Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 18 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, March 21, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 4:22 p.m. to study the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it (topic: Minority-language education).
Senator Maria Chaput (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I see that we have a quorum; I call the meeting to order. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am Maria Chaput from Manitoba, chair of the committee.
Let me start by inviting the committee members to introduce themselves, starting from my far left.
Senator Losier-Cool: I am Rose-Marie Losier-Cool, senator from Moncton, New Brunswick, right next to Dieppe.
Senator Poulin: Good afternoon and welcome to the Senate of Canada. I am Marie Poulin, and I represent Northern Ontario. More precisely, I am from Sudbury, Ontario.
Senator Robichaud: Good afternoon. I am Fernand Robichaud from Saint-Louis-de-Kent, New Brunswick.
Senator Mockler: I am Percy Mockler, from Saint-Léonard, New Brunswick.
Senator Rivard: I am Michel Rivard, and I represent the riding of Laurentides, in the Province of Quebec.
The Chair: The French Common Law Section of the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law once again approached the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages to say that a group of students was interested in learning more about the role of the Senate committee through a practical legal research project.
This year, the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law offered a course called De la théorie à la pratique, préparation d'un rapport à l'intention du Comité sénatorial permanent des langues officielles [From theory to practice: preparation of a report for the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages], under the supervision of Professor Mark Power.
This course allowed students to prepare a research project on a topical issue or a subject of interest to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and to present their findings to the committee. The purpose of the course is to institutionalize the experience that students from the same faculty had last year.
Last year, those students presented to the committee a research project on the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. The current research project, which will be presented to us today, deals with bilateral agreements on minority-language education.
The committee wishes to learn more about this project and is pleased to welcome six students from the French Common Law Section of the University of Ottawa to present it to us.
With us this afternoon are Mr. Éric LeBlanc from Dieppe, New Brunswick; Ms. Darlène Lozis from Ottawa, Ontario; Mr. Joseph Morin from Cornwall, Ontario; Mr. Albert Nolette from Edmonton, Alberta; Mr. André Poulin-Denis from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; and Mr. Daniel Wirz from Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Welcome to you all. I now invite the students to speak, and the senators will follow with questions.
Darlène Lozis, Student, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section: Madam Chair, honourable senators, good afternoon. My colleagues and I are honoured to be here to present our report on the funding of minority-language education.
I will begin by saying that our presentation will be entirely in French. Also, our report focuses on primary and secondary education and does not discuss the university education system or early childhood education.
Honourable Senators, under the bilateral agreements, Canadian Heritage transfers close to $600 million to the provinces and territories to fund minority-language education. We do not have to tell you that this is a considerable sum and that it helps minority groups to ensure that their culture survives and that their children are educated.
However, we are shocked to see that Canadian Heritage does not know how or where the funds allocated to the provinces and territories are spent. This administrative irregularity has existed for a number of decades. The 2009-13 bilateral agreements will soon expire. We are hopeful that you will follow up on our report by investigating this administrative irregularity further and asking the groups and people affected by it to tell their stories.
I will now give the floor to my colleagues Joseph Morin and André Poulin-Denis.
Joseph Morin, Student, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section: Madam Chair, a number of problems were identified in our report, but the majority relate to a lack of accountability and transparency.
These problems are primarily the result of the agreements being between Canadian Heritage and the provincial and territorial education departments rather than the minority school boards.
I will discuss three things: concrete examples of these problems, other major studies that have reached the same conclusions as us, and, lastly, problems with immersion education.
First, we should look at the significant problems in Nova Scotia. In terms of the funding from Canadian Heritage for French-language education in the province, the former minister of education declared that she could use the money however she wanted. This minister even asserted the right to spend the money from Canadian Heritage, which is intended for the province's Acadian population, in contravention of the agreement.
As you can see, there is a serious structural problem. The Acadian community badly needs this funding not merely to develop, but indeed to survive. Since the school board is not a party to the agreement, the province decides to spend according to its priorities, not those of the Acadian community. In addition, Canadian Heritage cannot meet its obligations under Part VII of the Official Languages Act. The problems in Nova Scotia are evident elsewhere in Canada, specifically in Yukon.
Between 2005 and 2009, Canadian Heritage transferred close to $3 million to the Yukon Department of Education. However, Canadian Heritage does not know if these funds were used in accordance with the agreement. A case is currently before the courts pitting the school board against the Department of Education and dealing with the same problems identified in Nova Scotia and by our report.
