Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 10 - Evidence - Meeting of February 23, 2015
OTTAWA, Monday, February 23, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5 p.m. to continue its study on best practices for language policies and second-language learning in a context of linguistic duality or plurality.
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages to order. I am Claudette Tardif, senator from Alberta and chair of this committee. I would ask the senators to introduce themselves, starting to my left.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
Senator Chaput: Maria Chaput from Manitoba.
The Chair: During this 41st Parliament, the members of this committee are examining language policies and second- language learning in a context of linguistic duality or plurality.
The goal of this study is to examine the existing policies, challenges and best practices that promote second-language learning in a country that has two or more official languages. In its study, the committee is examining both the Canadian perspective and the international perspective.
Our first witnesses are from the Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute of the University of Ottawa. This evening, we are pleased to welcome Richard Clément, director and associate dean, and Hilaire Lemoine, executive in residence. I would like to invite Mr. Clément and Mr. Lemoine to make their presentations, after which the senators will be asking questions.
Mr. Clément, the floor is yours.
Richard Clément, Director and Associate Dean, Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute, University of Ottawa: Honourable senators, thank you for inviting the Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute — OLBI — of the University of Ottawa to contribute to your study on best practices for language policies and second-language learning in a context of linguistic duality or plurality.
I am Richard Clément, director of the OLBI, and here with me is Hilaire Lemoine, executive in residence at the University of Ottawa. My presentation will cover three points in particular. First, I will provide a short introduction of the Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute, its mission and its responsibilities; after that, I will review the activities of the OLBI on developing language policies and second-language learning. We actually feel that the features and activities of the OLBI could be used as a national template.
Finally, I will close by suggesting some actions that I believe could galvanize government action in official languages promotion and learning.
[English]
Created in 2007, the Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute set itself a mission to promote excellence and innovation in the fields of bilingualism and language acquisition.
OLBI is active in four areas: second-language teaching and teacher training; research in pedagogy, bilingualism, evaluation and language planning; testing and evaluation of language proficiency; development and promotion of products and services in Canada and internationally.
Second-language teaching and teacher training: OLBI offers second-language credit courses to the university's student population and is responsible for French immersion studies, which include more than 1,600 registered students this year, all years combined. OLBI is jointly responsible, with the Faculty of Education, for the programs in second- language teaching for which the twentieth anniversary was celebrated in 2013.
[Translation]
Since 2008, the OLBI has been the host of summer university for French as a second language teachers. This is an intensive professional development program for Canadian teachers of basic French, intensive French, enhanced French and French immersion. In September 2014, the OLBI launched its master's in bilingualism studies, the first of its kind in America.
The OLBI is proud of its Canadian Centre for Studies and Research on Bilingualism and Language Planning, also known as CCERBAL. This centre connects internationally recognized high-calibre researchers who work in the following areas: language learning, teaching and evaluation; bilingualism on a personal level as well as in the context of society in general; and linguistic policy, language planning and the politics of language. CCERBAL endeavours to be a national and international hub for the study and design of public policy on bilingualism and linguistic duality.
Since 2008, five international conferences have been organized. CCERBAL also organizes one-day symposiums, either at the university itself or as part of the international conferences, such as Languages without Borders (2013) of the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers, and the World Congress of Modern Languages, which will take place in a few weeks in Niagara Falls.
[English]
Measures and evaluation: The Testing and Evaluation Sector of OLBI is a cutting-edge designer, user and administrator of language testing and evaluation instruments. These activities include, among others, the design, administration and updating of English and French as second-language proficiency tests for the University of Ottawa community and external clients; and the design and administration of the CanTEST and the TESTCan proficiency classification and evaluation instruments for university admission and professional accreditations.
Since 2008, the Testing and Evaluation Sector has provided language testing services to Canada Post Corporation to evaluate the oral language skills of current and future employees. More than 700 tests are processed every year in our call centres.
[Translation]
In 2012, the OLBI became a designated institution by the Centre international d'études pédagogiques de Paris for administering international French language proficiency tests, the DELF, Diplôme d'études en langue française, and the DALF, Diplôme approfondi de langue française.
The OLBI also has a development and promotion office. This sector's mission is to promote OLBI expertise in the areas already mentioned. It also acts as a broker for Canadian institutions and researchers to market Canadian products and services and to share best practices in the area of bilingualism and official languages.
Against this backdrop, a cooperation and liaison agreement was signed by the Council of Europe's European Centre for Modern Languages, the ECML, and the University of Ottawa, through the OLBI, to ensure closer contact between the ECML and Canadian researchers and to make the OLBI the contact point for the ECML. Since 2008, nearly 20 Canadian researchers and experts have been involved in ECML works, which contributes to the development and improvement of second-language learning methods and teacher training in Canada.
As a member of the Inter-American Organization for Higher Education, on behalf of the University of Ottawa, the OLBI presides over the Inter-American Network for Language Education, which has a mandate to promote language learning in the Americas.
[English]
Since 2010, OLBI has been the principal partner of a language planning project funded by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada to support the Sri Lankan government in implementing its official languages policy in a post-conflict context.
In May 2015, OLBI will host the second conference of the International Association of Language Commissioners, entitled "Protecting Language Rights: Promoting Linguistic Pluralism." This conference, chaired by the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, Mr. Graham Fraser, will bring together representatives from six countries, two Canadian provinces and three territories to discuss themes of common interest.
[Translation]
Let me now turn to the recommendations. Through its mission, the OLBI is always seeking initiatives that could exert a positive influence over second-language learning in Canada. It is against this backdrop that we would like to share some recommendations for your consideration and that of the Canadian government.
First, the Canadian government and provincial and territorial governments should mutually agree on a target to attain for the bilingualism level of the school system's young graduates. This target must be realistic and, to be achieved, it must give rise to a review of second-language study programs inspired by a Canadian adaptation of the Common European Framework of Reference, the CEFR, for language teaching. A standardized Canadian language proficiency test should also be developed in cooperation with the provinces and territories and applied in each jurisdiction. The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, the CMEC, has already ruled in favour of using such a framework for improving second-language programs in Canada.
