Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 13 - Evidence, March 19, 2007
OTTAWA, Monday, March 19, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 4:02 p.m. to study the government's response, dated November 2006, to the sixth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages entitled French-Language Education in a Minority Setting: A Continuum from Early Childhood to the Post-Secondary Level, tabled in the Senate on June 14, 2005.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chairman) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, welcome to this March 19, 2007, meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am Maria Chaput, chair of the committee, and I am from Manitoba.
Before handing the floor over to our witnesses, I would like to introduce the members of the committee: Senator Gerald Comeau from Nova Scotia, Senator Lowell Murray from Ontario, Senator Claudette Tardif from Alberta and Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool from New Brunswick.
Today we will be considering the government's response, dated November 2006, to the sixth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages entitled French-Language Education in a Minority Setting: A Continuum from Early Childhood to the Post-Secondary Level, tabled in the Senate June 14, 2005.
There are two main themes in this report: children from the minority francophone community are entitled to an uninterrupted education from birth to the post-secondary level; every French-speaking community in a minority setting is also entitled to develop from a social and cultural standpoint. We will also be considering section 23 of the Charter.
We have received the government's response to the report. To comment on this response, we have invited francophone associations representing the various educational levels. To begin with today, we will be hearing from representatives from the primary and secondary levels.
We will first hear from the President of the Fédération des conseils scolaires francophones, Mr. Ernest Thibodeau, and the Director General, Mr. Paul Charbonneau. We will also be hearing from the President of the Commission nationale des parents francophones, Ms. Ghislaine Pilon, and Mr. Jean-Pierre Dubé, Liaison and Policy Director. We would like to welcome you.
Each organization will have about seven or eight minutes for opening remarks. Your presentation will be followed by a question period. Without further ado, I will hand the floor over to you.
Ernest Thibodeau, President, Fédération des conseils scolaires francophones: Madam Chair, to begin with we would like to thank you for your invitation to comment on the ministers' response to your report on education tabled in June 2005.
Firstly, we must commend you for having taken the initiative to study this issue so seriously, and especially for having adopted a motion to require comments on questions left unanswered for far too long.
On the issues that are of particular interest to us, that is early childhood and elementary and secondary education, you have done a good job at identifying the problems with the Canadian government's involvement. Your recommendations are in all respects a response to the expectation voiced over many years by networks like ours.
In an effort to keep our comments focused, we will first provide a summary of the recent months' developments in relation to the recommendations we made during the consultative process. We will then comment on the appropriateness of the government's response on a number of key issues.
Since our federation's inception, we have called for greater transparency in the bargaining process, the fund allocation process, and the accountability concerns in relation to managing the memorandum of understanding on official languages education and the resulting bilateral agreements. We stressed the fact that the approach to the bargaining process has not changed since the program's inception, and that francophone and Acadian school boards have been established in every francophone community in a minority setting. These school boards were the first to receive grants resulting from negotiations between the federal, provincial and territorial governments.
This is all the more noteworthy as the jurisprudence indicates that homogeneous francophone bodies alone can appropriately determine needs relating to language and culture in the education field. And yet, apart from the school boards, there is no other homogeneous management body in the field of education.
We also submitted our analysis of education-related needs concerning French as a first language. The analysis led to an action plan. The action plan was passed at the education stakeholders' summit on the implementation of section 23 in minority francophone environments, which was held in June 2005. The plan was ratified by a memorandum of understanding, signed by all national education stakeholder groups involved in the issue.
Since then, we have established a tripartite committee to implement the plan, made up of senior officials in French- language education representing their provincial and territorial departments and ministers. The committee also comprises representatives of federal departments, including Canadian Heritage and Human Resources Development, as well as representatives of school boards and community organizations working in education.
Although the resources are occasionally lacking, projects under the action plan are moving forward in a climate of satisfactory cooperation. Action plan activities can be divided into six categories: promotion of French-language schools, educational infrastructure, human resources, teaching, cultural and identity-related activities, and early childhood development.
The Commission nationale des parents francophones will set out the position of early childhood development organizations. We would like to reiterate our support for these activities. We must focus a great deal of our energy on early childhood development in order to recruit more students and to prepare both the young people and their parents for education in French as their first language. Not only should we be recruiting all children from francophone families but also preparing children from mixed-language and immigrant families for our schools.
Here, we will focus primarily on the responses to recommendations 1, 4 and 5.
With respect to recommendation 1, nothing has changed. There is no national campaign to increase awareness among Canadians of issues relating to linguistic duality and promotion. There has been no enhancement of education- related marketing. There are of course initiatives funded under federal-provincial agreements, which make it possible to organize fairly effective campaigns among major school boards only, but there is no concerted national action to ensure genuine promotion among people who are entitled to French-language education. Yet, this is a priority of stakeholders in the field, a priority based on the firm conviction that a large-scale campaign would convince all parents now choosing English-language schools or immersion programs to send their children to French-language schools.
The recruitment goals of the Action Plan on Official Languages were too high to be achieved without a promotion campaign commensurate with the expected results. With the means available, the tripartite committee stakeholders have made some fairly effective efforts. We established a modest program to work with school boards that wanted to help stakeholders in the field to learn more about promotion methods, so that those methods could be taken into account as new families are received. What we need to do, however, is generate the momentum that will encourage families which do not send their children to our schools at the moment to find that motivation, that French-language identity that will prompt them to register their children in French-language schools in all parts of Canada.
We have a market study, and we have established a business plan. However, the funding is not available at this time. We should point out, however, that Canadian Parents for French have the resources to conduct promotion activities and facilitate recruitment for immersion programs.
With respect to recommendation 4, through our concerted efforts we have been able to establish coordination mechanisms to facilitate the implementation of full-scale school governance. The tripartite committee is responsible for that coordination. In fact, the committee is a Canadian first. Never before in the history of Canada have provincial, territorial, federal, school and community authorities agreed to work so closely together.
Eventually, the committee will need to have greater financial influence, but at present its work constitutes the main source of inspiration drawn on by the federal government for its actions in official languages education.
The Minister responsible for Official Languages, the Honourable Josée Verner, indeed confirmed that she considered the work of the committee and its coordination efforts extremely important.
With regard to recommendation 5, we managed to obtain by a rather circuitous route what we were officially refused. The school board consultation clause in the protocol has been somewhat diluted — it is weaker in the new protocol than it was in former ones. However, the tripartite committee makes it possible to engage an ongoing consultation on educational issues. This means the authorities listen directly to needs formulated by community groups and school boards.
With respect to the need to divide agreements FL1 and FL2, that has been done. The action plans still do not make it possible to clearly identify the needs we are trying to fill, but dividing those agreements means there is now greater transparency. That transparency was badly needed and very much wanted.
In conclusion we should bear in mind that the protocol on official languages and education was negotiated by the previous government, and that the new government in some ways has no choice but to ratify it. Thus, the bilateral agreements flowing from the protocol were also negotiated by an entity which, for all practical purposes, can be considered to involve both governments.
The current program thus rests primarily on the priorities of the previous government. We believe that, for the moment, the current government had no choice but to base its actions on the traditional approach of Canadian Heritage. Sometimes, tradition tends to make negotiators more conservative in their approach, and they perceive the checkerboard of French-language education more or less as it was designed in the decades before school governance came into being.
Since school boards are now permanent players and cannot be circumvented, the federal approach must change. A national plan, as well as a provincial and territorial commitment to work together in implementing the plan, as well as quick action to prevent further erosion of that pool of people entitled to French-language education, are all important factors that should prompt the federal government to work together with other stakeholders.