The Yukon Supreme Court shares the concerns described in our report. Its conclusion is that the Department of Education is violating the agreements. The Department of Education uses the money intended for French-language instruction to fund anglophone instruction instead. The Commission scolaire du Yukon really needs the Canadian Heritage funding, not only for it to grow, but also to withstand the pressure of assimilation. No mechanism allows the school board to assert its needs or to ensure that the Yukon Department of Education spends the money properly. Since the agreement is not between Canadian Heritage and the Commission scolaire du Yukon, Canadian Heritage is not succeeding in meeting its needs.
Furthermore, Canadian Heritage is required to ensure that the funds are spent effectively, appropriately and in accordance with the objectives of the agreement. Unfortunately, that is not happening right now.
The key message to remember is the following: Canadian Heritage is not supporting minority-language education. The anglophone and francophone minority communities are suffering as a result. Canadian Heritage cannot accept the education departments' flagrant violations of the agreements. It must take action. It must change its practices. Official language communities are suffering because of the intransigence of Canadian Heritage and its refusal to directly negotiate with the ultimate beneficiaries of the funding: the school boards.
Action must be taken immediately. The future of these communities is at stake. Beyond these specific examples from Nova Scotia and the Yukon, several major reports have concluded, as we have, that there are systemic flaws. These reports confirm that there are serious accountability and transparency problems.
Canadian Heritage provides $600 million to the provinces and territories, $600 million to third parties, yet it does not know how or where these funds are spent.
These systemic flaws also affect immersion programs. A number of key stakeholders, including Canadian Parents for French, have criticized Canadian Heritage's ineffective approach and called for reform.
Unfortunately, Canadian Heritage refuses to act.
André Poulin-Denis, Student, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section: Madam Chair, the $600 million in funding that Canadian Heritage provides for primary and secondary minority-language education is important to school boards, school divisions and boards of education. This money enables students from an official language minority to receive quality education. However, the terms and conditions of this funding must be rethought and improved to correct systemic flaws. The agreements currently in effect expire in 2013.
The consultations for renewing these agreements are about to begin or have already begun. There is no sign that school boards will be consulted. So there is still time to rectify the situation.
Our report contains a recommendation. It is simple and based on common sense. We recommend that future bilateral agreements on minority-language education be between Canadian Heritage and the minority school boards, school divisions and boards of education.
Why? First, Canadian Heritage and a number of federal departments already conclude agreements directly with official language communities in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Even the branch of Canadian Heritage responsible for education funding deals directly with official language communities on community development.
Second, school boards are in the best position to negotiate and implement primary and secondary education agreements because they are most directly affected by these agreements. Since minority school boards, not education departments or Canadian Heritage, provide the education, they are also the most sensitive to the specific needs and issues of official minority language education.
This is the legal principle of subsidiarity that we refer to in the report.
Finally, Canadian Heritage must account for the money it spends, and it has an administrative, political, moral and legal responsibility to ensure that this money is not used for other purposes. The current bilateral agreements do not include effective reporting or transparency mechanisms. Given that school boards have the sole purpose of providing primary and secondary education in the minority language and that this mission is theirs alone, our recommendation would reduce the use of public funds for purposes other than those intended by Canadian Heritage. Our recommendation would increase accountability and encourage administrative and financial transparency.
Let us be clear. Nothing is stopping Canadian Heritage and the minority school boards from entering into agreements of this type. On one hand, the federal government funds minority-language education through its spending power. This power also allows it to conclude agreements with school boards. On the other hand, school boards, because of their special constitutional status, have a right to governance that allows them to sign agreements with the federal government.
So those are the reasons behind our recommendation that, in 2013, the next bilateral agreements be between Canadian Heritage and the minority school boards, school divisions and boards of education.
Ms. Lozis: Thank you for your attention. We are now ready to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Lozis, and thank you, gentlemen.
Senator Losier-Cool: Let me also welcome you and congratulate you on this report. How many minority school boards are there in Canada?
Daniel Wirz, Student, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section: There are 31 outside of Quebec. There are nine anglophone school boards in Quebec. What is interesting is that all these school boards are also part of two organizations, the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones and the Quebec English School Boards Association. These organizations could sign framework agreements similar to those already reached under the memorandum of understanding.