[English]
Secondly, the Canadian and provincial governments would do well to create incentives to encourage high school graduates who have some proficiency in French as a second language to take post-secondary studies in French. For example, universities should be encouraged to offer programs of study in second languages based on the University of Ottawa's immersion studies model. In the meantime, mobility scholarships could be offered to students of immersion programs registered at English-speaking universities who wish to continue their studies or a portion of their studies in French in a francophone or bilingual institution.
[Translation]
Third, learning both official languages should be available free of charge, at all times, and from anywhere in Canada to all Canadians who wish to learn the other official language. Self-guided learning programs could be developed and/ or adapted to the Canadian context and placed online on the Internet. The learner could also have access to language monitors, in the form of a help line provided in each province and region by designated public and private teaching institutions. Language proficiency tests would be available online.
Lastly, the field of research in official languages in Canada needs to create succession and generate interest from young researchers. The OLBI envisions offering a summer program in research training led by a team of eminent Canadian researchers. This type of program could be included within the training and research priorities of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
Thank you for your attention. I will be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Clément. Mr. Lemoine, do you have any comments? Will you be able to help answer questions?
Hilaire Lemoine, Executive in Residence, Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute, University of Ottawa: Yes, of course.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now move on to the question period. The first question will be asked by Senator McIntyre, followed by Senator Maltais.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for being here today. Mr. Clément, I see that you have worked on bilingualism in minority communities and on adapting the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages to the Canadian context. Mr. Lemoine, in going over your CV, I can see that you really have a good knowledge of the federal government's involvement in the various education initiatives in Canada and in Europe. So you are both in a good position to answer my two questions.
First of all, since this Senate committee has been conducting its study on best practices for language policies and second-language learning, we have heard a number of witnesses address a wide range of topics. Indeed, today, we are pleased to hear your point of view, from the perspective of a research institute.
For about 40 years, the federal, provincial and territorial governments have been jointly supporting the learning of both languages. As you know, under the Constitution, the provinces and territories are responsible for education. Each one has put in place different teaching models to encourage second-language learning.
My question is this: are there provinces or territories that are performing better than others today? Are there provinces or territories where the challenges are greater?
Mr. Clément: That is a good question. You know, one of the problems we've encountered — and this comes out of interactions with CMEC — is the lack of standards in how the knowledge of students is assessed.
It isn't enough to say that things are going better in Manitoba and Ontario. It is difficult to answer that question without points of comparison. These programs are usually very different from each other and, as I said, we don't have standardized instruments.
If we are talking about the whole issue of French learning by the anglophone minority outside Quebec, the provinces nearest to Quebec, like Ontario and New Brunswick, have no difficulty finding good teachers. There is an abundance of good teachers. However, the farther from Quebec you get, the harder it is to find them. There is a dearth of good teachers, teachers with adequate training, and strictly in terms of number, as well. That is probably the first challenge.
The other challenge is obviously the students' motivation to learn the other language. When we have somewhat homogenous environments, from a linguistic perspective, that kind of motivation doesn't emerge clearly, unless the children are in environments that fundamentally support and value the learning of other languages. Note that it is entirely possible, but less likely to happen in a context where there is no immediate use of the other language.
Mr. Lemoine: Another challenge is continuity for students studying French as a second language in high school, for example. For individuals who do not see the possibility of continuing their studies and using the second language at the post-secondary level, we quite often see that it is difficult to keep them in these second-language programs after Grade 10.
Where there are fewer post-secondary French programs, there aren't many incentives for young people to continue working in French as a second language in Grade 11 and 12, often because they say it may affect their marks. That is why the post-secondary level is so important if we want to maintain some diligence, some continuity with high school students.
Senator McIntyre: Now, I see that a number of countries in Europe have put education systems in place to promote second-language learning. I'm thinking here of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, better known as Erasmus.
Do some countries perform better than others when it comes to teaching languages? Do you think that our Canadian post-secondary institutions should adopt the European framework as a tool to establish language proficiency levels?
Mr. Clément: The question of comparing countries is coming up gain, and it is difficult to provide an answer because of the lack of standardized testing. However, the European community's adoption of the common framework has ensured that all these countries have certain barometers, certain comparable standards from place to place. I spoke about the DELF-DALF, a test that was built on the European framework model, with the ideas of the European framework, but that is adapted to France mainly. Other DELF-DALF tests have been developed. They aren't called DELF-DALF. There's certainly and Italian one, a Polish one, and so on. They are not as well-known.
Once again, I will answer the question about the places where second languages are better learned. Well, places where students are likely to have direct contact or a particular use for the language. There also must be positive attitudes about the language and the people who speak the language. There also have to be opportunities for contact and a sense that the language can be used to think and provide information.
I can't give you a straight answer to your question as far as comparing countries is concerned. It's something that the Europeans have difficulty with, themselves. Based on our contacts with the ECML in Graz, they don't make these kinds of comparison. Instead, they cooperate in order to develop shared pedagogical material under the European framework. The idea of using the European framework in Canada has been around for many years now. Initially, there was some hesitation about importing a European tool, but based on the studies of our colleague Larry Vandergrift, it seems that it is quite possible to adapt the European framework to the Canadian context.
The European framework has qualities that would enable us to develop pedagogical instruments that are much more modern compared with what we are currently doing when it comes to language pedagogy. The framework has been thought about carefully for dozens of years, and a lot of new ideas have been incorporated in connection with our expectations of students. Do we impose criteria on them? Not necessarily. For example, does the European framework have what we call the language portfolio? In other words, the relationship that students have with their ability to use one or more languages at the various levels.
For example, we tried to get rid of the idea that someone is only bilingual or trilingual if that person can speak all the languages perfectly, since that isn't the case. That is what we are trying to convey to young people. They can be at a certain level in one language and at another in another language, but that isn't a bad thing, provided they continue. So there is a motivational effect in the European framework that that would make it logical to use in Canada.
That would also eventually make it possible to standardize tests that would enable us to make the kind of comparisons that you are asking me to make.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you. Mr. Lemoine, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Lemoine: Yes. I would add that if Europe decided to start working some 20 years ago on establishing a common framework, it is for the same reasons or the same challenges as Canada, which has 13 education departments, and 13 ways of teaching a second language, with some curriculums that are good, some that aren't as good, but that are not necessarily standardized from one province to the next, and that's sort of what the ECML noted. When the ECML saw the study that was prepared by Dr. Vandergrift that essentially addressed the applicability of the European framework in a Canadian context, there was consensus around the table that, indeed, it is a very worthwhile tool for Canada. However, at the same time, the ECML does not have the authority to tell the provincial governments or the education departments whether to use it, and the position was that it is a good tool, a worthwhile tool, and it was up to them to decide whether they wanted to implement it.