To achieve that end, the organizational culture must recognize how crucial French-language education is for the development of minority-language communities, and reflect that recognition in the allocation of resources as well as in the decision-making process. The organizational culture is slowly changing, but that change is always hampered by the fear some have of losing a power which is not in fact theirs, and does not necessarily reside in the identification of funding priorities. One day, we will all have to recognize that essential federal funding is not the prerogative of a privileged few, but of all francophones and Acadians working to ensure that their language and culture can develop and flourish.
School boards are the only homogeneous governments with a constitutional right to serve French-language minority communities. We are slowly recognizing that fact. All we need to do now is give them the means to ensure their partnership and allow them to fulfil their obligations.
The Minister for La Francophonie and Official Languages, the Honourable Josée Verner, recognizes the importance of the structures established. Now, we need to see how that recognition, that hard-earned trust, will translate into action in the future.
Ghislaine Pilon, President, Commission nationale des parents francophones: Madam Chair, the Canadian government's response to the sixth report of the Senate Committee on Official Languages is very instructive. I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to discuss it.
The government reiterates the framework of its contribution, as well as its commitments. In particular, we should note the government's commitment to:
Foster minority-language education in Canada and conduct ongoing high-level consultations on education with key stakeholders, including those from official languages communities.
Allow me to draw another statement to your attention:
The Government of Canada recognizes that early childhood is a priority for official language community development.
And that's not all. This is followed by:
Early childhood provides a substantial recruiting pool for minority French schools.
These are statements of opinion and they are appreciated. However, what exactly is meant by the fact that the federal government recognizes that early childhood is a priority? Ottawa is very careful about not imposing its opinions on the provinces and territories. It reminds the reader of its respect for the education ministers' main mandate, which is education from kindergarten to grade 12.
Significant progress has been made since the Canadian Charter was adopted in 1982. With billions of dollars having been invested by Ottawa, minority French language education has advanced to the extent that it is now getting closer to section 23's vision. It is true that within the official languages action plan framework, we can count on the collaboration of the Department of Human Resources and Social Development.
Advancement continues to be made in early childhood development. To give you some background, the commission was just given $1.8 million in funding over three years for the purposes of broadening collaboration in early childhood development. This assistance also brings us closer to universal access to affordable quality services for young children and their parents. We travelled throughout the country, undertook an environmental analysis, and established a national collaborative framework with 12 partners. We held two important congresses with our partners in education and health. We worked with the department on its day care pilot project. We drafted early childhood development action plans in each jurisdiction. We will soon be launching a national study on the implementation of early childhood and family centres, among other items. Centres are being established in several provinces.
We may get there, but will we get there in time? That is our concern.
When we came before your committee two years ago, we presented early childhood as being the future of our communities, and your committee took our statements into account in its report, which describes early childhood development to postsecondary education as a continuum.
The government's response only states that in the past the federal government did its share and that its intentions are noble. Is this enough?
Has the government's approach changed since your report was tabled in June 2005? Does the official languages action plan implementation framework provide for annual consultations?
Several questions remain unanswered. Where do we stand in terms of action plan results? You will recall that the plan set as a 10-year goal an 80 per cent increase in the number of students in French as a first language programs, and a 50 per cent increase in the number of students in French and as a second language programs. Did the plan provide the means to achieve this outcome by 2012? Not necessarily.
How was implementation supposed to be monitored? Who is responsible? The federal officials we worked with did not make the connection between action plan initiatives and desired outcomes.
Canadian Parents for French and ourselves asked repeatedly to participate in the follow-up process. If there were an effective action plan assessment, we could determine whether or not the intentions were the right ones, because the process used has not necessarily delivered the goods. The situation has changed over the past two years and a new approach is now necessary.
Today we would like to focus on new items. First, the federal government's response appears to once again disregard the fact that section 23 provides for minority language school boards. As Canada's Supreme Court declared, these school boards provide for rights and responsibilities within the education system. Francophone school boards have been formally excluded from provincial-federal discussions. The federal government's response is clear, and I quote:
Negotiations will, however, remain between the two orders of government.
The government's response also does not take into account the fact that in June 2005, communities decided on an adjustment plan for themselves called the section 23 action plan. Should this initiative, undertaken by the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, influence change? Should the education ministries' priorities reflect these action plan initiatives? Twenty-five years after the Charter was adopted, the federal government's approach must change so that it recognizes, first, the constitutional role of school boards, second, the legitimacy of section 23's action plan, third, the binding nature of the new Official Languages Act, and fourth, the role of early childhood development in section 23.
There have been new developments in the area of early childhood. We have learned a lot from brain research since 1982. We now know that language acquisition begins in the sixth month of pregnancy and plateaus before the age of two years. We know that investing early and significantly in young children's development determines the path those children will follow in terms of health, learning ability and social behaviour. The implications of this knowledge are huge for society in general and even more so for the minority community.
As I pointed out earlier, the federal government acknowledges that early childhood provides a substantial recruiting pool, and it relies on the goodwill of provinces and their jurisdiction in education, that begins with kindergarten. We are still thinking the same way we did in 1982. In 1982, no one believed that section 23 conferred school governance on the minority. Jurisprudence was the basis for that interpretation and it has gone unquestioned. Rights continue to evolve with research and with the study of needs in the field.
How can we convince the federal government to go beyond an opinion on the importance of early childhood? We cannot expect anything from jurisprudence because this government has abolished the court challenges program.
Here is what is actually happening. Let us take a national sample of 100 minority newborns: 40 per cent of the sample has one parent who speaks French and 56 per cent of these parents do not have sufficient literacy to function adequately in French. How many mothers and fathers took their prenatal course in French? How many have a francophone physician? How many were provided with services in French when they gave birth? How many were involved in French follow-up programs, for example, breastfeeding, nutrition, early screening? How many were helped with parenting skills? How many mothers and babies were provided with specialized care in French? How many young families used French playgroups? How many were able to find francophone babysitters? How many used francophone day cares? How many used French-language cultural products and media at home? How many children were registered in French-language kindergarten in 2004? We do not have the answers to these questions. What we do know is that in 2001, 50 per cent of francophone children were registered in grade one in a French school. And you think that things are not going so well?
Over the course of their first year at school, 10 per cent of children leave French-language schools. If the trend continues, the same will happen when students begin high school — another 10 per cent will leave their French- language school. The same will occur at the other end: approximately 10 per cent will choose to finish school in English. Ten per cent will choose an English-language institution when the time comes to begin their post-secondary education. Out of the 2000 cohort, only one student in ten will graduate in French.
How many will find a French-speaking spouse? How many couples will take prenatal classes in French? How many mothers will give birth in French? Where will we be in 10 or 20 years?
I have just explained to you why the early childhood and family centres exist. If you wanted to have a serious discussion about recruitment and not pass the buck, that is where you have to begin. If the federal government believes that early childhood education is a priority, how can this be translated into policy? This is not the time to defend the status quo.
Honourable senators, help us convince the federal government that it should immediately invest in the health of children, in the education of francophone children, and in ways to support parents, who are first and foremost responsible for their children, and that we must make these investments, since we are a nation which recognizes the importance of its children and which wishes to begin preparing the future now.
I will conclude with two quotes. The first reads as follows:
America's families and their children are in trouble, a trouble so deep and widespread that it threatens the future of the nation. The source of the problem is nothing less than the national neglect of children and those who are first and foremost responsible for their care, namely parents.
This quote was taken from the advisory committee to the White House Conference on Children in 1970.
The second quote is section 18.2 of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Ottawa is a signatory:
For the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the present Convention, States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children.
