the final amounts?
Mr. Lemoine: Allow me to clarify by trying to be as clear as possible. In the past five years, the basic official languages budget for education was in the order of $165 million. I'm talking about solely about the amounts paid to the provinces.
In the past 10 years, the federal government has granted special funding to the Department of Canadian Heritage for what's called "special education measures" or "special postsecondary measures." That has enabled the provinces and territories to establish school boards. This was one-time funding, not renewable after five years.
Theoretically, after the five-year period, this funding ceases to exist. What the federal government's action plan did was it stuck with the basic amount. It consolidated certain funds which disappeared at the end of the program and it added other amounts. In that way, we came up with funding blocks of $209 million and $137 million.
Senator Comeau: The $209 million amount is added to the basic amount?
Mr. Lemoine: Yes.
Senator Comeau: That's the "A-Base" amount.
Mr. Lemoine: That's correct.
Senator Comeau: But those funds were previously added, but they weren't added to the base?
Mr. Lemoine: No, they weren't added to the base.
Senator Comeau: And those amounts are now included in the base amount?
Mr. Lemoine: Yes, for the next five years.
Senator Comeau: Can the base amount be renegotiated from scratch?
Mr. Lemoine: Theoretically, yes, because, every five years, the departments have to report on the amounts paid out and what they were used for. In its action plan, the government has set out objectives that go beyond the five-year period. According to the action plan, the number of rights holders in the schools will increased from 68 percent to 80 percent for minority language education.
Over 10 years, that's the objective the government has set. For second language, the government's objective is to double in 10 years the number of high school graduates who master both languages. When you read the plan with that in mind, it's hard to believe that the amounts provided for will be questioned in five years. The government can indeed do something else; that's hard to believe because its action plan is part of a vision spread over 10 years.
Senator Comeau: I'm enormously interested in that figure. How does the figure of $209 million spread over five years compare with those that were offered over the past five years as special funding for postsecondary and other areas? How much in funding has been invested in those special funding blocks, compared to that $209 million?
Mr. Lemoine: It's hard to do that calculation.
Senator Comeau: If you don't have it today, you can send it to us later. When I examine new programs, in other words the amounts of $165 million, $209 million and $137 million, I like to consider them relative to others. For that reason, I would like to know what amounts are offered in the special funding blocks for those last five years which are now part of the $165 million surplus.
The Chair: Mr. Lemoine, could you send us those figures?
Mr. Lemoine: Yes, I'm going to try to clarify those elements for you.
The Chair: With regard to the consultations, I'm sure you've often heard the communities tells us that they would like to have an active part in the negotiations. What do you think of that?
Mr. Lemoine: It's a question that comes up regularly. In the context of our agreements, we've established specific mechanisms, commitments on consultation, with the provincial and territorial governments. The term "consultation" must be understood in its broadest sense. There is no particular consultation model. We encourage the provinces and territories to ensure that preliminary discussions have taken place with the people concerned by the question, be they school boards or institutions, when they come to see us and give us their action plan describing activities. In addition, we do not prescribe a particular formula for the provincial governments. We tell them: We want to know to what extent what you're proposing represents the needs or results for which the communities want to obtain these funds. They must describe the follow-up process.
In a particular project with a province, such as a special agreement, for example, whether it be with the Université Sainte-Anne, the Collège de l'Acadie, the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface or Simon Fraser, discussions take place between governments and the members of those institutions are present. But when the time comes to discuss funds and to determine who will sign the agreement, the agreement must clearly be signed between the two governments. It's up to the federal government, together with the provinces, to establish the mechanism that will be consistent with the responsibilities of each of the two governments and at the same time ensure that the second language communities and interest groups have had a voice in the matter, have had the opportunity to present their priorities and comment on the action plans.
This is the kind of approach we are following with the provincial governments, and, in the context of the new negotiations, we want the provinces to clarify even further for us the means they use.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lemoine, for your patience and your answers. Ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, I would like to retain you for a few more minutes. I would like to clarify one point before you leave.
I asked the Senate for permission this afternoon, with the idea in mind of hearing Senator Kinsella; we had one witness, Norman Moyer, Assistant Deputy Minister for Canadian Identity, who would have provided answers on Senator Kinsella's bill. Then we could have discussed Bill S-14, a fairly short bill. We could have done the clause-by-clause. We did not receive the Senate's permission to sit. That refusal disrupted our plan. Mr. Moyer couldn't come later.
I want to ask you whether you want us to pass that bill, clause by clause, before Friday. The only permission we could obtain is what the whips have already given us. We did that for the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. With your permission, we could check to see whether Mr. Moyer, from Canadian Identity, is available Wednesday morning. That's the only time we would have this week. I believe we could hear from him before noon. The idea is also to do justice to Senator Kinsella.
Senator Comeau: Unfortunately, I won't be available Wednesday, but I can rely on my colleagues. If they want to be here, I would agree to us doing that this week.
The Chair: If you have any other free time, we could ask the witness whether he is available.
Senator Comeau: Once again, if I can't be present, that's not a big problem, provided Senators Keon or Beaudoin can be here. You know my position, I entirely agree with the program.
The Chair: We're going to try to get in touch with Mr. Moyer and we'll inform your secretaries of the results in order to determine who will be available.
The committee is adjourned.