So the challenge here in Canada, just as in Europe, is that there is no federal education department, for example, that can impose such a framework. I'm not saying that we need a federal education department. What I'm saying is that this creates problems when the time comes to put in place a series of second-language programs that vary, often from one province to the next. For example, a student in Grade 7 who leaves Alberta to go to Nova Scotia and wants to continue with his or her second-language courses will see that the curriculum is not necessarily the same in Nova Scotia. That makes mobility a little more difficult.
The European framework set a kind of standard for the proficiency level that should be reached at the end of each school year. Theoretically, it seems simple, but in practice, it is extremely complicated to put in place, given our situation in Canada.
Senator Maltais: Gentlemen, thank you for being here today, and thank you very much for your expertise.
First of all, I would like to congratulate you for the master's program in bilingualism. You really are the only ones to do it. You just spoke about the European parliament. I was there three weeks ago and, of course, we spoke about the University of Ottawa, which is one of the best in this area.
The Council of Europe is a fiasco when it comes to languages. You have to have been there a few times to see that there is no agreement on a common language. There are eight or nine translations. The French speak English, and the English speak Italian. It is very complicated. Do you know that I was the only one to speak in French? I was in Strasbourg, France. That's just to show you that they have a serious problem, too.
You know, to be practical, let's step out of your university and onto the street. To learn a language other than your mother tongue, you need to have an interest. It's like making money with a dollar; it has to accrue interest. We know it's difficult to learn another language, and so there has to be interest to do so.
What are the interests of francophones in Canada outside Quebec? What would motivate a young person to learn a language other than French if that person's mother tongue is English? There's a solution, and it comes from Spain, where there are four languages: Castilian Spanish, Catalan, Basque and Galician. There is no federal education department, but there is a department delegated to the constituent provinces. The industry dictates that to work, people have to speak Spanish. The young people have an interest. Someone who lives in Majorca who goes to Cadiz or Cordoba to take a mechanics course for fishing boat motors must speak Spanish. There is an interest there. Has there been any research done in Canada to determine what interest a young anglophone in Alberta has in speaking French?
From a program that aired last week on Unis, a new television channel that carries French-language programs from every Canadian province, I learned that the chief blacksmith of the Stampede is a francophone from Ontario. His problem was finding someone he could speak French with. He wanted to keep his French because he is francophone. He asked the same question I am asking you: what interest do young Albertans have in learning French?
Mr. Clément: Are you asking me?
Senator Maltais: Yes.
Mr. Clément: That's an interesting question. In fact, as a professor, motivation is my area of research. When I started my doctoral studies in 1973, my dissertation supervisor received a grant of $75,000 a year, which was enormous for the time, from the Secretary of State to conduct a national study on the motivation of young people to learn French as a second language.
Obviously, the first answer that's given is that it's about instrumental motivation; in other words, "what am I going do with this." The reasons are very pragmatic. Obviously, these pragmatic reasons wither away in an environment where there is no concrete application for the language. We found out that what distinguishes students who succeed in French from those who do not — and there was an enormous interest in the immersion programs that were beginning to emerge — was the students who had developed very positive attitudes toward the francophonie in general, in francophones, their way of life and so on. It was those students who usually came from families where this kind of interest in languages already existed and encouraged their interest in learning French as a second language. This research has never been refuted, but over time, we have slightly changed how we talk and, with the development of new motivation models, we have started talking about three things that I think are important.
In fact, these three aspects are probably the basic motivations in any area. The first motivation has to do with proficiency and the feeling of being proficient. It is important to satisfy people's feeling of proficiency. Learning another language, a language that may make it possible to read, watch, listen and interact in another language contributes to an individual's feeling of proficiency. This affects how people feel and their definition of themselves.
The other aspect is the issue of independence. Do you want to encourage young people to be independent? Being able to use another language means you are no longer at the mercy of someone who has to translate for you. There are many other ways of increasing an individual's autonomy, and language is one of them.
The third basic motivation that must be satisfied for individuals to develop is the matter of membership and belonging. Once again, learning a language contributes to this feeling of belonging.
I'm sorry for the lecture.
Senator Maltais: No, it was fine. I now have a very quick question for Mr. Lemoine.
Could we say that, from the 1970s to the present, there has been a high point, and that now we may be not coasting exactly, but not far from it? Do young people in Canada feel more universal than just Canadian?
Let me explain. Given all the free-trade agreements that have been concluded and all the groups of countries forming communities, such as the European Union — we are seeing this in the Asia-Pacific and South America, as well, where countries tend to group together to form large communities — do our young Canadians consider themselves more part of an international openness rather than of a national culture?
Mr. Lemoine: I would say so. Today, thinking about my daughter, I think she feels like most young people her age who have finished university, a little like a citizen of the world, or someone who loves Canada and can say that Canada is beautiful, that we have a beautiful, great country, but that there are other things in the world. Certainly, in that context, language becomes important, if you want to visit Spain, Germany, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, or elsewhere. Basically, there is this new culture among young people.
However, I would like to add a comment. It is important to remember that, even if in recent years there has been a sort of ceiling, as you said, in the rate of bilingualism among Canadians, that 17 per cent to 18 per cent of people identify themselves as being bilingual today, whereas 25 or 30 years ago, it was 15 per cent, we aren't talking about a huge increase. This feeling of belonging and this sense of motivation when it comes to a language begins at school. We have noted, and studies have shown, that students who do not feel that they are doing well in learning a second language, such as French as a second language, is not very motivated to continue learning at school.
Why do students feel that they are not performing well? It isn't because one student is less intelligent than another; I don't think enough time and energy has been invested in our educational programs and in our second-language learning programs at school. We haven't invested enough in teacher training. It isn't easy to find teachers of second languages, French as a second language, outside certain areas closer to Quebec and where there is a smaller francophone population. It isn't easy to find teacher who could encourage this motivation and interest in language. These teachers need to be found and trained.
