Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 6 - Evidence - Meeting of February 6, 2012
OTTAWA, Monday, February 6, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:04 p.m. to examine the use of the Internet, new media and social media and the respect for Canadians' language rights.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chair) is in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would like to welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am Senator Maria Chaput from Manitoba, and I am chair of the committee.
Before introducing the witnesses who are appearing today, I would like to invite the committee members to introduce themselves.
Senator Poirier: Senator Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis from Quebec.
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.
Senator Tardif: Claudette Tardif from Alberta.
Senator Losier-Cool: Good evening, I am Rose-Marie Losier-Cool from New Brunswick.
[English]
The Chair: Canadian Parents for French is a national network of volunteers who believe that the French language is an integral part of Canada. It supports teaching French as a second language to young Canadians. Canadian Parents for French was founded in 1977 and has 11 branches with some 170 chapters across the country.
The British Columbia and Yukon branch of Canadian Parents for French asked to appear before the committee to discuss the successes and challenges in second-language instruction in British Columbia. I am pleased to welcome today Debra Pool, President; Victoria Vaseleniuck, Vice-President; and Glyn Lewis, Executive Director. Welcome to our committee.
I invite the president to say a few words, and then the senators will follow with questions.
Debra Pool, President, Canadian Parents for French — British Columbia and Yukon Branch: Good evening and thank you for agreeing to hear from Canadian Parents for French, British Columbia and Yukon Branch, the largest branch in the country with one third of the national membership. It is my honour, as president of the branch, to provide this committee with a West Coast perspective on French second-language education and the roles graduates of French immersion language programs like French immersion are destined to play in the development of the francophone communities in B.C.
If my remarks focus on British Columbia, I must also acknowledge the needs of Yukon as the territory celebrated more than 30 years since the introduction of French immersion in its schools. I am eager to share my thoughts on what must be done to ensure that French second-language gains over the past 40 years continue to grow and how they can be leveraged to ensure the future of our minority francophone communities.
To summarize the contents of our brief to this committee, British Columbia and Yukon Branch recommends the following measures: additional federal investment in French second-language education; a broader official definition of "francophone" to include francophiles; federal policies and initiatives favouring the concept of "linguistic space" over that of "linguistic community"; and a conversation between Ottawa and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada on the creation of a single French-language program for francophone and francophile children and youth.
I am happy to invite your questions, but I would also please invite them to all three of us. Ms. Vaseleniuck and I, as board members, are non-French speaking, but we saw the advantages for our children both 20 and 30 years ago. Fortunately, we have Mr. Lewis, who is bilingual and our executive director. On operational questions, I will be deferring certain questions to him.
The Chair: The first questioner is Senator Fortin-Duplessis.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: First of all, I would like to welcome you. I read your report this morning. On page 2 of your presentation — not the statement that you just read — you say, and I quote:
Furthermore, two or three generations of the same family learning the same second language through the same school program speaks to a level of interest and commitment to a second language, and potentially to that language's core community, that challenges the way Canada defines linguistic and cultural identity.
A little bit further, on the next page, you say:
The rise of the francophile is a crucial development for the francophone community in British Colombia.
You state that the francophone community is stronger than ever, but that time and demographic trends are working against it. It has no other choice but to integrate the francophiles to maintain the demographic and especially political weight required for its survival.
Personally, I do not understand exactly what you mean by "francophile." I would like you to define francophile the way you refer to it in your brief.
[English]
Glyn Lewis, Executive Director, Canadian Parents for French — British Columbia and Yukon Branch: Essentially, the distinction we make is more descriptive than it is legal or anything of that nature, and it is to indicate families and citizens and British Columbians and people in the Yukon who support French as a second language, who have enrolled their children in French immersion programs, intensive French programs, or any program of our second official language.
To come to your point, which is the distinction between francophile and francophone currently, a francophone would be someone who is protected as a minority language and a minority population in B.C. and the Yukon under the Charter and who has guaranteed access to French-language instruction, whereas the francophile community does not have those same rights and is not recognized in the same way.
Ms. Pool: For example, we, as parents, can make a choice to enrol our child in French immersion. However, for the last 13 years, in British Columbia, French immersion has continued to grow, and school boards and districts find it a great challenge to find the room, the teachers and the resources. Of course, funding is not following suit as the numbers of children enrolling increases. Therefore, what happens in many areas in British Columbia is that some parents have to actually camp out in order to enrol their child in French immersion. They camp out overnight in front of schools and they are not even guaranteed to get a school that is in their area.
An example of my own is that my oldest child is turning 21 next month. He was born in North Vancouver. I had to enrol Andrew in French immersion right after he was born. There was one school in North Vancouver at the time, and in order to guarantee him a spot when he went to kindergarten, I enrolled him right after he was born.
The growth is tremendous. Parents want it to be a program where they have the choice to enrol their children. Francophiles do not always have that choice, due to capping numbers. However, because of the Charter, francophones have the right. We would like it to be a right for our children.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: So that is why you want to integrate the francophiles with the francophones? That is what I understood from the brief you submitted.