Senator Losier-Cool: We have met with anglophones in Quebec, and I knew that there was not much consultation. They told us there was a lack of consultation.
Does the Fédération des conseils scolaires francophones sign agreements with Canadian Heritage?
Albert Nolette, Student, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section: That is exactly the problem. School boards, school divisions and boards of education are not part of the process. This, despite the fact that they are the ultimate beneficiaries of the agreements. The agreements are only between Canadian Heritage and the provinces and territories.
A number of stakeholders in education and official languages have complained about this fact for several years. For example, there was a report written in 1996 by the Commission nationale des parents francophones. In 1981, the Fédération des francophones hors Québec — today the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada — complained that they were not part of the negotiations, even though school boards are the most sensitive to the issues and needs of official minority language communities.
Senator Losier-Cool: You said that it was primary education, not secondary.
Mr. Wirz: Primary and secondary.
Senator Losier-Cool: Could you give us an example of an agreement that could be signed by Canadian Heritage and a school board? Did your research go that far? It cannot be for a program of study. Curricula are a provincial responsibility. Could a school board in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Nova Scotia negotiate directly with Canadian Heritage on a particular program?
Ms. Lozis: My colleague, Mr. Morin, will answer your question.
Mr. Morin: A number of provinces have stipulated in their education acts that school boards are allowed to sign agreements with the federal government. I am sure that these types of agreements could include funding for first-language education and also for immersion programs. So the legislation in some provinces allows school boards to sign agreements with the federal government.
Have I answered your question?
Senator Losier-Cool: Yes, but let me take it a step further. To help people or students who might have problems, we often hire second-language monitors; we do this often. Could Canadian Heritage sign an agreement directly with a school board? Is that what you want? An agreement that would say that x dollars would be allocated to monitors for this particular school board?
Mr. Morin: In the current agreements, the funding is divided into several parts, such as first-language education, second-language education and the monitor portion as you suggest. One of our concerns is that all these are in the same agreement. We suggest that there be different agreements because there are different issues. There should be one agreement for first-language education and one for second-language education in order to promote greater transparency and accountability. The problems are similar, but the issues are different. So we need separate agreements. We believe that they could correct the problem.
The Chair: You just spoke about three areas that each receive a sum of money. When the federal government transfers the money to the province or territory, does it transfer the total amount or is it divided into three envelopes? Did you find information about this?
Mr. Morin: Yes. And if you look at our report, you will find examples of agreements in schedules 1 and 2. The memorandum of understanding between Canadian Heritage and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada is in schedule 1. After that comes the agreement with Yukon. So it is spelled out.
In section 7 of the MOU, on page 9, you can see that it is very clearly divided — you can see minority language and second language. Canadian Heritage allocates different amounts. If you consult the Yukon schedule, you can see the same type of table.
The Chair: Thank you. I will now move on to questions from the other senators.
Senator Rivard: I was surprised to hear Mr. Morin give the examples of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon as places where money was "redirected." Instead of going directly to school boards, it went elsewhere. Do you know if this happened just once or every year?
Mr. Morin: To be clear, this occurred in the Yukon, not in the Northwest Territories. The dispute between the school board and the Department of Education is about the same problems that we discuss in our report. There is a good deal of evidence showing that, first, the school boards are not parties to the agreement, and second, that there are examples of funds being reallocated. I am sure that my colleague André can add to this answer.
Mr. Poulin-Denis: I am not sure if you have schedule 5, but it contains some correspondence from this lawsuit.
If you look at the letter dated January 30, you can see the Yukon Department of Education's suggestion regarding the transfer plan, for minority first-language and immersion education. You can see that the transfers occurred over a four-year period.
As we note in our report, these funds are very important for the minority school boards. We believe that school boards need to have a seat at the table so that they can assert their needs and the issues for minority-language education and so that they can participate in the discussion about how Canadian Heritage spends these funds.
Senator Rivard: When the Auditor General of Canada audits the funding provided by Canadian Heritage, does she have to determine whether the money is allocated to the appropriate goals, or is that a question that should be asked of the people at Canadian Heritage? I cannot ask them the question, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Nor me.
Senator Rivard: At our next meeting with Minister Moore, I will ask him if he is aware that the money is not going to its intended use.