A number of regions are still using grammar-based learning methods, which have been in use for 20 or 25 years. It's not what young people want to learn. Grammar is important, but they want to learn to speak and to communicate. This in a way explains why immersion is so popular. But there are 300,000 students in immersion out of 5 million; that's not how we're necessarily going to increase the rate of bilingualism. I'm much more worried about the 4.7 million others who are in programs that differ from province to province, from one school board to another, and from one school to another, because teachers may not have the qualifications they should. There's no magic formula; we don't just wake up one morning and suddenly learn a language.
Senator Maltais: It takes motivation.
In wrapping up, Mr. Clément and Mr. Lemoine, don't you think that learning a second language must originate in the family core, regardless of the language, be it French or English?
Don't you think that parents should really express that willingness in the home? Is it still true that the family core bears the torch that can spread bilingualism in Canada?
Mr. Clément: Yes, without hesitation. That is true. Children very quickly recognize who is or is not part of their own group. Socialization of children at a very young age is extremely important when it comes to being open to something foreign, something different, and it is absolutely essential that this happen at a very young age.
Mr. Lemoine: That is why it is important to start language teaching at a very young age at school. We have a small problem with children who become teenagers and enter high school. The parents have less and less control over these young people, and we need to find motivation for these young people, motivation that may be different from what is being promoted in the family home or by the parents.
Senator Maltais: I am certain that Senator Chaput will be able to indicate this motivation. Thank you. It was very interesting.
Senator Chaput: Thank you, my honourable colleague, for your trust. Some of my questions have already been addressed, but I would like to obtain some additional information.
You spoke about the European framework. If Canada is interested, it could become a model that Canada could use and that could be consistent, one pan-Canadian framework or policy. We do know that education comes under provincial jurisdiction so, to do this, the provinces and territories would have to want it. Is that right?
How can we motivate the provinces and territories to be interested in it so that we can eventually develop a pan- Canadian policy or framework that would resolve the problem of not being able to compare education programs from province to province because the standards are different? How could we motivate the provinces and territories when it comes to this problem?
Mr. Clément: So far, our interactions have been limited to employees with the Council of Ministers of Education. What we tried to do — and I don't have a definitive answer for you — was to tell them that the evidence is there. If this framework is adopted generally, the quality of teaching would increase. Language training could then be standardized across Canada and, as a result, there would be all kinds of advantages for mobility. It seems to me that the mobility argument should interest the education ministers. There would also be more diverse and extensive pedagogical methods, simply because the 10 provinces and territories would be working together.
Would there be a more focused effort than there has been so far? I think we need to sell these two ideas. That's what came to mind right now.
Senator Chaput: As far as you know, have the provinces and territories discussed this?
Mr. Clément: I don't think so.
Senator Chaput: Mr. Lemoine, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Lemoine: There haven't been many discussions between the provinces, except in the context of CMEC, when the committee members looked into the framework and whether it could be applied in Canada.
Moreover, I think we should remain optimistic, as curricula in some of the provinces are currently being revised according to the principles of the framework. British Columbia has done that, Ontario is currently reviewing the curricula in a number of regions, as is Nova Scotia. So I think that will basically have a ripple effect.
The problem stems from the fact that the work is not really moving forward collaboratively, as that's not how the education system works in Canada. What we need is leadership — I was going to say prescriptive, but that's not the right term — that is a little more facilitative.
It's difficult to assign that responsibility to the Council of Ministers of Education, since that's a secretariat with no authority. So I think everyone is happy with the current situation. However, successful implementation of the framework in certain provinces will surely have a ripple effect. I know that some Alberta school boards, such as the Edmonton school board, have revised their curricula. They use the framework in the teaching of not only French, but also other languages.
The framework is not a normative tool. It outlines what could be included in a school curriculum. For instance, the framework describes the skill levels — what a B1 or a B2 means — so that the definitions would be the same everywhere. If my level is B2 in Spanish, that means I am able to speak at a certain level, I can function in a specific context. That's what we are currently missing.
Senator Chaput: What would you like the committee to recommend with regard to the framework?
Mr. Clément: I don't know how far I should go. You are pushing me to the limit of my knowledge of political influence.
Senator Chaput: What could we recommend for the improvement of second-language learning in Canada?
Mr. Clément: The federal government should take on a leadership role in organizing — in the form of meetings, in the form of some sort of an organization — so as to encourage provinces to develop a common strategy for language learning and teaching.
Senator Chaput: Thank you. What about you, Mr. Lemoine?
Mr. Lemoine: I would add that this should be tied to a bilingualism objective. That's one of the recommendations Mr. Clément mentioned earlier. The provinces and the Canadian government must come to a consensus. The Government of Canada is making a huge financial contribution to establish a bilingualism objective. What target do we want to reach by 2020 in terms of bilingualism among young Canadians? We have to agree on a bilingualism objective and take it seriously. We'll have to take action, as it is not going to happen on its own.
The framework could help us establish some sort of an incentive to achieve that objective. We need to tie it to a strategy and not think that the framework must become commonplace everywhere. For example, we could decide that 40 per cent of high school graduates should have a sufficiently high level of English or French as a second language.
If we set that kind of objective, we will have to work on achieving it. The provinces are doing that in other areas. For instance, they want to have good PISA test scores. In order to reach that goal, the provinces have significantly modified math, science and other programs. Languages are just as important.
Senator Poirier: Most of my questions have been asked by the senators who spoke before me, and I have appreciated your answers. In response to one of Senator McIntyre's questions, you talked about certain challenges, such as keeping Grade 10 or Grade 11 students interested in education. You also talked about challenges provinces face because of different teaching methods and a shortage of qualified teachers in some places. As I was wondering what solutions could be implemented, Senator Chaput asked the question.
As I understand it, you think the federal government should create a basis for leading a discussion with the provinces in order to resolve the various issues. Did I understand that correctly?
Mr. Clément: I don't know whether the word "lead" would be appropriate, but the federal government is already involved in language learning and teaching through CMEC. The provinces are responsible for some programs. It seems to me that this is a natural extension of the federal government's role, as it has provided millions of dollars a year for language teaching under two streams — for second-language teaching, but also for the protection of minority languages in Quebec and outside Quebec. It seems to me that the federal government is already very engaged on the linguistic scene, so why not continue along that path? Why not improve things?