[English]
Ms. Pool: With regard to integrating in certain situations and in certain areas in our province, for example, Powell River has a program for French immersion and a francophone program. They are competing against each other. If you had the ability to combine those, they would not be competing programs. We have found in British Columbia that we work very well with the federation. They come to us and we go to them. We combine programs of cultural activities for the students and we have done joint board meetings. We work closely with them so that the children of French immersion also have many cultural experiences.
Senator Poirier: I would like to follow up because I am not sure I got it. You said that the francophones had an advantage, so that is why you wanted to call it "francophile"? What am I missing here? Would a francophone not go to a French school?
Senator Losier-Cool: That is the part I did not understand.
Senator Poirier: Do you have French school in B.C. or in the Yukon?
Mr. Lewis: We do.
Senator Poirier: Why would a francophone be going to French immersion?
Mr. Lewis: The francophone community in B.C., as defined and as it is currently, is dwindling in numbers. They do not carry the same political weight as they might compared to other ethnic communities or other language communities.
Also, one thing we do not mention overtly in our brief is that there are certain socio-geopolitical pressures on B.C., given the economic ties we have with Asia. This brings additional stresses in terms of the priorities and values we give to French as a second language and French as a minority language.
What we are really talking about here is how to strengthen the vitality of French in B.C. and the Yukon through education.
We are in partnership and collaboration with our francophone partners and associations. We are a francophile association. We are an association of French-as-a-second-language parents. There is the distinction, coming back to your original point. What we would like to do as francophiles is work more closely with francophone associations and to be recognized by the federal government that we all comprise this linguistic space, not to make this distinction between francophiles and francophones. If you are someone who embraces linguistic duality as a building block of Canadian identity, then we can self-identify as francophiles as well, and then there would be certain policy, political and legal implications in doing so.
Senator Poirier: I am still not sure I am following. Maybe I will get it as we go along. To me, if you are a francophone, you are going to a francophone school. I cannot see why you are competing with them, because they would not be going to French immersion. Would the French immersion not be available to you?
Mr. Lewis: Powell River is a perfect example. It is a relatively small community about two hours north of Vancouver. They had a francophone program, but we were trying to start a French immersion program. Because the community was so small and the pool of students was so small, we could not get a critical mass of students to make it a viable program. They did not have a strong viable program either. They were just kind of putting along, barely making it financially viable given the number of students they had in those programs.
We are saying: Let us rethink this. We have parents in Powell River who want to put their kids in French as a second language, and all of a sudden we are competing with a different program, which is a francophone program, French, and we are trying to create a different program. What if we did not look at these as two separate communities? What if we were one community? The last recommendation was to create a single French program for unique situations like that, where the francophone and francophile communities are not viable separately but would be viable together.
The Chair: Does that kind of program exist anywhere, to your knowledge, in other provinces or elsewhere?
Mr. Lewis: We had a meeting this morning with our national executive director. The francophone school district in Ontario has opened up and loosened the criteria for what it means to be a francophone, so that you could register your child in their program. That is not what we are looking at. There is direction in that movement, but what we are specifically talking about is the idea of a new model for French instruction, which would be open to francophones and francophiles.
Victoria Vaseleniuck, Vice-President, Canadian Parents for French — British Columbia and Yukon Branch: My children grew up in an anglophone home. My husband and I do not speak French, but my children are bilingual. My grandchildren are growing up in a bilingual home. The demand becomes different to the school system. In a small community like ours — I am from Nelson, B.C. — that is where the competition comes in. In a small community of 10,000 people, we have a francophone school and a late French immersion program.
The demand here is to send our children to the francophone school, if we can, for early immersion; and then our system has to draw them back into the public system, into the late French immersion, when they have been in a francophone school since kindergarten. My children are bilingual, coming from an anglophone home, and their homes are bilingual now.
Senator Losier-Cool: We are both from New Brunswick. The reason we are surprised about that is that francophones in New Brunswick do not have the choice. They have French schools, and they go to French schools. They have English schools. The English parents make the choice with immersion classes, but not the French.
Do you have an idea how many French-speaking parents will send their children to immersion? Would you have a percentage of that?
Ms. Pool: I live in Vernon, British Columbia. We have the largest single-track French immersion school in British Columbia, but we do not have a francophone school.
For example, in that elementary school of 600 students, I would think you may have at least 10 per cent, because they have no choice unless they travel one hour to take them to a francophone school in Kelowna.
Mr. Lewis: I will add to that. What we are talking about here is not necessarily opening up French immersion programs to francophones, but we are discussing and putting out the idea to reconceptualize what the program delivery model would look like. It would not be francophone and it would not be French immersion. It might be something entirely in-between and might have its own governance and school board.
The concern I would recognize if I were a francophone parent, if I am losing my francophone school — which was your point before — and the only alternative now is French immersion, I am saying my language and culture will be diluted. This is not the same quality of program. That is why we are not proposing that.
We are saying that if we go down this path, which is an idea we are putting before the committee, whatever we create must be sensitive to and is stronger than French immersion alone.
Senator Poirier: I guess my question was whether you have shared or broached this idea with the provincial government in B.C. The education department is under the jurisdiction of the provincial government.