The Chairman: Over the last two years, since our committee finished its study, made recommendations and received the government's response, did you notice any improvements in the area of early childhood education in francophone minority communities?
If so, was this due to your own initiative, the government's initiative, or both? Have there been any improvements?
Mr. Thibodeau: Indeed, progress has been made thanks to the efforts of national organizations in tandem with representatives of provincial departments. For example, as we said in our brief, the creation of the tripartite committee is an initiative which helped us realize significant progress. These initiatives are certainly supported by federal departments, since the Department of Canadian Heritage and Human Resources and Social Development Canada were at the negotiating table. This marked significant progress, but there is still a lot of work to be done.
The Chairman: Ms. Pilon, would you like to add something?
Ms. Pilon: We have created a partnership with Human Resources and Social Development Canada, which gave us financial support to help us build capacity for our parents throughout Canada. So, yes, there have been positive things, but as you know, we had to come knocking on your door to make sure we would indeed receive the funding. We had to wait about four months. We were on the point of closing our doors when the money finally came through. So there has been progress on that side.
Senator Tardif: I would like to congratulate both groups for their excellent presentations. You both spoke to the necessity of holding consultations. I wonder, when you mention progress made by the tripartite committee, whether you find this is an effective way of consulting, or whether you think there are other mechanisms by which your organizations could be consulted by representatives of the various federal government programs to help advance the cause of francophone education?
Mr. Thibodeau: I believe that the tripartite committee works fairly well; it is rather efficient. But we absolutely need to have all our partners at the table, be they provincial, territorial or federal, because the only way to further this cause is to get all communities to sit down at the table with the various levels of government. Since education is a provincial jurisdiction, the provinces must absolutely be at the table with us so we can put together our common objectives.
In that sense, I think it is effective. Obviously, there needs to be increased funding for some initiatives that we would like to take, including the promotion and marketing of French schools. Some work is done in that regard by the larger school boards, but we do not have funding to conduct a national campaign. I think that we absolutely have to do so because the francophonie is at risk. Canada's linguistic duality is at stake, if we do not do anything now.
Paul Charbonneau, Director General, Fédération des conseils scolaires francophones: It is rather odd when we look at the responses. Some 200 educational stakeholders participated in our summit. It was funded at great expense by Canadian Heritage. One of the recommendations was that there be a national plan which would cover early childhood to high school. The government's response does not contain any reference to that. And yet, senior officials from each provincial education department and representatives from Canadian Heritage and other federal departments attended the summit. I have the impression that goodwill depends on who will inform the minister first.
We visited Ms. Verner, the Minister responsible for the Francophonie and Official Languages. We found ourselves facing a few public servants who did not want to be bothered by the school boards. The minister understood extremely well. When the right public servant informs the minister, the whole coordination process runs smoothly. I do not think that the problem has to do with bad political will because the provinces, through their ministers, responded favourably to our proposal to work together. But there are people who have worked for a very long time in the system and are not used to have to contend with us. I suspect that it is they who wrote the response, given that Ms. Verner had just arrived, and it is they who do not want us to be there. When the right public servants brief the right politicians, our committee works extremely well. But if the minister falls sick on the day of the meeting, then we are out of luck.
Senator Tardif: You said that the provinces' reaction to the committee was favourable?
Mr. Charbonneau: We are saying that we want our official to attend the committee's meetings, even if the federal government is represented. That does not exist on the English side, that does not exist elsewhere in Canada. Even if the federal government, community groups and the school board are present, all provincial ministers officially delegated, in writing, their senior officials and representatives to work with us.
Senator Tardif: All provinces?
Mr. Charbonneau: With the exception of British Columbia, but that was not in bad faith, but rather because it is school boards who have the power, not the department.
Senator Tardif: And they are public servants from the provincial education departments?
Mr. Charbonneau: They are mandated by their ministers. For example, in Alberta, it is Debbie Johnston who is present.
Senator Tardif: If I understand correctly, you say that it would be bureaucratic inertia?
Mr. Charbonneau: Not necessarily, some public servants are competent. Earlier, Ms. Pilon said that the partnership between the two levels of government will remain. And yet they know full well — Ms. Verner confirmed it during a recent meeting and in writing — that it is often easier to work with the provinces than with others. The bitterness does not come from the provinces in the name of the sacrosanct provincial jurisdiction in education. They are ready to work in a tripartite committee. That has never been done in Canada's history. Those federal government representatives who come are probably not those who write the documents, but that is just fine.
I am sorry if it seems like I am settling a score, that is not the case, but it is the problem.
Jean-Pierre Dubé, Director, Liaison and Policy, Commission nationale des parents francophones: From the parents' point of view, we have full confidence in the school board that we elected to play this role with the governments as a community partner in touch with the federal and provincial government. This is our position. However, the CNPF is a member of the tripartite committee that was just mentioned. Therefore, we also participate.
Senator Comeau: Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the witnesses for being here today. We are always pleased to have you with us.
Let me come back to the issue of section 23 of the Charter. If you were a lawyer or an expert in constitutional matters, would you say that the Constitution requires that school boards be consulted?
Mr. Thibodeau: I am not a lawyer, but I think that it is compulsory because the Supreme Court has deemed some powers to be exclusive to parents and those who represent them. Therefore, when dealing with every kind of language and cultural issue, I think that the school boards, because they represent parents, should be consulted when implementing projects.
Senator Comeau: Would it be good to look into these obligations?
Mr. Thibodeau: Yes.
Senator Comeau: You mentioned a national campaign to attract people to francophone schools and to keep them there. What do you mean by ``national campaign''? Would it be a national fund that could be shared by all the provinces? Every jurisdiction is a bit different. New Brunswick is very different from Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. Do you mean a national program or a national campaign?
Mr. Thibodeau: We mean a national campaign organized at a national level and adapted to each province. As you said, each province is in a different situation. They are very different. I think that this must be adapted to each province, but this campaign must have common points at the national level.
Senator Comeau: I would like to know more about this. Perhaps we could have a national program that varies from region to region.
Mr. Thibodeau: I think that this national campaign, or national program, could be adapted to the different regions and communities. The situation in northeastern New Brunswick is different from that in the Summerside region. Did we mention eligible parties?
Senator Comeau: Yes, in the national sense.
Mr. Thibodeau: The situations in Summerside and in Moncton, New Brunswick, are not all that different.
Senator Comeau: I understand you. There must be a national standard for Canada. Therefore, we must look at it from a national and not solely local point of view and it be must adapted to the situation of each community.
Mr. Charbonneau: We did a study of the market and we will send you a copy of it. The study showed that the message could be the same, except on the Acadian peninsula and perhaps in eastern Ontario. In the other regions, as some may be surprised to learn, with regard to mixed marriages, there are similar mechanisms for reception in the schools and in the community environment. We developed a communication plan based on this. The plan sets out what messages we should send, where we should deliver them and in what way, or through what media we should send them. We realized that there are two aspects, namely publicity and reception.
Thanks to Heritage Canada, we were able to lunch a support program for helping school boards, local parent groups and community groups in general to develop better marketing skills. Quite often, the school receptionist plays a key role. If the reception is poor, people are not inclined to come in and stay.
We are developing programs for training teachers, school directors and parents to send out the right message. All it takes is that a mixed family considers that it was poorly served in a village and that it did not get answers to its questions, for everything to fail.
We will do a follow-up, probably through what you call a national program, but there will be common messages for everyone.
Senator Comeau: We have long recognized how important it is to encourage parents to send their young children to a French school before the primary level. By the time they are five or six years old, children are already too used to speaking English to go a French school. We discussed this point with Ms. Pilon. This is a very important aspect.