Senator Poirier: I am from New Brunswick, an officially bilingual province. I have no statistics on this, but the vast majority of francophones in New Brunswick are bilingual, while anglophones seem to be less interested in bilingualism. Have you observed the same situation in other provinces?
Mr. Clément: Yes, I have. It would appear that the research done by my colleague Rodrigue Landry, from the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities, in Moncton, shows that motivation and knowledge in terms of the other language are closely related to the percentage of people who speak that language in the community. Moreover, as you move further away from Quebec — for example, in communities where very little French is spoken — there is almost a linear relationship between the number of francophones and people's interest in learning French. It is a phenomenon we have called the determinism of numbers, or the tyranny of numbers. Several research projects have looked at solutions to reverse the concept of non-existent ethnolinguistic vitality. Is there a way to do something?
Of course, early education is extremely important, as is the way a school presents language learning and the way that representation helps students meet their basic needs in terms of motivation and self-development.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Maltais, did you have a second question?
Senator Maltais: Mr. Lemoine, you made a suggestion Mr. Clément seemed to agree with.
If we want to eventually exceed the bilingualism inflation rate, we have to take action. As you said, the government has been investing large amounts of money in this area for a number of years.
It may be time — and this is for your consideration — to report on the general state of bilingualism in Canada. The government should not be entrusted with that task because this would lead to perpetual bickering. The reports should be produced outside government. However, the government should provide direction, as should, of course, the provinces, which would definitely have to participate. As Mr. Lemoine said, we should look to the future over a 10- year or 20-year period, and establish time frames to see what the situation will be for our children and grandchildren.
Do you think that would be a good thing?
Mr. Clément: This is a coincidence, but, on Wednesday, we will launch a book that talks about the 50 years that have passed since the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. That gave me an opportunity to look at the commission's impact. The commission's report was probably the most important publication on bilingualism in Canada, and its impact has been unmatched since. It has had an amazing influence, not only on the Official Languages Act, but also on creating the position of commissioner of official languages, on amendments that have been made to the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and on a set of provincial statutes that practically have a constitutional status in terms of languages. So there's that connection.
I figured that we obviously couldn't reinvent the royal commission, but could a similar formula be used to move things forward? That may be akin to your idea.
The Chair: Mr. Lemoine, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Lemoine: I completely agree with that. It may be time for us to take a moment to ask those questions. They are being asked here, but we have no answers. We have some idea of what the answers are, but it would help to ask the questions in a somewhat broader context with the participation of the right people from across the country. I agree with you that governments don't really have to be the main players, but they have to participate.
To come back to your comment, Senator Poirier, we cannot discuss education. Despite all of the federal government's spending power and despite all its goodwill and the money it gives to provinces for language teaching, this has to be done with provincial governments, as they are the ones who control education. A government cannot impose that approach, but it can certainly make things easier and more attractive through the leadership it has normally and its significant spending power. Everyone reacts well when the cost is not too high for their own jurisdiction.
The Chair: If I may, I would also like to hear your comments on the fact that French is not mandatory in schools in a number of Canadian provinces and territories. What role does that aspect play in motivation, and what message does it send to our youth?
Mr. Clément: This is a double-edged sword. We want the learning of both languages to be mandatory, and when something becomes mandatory, children lose their intrinsic motivation for that activity. They'll do it anyway, but as soon as they no longer have to, they will stop. That's unfortunately the outcome of the work that has been done in this area.
I would rather tend to deal with this issue by changing the developmental approach to language learning. People think that children are motivated in a wholly pragmatic way. I think that children develop. They are beings who develop a personality, their ability to learn, and so on. That is a completely natural phenomenon. It's something that comes naturally as children mature.
So we have to see what makes them tick and try to introduce languages as part of the package they will acquire in school as something natural and satisfying. That's how I would go about it, instead of making language learning mandatory.
It's also true that a bit of pressure may lead to motivation that would be qualified as "extrinsic" — totally externally imposed — becoming the source of intrinsic motivation when children incorporate the activity into their own personality.
So my answer will be a bit of a mixed bag. I think we have to work on the possibility that language learning may fulfill personal needs in children — and this is extremely important — with some pressure added in to help them start appreciating the process.
The Chair: Albertans often tell me that French is an option for them. They have a French course twice a week, and it is often cancelled because other activities are added to the schedule. It's not like math or geography courses, which are mandatory. French courses can be done away with, since the school doesn't make them part of a framework where language teaching is really valued.
Mr. Clément: Exactly. There are a lot of problems with basic French — the approach to language teaching involving basic French — as there is no follow-up. Immersion teaching is far superior.
The Chair: Thank you for sharing your comments with us. Mr. Lemoine, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Lemoine: I would like to use this opportunity to come back to your question, Senator Tardif. You're right in saying that making French or English second language courses optional at school sends a message that's not really a positive one.
I would add that it would be beneficial to make those courses mandatory, as that would surely send a positive message. However, if we make second-language education mandatory, yet we don't improve the quality of our teachers and don't have enough graduates capable of teaching those courses, or don't improve our curricula, I'm not sure we would be doing ourselves any favours.
It would be great to make those courses mandatory, but I think that, tomorrow morning, that service could not be provided everywhere it should, as is the case with services in math, history, science or other subjects.
The Chair: Thank you very much. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for sharing your expertise and experience with us. It was a real pleasure to listen to you. Thank you for being generous with your time.
We will break for a few minutes to prepare for our next witness.
(The committee suspended.)
————————————————
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are resuming the meeting. This part of our meeting will be about youth. Our witness is Justin Morrow, Founder and President of Canadian Youth for French. Mr. Morrow appeared before us in March 2013 during our study on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. You are becoming a regular, Mr. Morrow. Welcome.
I invite you to make your presentation, which will be followed by questions from senators.
[English]
Justin Morrow, Founder and President, Canadian Youth for French: Honourable senators, thank you for inviting Canadian Youth for French to speak to you regarding your study on the best practices for language policies in second- language learning in your study.