Do you have an idea of what costs we would be adding to the provincial education department by actually putting in place a third education system? That is basically what we are looking at here. This third system may look small now, but I wonder how big it would get if it was in place and how many anglophone schools would then have a problem where they would lose many of their students in French immersion who might opt to go to another level of education in the system completely.
Mr. Lewis: I will give some context to your question to get to the point of the minister of education.
One of the first things we have done is reached out and had discussions with our French partners, la Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique. We have had a joint board meeting and sat down with their board of directors, and they are representatives of the francophone associations all across B.C.
They have brought this idea to us and we have expressed we are receptive to the idea of the redefinition or expansion of the definition of "francophone" to include francophiles. There is a national conversation starting between francophone and francophile groups. Quite frankly, we feel, because it is an issue of language rights and Canadian identity and how we self-identify ourselves, that it concerns the federal government and Canadian Heritage and committees like this one. If this were embraced, then the conversation would go back down to the ministry of education level to discuss the nuts and bolts and the operational aspects of what this would look like. We need recognition at the federal level first.
That was a roundabout way of coming to your point.
Senator Tardif: I am not sure if I have questions, but I certainly have a lot of comments and reactions to the discussion here.
I want to say how much I admire the work Canadian Parents for French do in B.C., the Yukon and across Canada. I have often had the pleasure of working with Canadian Parents for French in advancing French second-language education for parents and educators and have been involved in my previous work as an educator in the promotion of French as a second language and working in collaboration with Canadian Parents for French.
I want to perhaps continue in this whole area to give some context. French immersion programs were set up probably in 1967 and 1968 and then they rapidly spread across Canada. At that time that was often the only schooling available for francophone parents.
In the province of Alberta, for example, the first French school opened in 1984, under section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Parents before that — my children included — went to French immersion, because at least you could get 50 to 60 per cent of the day offered in French.
When the first schools opened in 1984, for example, in Alberta, a lot of the parents who were French speaking but who had gotten used to the French immersion experience, chose perhaps not to send their students to the francophone school because they were fearful they may not learn English, and that was considered problematic at the time, or the children had begun in the French immersion and wanted to continue that way. It was difficult to set up the francophone school.
The francophone school, and this is what we were saying at the time, was set up not only to promote the French language and keep the French language going, but as well to reinforce cultural identity. That was also the major distinction between an immersion program, which was to learn French as a second language but not as your first language. The whole question of the reinforcement of cultural identity was in the francophone school board, and no one was trying to change the identity of the English-speaking child learning a second language. However, for the francophone child it was a question of strengthening their cultural identity.
In Alberta, the francophone schools still feel that a lot of parents are not choosing to enrol their children in francophone schools. We saw that as well when we went on our tour in Atlantic Canada. Many parents who are eligible under section 23 are not being captured in the francophone school boards across Canada, for different reasons.
We have a lot of people coming from Quebec in Alberta, and other provinces, and there is still that fear that you may not learn English; therefore, if you put them in an immersion experience they feel they may have a better chance of learning English.
That being said, I think the francophone schools at that time were always fearful of preserving the language and the culture. In that sense, a lot of English-speaking parents who wanted to go to the francophone school were judged not to be eligible, and constitutionally they were not. Some of the school boards were much more adamant about who can come in and who cannot.
Now I think we are seeing a change, and I think what we are seeing is that there needs to be a lot more collaboration and more occasions for reinforcing the goals and objectives of each of the school boards.
I cannot say that I am a supporter of the new program idea that you have put forward, because I think it raises a lot of challenges about why each of the school boards was set up and what the goals, mandate and objectives of that particular schooling are.
However, I feel that a right to a French-language education in our country, as one of the official languages of Canada, every Canadian should have the right to learn their second official language. I think it is a real shame when you say that parents are lining up and they have to go to a lottery system in order to get into the schools to learn French. That is a real shame.
In that sense I support certainly the right of a child to learn either official language, but I think at this time I certainly would not consider moving toward the idea of a shared French-language program, because the goals and objectives of each are different.
That having been said, should there be additional money and support for more collaboration, shared resources, teacher professional development, for exchanges of students, for exchanges of the professional associations working together? Absolutely.
I do not know if I have a question, per se, I just had a lot of pent-up ideas that I wanted to share with you.
Do you consider this to be more of a financial resource issue? Would more monies forthcoming be helpful? Is that the major issue? Is it the number of students? What are the major obstacles?
Ms. Pool: There are a number of different obstacles, but I think you hit it right on the head when you say it is a right. That is not what our school districts tell us. They tell us it is a program of choice.
As parents we want our children in that program, but if they are capping that program, or they are going to a lottery system, as Ms. Vaseleniuck said this morning, you have two children who have gone through French immersion and your third child signs up but does not get in because he did not win the lottery, sorry, you just did not win. In a family that is not right. I think this stems from us wanting to also have that opportunity that francophones have in that it is a Charter right.
This is an idea. This is an evolving conversation. There are lots and lots of parts of this that would need huge things to be implemented in order to facilitate and to make it work for everyone, but it brings up that conversation that we should have the right, too, for our child to have a French education.
Senator Tardif: I completely agree.