Senator Robichaud: You gave two examples where there is no transparency or accountability whatsoever. Is this the case for all the agreements signed with the various provinces? There are surely cases where there is transparency.
Mr. Morin: The agreements between Canadian Heritage and the education departments, as we said at the beginning, are modeled on the memorandum of understanding, found in schedule 1. So they are all very similar.
They are all very similar whether they are with the Yukon, Nova Scotia, Quebec or Ontario. They have the same flaws that we identified in our report. The education departments make the decisions; there is a lack of transparency; there is a lack of accountability. Canadian Heritage does not know if these funds are being spent properly. New agreements between Canadian Heritage and school boards would allow for better reporting, greater transparency and improved accountability.
Senator Robichaud: You spoke with Canadian Heritage, I imagine?
Mr. Morin: We used primary sources available to the public. We did not consult Canadian Heritage.
Ms. Lozis: Actually, I tried to contact Canadian Heritage on behalf of the group, but we did not receive a response. You know, it is a bureaucracy, and occasionally it is a bit difficult to reach someone by telephone to arrange a meeting and discuss something, especially since we are students.
One thing I would like to add, which we note in the report, is that this has been a problem for a long time. So it is important to investigate and identify the root of the problem and how to correct it. That is what we hope to be able to accomplish with our report.
Senator Robichaud: Apart from the two cases you mentioned, did you contact school boards in various provinces to find out what they can do with their education ministries in order to be more effectively represented? And to find out if the money is spent where it was intended to be spent?
Mr. Wirz: As my colleague mentioned, we did not conduct any interviews; we relied on easily accessible primary sources.
The Chair: Could you define "accessible primary sources?"
Mr. Wirz: We looked at testimony given before this committee and before the House of Commons committee, and we looked at newspaper articles and proceedings from provincial legislatures. We know that representatives from various school boards have already appeared before the committees, said that they were not consulted and that this was a problem. We mentioned this in paragraphs 33 to 36 of our report, on page 10. We noted that representatives from the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires were upset that things really were done without school boards' knowledge, despite the important role that they play.
We have an opportunity to change things before 2013, to make the agreements directly between Canadian Heritage and the school boards, so that the latter can have a say.
Senator Robichaud: When do the new agreements take effect?
The Chair: In 2013.
Senator Robichaud: In 2013 — that is soon if we want to start negotiations. Do you know whether Canadian Heritage has started to negotiate and would like to implement the recommendations from your report?
Mr. Morin: The negotiations would be between Canadian Heritage and the education departments of the provinces and territories. As we suggest in our report, this is all done very quietly. We do not know if consultations are currently underway. If they are underway, we do not know if they are effective. So, yes, 2013 is very soon, but the problems have existed for 40 years. A number of stakeholders from a number of organizations have appeared before this committee and the House of Commons Committee on Official Languages to suggest changes to the agreements, namely, to include school boards and to improve reporting requirements. We have a different view. We want the agreements to be between school boards and Canadian Heritage. We believe that this is the only way to ensure that the funds are allocated and spent correctly for official language minority communities.
Senator Robichaud: Thank you.
Senator Losier-Cool: When the agreements are renegotiated, could we not include a penalty? If we adopt your recommendation, the school boards would be directly involved in the negotiations. We would rely on school boards to act in good faith. But if, at some point, a school board says, "We need this much money to fix the roofs of all the schools in the district," as is the case in Nova Scotia — can we incorporate a penalty in a new agreement?
Mr. Morin: If you would like to look at schedule 2 of the Yukon agreement, there is no page number, but, in section 16, it is "Breach of Commitments and Recourse"; so it is there already, except that the penalty is that Canadian Heritage stops transferring funds. That is really not what we want, because official language minority communities need those funds in order to create education programs. That is really not the way we want to go. We do not want them stopping the payments; that would not be the right thing to do.
Mr. Poulin-Denis: If our recommendation is accepted, the sole mission of school boards and boards of education is to provide education in the minority language. So of course they cannot spend the money on anything else. And school boards and boards of education are required to report annually to the ministry of education in their respective province or territory. A certain level of accountability is still expected of them. But that would ensure some oversight, three levels of oversight if you will, because school boards still have to submit their annual report, an audit, essentially. The oversight would be Canadian Heritage. It would be submitted to the ministry of education, but of course I imagine it would be available to Canadian Heritage.