Canadian Youth for French, being a national not-for-profit organization with a mission of inspiring a greater appreciation for French while increasing the number of bilingual Canadians throughout English Canada, believes that this study, and more specifically the recommendations that will come out of it, will be of great importance to future generations of Canadians who wish to benefit from Canadian bilingualism, especially as we come upon a crossroads in our approach to official languages in the majority.
I will touch upon this crossroads again, but the first thing that must be addressed is our goal of second-language learning in the majority. Why are we investing in second-language learning at all? This is a question that should be asked to every person that comes before you, and you should oblige each respondent to give you a single one-sentence response.
[Translation]
There is no doubt that each entity or individual who will testify before you will have their own interests, but you must ensure that they all know the main reason we are investing in second-language learning and, of course, that they know what role they play in the overall picture.
Once you've ensured that they know what the main reason is, ask them whether there are any gaps in that overall picture and who is in charge of bilingualism in English Canada. At Canadian Youth for French, we believe that Canada invests in second-langue learning to strengthen its economy through a more diverse and bilingual population. When I talk about the economy, I am talking about not only municipal, provincial and national economies, but also about cultural, community and arts economies. And the list goes on.
[English]
Ideally, our role is to support youth when they leave high school by ensuring they know where to go to learn, maintain or improve their French in a post-secondary setting. Unfortunately, before we can properly support our target audience, we have discovered that a lot of education needs to be done and a few things need to change. Since CYF's foundation in 2009, we have been educating and advocating for this change.
[Translation]
Earlier, I said that we were coming upon a crossroads. More specifically, Canadian Heritage programs need to change. I will explain why. First, in 2006, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages carried out a study according to which more than 80 per cent of young Canadians aged 18 to 34 were in favour of bilingualism, and that percentage has surely increased over the years.
Why always focus on the promotion of linguistic duality, if over 80 per cent of the population is already in favour of it?
[English]
Are we trying to get a 100 per cent approval rate?
[Translation]
Secondly, our informal research shows that only .25 per cent of young English Canadians were in immersion programs and use French on a regular basis three to five years after leaving high school.
[English]
Why does immersion continue to dominate the majority of discussion around second-language learning when only a quarter of 1 per cent of the population is able to take full advantage of it? Note that I'm not saying it's not important. Immersion programs are great and we need them, but there are other complementary ways we can go about realizing our goal as well.
Canadian Heritage programs and other investments in second-language learning need to change from their approach of promoting linguistic duality and pushing students through the French education in our systems to investments that respond to the demand from youth and have a more balanced push-pull approach. Ultimately, we need to ensure that these investments lead to the eventual realization of our primary goal of strengthening our economy through a more dynamic and bilingual population.
In addition to the aforementioned suggestion and recommendation, there are a few other areas that should be looked at. The first is research, and there are two areas that should be explored. I mentioned that CYF's informal research has shown that only a quarter of 1 per cent of Canadians graduate from immersion and continue to use their French on a regular basis three to five years after high school.
[Translation]
Unfortunately, there are no studies to confirm these data. In fact, I have been asking people for years how many young people continue to use French after high school, and the answer I get is that it is simply too difficult to obtain the statistics.
[English]
In my opinion, it doesn't matter how difficult it is to get these stats. When hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars per year are being invested in second-language learning, you find a way to make sure your taxpayers are getting a return on their investment.
[Translation]
Secondly, we need research that demonstrates that it is possible to learn French later in life. Personally, I started learning French at 23, and I think I manage. There are a lot of examples of young people who have learned French later in life, but all you ever hear is that you have to start young.
[English]
The sooner the better and with good reason. That's why we invest the majority of our investments into our education system. I'm not going to try to contradict the evidence. Enough research has been done to prove how much easier it is to learn a second language when we're younger, but some people just aren't ready to learn a second language at a young age, for all sorts of developmental reasons. We need evidence to prove that one can learn a second language later on in life.
[Translation]
If we needed to promote linguistic duality, there should be a campaign to say that it is never too late to learn a second language.
[English]
The second is the post-secondary demand.
[Translation]
In Quebec, most recruiters focus on the international scene rather than looking outside the province. I can tell you an anecdote in support of that statement.
[English]
In English Canadian institutions, decision makers don't think that there's enough demand from their student population to merit courses in French.
[Translation]
In short, the demand for French courses at the post-secondary level is unknown. A method has to be found to quantify it.
[English]
I recommend that a pilot project be undertaken with at least four post-secondary institutions in which each offers a first-year elective course entitled "Le français, comment s'en servir au Canada anglais."
[Translation]
This course would attract interest from young people in all programs and would show the administration that there is a demand for more courses to be offered in French.
[English]
Once post-secondary institutions begin to produce a steady stream of bilingual graduates, a link must be created with Employment and Social Development Canada to ensure that these graduates maintain their French and benefit their employers once on the job.
[Translation]
First, we need to support job exchange programs in the private sector, somewhat like what was done with the Odyssey program, but for people in the workforce, and not only for young people who are looking for an exchange program during their studies. If you want a perfect example, you have only to ask me and I will give you one.
[English]
Another option would be for the department to support employers wanting to better serve clients in French or wanting to do more business in French. Offer incentives similar to those in the Young Canada Works Program to employers wishing to improve their bilingual capacity within their organization.
To summarize, CYF recommends the following: that government investments in second-language learning change; that the government consult with researchers to determine how decision makers can get better information; that the government offer financial support to post-secondary institutions wishing to offer a first-year elective course on how to use French in English Canada; and that Employment and Social Development Canada offer incentives to employers and employees who want to gain, improve or maintain a bilingual capacity in their operations. Support these recommendations, and I am certain that one day, in my lifetime, we will live in a Canada with a bilingual linguistic majority.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morrow.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre will ask the first question, followed by Senator Chaput.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, Justin, for your presentation. You speak French very well.
I see that your organization, Canadian Youth For French, is present on the Internet and on social media. You set out the multiple advantages of bilingualism, at the social, economic and cognitive levels. I also understand that your organization set up the Discover Zone site, a little bit along the lines of dating sites. I also know that you did a tour of high schools in order to set up a first contact with young anglophones who might be interested in the benefits of learning French.