Mr. Lewis: To come back to the point of what is the ask in all this, and I think Ms. Pool has referenced it as well, it is the recognition of a right. We understand that, at the provincial level, it would be something the provincial governments would have to legislate, so guaranteed access where numbers warrant would be something that we would look to from the provincial governments.
In terms of resources, to come back to your other point, as many of the senators in this committee might know, there is an agreement that is signed between Canadian Heritage and all the ministries of education called OLEP, the Official Languages in Education Protocol. That is the envelope of money through which the federal government can influence educational decisions. Obviously there is separation of power, education not being something that the federal government takes on, but this is the agreement whereby levers can be pushed and pulled. When you look at that OLEP agreement, and we were looking at it this morning in fact, there is a funding formula in there called the growth grant. This comes back to the questions about capping. When we are in Tofino, Chilliwack or Powell River and talking to school trustees because there are 15 or 20 or 25 parents who are saying, "I want my kid to have French immersion in kindergarten and Grade 1," they are going to turn around and say to us, "Do you have the numbers? Is this a viable program? If we create this, will this die out in two or three years because of attrition, because of dropouts and stuff like that?" The second question they ask is, "What will this cost us?" It is a numbers game. Every school trustee in B.C. if not the country has a fiduciary duty to balance their budget at the end of the year. That is the question they will ask us and are always asking parents.
If there were any recommendations that could come out of this committee or any powers that be through the channels of this committee, it would be to look at that growth grant and how we put additional financial resources under that funding formula so that when you have kids lined up in Coquitlam or Tofino or Chilliwack, knocking on the door because they want to get into this program, and the school trustees are saying, "We do not have the money to do that," we incentivize through OLEP to turn around to those school trustees and say, "You know what? You create this program right now. Based on these funding formulas, right now you might get $13,000, let us say, for example, but if there were additional funding behind that, it would be easier for us to advocate and for parents to advocate the creation of a new class.
Senator Segal: I apologize for coming late. I did not have a chance to read the briefs before I arrived. I was struck by how much I agreed with what Senator Tardif said about the problematic here. I was part of the negotiations around the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on behalf of Ontario, where the issue where numbers warrant was very important in terms of the guarantee to French-language education. That is not about, if you wish, choice so much as it is about facilitating capacity in those regions of our province where the population justifies it. I think the normative number that was used during those discussions was if the census indicated that 10 per cent of the population was francophone.
[Translation]
That would justify, indeed, a francophone system that is available to the entire population.
[English]
Part of the burden you carry in trying to make what I think is a very thoughtful and courageous suggestion is that this has been seen in Canada as a narrative around rights, actually, and not a narrative around choice. I am not saying one is better than the other. I am merely saying they are different. That is part of the challenge we all have here together, because I accept the principle that if someone would like in this country to have their children educated in French, then they should have the capacity to have that done, and the system should be sufficiently flexible to make that possible without having to push a 10,000-pound boulder up a hill.
I remember the negotiations around École secondaire catholique Marie-Rivier, which was the secondary school in the Catholic system then in Kingston. Our francophone Catholic students for years had been in portables, next to Regiopolis high school. The public system was asked if they would build a school, and they said no. The Roman Catholic system was then asked if they would build a school, and they said yes. A series of forces came together, but there was a disagreement around, if you can imagine, zoning. The then Premier of Ontario, someone Senator Tardif would now know as her leader, asked if I would be the person to do the conciliation between the city and the francophone school board, and now there is a lovely facility and school in Kingston for all our francophone students. They come from all through the region. It was not about choice. It was about the rights of our francophone students to have proper access to education.
More important, and this is where I think we have an interesting challenge, and it is a design challenge, it was about an isolated spot, which is where this was, just off the 401 near Sir John A. Macdonald Boulevard, where the kids would be on a francophone campus. The teachers would be French, and the schoolyard language would be French.
[Translation]
The children will all speak French.
[English]
It sustained precisely the point that Senator Tardif underlined, which is the survival and the encouragement, the épanouissement of the culture and the language and the civilization, and it is not just a classroom event. That is where I think the design challenge is. I would be interested in your reaction to this. I am not opposed to the notion that we have to find a way to facilitate more people getting to choose which of the two official languages their children get educated in, but we have to find a way to design a system whereby that right of choice does not diminish the right of linguistic survival and cultural survival on the part of our francophone brothers and sisters. That is the core question.
If I were sitting on your side of the table, I would be talking about going to Canadian Heritage about funding some pilot projects across Canada where you get the best educational, cultural, and pedagogical minds we have to design it. How do you put together a school that benefits from a huge francophone majority presence and still accommodates in a way that does not dilute, if you wish, the cultural experience? People in the community who are supportive of the francophone experience want their kids to be part of it, had older brothers and sisters who were part of it or may have gone to French immersion schools themselves in that same generation as our Prime Minister, for example, who had that experience.
It is a really interesting design question, and I know you will have nothing but the good will of this particular committee to be of assistance to you in the process, but it is not easy. It is not a slam-dunk about how you do that. There is a question there, but I leave it to you to figure it out.