Senator Robichaud: You say that the payments should not be stopped, but if the funds are used for purposes other than the primary objective of the agreement, should we not stop them and tell them that the funds are not being used the way they are supposed to be?
Ms. Lozis: It is not right for a minority group that needs the money to have to pay. In my humble opinion, there should be a way for Canadian Heritage to make school boards accountable, because we cannot just force an entire group that needs the funds in order to survive assimilation and preserve its culture to pay for mismanagement by one organization. The idea is for Canadian Heritage to be able to develop appropriate tools designed specifically to track the money and see what it is being used for.
Mr. Wirz: We believe the money is being used for other purposes because entities other than school boards are managing it. Education in the language of the minority is what minority school boards are concerned about. The current problems exist because the majority cannot understand the problems of the minority managing the money.
The idea that the majority may find it hard to understand the minority's concerns is the whole crux of school governance. That was recognized back in 1990 in the Mahé decision. The impact of our proposal would be to reduce the amount of money used for other purposes. That is why we made no recommendations other than the one recommending that, beginning in 2013, agreements should be made directly with minority school boards so that the money that is so essential goes where it is intended to go.
Senator Poulin: I would like to commend you. I can see from your answers to the questions raised and from the report itself that you took your research very seriously and were very thorough.
I would like to back up a little bit and ask you how you came to choose this subject.
Mr. Morin: That is a good question. I can answer that. Last year, a group of students came to share their ideas about the Official Languages Act, and we decided that we should do a project too. From the rumours we heard and the reports we read, we knew that there was a serious problem between Canadian Heritage and school boards. We told ourselves that we could not ignore the problem because all francophones in Canada are in a minority, all of us. That is what got our attention. We figured our report might lead to something. It is not a report that we are handing in to our professor for him to give us an A or a B on. We hope the report will take us somewhere.
Senator Poulin: When you mentioned an A or a B, I noticed that Professor Power was smiling a lot.
Mr. Morin: I am sure others want to add something about why they chose the subject.
Ms. Lozis: As you can see, we come from different parts of Canada. I was not personally aware of the first team that made a presentation to the Senate. As a minority person on two counts, I thought it was very important to take up this cause and understand the issue so that we can give back to the community what the community has given us. If our work helps to bring about change, it would be a big plus for all of us, because minority groups need support and they need to safeguard their culture. They cannot do that without some understanding of what is going on in the community.
Senator Poulin: Your initial premise is extremely important in terms of these funds for the vitality of the language and language learning. You are perfectly right.
You talked about your methodology and about primary sources. Did you use any other research methodologies?
Mr. Nolette: We reviewed all the public documentation from Canadian Heritage. We were able to study the agreements and the memoranda of understanding in detail. There are some glaring weaknesses in the agreements. I refer you to paragraph 25 of our brief, on page 6, where subsection 9.4 states: "Similarly, each provincial/territorial government agrees to consult, as deemed necessary, with interested associations and groups."
We have already seen from some of the evidence that has been given before this committee and the House of Commons Committee on Official Languages that, when it is deemed necessary, consultation often lasts only half an hour or does not take place at all. That is one of the big weaknesses. So we studied the agreements in detail.
Senator Poulin: I have a question about the agreements. You said you did not meet directly with representatives from the Department of Canadian Heritage; but did you have any discussions with the Privy Council Secretariat, which is responsible for all agreements between the federal government and the provinces?
Ms. Lozis: No, unfortunately; hence the importance of this presentation we are making now, because we firmly believe that you have the necessary resources and tools to take this report farther. We are limited by the time and the tools available to us. So we hope that you will be able to take this farther and that you will be able to get the answers that we could not.
Senator Poulin: I have one last question that follows on from the other questions asked by my colleagues.
Among your recommendations to the committee, you make a recommendation in an effort to solve a problem that you identified. You identified a problem of administrative dysfunction and you identified a problem of a lack of accountability and transparency. Did you look at any other possible options to try to solve the problem?
What you are recommending is a change in way stakeholders communicate. Are there any other options that are not in the report that you studied before making that recommendation?