Are the public servants receptive to the message? It is very important for them to be aware of this reality.
Ms. Pilon: We had a great debate about how important it is to reach our children even before they are born. A pregnant mother must recognize the importance of French in her child's life right from the beginning.
Most of the public servants whom we meet are in favour of this idea. We still have not met any ministers, and a year and a half has gone by. The previous minister, Mr. Dryden, had a good understanding of the idea of connecting our early childhood and family centres to the primary schools to make sure that the transition goes well. As soon as a child is born, he is brought in with his mother who has been following a prenatal course. He begins to have fun with his friends, and then he goes to the childcare centre in French and his development proceeds in French.
With regard to English, we are surrounded by anglophones, and therefore the child will speak both languages even before going to school. However, if the child does not have these alternatives, he will obviously learn only English. It is very difficult to bring a unilingual anglophone child to attend grade one in a French school.
One out of two children eligible for education in French does not live near us. This is why it is important to reach out to the youngest children, through a marketing campaign to make sure that they are aware of the existence of French schools.
Senator Comeau: Did Mr. Dryden propose a specific program for minority francophone communities, or did the communities have to get their funds from national programs?
Ms. Pilon: We would have liked to get national funds for setting up early childhood and family centres. After five years, we have shown the importance of this and the results, and we know that things will go well because we have achieved our goals. We could refer to Ontario, as an example.
Senator Comeau: I do not know whether you really understood my question. Were you funded by national funds that are available to all anglophone and francophone communities including your group?
Ms. Pilon: The only funds that we could obtain were related to the implementation of the childcare service and its provisions for francophones. Minister Dryden had clearly understood how important it is for our francophone communities to stay together and to have early childhood centres. However, the government changed and we have not had a chance to speak to someone else.
Senator Comeau: Was there a specific provision?
Ms. Pilon: There was an article for francophones with regard to childcare services. For us, this was a step forward, because previously there was no such article. Now, we no longer have a childcare service. Thus, we are right back where we started.
Mr. Dubé: The current government provided funds to study the costs of implementing and operating early childhood and family centres. We will publish this study by the end of April. Thus, we will know exactly what to expect regarding the creation of such centres. However, the message is clear. The public service and Social Development Canada are attentive and open to early childhood issues.
Senator Comeau: You raise a good point. Perhaps we should invite you back when you have completed your study.
Mr. Dubé: We would be more than pleased to appear before you again.
Senator Tardif: My question follows on Senator Comeau's as to whether consultation is included in section 23 of the Charter. Clearly, we are not legal experts. However, does Bill S-3 give you the possibility to take positive steps and demand consultation?
Ms. Pilon: Not being a legal expert, I do not want to venture a response.
Mr. Dubé: Everything appears to be in section 23. Jurisprudence has moved a great deal in that direction. You would need to ask the question. There is no doubt that regarding education, if we were to put the question to the Supreme Court, the answer would be yes. The government is obliged to represent the needs and priorities of francophone communities, and with section 23 we might get there.
Of course, the new Official Languages Act reinforces, to my mind, that obligation. The problem, clearly, is that we do not currently have the means to undertake such an approach. Years of making claims have led us to believe that it would be easier to enter into this kind of partnership on a voluntary basis — and we remain hopeful. I can tell you that parents have called for that right for 25 years and have now left the cause in the hands of the school boards. However, the problem persists.
Senator Losier-Cool: I have the feeling that when I was fighting for French schools in northeastern New Brunswick, my only purpose in life was to look for progress, claims, and even deal with personal threats. Having said that, yes, there has been progress.
According to an African proverb, it takes a village to raise a child. That takes us to our question about consultations and organizations. Could we have done better, and could we do even better yet by including the entire village, all of society? We have school boards, I know that you are responsible people who represent the community, but are the teachers, parents, business owners and municipalities working together on the ``marketing,'' as you called it? To achieve that, I believe we need to move towards a national policy for children in a minority setting, which will be different — and it is not interfering in provincial jurisdiction, it can be done under the Charter of Rights. I would like to hear your comments.
Ms. Pilon: With the tripartite committee, we already bring together the majority of people, such as teachers, representatives of colleges and universities. Everyone is there except the municipalities.
Mr. Charbonneau: There is a level of achievement or a degree of maturity that has been reached and that is reflected in the adoption of the action plan. A dozen or more groups are now working together at the national level. This cooperation has rubbed off on the provincial and local governments and also includes groups of young people, cultural movements, and all activities that revolve around education. So we have a large village. It is still not global, as the economic sector is still missing, but we have made a good effort.
The problem, when we work at the national level, is that we must constantly remain them — that is one of the problems and that answers Senator Tardif's question — that education for minorities is not strictly a provincial matter. It is often said that basically, the federal government steps in as if it were doing a favour, because the issue is under provincial jurisdiction. I am not a lawyer, but in the reference on Quebec secession, the Supreme Court did say that there were five unwritten principles, including one that committed the federal government to promoting the development — I do not remember the exact wording — of francophone minorities.
From the moment the federal government will be able to officially recognize that in this context it can take action in the area of education, if we follow the spirit of the law — francophones must make their own decisions on issues of language and culture — dialogue will be much easier.
At present, we talk amongst ourselves, except within our tripartite committee, where everything is done bilaterally. We call federal officials on the sly, or almost, except as part of our committee, because the federal government must talk to the province. It is just a question of attitude. But attitudes can improve.
Senator Losier-Cool: Attitudes can be shaped and can change. Recently, I read an article by a child psychologist from the University of Moncton who said that you can't force people to be francophones. In other words, you cannot impose French; we all know it, we all have children and grandchildren who are growing up in minority settings.
That brings us back again to my issue of a national policy that would encompass libraries, sports in French, and culture. I was not with you when you travelled to Nova Scotia, but I believe in the idea of a national policy and in the idea of making our representations and claims to implement this national policy.
Senator Comeau: I would just like confirmation that I have understood correctly. Both Mr. Dubé and Mr. Charbonneau mentioned francophone communities in a minority setting. Are we not in reality talking about official language communities in a minority setting? Are you attaching the same value to anglophone and francophone communities in a minority setting, or am I mistaken?
Mr. Charbonneau: Anglophone minorities are facing some situations that are similar, but at present, we are very busy with francophone communities.
Senator Comeau: I am not asking you to look after the others, of course, but I am asking if the rights are the same, if section 23 of the Charter would apply. You have mentioned francophone communities in a minority setting, but we are talking about official languages communities in a minority setting, are we not?
Mr. Charbonneau: I would like to inject a bit of humour and tell you that the rights are the same as the anglophone minorities, except that they have more services than we do.
Senator Comeau: I took note of your comment, Mr. Charbonneau, when you said that sometimes the people who write the government's response are not necessarily the same people as the ones you met with during the consultations. I took note of that.
Senator Tardif: I know that you face several challenges. In another life, I was involved in teacher training, and I am interested in knowing if there are enough teachers for francophone schools throughout the country. Are there shortages, and if yes in what areas? Has there been an increase in the student population? What are the needs there?
Mr. Thibodeau: I think we are starting to see a shortage of francophone teachers more or less throughout the country. It is not strictly one region more than another. I think that the immersion programs for anglophones are facing the same problem recruiting francophone teachers. One of the things we would like to do in terms of teacher training would be to have a program strictly for teachers in a minority setting. The University of Moncton has created a program like that. We would like to see, at least at home for us in New Brunswick, these courses become mandatory for teachers, because teaching in a minority setting involves responsibilities and obligations that are different from teaching in a majority setting.