Ms. Pool: Those comments are all so true. We hear all of them, and I laugh to myself because, as a non-francophone, a non-French-speaking individual, and having now my fourth child in French immersion, I have been fortunate that my kids have been in a single-track French immersion school, and we are always concerned about watering down, even in French immersion. I so hear that point about not watering down and not losing that. We have a very strong summer camp in British Columbia where I have been on a committee for 13 years. We bring 18 francophone monitors from Quebec. As a family, for 13 years, for three weeks in the summer, we have lived, eaten, breathed, everything. Embracing that culture is just so fantastic. We are always just wanting to take it that one step further and to give our kids that option.
The pilot project is certainly just pie in the sky wonderful. This would be ideal; could we please have this? We certainly know all of the little glitches. Going into pockets, as Mr. Lewis spoke about earlier, an area like Powell River, which is a small pocket, would be an option. It is just food for thought out there. It is recognizing that we have grown in B.C., we continue to grow in B.C. There is a demand for French immersion in B.C., and we would love it to be a right and not a choice.
Ms. Vaseleniuck: To continue with what Ms. Pool is saying and to reinforce it, we have had 13 years of growth in French immersion. We are looking at our third generation entering French immersion. Those parents are telling us that we need more and not two separate systems for our language of instruction. They want their children to have the choice of their language of instruction, not just French immersion or a French-language program, but the language of instruction to either be French or — personally, I would like it to be "only."
Mr. Lewis: Coming back to the fact that second and third generation French immersion families in British Columbia and Yukon is consistent with Alberta and other provinces in the country, there is a new political reality developing. We were on CKNW, a popular radio talk show in Vancouver, and they opened up the lines. The question was, what do you think about French immersion? Five out of six callers were supportive. If you opened up those lines 20 or 30 years ago, you would have had more push back from a lot of people who would have said, "Why French? Why in B.C.?"
This comes back to the original point that we were bringing forward, namely, that we are a growing community. If you break down the numbers and if you look at the census in B.C., French is the second most spoken language in B.C., and the biggest reason is because of all of these French immersion graduates who come through the system. We have 44,000 kids enrolled in French immersion right now. If you talk about two or three generations, we are up to 180,000 to 200,000 self-identified people who speak French. Let us expand that. Let us have these talks and this discussion about the francophone community and how you self-identify that community of 200,000 people who have embraced the language. This is now a political force. This is a community, a space of people who see this as part of the building blocks of our identity. How do we interact with the federal government? How do we interact with the provincial government? How are services provided to us? How are francophone programs offered to us? The trends are shifting and we need to support that. This is the direction we feel we have to go.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: I really appreciate what Senator Segal had to say, and I like the option of a pilot project. The money for a pilot project would not come from the fund and nobody would be able to tell Canadians that bilingualism is too expensive. This would really be a separate budget, and this is the danger.
[English]
I want to come back to your question of growth. Does your association, Canadian Parents for French, have any statistics? You mentioned some of the numbers for those who are now in French immersion classes. What about those who started 30 years ago? Have they continued? Did they go to university in French? Are they working in a bilingual set-up in society? Do you have any statistics, any numbers as to how many have stayed bilingual, if we could say that?
Mr. Lewis: I do not have the statistics in front of me; they certainly exist. We do know there are ongoing programs here at the University of Ottawa and Simon Fraser University, where there are strong and growing programs, such as public administration, political science and business administration, that take these cohorts and move them through.
Ms. Vaseleniuck: Tracadie, Saint John?
Mr. Lewis: Yes. It is a recognized need on our part, but it is beyond our purview, in a sense. We have to focus on the programs that we can control and that our parents can advocate for. There are other organizations like French for the Future, which then look at what happens once you graduate from high school and what options and opportunities are available to you at that point.
Senator Losier-Cool: French for the Future is an organization?
Mr. Lewis: French for the Future is one of them; there are others. That brings up an excellent point. Why do this schooling in French if there is no light at the end of the tunnel in terms of what your opportunities are to use French once you graduate?
Ms. Pool: Your opportunities are vast, and it does not even just mean in the education system. My fourth child is not a biological child. He is a child that was born with significant disabilities and was not expected to survive his first year. He has huge learning disabilities, but he has the best French accent in my house. Everyone told me — the school psychologist, everyone — "This child will never survive French immersion, never." I said, "But I have three children in French immersion already." I did not want him to go to another school. I said, "You have to try." He comes with an aide because he has learning disabilities. He still has an aide, and his 70 per cent in français 9 last semester is his highest mark. I do not care if he is a bilingual garbage man. He will be bilingual. He is four foot nothing and he can stand tall when he speaks French and someone looks at him and no one understands a word that he says.
The Chair: Ms. Pool, do your children speak French amongst themselves at home?
Ms. Pool: They do the odd time. I remember once having a Korean student living in the house as an exchange student, and the two littler ones were quite ticked off because she had been on the phone speaking to someone in Korean. They were offended so they thought they would turn around and speak to each other in French. She got a good taste of what it was like. They do not speak as often, but my boys competitively freestyle ski. They travel a lot; they use their French when they are travelling and skiing all the time.