Mr. Nolette: Yes. Even at Canadian Heritage, there are agreements under which the department gets involved and signs agreements directly with the community. I refer you to the Canada-community agreements. There are also other examples in the area of health; Health Canada signs agreements directly with minority linguistic communities to provide services. In economic development as well, several departments, such as Industry Canada, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, sign agreements to transfer funds directly to minority organizations. That ensures that the funds are spent as effectively as possible and it ensures more transparency. It is not exactly a matter of coming up with a new solution, but of implementing practices that already exist.
Senator Poulin: Are these practices mentioned in your report?
Mr. Nolette: Yes, in part 4 of our report, starting on page 23.
M. Poulin-Denis: We have followed that recommendation since the agreements have existed since the 1970s. And almost since the first agreements were signed, school boards, boards of education and community representatives have identified problems. These agreements have gone through nine different governments, and 22 different ministers have been responsible for this matter. Despite the fact that, over those 40 years, there were some changes to the agreements, the addition of consultation clauses, for example, the expected results are not enough. You can see it with our Yukon example; the dispute in Yukon is basically the same problem. The dispute in Yukon, in our opinion, stems from the problem we have identified. School boards, boards of education and representatives are not party to the agreements. As we mentioned, the funds are very important for school boards and boards of education. That is why it is important, as soon as possible, beginning with the new agreements in 2013, to try to include them and to have the agreements between Canadian Heritage and school boards.
Senator Poulin: Do you plan to submit your report to the Minister of Canadian Heritage?
Ms. Lozis: We will discuss that with our professor.
Senator Losier-Cool: And to the Commissioner of Official Languages?
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Let me begin by apologizing for being late, but a lot of committees are sitting today at the same time, and I was at the Foreign Affairs Committee.
I would also like to commend you on the work you have done. I have not had time to read it, but I did skim through it. This committee went to Quebec City to look at the situation for anglophones there, and their situation is really not an easy one.
During the hearings, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage how much was allocated to transfers for education. He answered the question easily, but when we got to Quebec City and invited a number of deputy ministers to come and testify, we were never able to find out how the funds were administered.
Only one person showed up out of all the invitations we sent out. Can someone tell me how many deputy ministers were invited and from which departments?
The Chair: I do not remember, but only one person accepted our invitation.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: We invited several. A few declined, so we only got one person, who incidentally was excellent. But we never managed to find out how the funds are administered.
Only in the agreements on economic development was it possible to get that information, as you also mentioned in your report, in fact. In terms of community economic development, even though the area is in provincial jurisdiction, there are some transfers of funds from the federal government to those organizations.
In your recommendations, you suggest that people be accountable and that when the agreements come up for renewal, the government should perhaps look twice. That is hard, because, as soon as you get into areas of provincial jurisdiction — as is the case with minority communities — it is always the same problem. It is hard to know what is going on, because if Minister Moore insists, insists and insists, others are going to think that he is trying to meddle in an area of provincial jurisdiction.
That was not necessarily a question I had to ask you, but I think you did a good job preparing the brief you just presented. And as Senator Marie Poulin said earlier, I hope you will send your report to Minister Moore. It is important. The work you have done must not be left lying on a shelf. You have to do some follow-up with your report, which contains some excellent recommendations.
It is clear that you explored the matter in depth and that you did very good work. I think your report deserves to go to the minister's office and that the minister should be aware of it. You have raised very important questions, and once again I commend you.
The Chair: I have a question that follows on from Senator Fortin-Duplessis's comments. Because we have to look at the situation from both sides, I will play devil's advocate a bit. Do you think your recommendations reflect the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces?
Mr. Wirz: Yes, we do, for a number of reasons. First of all, Canadian Heritage transfers funds in accordance with its spending authority and with Part VII. There is also the very specific situation of school boards and minority-language education.
We know that section 23 grants school governance authority; and it is interesting that, back in 1990, the Supreme Court held that, and I quote:
. . . the minority language representatives should have exclusive authority to make decisions relating to the minority language instruction and facilities, including . . .
Then there are five items, the last of which is:
. . . the making of agreements for education and services for minority language pupils.
We believe our recommendations respect the division of powers. In addition, education legislation in several provinces and territories specifically allows school boards to enter into agreements with the federal government. For example, in Saskatchewan, the Education Act, 1995, states that school boards can sign agreements for any purpose deemed necessary and beneficial to the quality and effectiveness of education services in the francophone education area, in particular with the Government of Canada or its agencies. All of these passages are quoted on page 21 of our report.
The Chair: That was an excellent answer. Thank you.