Are you satisfied with the initiatives taken by your organization to promote second-language learning? Do you find that young anglophones in Canada have a certain interest in learning a second language?
[English]
Mr. Morrow: To answer your first question, if I'm happy about what our organization has been able to do, with all things being considered, we're happy with it, but there are a lot of things that are missing or a lot of pieces to the puzzle that aren't there. The "discover zone" that's on our website isn't even active right now. That project has been put on hold because the start-up costs are too great for an organization of our caliber to undertake right now. We need a lot more money and a lot more different sources, and we have to get creative to do that. We kind of put that project on hold until we can find the money and until we're structurally sound.
The other programs, the presentations in the schools, that was what led to the discover zone. That's what we did before. That was our business model before we had the discover zone, and that was great. The interest from the youth was amazing. The interest from everybody that saw the presentation was incredible. We wanted to speak to senior high school students, Grades 11 and 12, and the majority of the teachers wanted us to speak to Grades 9 and 10. They saw it better for us to speak to younger grades, and our business model didn't work like that. There was too much friction between our goals and the goals of teachers, so we had to drop that model.
Because of our presentations, we saw the interest for something like the discover zone, a mentorship service, and that led into the discover zone, which is an incredible tool if we can ever get it off the shelf.
Senator McIntyre: Does your organization have many members?
[Translation]
Mr. Morrow: No. Membership was not opened up to the general public. There are only the members of the board of directors. We had to set up the management of the organization and lay a certain foundation before looking for members. That is what we are doing.
[English]
Senator McIntyre: Going back to the question I asked you earlier in French, in speaking with young anglophones, do you see an interest in learning a second language, in learning French?
Mr. Morrow: Yes.
Senator McIntyre: There is?
Mr. Morrow: An enormous interest.
Senator McIntyre: Anywhere in Canada?
Mr. Morrow: Anywhere, all across the country. The stat I said with the Commissioner of Official Languages was 80 per cent, and I'm sure it's gone up since then. They're there. If you walk out on the street anywhere in the country and ask a young person what they think about French, they say, "I wish I would have learned it back in high school; I wish I could learn it now." But they don't realize that there are so many opportunities out there for them to learn it. At least 80 per cent of the population of young Canadians wants to learn French and wish they could. They just don't think it's possible. That's where the disconnect is. They want to, but they don't think it's possible.
Senator McIntyre: Your organization groups young people from ages 18 to 35?
Mr. Morrow: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Justin, it has been a few years since I met you. There is no doubt that you are convinced of the importance of learning a second language. You did it yourself, a bit late in life. You are now working very hard, mostly on a volunteer basis, to look for those who share your thinking on this and who would like to learn a second language, are you not?
Mr. Morrow: Yes.
Senator Chaput: Since the foundation of your association in 2009, I read that you had about 22 members in Canada.
Mr. Morrow: Yes.
Senator Chaput: If I remember correctly, there are members from British Columbia?
Mr. Morrow: Yes.
Senator Chaput: And the others are scattered throughout Canada?
Mr. Morrow: Somewhat, yes.
Senator Chaput: Do you have any in Quebec?
Mr. Morrow: Yes.
Senator Chaput: Yes?
Mr. Morrow: As I was saying, we have not officially opened up our membership to the general public.
Senator Chaput: I understand.
Mr. Morrow: We put our information on the website, and people can register automatically. We have not shared information with them nor gotten these young people together. Our active members are those who sit on the board. We have one from almost every province.
Senator Chaput: You say that there is a great deal of interest from anglophones in learning a second language or learning French. You know this because of your conversations with people around you, your visits to schools? How did you discover this fact? Did it happen at a meeting? How can you tell us that, yes, there is a great deal of interest in learning French?
[English]
Mr. Morrow: Just through everybody that I've met. As you've said, in the presentations, it's been incredible, throughout all my travels and talking to people, but not only when they know what I do and who I am. It's when I meet people in a restaurant or on the street or in a store. We start to talk or they hear it, and they get jealous. Everyone I meet, I haven't heard one negative thing.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Aside from the points you have mentioned, if you had a recommendation to make to this committee to improve practices for second-language learning, what would it be? You are a young man who really believes in this and is very motivated; you learned the second language on your own. What would you recommend to the committee?
[English]
Mr. Morrow: Could you repeat that? What could I recommend to the committee?
Senator Chaput: For the better learning of a second language.
Mr. Morrow: In addition to the things I've already mentioned?
Senator Chaput: Yes, or if there's one in there that is number one, just repeat it. What's the priority? Where do you start?
Mr. Morrow: I think we have to start with the research. I mentioned it first because we don't have the stats. Right now, decision makers are making decisions based on incomplete information. They don't have all the knowledge that's out there for them.
Senator Chaput: What questions would be asked in the research? What kind of questions would you ask? What do you want to find out?
Mr. Morrow: We need to know how many students continue after high school and where they go. That's important. Right now, with all the research and everything that's done, we can calculate and put numbers on how many students go from Grade 1 to Grade 4, from Grade 5 to Grade 8 and from Grade 9 to Grade 12. We can put numbers on that and quantify it. We can say what we're doing and that we tried this and it increased this much; we tried that and it didn't do as much but we can work with it. The research all says get young people when they're younger and just try to push them through the system; and we have to get them younger so they go forward. But there are no stats when they leave high school. Nobody knows what happens to these young people. Nobody knows what they're looking for, what they want or what they need. That's where we need to start.
What you want to do and where you want to go. How do we quantify this number? How do we find out how many students continue with French after. Once we have that scale and know how many students there are, then we can start to play with and test different research methods or different ways to increase that number once they leave high school. Until we find a way to calculate and number those things, it will just be like throwing darts at a wall. Research is really important.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Thank you for being here with us. It is a pleasure to listen to you; young people are so important. Our youth is the future of our country, that is certain.
[English]
You talked about the research and about the education. You said that you have members across Canada. Do you work closely or do you meet with them? Education is under the portfolio of the provinces. Even post-secondary education and colleges fall under the portfolio. There are transfers of money from the federal government, but the provinces have the responsibility.
Do you work closely with the provinces? Do you meet with them? Are they aware of what kind of research you would like? Do they have this research? Do we know if they have had it, if they've worked and gone out to get it? I would assume they would know how many people are registered once they leave high school. I would assume the departments of education in the provinces would know how many students from high school go into either a francophone or an anglophone institution, whether university or community college, and what courses they would take. There must be some statistics on that.