Senator Mockler: Ms. Pool, wow. You need support. I think it is quite an objective. I do not want to repeat what Senator Tardif and Senator Segal said, but I come from New Brunswick. It is always a daily challenge. In 2007 and 2008, the government of the day wanted to change immersion, and I want to put this on record. No francophone —
[Translation]
No Acadian, man or woman, would have believed —
[English]
— that the people that came out in support — not to change immersion but to better it — were the anglophones of British Columbia; those loyalists from north, south, east and west, so the story goes. I remember very well that we did receive, and can I share this, Senator Segal, a little note at a point in time during that great debate — it is always a debate; let us do it intelligently and we will succeed — from Senator Segal. Basically, I loved his recommendation because I think it is a step in the right direction.
I think we must be very mindful not to dilute the program that we have coast to coast to coast. Number two is, I think you have a lot of allies out there from coast to coast to coast. There is one opportunity that I would like to bring to your attention and it is École Émilie-Tremblay in Whitehorse, Yukon. That is a success story.
Ms. Pool: Yes, it is.
Senator Mockler: That is a success story. That is, I think the francophone school is.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: It is the most beautiful school in Canada, and I have seen a lot of schools!
[English]
Senator Mockler: You have allies close to you for the objective that you want to attain. It is not a choice, it is a right because we are a bilingual country. That is a statement.
[Translation]
It is important to understand that education comes under provincial responsibility, hence the importance of going back and talking to the Government of British Columbia.
[English]
They have to write an exam every four years. That is coming. I think we must not put our heads in the sand. Those are facts. I have met the British Columbia association of francophones, and you have allies there, too.
I suggest talking to the provincial government of British Columbia — because you do represent B.C. and Yukon — and then prepare a plan to link your allies and bring this to the attention of the primary responsible government. You can rest assured that I will support it.
What is your next step vis-à-vis linking with stakeholders in your area? I look at the example of École Émilie- Tremblay. The principal of the school is from my hometown. We had many conversations about this between Christmas and New Year's.
[Translation]
It would be important that you extend your hand, that you go out and find these people. I would like to know about your action plan to achieve your objectives. You cannot simply say that this is up to the federal government. This responsibility falls under provincial jurisdiction.
[English]
Mr. Lewis: Yes. One of the strategic goals we have as an organization is to create stronger partnerships with francophone groups and associations, cultural, educational and social. This is a consistent strategic goal that we articulate to Canadian Heritage every time we rewrite a funding proposal every two or three years. That is something we have among our five strategic goals. That is one of the core strategic objectives.
In terms of an action plan, the Council for French is just forming right now in B.C. This is a group of francophone cultural, social, educational and francophile organizations who are saying: Let us create a council that would become an advocacy organization and that could take issues like this and move them forward. We are not sure what the funding model will look like for that organization just yet, but that is the kind of relationship building we are already doing. We recognize that we need to work together if we are to have a stronger voice.
To come back to another point, at the federal level, as far as the members of this Senate committee understand, every four years Canadian Heritage and the ministers of education sit down and hash out what these agreements look like in terms of funding formulas, et cetera. What then happens is the provincial governments negotiate an action plan. They develop an action plan and say, "We have this agreement. We will then develop an action plan of our own." B.C.'s action plan will look very different from those of Ontario and New Brunswick.
One thing we keep asking for in these action plans is that you have goals that are saying, for example, "We are going to increase the number of French-immersion students in the program, not just maintain or keep the status quo; let us accommodate this demand in growth." This comes back to your point as well. There is work at the ground level, at the provincial level, in terms of building the partnerships, but there is also that federal work we need to do to put stronger goals in place.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: May I make a comment?
The Chair: Very briefly before we start a second round.
[English]
Senator Mockler: I think it is important that you knock on the door of the Minister of Education, with your stakeholders.
[Translation]
The Chair: We will now begin the second round. Senator Fortin-Duplessis has the floor.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I read an article in the Vancouver Sun that both surprised and concerned me. I will summarize it very briefly.
The Vancouver Sun stated that the government would be recognizing the value of all languages taught in school. Students would therefore have greater choice.
In addition, those requiring advanced second-language knowledge could be exempt from taking the language courses. However, the government does leave a door open by saying that schools should encourage their students to pursue more advanced language studies or learn another language.
I noted that the British Columbia Teachers' Federation is concerned that French is losing ground to the other languages. In its opinion, the government should make an effort to encourage the teaching of French, one of Canada's two official languages. Moreover, the federation fears that school boards in financial difficulty are not even offering French as an option any more.
Have you heard the concerns expressed by the British Columbia teachers and their comments on the changes that may occur in the curriculum review?
[English]
Ms. Vaseleniuck: The B.C. Ministry of Education has retracted that.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: So this was denied?
[English]
Ms. Vaseleniuck: Yes, that did come out. It was in The Vancouver Sun, but they have retracted that. Also, our B.C. teachers are in job action right now and have been all year.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Well that is good. Because that would really be troubling. If the provincial government of British Columbia were to encourage the teaching of a second language based on the languages spoken by the newcomers, I think that French would have really lost its place. I am very pleased to learn this. That is reassuring.
[English]
Ms. Vaseleniuck: We did more than knock on their door.