As for your question, we are indeed starting to see a shortage. Moreover, we did not use to have any trouble hiring supply teachers when our teachers went on maternity leave or some other kind of leave; today, we are starting to have trouble finding supply teachers. So within the next few years, we predict the shortage will also extend to regular teachers.
Senator Tardif: On another topic, if I understood correctly the tripartite committee has been operational for approximately one year. It was struck in March 2006.
Mr. Charbonneau: Yes.
Senator Tardif: Do you have a report on results? You say that all is well, that it has gotten off to a good start, that people are speaking, that there is a good environment, it is adequate; but how can we actually find out what has been accomplished by the committee?
Mr. Charbonneau: What I could send you are some updates. The committee's way of operating is by reviewing the work in each sector. For example, early childhood has a committee that is overseen by the CNPF. Each sector has a working group that reports to the tripartite committee which then proposes, recommends and acts.
In terms of reporting, we have updates that reflect progress made, but they only reflect a limited amount of progress. The reason is a simple one: before attempting to implement the plan, the committee must develop a modus operandi. At one point in time we were involved in extensive diplomacy, given the number of jurisdictions, and we spent one and a half meetings devising a modus operandi that shared responsibilities appropriately while at the same time restricting respective powers in order to avoid becoming a cumbersome department of education. Now we are working on action.
I can provide you with the updates and send you the modus operandi that everyone agreed on.
Senator Tardif: I would appreciate that. Do you receive any specific funding for the tripartite committee?
Mr. Charbonneau: Yes. Throughout the process, Heritage Canada assists us in ensuring that everything functions as it should. Generally speaking, this involves covering travel costs and some coordination.
The Chairman: We have now finished this first round of discussion. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming today. We will most certainly take your presentation into account.
The committee suspended.
The committee resumed.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we will return to our business. We are considering the government's response to our committee on French-language education in a minority setting. We have before us, as a panel, representatives from post-secondary institutions.
First, from the Association des universities de la francophonie canadienne, we have Mr. Gilles Patry, Vice-President, President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ottawa, and he is accompanied by Mr. Guy Gélineau, Vice- President and General Director.
Representing the college level, we also have with us today the President of the Réseau des cégeps et des collèges francophones du Canada, Mr. François Allard, and Mr. Réginald Lavertu, Executive Director, and Mr. Yvon Saint- Jules, responsible for programming.
Welcome, gentlemen. You have approximately seven minutes to make your opening statements, which will then be followed by a period of questions. You have the floor.
Gilles Patry, Vice-President, President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ottawa, Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne: Madam Chair, on behalf of the Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne and its member universities, and on my own behalf, I would like to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages for inviting me here today in order to speak to the interim report of June 2005 and the government's response of November last. I am accompanied by Mr. Guy Gélineau, the General Director of the Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne.
The AUFC, as you are aware, represents 13 university institutions serving minority French-language communities, including the University of Ottawa that I have the honour of presiding over.
In its interim report, the Senate committee clearly presented the issues that francophone universities serving minority French-language communities in Canada are facing, that is, the need to strengthen our often precarious institutions in order to give them the requisite critical mass of students, teachers and researchers to meet the needs of our communities; the need to develop high-quality programs that will train the francophone and bilingual professionals that Canada needs; the need to broaden access to these programs to include francophone communities from regions that do not have French-language institutions; and the need for adequate funding for these institutions and the development of research capacity in French.
In its response to the Senate committee, the government rightly points to its substantial contribution to post- secondary education in Canada, including, of course, institutions serving francophone communities in minority situations. The government particularly refers to its investment of over $200 million in special initiatives that have targeted the francophone post-secondary network, colleges and universities over the past 20 years; the official languages research and dissemination program, a program supported by Canadian Heritage with an annual budget of one million dollars over three years; the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada; and the $63 million in funding over five years to the Consortium national de formation en santé.
These are significant investments and have no doubt contributed to improving French-language university education in minority communities. However, allow me to point out that those investments and initiatives precede the tabling of the June 2005 Senate committee report and are still clearly insufficient to allow universities to address the issues you so rightly identified in your June 2005 report. It is in that context that the AUFC developed and tabled its 2005-2010 action plan, which was re-drafted over the past few months to better reflect the current government's priorities. I am referring to the 2007-2012 action plan. Unfortunately, I must say that there has been no follow-up by the Canadian government to the action plan.
The 2007-2012 action plan includes 20 priority measures that revolve around two major focal points: the support for the vitality of communities through linkages between educational programs, the implementation of a bursary program for immersion students and an increase in the French-language research capacity. The action plan supports the internationalization of institutions by the implementation of a bursary program for foreign francophone students, the mobility of students through practicums and internships and the mobility of teachers as well as of technologies. The five-year plan amounts to a $72 million investment, an amount similar to that given to the CNFS, but intended here to develop professionals in areas other than health, that is, law, management, business, arts, communications and sciences.
Such an investment is guaranteed to give immediate and concrete results, as was the case for the targeted investments made to the CNFS for health training programs. For example, the mid-term evaluation of the CNFS project showed that the new investments had helped generate 1,428 new enrolments in health sciences and 296 new graduates, and created 20 new health training programs. By 2008, at the end of the five-year period, 28 new training programs will have been created. The program also helped create 198 new internships in health institutions in minority communities.
Given this success, it is easy to imagine the results that could be achieved by similar investments in other academic disciplines.
Before I conclude, allow me to cite the University of Ottawa as an example to illustrate the financial challenges that our universities face in order to provide quality education in French.
In February 2005, we conducted an in-depth study on the cost of bilingualism at the University of Ottawa. The analysis showed that the grant by the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities to support bilingualism covered less than 60 per cent of the current need to maintain the level of service in French. Despite the under-funding, the University of Ottawa continues to attract a growing number of francophones. In fact, the number of francophone students at the university topped 10,000 last year, in addition to the more than 3,200 French-language immersion students from high schools across Canada.
Moreover, in the area of research in French, the University of Ottawa launched the research chairs program on the Canadian francophonie. To date, we have created eight chairs in a variety of fields of interest for the Canadian francophonie.
Finally, the university undertook to create an institute of official languages and bilingualism, the IOLB, which will set the university apart as a national and international centre of excellence in the areas of language training, research and the development of public policy relating to bilingualism and language planning.
In closing, the AUFC once again urges the federal government to provide direct support to universities, and to French-language minority communities. The vitality of these universities and of their communities depends on it. Short of this type of support, the federal government should provide clearly identified funds for this purpose under the upcoming financial transfer payments for post-secondary education in Canada.
François Allard, President, Réseau des cégeps et des collèges francophones du Canada: Madam Chair, thank you for giving us an opportunity to express the views of the members of the Réseau des cégeps et des collèges francophones du Canada concerning the government's response to the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages entitled: French-Language Education in a Minority Setting: A continuum from early childhood to the post- secondary level.
Founded in 1995, the Réseau des cégeps et des collèges francophones du Canada includes 52 members from all provinces and territories with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nunavut. Its mission is to establish genuine partnerships among French-language colleges in Canada. It is a network which provides support, promotes dialogue and fosters sharing opportunities designed to develop and enhance French-language college education in Canada.
Our administrative structure is relatively small. You practically have before you all of our staff, except for our administrative assistant. We work with our members out in the field and they form the very heart of our network.
The Senate committee wrote, following its hearings, a synthesis that gives an interesting perspective on French- language education in a minority setting. The report contains some strong recommendations. The implementation of these recommendations would really lead to a real improvement of the situation of French-language education in a minority setting.