Mr. Morrow: No, we haven't had much luck at the provincial level. We haven't really gone there very much. We just stick more to the federal level because we're not just in education. We try to stay away from high schools, as they're covered. It's more post-secondary and not only university or college studies but also employment and exchanges in your daily life and media and things like that. We haven't really done much with the provinces.
I know they are aware of who we are and what we're doing. We've talked to the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, on a number of occasions in private meetings, so they're aware of our organization and what we're trying to do. But they don't have the stats. I've asked them about that, but they can't give us that information. None of the organizations we work with can bring up that information.
Senator Poirier: Even Stats Canada?
Mr. Morrow: Not that specific as to what we are doing.
Senator Poirier: In New Brunswick, which is a bilingual province, I was politically involved as a member of the legislative assembly and minister at one point. They knew how many people were bilingual many years ago compared to now and where we're going. That's why I was curious. If it's not available, have you worked with the provinces to get a little bit of information from them?
Mr. Morrow: No, we haven't really done much work to get those stats. It's more been with our partners who have more of a link with them and have done a lot more work with them. It's difficult for us when we're just a small start-up organization to partner and work with the federal government and ten provincial governments plus three territorial governments. We've made efficient use of our resources by focusing on federal and then leveraging our partnerships with other organizations that have done a lot of work with the provincial partners.
Senator Poirier: If you had these statistics, what do you feel it would accomplish for your organization? How would that help you?
Mr. Morrow: Well, it would help us quite a bit in the sense that right now only a certain amount of money is available for organizations like ours. That pot of money isn't growing, so it's a specific amount of money and, before we existed, that money was all spoken for. We've come in and tried to put more emphasis on post-secondary education, but there are a lot of other studies, researchers and lobbyists. The institutions that have been set up and the system itself have been geared toward education in primary and secondary. The post-secondary, our demographic, has been left out. It has been difficult for us to advocate and lobby on behalf of our demographic without those stats. We need some stats or some information, research that could back us up, that says all this stuff we're doing is great.
There's also a huge potential with this market that needs to be covered, and we need to direct more of our financial or human resources there so we can start to make a difference.
Senator Poirier: If the provinces are responsible for education, even post-secondary education, who do you feel should do the research to get the stats, if not them?
Mr. Morrow: There are many. I think my first presentation and meeting with the Department of Canadian Heritage was with university researchers from around the country. They brought them all together at a round table back in 2010. Researchers were from all over the place presenting their studies. They would be some of the people who could undertake this.
Senator Poirier: Do you think they would be better equipped than the departments of education in each province to do it?
Mr. Morrow: I think they would be better able to coordinate with. Instead of each province doing their individual research, we'd have one central thing to coordinate the research to make sure that we're standard across the board and can consult together.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Morrow, I believe you said you learned French at the age of 23.
Mr. Morrow: Yes.
The Chair: The last group of witnesses talked a lot about motivation as an important factor in second-language learning. I congratulate you for having taken that initiative. What was the motivating factor for you to learn French?
Mr. Morrow: French changed my own life so much —
[English]
— in so many ways that it's unbelievable. I could go into so many different stories.
The Chair: You don't have to get personal. Was it perhaps an exchange trip or a particular teacher that motivated you?
Mr. Morrow: My original motivation is a lot easier. I was recruited to play football for the University of Laval. Before I started learning French, I had dropped French in Grade 9 with a mark of 59 per cent. I was pretty much like every other young English-speaking Canadian guy — I just didn't care about French. There were more important things. The only thing I was good at in school was football and other sports.
I followed my football career from the rhubarb capital of Ontario out to Vancouver and then to the University of Ottawa. When both of those universities didn't work out, it was the University of Laval in Quebec City that came knocking on my door to come and play football for them on the condition that I learn French and did my business degree in French. That was my motivation.
I had kind of messed around enough in university, so when I got there, it was really important for me for of rest of my life to succeed in school. The first thing I had to do was learn French. There was no way I was going to let this opportunity pass me by with the resources and support that the University of Laval gave me when I first started there. There was no way I was going to let that pass me by, so I worked really hard to become bilingual and then succeed.
I failed my first year of university and then became an academic all-Canadian in Laval, studying business in my second language. That's just incredible for me.
So that was kind of the motivation. The original motivation was football. To start the organization and to give back showed just how drastically my life had changed for the better with the inclusion of French.
The Chair: Thank you for sharing that story. I think it shows how you can go from a very pragmatic motivation to that very intrinsic type of motivation.
Senator McIntyre: Justin, I would like to go back to the discover zone that your organization has created. As I understand, it offers young users a selection of French Canadian experiences that correspond to their search criteria. Does the discover zone list forums, jobs and community events relating to linguistic discovery?
Mr. Morrow: Yes, it's all about linguistic discovery. As mentioned, it's off line right now and we're trying to figure out how we're going to put it back on line. On paper and in the promotional material that we've created for it, it is your one-stop shop for everything French.
You would go on and choose between one of five different post-secondary opportunities, whether it be education, employment, short-term experiences in your community or independent resources. You would choose between one of five, and from there you would answer more questions to better define what you're looking for. If you choose education, do you want to go to university or college? Where do you want to do it? What programs do you want to go into? What's your level of French like? The discover zone will filter through all of the opportunities that exist across the country to present you with those that best suit your needs and interests.
It would be something similar to that for employment. Employment would be more of a job bank, and a reverse job bank for employers to find employees. The other ones would be something similar to education.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: This year, Canada will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Several initiatives have already been set up in order to ensure that the number of bilingual Canadians will continue to grow.
Would your organization like to make a difference in that regard? Have you planned any events to mark that important anniversary?
[English]
Mr. Morrow: Unfortunately we haven't been able to work much with a lot of different activities or events or things like that. We are currently working on the internal structure of the organization. It's quite a bit heavier than we would have hoped, so we don't have anything lined up at the current time.
Senator McIntyre: Okay, thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morrow, for taking part in this study. Your comments and suggestions are very important and relevant to our study.
If there are no other questions from senators, I will adjourn the meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)