Ms. Pool: That being a concern, with Mandarin, Chinese, and all of these other languages coming in, about six years ago, Canadian Parents for French - B.C. and Yukon did a campaign trying to let parents who are immigrants coming into Canada know that if their child is already learning English as a second language, their child would be very successful if they went on and learned French as a third language, so that they can be trilingual, and so please do not discourage them from experiencing French immersion. We made pamphlets and posters. Canadian Parents for French - National went on to use our posters and brochures.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I would like to ask a brief question to conclude.
The Chair: Mr. Lewis wanted to answer the question and Senator Tardif has a supplemental question. I will give you the floor and then Senator Tardif will follow.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Do you have any statistics on the number of newcomers who speak neither French nor English? If they want to learn a second language, I would imagine that they would learn English in the schools, but are they really interested in learning French or do they prefer to continue studying in their own language?
Senator Tardif: I may be mistaken, but I do not believe that the teaching of French is mandatory in British Columbia. At one point, there was a language instruction policy making the teaching of a second language mandatory between the fifth and eighth grades, but this language did not necessarily have to be French, it could be, for example, Mandarin, German or Spanish. So there was a mandatory second-language teaching policy, but it did not necessarily mean French. Is that still the case?
[English]
Mr. Lewis: Both of the points are connected in the sense that you are right; right now, the B.C. education act says that students have to take a second language of instruction and that that language is recommended to be French, but it is not mandatory to be French.
The reason why we have 275,000 students right now in B.C. and the Yukon enrolled in a French-as-a-second- language program, that might be core French — which is a huge number of them — or French immersion or intensive French is that there is additional funding that comes into place. This is where we can incentivize these programs for these school districts. That is again coming back to OLEP.
To come back to your point about the priorities and how to look at this as a language, the provincial government used to have this additional languages curriculum, and it had a French curriculum. French was recognized as a different language of instruction. The additional languages included were German, Mandarin and all the different languages. About a year and a half ago, to be more inclusive, they grouped French in with the additional languages.
What we said at the CPF, as an advocacy organization in B.C. and Yukon, is that French is not simply an additional language. It was the same thing as what was put out by the association of teachers in a press release, which sounds like the quote you were referencing, saying it is not simply an additional language, it is an official language of Canada and should be recognized as such.
This past September they released a different curriculum document, where they put French back into a different category and recognition. It was because of parents and francophone organizations and francophile organizations putting pressure and saying, no, this is not how it should be recognized, and this is an official language of Canada.
Coming back to your point about mother tongue, there is a school in Burnaby, which is just outside of Vancouver, where 55 per cent of the French immersion students in that program come from households where English or French is not the first language. Mandarin would probably be the first language.
Anecdotally, I have been to beaches where I see kids running around and I talk to the parents. One parent was from the Ukraine and the other was from England. Little kids were running around the beach, all excited; it was at the end of summer. He was going into kindergarten French immersion. The mom was telling me how they camped out overnight to get this kid into the program in Coquitlam, coming back to Ms. Pool's story as well. I said, "You are new immigrants, so why French? Why do you put such value on French as a second language? Why not Ukrainian, which is your mother tongue?"
She told me that as new Canadians, as someone who has come to this country, they wanted to embrace the culture, identity and languages of this country.
When I hear about capping stories and about parents who come to Canada and want embrace our linguistic duality but cannot because we simply are not accommodating that demand, it seems like something is wrong in our education policy and how these programs are supported.
Senator Poirier: I admire all that you are doing and I want to congratulate you, because I think that what you are doing may bring changes down the road. There is still work to be done to embrace everything you want to see, but I believe you are on the right track.
Changing the official definition of "francophone" in your linguistic space, is your intent to do it just in B.C. or nationally?
Mr. Lewis: Nationally, quite frankly, it would need to be a national recognition. This is something that B.C., in collaboration with our francophone partners, is kick-starting and showing leadership on this file. There is a growing trend and conversation happening across the country. Slowly, in committees like this, we are starting to talk about this possibility. I think that recognition is important. We are meeting with Minister Moore on Wednesday, and it is another point that we plan to bring up with him as well.
Senator Poirier: A change in the national level could be interesting when we get to New Brunswick, I can tell you that. In looking at community and culture, it would definitely be something that could have complications there.
I really encourage you to continue working strongly with the B.C. provincial government to maybe build your case and your profile there to start with, perhaps with a pilot project.
Before becoming a senator I was a provincial member of the legislative assembly and I was the minister at one point in New Brunswick. I remember working with different departments, and specifically with the department of education, in trying to build a case on wanting something more, not necessarily on French and English, but it could be wanting to have special training on a certain illness or certain disability, a challenge or something out there.
You must remember all the time that a government would love to be able to say yes to everything, but at the end of the day it does come down to dollars and cents. It comes down to what we can afford to do in our provinces and how fast we can afford to do it. Often it is who is most vocal and how much their needs are who are the ones who seem to move forward.
Right now you have a case in B.C. where there are not enough seats offered in French immersion and there is not fairness among the people of B.C. You find there are not enough seats offered in the French immersion, and the people of B.C. are not being treated fairly, those who want the opportunity to take instruction in the second official language of this country.
I strongly recommend that you continue to work closely in building your case with the provincial government to ensure you do get on their priority list.