Senator Mockler: I would like to add to what the other senators said. I would like to commend you. This is a step in the right direction. However, we have a long way to go if we want to raise awareness across the entire government.
You have probably read the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013. I am sure you probably started what you presented to us with that 2008-13 roadmap in mind, because it is a first and it is unprecedented, too.
When I was a minister in New Brunswick, I recall that we had a budget increase of $1.1 billion under the government of the time. That is still something you never see when you look at the budget process. People came to talk about the mechanisms, and I am pleased to hear that you continue to follow up very closely with the people who come to give evidence before the Official Languages Committee to discuss the matters you raised. The follow-up is necessary.
However, when you talk about accountability and transparency, I agree with you. I think young Canadians want to be among tomorrow's leaders; they will probably want accountability that they can count on and clear, specific transparency.
That said, when I look at the 14 different departments or corporations, such as ACOA in New Brunswick, Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions and FedNor in Ontario, whether in the area of health, immigration, post-secondary education or justice, there is one other very important mechanism for the development of our communities. That is the research and development centres.
What irritates me a bit, coming from New Brunswick, is that about six weeks ago, during the budget consultations I took part in, I asked the officials a question. I asked them whether they were happy with the accountability and transparency mechanism in the roadmap. They told me they were happy and gave me typical examples like the Santé en français program.
My question is this: do you plan to complete what you are presenting to us by consulting the other provincial and territorial governments in order to give you an overview of their transparency and their accountability with respect to the federal government?
Ms. Lozis: We would like to have been able to do that very much, but this research project is part of a course. This session actually marks the end of this long journey. We are all very impressed by what we have seen and by what can be done. And if it were possible to continue the research and consult the provinces, I am sure my colleagues would agree with me that we would do it.
Mr. Wirz: The question of the accountability of the provinces is part of the reason why we want direct agreements with minority school boards. We want to minimize the number of administrative levels the funds pass through. That will make it easier to see the accounts, to find out how the money gets from point A to point B, to be sure that the money is not going through points C, F, Z or Y. That is why we believe that, as soon as possible and beginning in 2013, agreements should be signed directly between Canadian Heritage and minority school boards.
Senator Mockler: I certainly do not want to comment on what you presented to us. I look at your recommendation and it is very substantial. I certainly do not want to cast a shadow over what you presented. I think it is a step in the right direction, but there is still a lot to be done.
If we were talking about a first attempt by the government and I had a document like this one, I would be asking myself a lot of questions about all the governments.
I see here the issues you have raised, I believe there are still other steps to be taken, and I encourage you to do that, because you are in the process of demonstrating certain points.
My final question is this: when you asked to contact or meet with people who you say lack transparency and accountability, did they refuse to meet with you?
Ms. Lozis: No, not necessarily. We noticed a certain approach. They are accustomed to working that way. It is therefore very hard to change an administrative culture, as you know. We raised that point, and many have done it before us. Unfortunately, the problem persists for the very reason that that administrative culture has not changed. I do not feel they were acting in bad faith or that they did not want to meet with us. However, we are students, and as a rule, people do not waste their time with students unless it is something clearly defined and they have to take that extra step.
That is why I am going to reiterate that you have that capability, which we do not, to investigate and ask the people concerned more questions. We were, and continue to be, limited by time and by the tools we had.
The Chair: If I understand this research project correctly, everything you have presented to us comes from public information that you went out and found on Internet sites, in committee reports or appearances by witnesses. You compiled everything you were able to find from public information?
Mr. Morin: That is correct.
The Chair: So that is the way you went about it. And the priority, given that you did not have enough time, was not to go and meet with people, but rather to find all the public information that was available and accessible. Is that correct?
Éric LeBlanc, student, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section: Yes, that is the approach that we wanted and that was available to us as students.
I would like to add to my colleague's remarks. The objective of our research was not to criticize a particular government or public service. We found that, for 40 years, there have been these weaknesses in the system. We are criticizing the way the system works and we are proposing an alternate way of operating, namely for Canadian Heritage to deal directly with school boards.
Senator Mockler: You are certainly the leaders of tomorrow and you have the training.
In your opinion, is our current Federal Accountability Act a step in the right direction? You have made your presentations to us. We can also ask you whether you looked at the accountability project. You cannot make comments without justifying them as well.