Let us address the first theme in the government's response, the overall commitment to French-language minority education. The strong commitment of the government is reaffirmed here, and is completed by the recognition that there are additional costs involved in delivering minority language education programs. The response shows an openness to improving the funding of some of our colleges which most of the time are funded like the colleges of the English majority notwithstanding their differences, the conditions in which they operate, the additional costs caused by operating in an anglophone majority context and their double mandate.
The development, at the post-secondary level, of university and college networks in minority official language communities is presented, in the government response, like a benefit of the past 35 years of federal and provincial/ territorial cooperation. Truly, progress has been made, but the government acknowledges in its response that more could be done. We are also of this opinion, because it must be acknowledged that the francophone college network is far from complete.
At the present time, minority francophone communities in only four provinces have access to college training provided by provincially-accredited teaching establishments — New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia. In Canada's other provinces and territories, access to French-language college training is rudimentary — where it exists at all. The organizations that provide college-level training have yet to be accredited by their respective governments.
French-language college education differs widely from province to province and territory to territory. For this reason, Canada cannot yet claim to have a truly national French-language college education system. French-speaking Canadians who live in minority communities do not have equal and equitable access to college training in French, on a par with the English-speaking population.
Let us now move to the comments on the second theme of the government's response with respect to early learning and child care. We will make only a brief comment on this theme, to express our pleasure at seeing that this theme was included in the education continuum. We also wish to express our desire to contribute to the development of a highly- skilled workforce in this field of activity.
Some of our member colleges already offer training programs but more of them should participate in this training effort.
With respect to the third theme, primary and secondary education, it is under this theme that the government talks about the framework agreement between the Government of Canada and the Council of Ministers of Education known as the Protocol for Agreements for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instructions 2005- 2006 to 2008-2009.
We are delighted, of course, that support for measures that increase the access of minorities to post-secondary educational services in their own language is highlighted as one of the strategic priorities, as an area of special interest which merits particular attention during the period covered by this protocol.
We also view favourably the support by Heritage Canada of many provincial and territorial measures aimed at improving the quality of education programs offered in minority schools and at the recruitment and retention of more students in minority French-language schools across the country. These measures will, in time, bring more francophone graduates from secondary schools to post-secondary education in their native tongue, and so help resolve the critical mass issue, the matter of the enrolment threshold needed for a program to be financially viable.
With respect to the fourth theme, specifically post-secondary education, the government, in its response, acknowledges access to post-secondary education and training as an important determinant of the ongoing vitality of the French-language community in minority settings. Since our last appearance at the hearings of this committee in March 2005, we have put forward an action plan to ensure both the set up of programs and services that are today almost completely missing in certain provinces and territories, and in other regions, to strengthen and broaden existing programs and services. The challenge of delivering quality college programs and services to minority francophone communities is daunting, the situation is still precarious and even the gains that have been made are hard to hold onto.
In this plan that has been distributed to you, we consider that, in order to provide access to a quality college education in minority francophone communities, the following is required: the creation of physical infrastructures, the acquisition of specialized equipment and the development of partnerships with employers, since the training is primarily practical and labour-market oriented. That is our priority.
The development, adaptation and updating of training courses and programs.
The promotion of the real benefits of a French-language college education, often poorly understood by francophones.
The recruitment of a clientele from among entitled students, who often drop out of high school, or transfer to an English-language high school because of the lack of opportunities in the area of French-language college education.
The recruitment of a new student clientele, greater access for French-speaking aboriginal students, the recruitment of an adult clientele whose need for training, skills upgrading, refresher courses, or career counselling are significant.
The development of links, agreements and partnerships among the various Canadian teaching establishments responsible for providing post-secondary education in French.
The creation of a distance training network which would give minority francophone communities access to a variety of quality college-level courses and training.
The recruitment and training of competent French-language human resources. All of these initiatives must be viewed with two goals in mind. Firstly, these initiatives are designed to foster the growth and development of minority francophone communities by building strong French-language colleges that can produce well-trained, highly-skilled bilingual workers fully equipped to contribute to Canada's economic development.
In conclusion, to carry off our action plan, we count for sure on the resources available through the Canada-CMEC Protocol for Agreement. But it is possible that, as we speak, the finance minister, in presenting his budget, is announcing an increase of federal transfers in post-secondary education. If this happens, is it possible for the federal government to make sure that francophone communities in a minority setting benefit fully from this increase of post- secondary transfers. The building of a truly Canada-wide French-language college education system would really need such an injection of additional resources.
In closing, I would add one small thing. In reading the government's response to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages sixth report, I noted that in some cases there were ``recommendations'' and in other cases ``recommandations.'' This just goes to show that we must continue to focus on the French language in Canada.
The Chairman: Thank you, gentlemen. I will be asking the first question of Mr. Allard.
I fully agree with you when you say that it is very important to have this type of college-level training in French throughout Canada. It is also important to have a network. Why is this so difficult to do? It seems to me that we have been forever trying to establish a network, to provide this type of college-level training in French. Why is it so difficult to do?
Mr. Allard: Probably because we do not have a national plan for the development of French-language college training throughout Canada. And when there is no national will. . . .
I was saying earlier on, at the end of my presentation, that if there are to be federal transfer payments made, we would like the federal government to make sure that we can have the funds we need to develop French-language college training throughout Canada. I think of course we are referring to the issue of funding as well as to that of political will, which the federal government must have in order for this to take place from coast to coast to coast in French. That is the crux of the problem.
Some may say there simply is not the critical mass necessary to defend the idea of developing this type of training within the provinces. Perhaps that should be considered. But especially, the federal government needs to have the will to influence things and to support initiatives which may come from provincial levels of government in this regard.
I can give you an example of what happened recently with a project which the Réseau des cégeps et des collèges francophones du Canada set up. It is a project whose aim is to share expertise between colleges within Quebec and outside of Quebec. It is a project we managed to sell — not easily — in order to fund its activities, to both the provincial government in Quebec and to the federal government through the Department of Canadian Heritage.
I think this is an initiative which required a great deal of work on the part of our members in order for them to sell this idea. This happened — and perhaps this is one of the strengths of the Réseau des cégeps, which I would be remiss not to mention — thanks to the fact that it is a Canada-wide network, within which Quebec is represented and through which it works in partnership with the other provinces to promote French-language college education and other similar initiatives. In my opinion, that is significant.
Senator Tardif: Having once been a part of an institution which is a member of the Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne, I simply want to confirm everything that has been said by former colleagues like Mr. Gélineau and Mr. Patry, who indicated how important it is for the development of our francophone minority communities and the institutions to have the support of the federal government.
I also want to stress that federal government investments are necessary to manage establishments, and to work in establishments that meet the needs of francophone communities living in a minority setting, and that this is entirely different from managing majority institutions. There are many additional costs, and the context is completely different. In addition, these institutions often play a community role, and serve either as a community centre, research centre, or meeting centre. Funds are crucial. I know first hand the importance of investing. For example, the health network received an investment over a period of five years, an initiative which produced graduates and other positive effects. We were able to give francophones access to areas of study which were previously inaccessible to them. Master's programs, and arts programs are often accessible in French, but other disciplines such as law, medicine, health, and engineering are largely in English. There used to be nothing. That is why this is absolutely essential.
This is why I agree with your calls to pursue the area of health, but also to develop other disciplines and find necessary funding.
Can you please tell me why supporting internationalization is so important? Why are funds necessary for this?
Mr. Patry: For both the AUFC and the AUCC, universities rely heavily on internationalizing their programs. This is a priority. It is one of the major components in allowing our students to benefit from contact with foreign students.