[Translation]
Senator Tardif: I certainly agree with the comments made by Senators Mockler and Poirier, when they state that you need to work very closely with the provincial government of British Columbia because, obviously, this is the level that makes the decisions with the schools boards.
However, I would like to state that the federal government plays an important role there too.
[English]
I am from Western Canada, from Alberta, and I know how hard it is to get some of these programs put forward. The excuse is always that we do not have the resources; we do not have the monies to do so. The only reason that some of the programs have been offered is that school boards can say there are federal monies coming forward. That is the only reason, not because there is any support for it necessarily but only because there is that money from the federal government. It is the carrot, the incentive.
I hope that in future budget cuts we not do anything that would cause diminished support for the teaching of French, either as a second language or as a first language. I really think that the federal government and we have a lot to do.
I know our provincial counterparts. I do not know if this is the case, but it has been said in the past that sometimes the monies given by the government do not flow through to the provincial jurisdictions. I do not know whether you have a comment on that.
I did want to touch on something else.
[Translation]
I would like to discuss the whole issue of the definition of "francophone." You said that, as far as you are concerned, we need to broaden the definition of "francophone" in order to include not only those people whose mother tongue is French, but also those who speak French, which would increase the percentage of francophones from 1.7 to 7 per cent in the province, since you are referring to the province as such.
Senator Chaput, the chair of the committee, presented a bill which is along these lines. Why, for your situation, is it important to broaden the definition of "francophone"? What would that mean for you, if you were to have a broadened definition? Would that increase your numbers in immersion programs or core French programs?
[English]
Mr. Lewis: Part of the work that CPF does is to promote and support quality education, which includes organizing extracurricular activities and supporting the programs outside of the classroom in different ways. We believe that the stronger that the francophone space is in terms of programs that are offered, in terms of resources that are available, in terms of services provided, then the more we can reinforce the reality of linguistic duality in B.C. and the Yukon. That is how we see it in our best interests as well. If this space and this milieu are stronger in B.C. and the Yukon, and if we can foster that ecosystem in that space of linguistic duality as a language that is common and used and there are opportunities to use it and opportunities to access services in this these languages, then the more it reinforces the education the kids will be getting in the classroom. That is a tangible way that we would benefit from this as well.
Senator Tardif: I would think as well that often, for example, an increased number of French-speaking citizens in the census would provide a greater incentive to put forward more funding and more resources, because often program decisions are based on numbers. If you are saying we have only 2 per cent, it is quite different than saying you have 4 per cent or 6 per cent. If you are increasing the numbers of French-speaking citizens, it would augment resources and perhaps bring forward better-quality programs. In that sense, I can see why you are saying that if we can change some of those definitions, then it will change the conversation and change the paradigm.
Ms. Pool: In B.C., there was a situation last year with the federation where they phoned, and the minister came to speak, and they wanted other stakeholders at their table too. There was talks about cutbacks, about cultural, and I learned so much about the francophone association attending this meeting. I was not broadening my horizons previously and thinking about the new Canadians that were francophone. French was their first language. They were coming in, and their social services were being cut, and their cultural activities were being cut. The francophone association is also utilizing us, and we are working as a team in lots of different parts. That collaboration is really very good.
[Translation]
The Chair: I have a supplementary question to that raised by Senator Tardif.
[English]
In your submission document, on page 3 of the English document and page 4 of the French, you talk about francophone linguistic space and francophone linguistic community. You did give us some definition of these two, but I would like you to emphasize more what you mean by these two, please.
Mr. Lewis: Okay. That was very clear who was going to answer that question.
Ms. Pool: We discussed this before and knew you were going to ask that question.
Mr. Lewis: One of the things we are talking about in this entire brief is reconceptualizing how we view the francophone milieu. Traditionally, it is place-based, and there are institutions and there is a school. We look at francophone communities as isolated islands, if you will, that we have protected and supported, and that is the best model we have thought of in terms of helping to ensure it is a stable, viable and sustainable community. One of the things we are looking at in the expansion of the definition of "francophone" is to get away from this isolated island model of the francophone community and broaden that to include the francophile community in terms of language, culture and exchange and in terms of relationships. You can call it a space. You can also equally look at it as an ecosystem that we are trying to expand. That will help reconceptualize where we want this community and how the two languages and the two linguistic communities relate to each other. It is in the reframing of that that we went from community to space.
The Chair: Are you building on something that already exists? You start with what exists and then you add numbers, francophiles, people who speak French. You are building on something that is already there. Do you see it that way?
Mr. Lewis: It is a natural evolution, the way I would look at it. For example, we apply for funding to Canadian Heritage under a certain stream, and the francophone associations apply for funding through Canadian Heritage under a different stream. Let us reconceptualize that, because if we are both working toward similar cultural, social, political and educational objectives, and we are working hand in hand in many cases with the Council of French, as a good example of where we work in tandem, then I think that is where the evolution of this would go. We do not see ourselves as compartments but as networks, if you will.
[Translation]
The Chair: Are there any further questions? I would like to thank the witnesses very much for answering the senators' numerous questions. This has been very rewarding and we have learned a great deal. On behalf of the committee members, I would like to congratulate you and encourage you to continue your good work. You believe in it so much. Thank you and good luck.
(The committee adjourned.)