Mr. Wirz: Actually, we did read the Accountability Act — that is the actual title, I think. We did not find any provisions that are pertinent in this context. Our research really focused on the agreements on minority-language education and not government accountability as a whole.
In terms of the agreements on education, we found that serious accountability problems have existed for decades. We believe that one of our recommendations could increase accountability for those agreements.
Mr. LeBlanc: I would like to emphasize that we are not criticizing the public service or the government. We are reflecting the comments made by certain groups or communities that asked their government or public service questions and did not get answers.
I am especially interested in Quebec. The Quebec Community Group Network has appeared several times in the past few years. They say they have repeatedly asked the Quebec government how the Quebec Ministry of Education, Recreation and Sport spends the money it gets from Canadian Heritage. In the end, the group did not get an answer.
Approximately $168 million has been transferred to the province of Quebec for minority-language education, English in this case. However, those anglophone communities do not know how the money was spent. It is sort of from that perspective that we criticized the transparency and accountability.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: We noticed that.
The Chair: Exactly.
Senator Robichaud: The group appeared, right?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. LeBlanc: Actually, your colleagues asked questions about the topic.
Senator Mockler: In my view, you have one other step to go. You should review the Federal Accountability Act and incorporate it into your study by saying that you believe that accountability should also be such-and-such, specifically the typical examples you brought up. You have a very good recommendation. I do not want to cast a shadow over what you have done, because it is good work.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I think they mentioned the Federal Accountability Act in their report. They even quote the Prime Minister.
Senator Robichaud: I am a bit bothered by the comments you make in your report. In New Brunswick, communities have benefited from these programs. Take the community of Beausoleil in the Miramichi region, for example, or Sainte-Anne in Fredericton and Champlain in Saint John.
Those communities have done wonders, because in some places, people thought the francophone community was simply going to vanish. When they came in with a community centre that included a school and an activity centre, all of a sudden people realized there was a whole francophone community that wanted to live in French.
Now, I am saddened because communities in Yukon or other territories or provinces have perhaps not had the same opportunities.
In New Brunswick, we are able to see the success of these programs.
Your work is well done. I do not think we should be asking students to continue it. Éric is graduating this year, so he will no longer be there, and neither will most of you. However, our committee should pursue it. Accountability is our responsibility now. We have been given facts and told about situations that should not exist and something very simple has been suggested. It is not like we have to go to the moon and back to solve the problem. What you are telling us is simple. I would even tie in Senator Rivard's suggestion that perhaps the Auditor General of Canada should look into these agreements to see whether their terms and conditions are being met. Otherwise, we have no recourse. If it continues, some communities will miss the boat altogether. We know that the days of some minority communities are often numbered, despite all the efforts made by the people in the community.
I do not want to tell you what to do. In fact, you should be telling us what to do.
I thank you sincerely for your presentation, and I hope we will be able to act on it in some way.
Mr. Wirz: I am glad to hear that you would like to pursue the matter even further. It is important to pursue it more than usual, because, in 2005, your committee recommended to the government that it include minority school boards. As it turned out, Canadian Heritage replied that it would not do that, that it would carry on the way it intended without really giving an explanation. That led to the agreements we have today.
Senator Robichaud: Another reason for pursuing it further.
Mr. LeBlanc: Being from New Brunswick, I have been able to see the benefits of the transfer payments and all the progress the communities have managed to make through this program. That is why, in the work you could do on the subject, you have to consider the fact that the program, the money, earmarked for official language minority communities is very significant. That is why we believe that boards and school boards should be included, and that is why I would like to reiterate what my colleague Daniel said. Potentially, you are in a better position than we are to move forward on this.
Senator Mockler: We should use New Brunswick as an example.
The Chair: Perhaps we will, senator.
On that note, I would like to thank you very sincerely. This is the second year a group of students has come to make a presentation to us and has included in their courses a subject that significantly affects official language minority communities.
I would like to thank your professor and you students, who have taken this to heart and have conducted your research with interest and fairness. You try — you did it the last time and again this time — to always see both sides of the coin. I would also like to thank the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages for agreeing to include the appearance by the students in our schedule — and I thank Senator Fortin-Duplessis of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.
You heard what was said around the table, so we continue, and next week, we will discuss the committee's future work again. We will have to discuss your appearance to see what the committee decides to do.
(The committee adjourned.)