In fact, there are two aspects to the internationalization of our programs. Firstly, this allows our students to travel easily to other countries, and study in member institutions, allowing them to gain international experience, and at the same time we attract francophone students from abroad to study in Canada. This significantly enhances a student's university experience whether they be from Canada or abroad.
I would also add that this allows us to broaden our critical mass which some institutions are desperately lacking to maintain their programs.
One must realize that foreign students, and I want to point out that they do not come exclusively from developing countries — are selected through a process of targeted recruitment. Our proposal includes focusing on recruiting francophone students to study in our establishments and pursue their undergrad, masters or doctorial studies. Who knows, some may even elect to remain in Canada, whereas others will return and become ambassadors for Canada.
I can say to you that this is a growing concern for all member institutions and universities that make up the AUFC, and we hope that this model will be adopted and supported by the government.
Earlier, I was seeking information on the budget, and sensed a certain openness to the idea of internationalizing our programs. I am very pleased with this, however we must make sure that we focus on francophone students and provide our own students with the experience of studying in foreign institutions.
Senator Tardif: What is the percentage of international students in member institutions?
Mr. Patry: At the University of Ottawa, approximately 7 per cent of enrolled students have an address, and hold a student visa. In a student body of 34,000, this represents approximately 2,500 students who come from foreign countries.
Guy Gélineau, Vice-President and Director General, Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne: Madam Chairman, the AUFC is made up of approximately 20,000 students, most of whom are undergraduate, and comprise approximately 10 per cent of the clientele.
Senator Tardif: Is that in line with national standards?
Mr. Patry: Nationally, it is a little lower, around 5 per cent to 6 per cent in universities. In our institution, we aim for 10 per cent foreign students paying foreign student fees. That is one of our challenges.
You may recall, senator, that foreign students studying in Canadian institutions pay tuition fees which can be tripled what Canadian students pay because they are not eligible for provincial grants. So that is a problem for us. Attracting excellent students who can afford to pay these scholarship fees is a major challenge for us. The bill would provide support for these students by offsetting the very high tuition fees in most cases, which would help us meet our goals.
Mr. Gélineau: Your question also points to the fundamental challenge awaiting our institutions, given the precarious position they are in. At the end of the day, the challenge for francophone institutions, francophone universities — and colleges as well — has to do with the students they will be able to attract. Of course, there are the students we can attract from our communities, and that is our primary duty. But the second target is foreign students. They also make up our future labour force. When it comes to people who will remain here, we recruit those who will be well integrated in our environment.
Studies have shown that when students are well integrated and stay here, they are well integrated within the community. There are some notable examples from Western Canada where we see a real integration of visible minority students within the institutions, within communities which may at some point in the past have been less sensitive to their reality.
The third issue has to do with demographics, with respect to immersion students. That is a new challenge for our institutions. So, apart from the financial problems which we believe could be resolved, in large part, by the federal government, there are three demographic challenges our institutions must address: maintain registration and meet the needs of communities where they exist — our institutions are not always in the right place, that is how it goes — seek our immersion students and seek out foreign students.
Another advantage for foreign students studying in our institutions is that they become bilingual graduates. That is a distinctive feature of our entire university network. You can be assured, without having to ask for it, that students in our community will end up bilingual. But in order to take up these challenges, as the president rightly pointed out, we need to find a solution to the gap in tuition fees. Outside Quebec, it must be said, we are competing with Quebec universities. If the federal government does not support our institutions, this leads to greater problems.
Senator Comeau: Mr. Patry, in your presentation, you said that you had tabled a 2005-10 action plan which was subsequently updated. When did you submit your 2005-10 plan?
Mr. Patry: In December 2004, I believe. I believe that a copy of the update was sent to you. It is an update of the plan, which factors in our new requirements, and we have yet to receive a response to it.
Senator Comeau: Essentially, it is the same plan, except that it is an updated version of it.
Mr. Patry: It is an update of the document, which factors in our new requirements.
Senator Comeau: We will have to see whether tonight's budget gives us hope.
Mr. Patry: When I walked in, a little earlier, I tried to take a look at the budget and I saw that there is some openness to internationalization and student mobility. I think that is a very good sign. Our presentation to you today has to do with the internationalization of our programs, student mobility on both sides, but from the francophone side, our goal is effectively to ``feed'' this new clientele into our programs throughout the country, as the senator stated earlier on.
Senator Comeau: Mr. Allard, congratulation for having implemented the Réseau des cégeps et des collèges francophones du Canada. When was it established?
Mr. Allard: In 1995.
Senator Comeau: Those were the days when you may have felt a bit of reluctance on their part. But I would assume that there was no reluctance on the part of the CEGEP authorities, or was there?
Mr. Allard: No, there was no reluctance. The Réseau managed to convince Quebec college authorities that they had a part to play with respect to the development of the Canadian francophonie.
I am proud of what the Réseau has accomplished to date. It is heartening to see that there are 32 colleges and CEGEPs which are members of the Réseau and which consider it to serve a key role in the promotion and defence of the French fact in Canada. They could have considered it a corporate interest, but that was not the case.
Through the partnerships which the Réseau established between colleges throughout Canada, we realized that Quebec colleges learned a great deal from institutions outside Quebec which have to work in a minority setting, with limited resources, but yet managed to do admirable things.
Colleges in Quebec have learned, and that has led to membership within the RCCFC in Quebec being higher than ever before. Mobility is an important aspect of the network and the Canadian federation deems it important for there to be mobility within Canada and between francophone institutions within and outside Quebec. It is important for young Quebecers to go see what is going on in Alberta and in B.C., for them to get another perspective of Canada, one they may not be familiar with.
We want to develop this mobility, but we have very limited means. We receive a few hundred thousand dollars from the federal government for our college students to see what is going on elsewhere.
Senator Comeau: Congratulations. It really is heartening to see that the network is doing well. When I was in the field of teaching, there were some things I wanted to learn from Quebec Cegeps. I was interested in the concept of business training which practically did not exist outside Quebec, and I learned a great deal from the Cegeps. At the time, I would have liked to have been involved in your organization.
Mr. Allard: Allow me to mention that many Quebec colleges are active within the Réseau but they are not the only ones. New Brunswick is also very active within the RCCFC, and has been since its inception. The province plays an important role, as do the colleges in Ontario which may be a bit further ahead than those that are elsewhere in Canada. So, we must commend these colleges for their work, they believe in the development of French-language college training in Canada and they are involved in the process.
Senator Losier-Cool: Mr. Allard, thank you for mentioning the work that is being done in New Brunswick. I am the honorary President of the Fondation du Collège communautaire de Bathurst and I can assure you that great work is being done there to have the francophonie recognized.
That being said, I would like to take another tack, one that does not necessarily have to do with funding. If all 18 year-olds wanted to go to university, perhaps there would be enough funding available because of their critical mass. Why is it that a country like Canada cannot manage to find the motivation, the striving for excellence which could give all youths access to university? Is the entire global village not sufficiently involved? The purpose of my comments is to see beyond the simple financial side of the question. In passing, people say that Quebec has the lowest tuition fees yet that is where there are fewest university students. It may not necessarily be a matter of money. What more could we do? You have expertise in terms of post-secondary training. Could you tell us what is missing?
Mr. Patry: That is an excellent question. Indeed, participation rate for Ontario universities is around 24 per cent. For 18 to 24 year olds, one out of four young people will go on to university.
Of course, when you add colleges in, you get closer to 50 per cent. I must say that participation rates increase from year to year. And if you were to identify participation rates for francophones, you would see that their rate is lower than that of the Ontario population as a whole. I think we have a duty, as an institution, to value university education, to stress the benefits of a university education.
You are absolutely right when you say that it is not only a matter of money, because the example you gave earlier demonstrates that very well. However, there are some segments of the population for whom there may be accessibility issues, we should look at our policies to determine whether students from all families have the same interests or the same financial resources needed to pursue a university education.
We have to ensure accessibility, but as a university director, I think we also have a responsibility to communicate the benefits of a university degree to young people. And that is why the plan which was submitted to you deals with awareness raising among youth.
Most of the network's universities visited secondary schools in their province, but it is not enough to raise awareness when young people are in grade 11 or grade 12. They need to hear these messages from the start, as stated by the previous witnesses.
That is a key point if you want more people coming into the university network. We have to make sure francophone students choose francophone universities and colleges. The other day I stated, in a speech which I was delivering, that francophone students, from New Brunswick and from Alberta, have a choice because they are generally bilingual and can express themselves as well in English as they can in French.
As an institution, we cannot simply offer programs, we need to offer high-quality programs so that students choose to study say at the faculté Saint-Jean, at the Collège universitaire Saint-Boniface or at the Université Sainte-Anne.
Senator Comeau: That is a good university.
Mr. Patry: It is an excellent university college. Unfortunately, it always brings us back to the issue of money; we need to ensure that these institutions have the resources they need to compete with other institutions. They are competing with all other institutions throughout Ontario and Canada. We have to bring these students into our francophone institutions.
We were also discussing immersion students. I think that is one of the key aspects of all our institutions, of the AUFC and of colleges as well. This year, for the first time, we launched a university-immersion program to draw in students from francophone immersion schools throughout Canada, and give them an opportunity to take three to four courses in French, and perhaps two or three courses in English. So, we allow them to continue within the same immersion model as that which they were used to. We realized that it was extraordinarily successful.
Of course, we have limited resources. We tested this initiative and in the material you received from the AUFC, there was one program with a specific dollar figure attached to it, I think it is approximately $18 million, to draw in students from immersion schools into our institutions. As Guy Gélineau stated earlier, these students would be killing two birds with one stone, living in a francophone or bilingual environment and developing language skills. When they leave our institutions they will be excellent bilingual students.
Senator Losier-Cool: I was not going to raise this, but I will because you referred to university immersion. The new Official Languages Commissioner, Mr. Fraser, in his book Sorry, I don't speak French, said the same thing as you for anglophone universities. In other words, he thinks that when you get a degree from a Canadian university, you should have some level of skill in both official languages and have taken courses in both official languages, that is something I have always believed in.
Would this type of university immersion happen the other way around as well? Is there a demand for that?
Mr. Patry: You are referring to university immersion?
Senator Losier-Cool: Anglophone universities which would teach French.
Mr. Patry: From having worked in a francophone university in Quebec and in an anglophone university in Ontario before coming to the University of Ottawa, I must say that that is a special challenge for institutions which already have a mandate and a specific mission, in other words to train students in a particular field.
I know that some universities are already looking into the possibility of offering some programs or parts of programs in French. I find that commendable. That said, in our document we say that francophone institutions in a minority setting are very fragile at the moment. They should not be made more fragile through the disbursement of very limited funds scattered throughout all universities in Canada.
When I was in another university in Ontario, an anglophone university, we looked into the possibility of offering French-language programs, when I was there, because some professors like myself could have taught in French or in English. We realized that the cost of delivering programs partly in French in these institutions was enormous. There just was not the necessary critical mass to maintain a francophone setting within these institutions.
To get back to what you said earlier on; I think this type of scattering of funds could further weaken existing institutions which need your support and that of the government.
Mr. Allard: I can relate to the senator's question. I have been in this field now for 35 years and I have been asking myself the very same question for 35 years. I am not sure I really have the whole answer to it. What I can say is that when it comes to youths it is important to bring certain conditions together so they agree to further their education. There are a series of conditions which are not easy to bring together like motivation, parental support, community support, employer support, the job opportunities after their studies, a way of teaching them what they need to know, when they need to know it in the right way.
Over the course of my career I have noticed that 17 and 18 year-olds relationship to their education can be very tenuous. Young people may decide to drop out for minor reasons, which we may not even know about. That should be a concern. We need to increase the options in terms of training. There is no magic bullet. People do not all learn in the same way. It has been said that boys and girls do not learn in the same way, studies have shown this very clearly. We need to vary the ways in which we teach these people.
We also need to consider that their needs and the things they want to learn may not be identical from person to person. I agree with my colleague who focuses on university studies, but we cannot forget that Canada also needs technicians, tradesmen. If young people are under enormous pressure to go to university, some of them will drop out because they would rather do something else. Canada needs people who are trained through colleges and school boards across this country.
It is a complex matter. It is about being there at the right time with the right answer to provide young people with the type of training which they seek.
Mr. Gélineau: I think we have just received the answer to what needs to be done over the long term. We need sustained action from early childhood, through elementary schools, secondary schools and to improve accessibility to universities for a whole host of reasons which are well documented.
At the risk of seeming overly focused on financial matters, senator, I should point out that the CNSF has, with $63 million, managed to increase access to professions francophones did not use to have access to. Everything that we have just repeated to you today, and which we at the AUFC have been saying to government for at least three years, is that if you spend $70 million or $75 million you can get similar results. There is no reason why we could not make this money accessible in fields like law, business, etc.
This is our submission, without wanting to underestimate other factors. We have achieved success. Why not build on that, why not learn from it? What we have achieved was funded three or four years ago. We have received no response as to the other fields. Universities and colleges do not only teach health care. There are other aspects to a society. Our francophones expect other things and the provinces are not in a position to provide that. The federal government must get involved.
An institution like the faculté Saint-Jean which has 600 students, despite the best intentions and despite the fact that it is surrounded by tens of thousands of anglophone students from a province which is not the most sensitive to its needs, it continues to grow in this environment and make the compromises it is forced to make. It is simply unthinkable to the federal government not to support this campus when it provides support for health care or other areas. That is our essential message, and it requires more than just money.
It requires conviction on the government's part, a desire to support these institutions so they may prevail, survive and give Canadian society what it could rightfully expect in terms of bilingual professional training.
Senator Tardif: To provide education which equals that of anglophone institutions, francophone institutions in minority settings must also focus on research, for professors, students and for the development of new knowledge, I think there is some work that needs to be done here. If it is not done, we will be marginalized. Do you think the government sufficiently supports the development of research capacity within francophone post-secondary institutions?
Mr. Patry: There are two parts to your question. First off, does the government sufficiently support research? That is one question. And second you are referring to research in francophone institutions. In that regard, I think there is indeed a great deal of work that remains to be done.
Ours was one of the universities which launched the Canadian francophonie research chair program, which is similar to the Canadian research chairs. We felt that, as an institution, we wanted to invest in that area.
You are absolutely right; we must invest in the research capacity of our institutions. This gets back to what I was saying earlier, students who are looking for an institution, either the faculté Saint-Jean, the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface or any other institution, will want to make sure that there is a research environment which supports undergraduate training.
As an institution, it is our job to focus on recruiting these professors who are very mobile. They will go where their field of research is most strongly supported. Retention is another problem.
To answer your question, I think there remains a great deal of work to be done to improve the research capacity of francophone institutions, to make them equal or even marginally equal to Anglophone institutions. We do indeed have a great deal of work to do in that area.
The Chair: Gentlemen, thank you for your presentations and thank you for answering all of our questions. It is thanks to people like you that we can do an even better job as senators.
The committee adjourned.