THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
CHARLOTTETOWN, Friday, September 22, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 1:11 p.m. to examine and report on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act.
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon. My name is Claudette Tardif. We are here in Charlottetown to continue our study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. Since this is considered a new meeting, I am going to ask senators to please introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Maltais: Senator Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Cormier: Senator René Cormier, a New Brunswick Acadian.
Senator Gagné: Senator Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Moncion: Senator Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Mégie: Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
The Chair: I am Claudette Tardif from Alberta, and I have the privilege of chairing the meeting. Honourable senators, given that this is a new meeting, I must ask you this question. Do you agree to allow the Senate communications staff to take photographs during the meeting, to film parts of it, and to distribute them?
Senator Cormier: Agreed. Yes.
The Chair: Thank you.
Today we will be hearing from Stéphane Blanchard, Youth Development Officer for Prince Edward Island with the Réseau de développement économique et d’employabilité, from Jacinthe Lemire, Director of the Coopérative d’intégration francophone, and from Jérémie Arsenault, a young Acadian entrepreneur, who is the owner of Simple Feast Catering.
Welcome. We are happy to have you here. After your presentations, the senators will ask you questions. I would like to ask Mr. Blanchard to begin. You have the floor.
Stéphane Blanchard, Youth Development Officer, Prince Edward Island, Réseau de développement économique et d’employabilité: Thank you very much. Yes, I am Stéphane Blanchard, the youth development officer for Prince Edward Island with the Réseau de développement économique et d’employabilité, or RDEE. RDEE is the provincial francophone economic development council and we are constantly promoting life in French on the island, especially from an economic perspective. We encourage employment and entrepreneurship in French a great deal. We are constantly explaining to entrepreneurs that their sales may well increase considerably if they provide services in French, not only to the local francophone community, but also to the tourists who come to us mostly from Quebec and New Brunswick. Francophone importers from other provinces and countries are also interested in our products and, in recent years, our sales missions to Montreal have brought a good deal of success and strong sales.
But the island companies that can operate exclusively in French are very rare. Because our critical mass is simply not big enough, most of the businesses that call themselves francophone also have to consider themselves bilingual. That in no way diminishes the value of the francophone aspect. Acadian and francophone identity has very deep roots in the hearts and spirits of our people.
When we provide training or information sessions on entrepreneurship topics, they are often bilingual because some of our clients are anglophone, or francophones who want to learn the English terminology.
We regularly call on anglophone experts to share their knowledge with us. We deal with francophone organizations and businesses every day. Our relationships with all those partners are very good.
We continue to preach to our young clients that their bilingualism is a gift that will serve them for the rest of their lives, not only in their careers, but in their daily lives.
We consider it of prime importance to keep promoting and funding economic initiatives that encourage bilingualism and the range of services available in French.
Our mission at the RDEE is to contribute actively to entrepreneurial and community economic development and job creation within the Acadian and francophone community of Prince Edward Island, while collaborating in the economic development of the province.
With that introduction, I am going to tell you about three youth programs that we offer. The first is called the Young Millionaires program. This is a program for those between 8 and 16 years of age. The young millionaires have to take part in workshops and training sessions on basic business skills, bookkeeping, marketing, customer service, and public speaking. After attending those workshops, they can submit their business plans and receive a grant of $100, or $150 for a business partnership.
The second program I would like to tell you about is Coopérative services jeunesses. This is a program for young people from 12 to 17 years of age who pool their resources in order to provide a range of services to their community by creating their own business. It is quite simply a workers’ co-operative that provides services to the community in exchange for a salary. This encourages the young people to become aware of their abilities and their collective responsibilities in order to transform their environment according to their needs and aspirations.
Finally, I want to tell you about the PERCÉ program. The PERCÉ program is now in its fourteenth year. It is a paid internship in the participants’ fields of study. Those participants are under 30 years of age and in post-secondary studies. It also provides financial assistance to the employers in exchange for an enriching experience. In the first 10 years of the program, it also has a success rate of 82 per cent in bringing the young graduates back home to Prince Edward Island when their studies are over. There are not a lot of post-secondary institutions on Prince Edward Island. The students have to leave, and once they have left, they do not necessarily come back. This is why the program was born.
We know that the next official languages action plan specifically has to reinforce and focus the actions of the entire federal government in order to support the development and vitality of official language minority communities. The plan must also reflect three of the principles laid out in the latest report of Canada’s interim Commissioner of Official Languages in June 2017. These are: to increase access to services of equal quality in both official languages, to seek to achieve substantive equality, taking into account the particular characteristics of official language communities, and to consider the remedial nature of language rights, including the fact that these rights are designed to counter the gradual decline of official language communities. With this commitment from government, francophone and Acadian communities will be able to make a greater contribution to Canada’s productivity and international competitiveness.
We were asked to look at a number of issues and so I am going to start by talking about the motivations to learn the other official language. In our opinion, there are two aspects to consider: emotional and practical. On the emotional side, this would involve more frequently continuing the legacy left to us by our forefathers. Often, here in Prince Edward Island, we talk of rights holders in the schools. The French language has become lost between grandparents and grandchildren, and so we need the emotional side so that we can get back what we had before. More practically, Statistics Canada tells us that being bilingual in Canada is associated with higher rates of activity and employment and lower rates of unemployment. So we need the practical side too.
Finally, there is one problem I would like to talk about. The problem is with childcare centres and their repercussions on the entire francophone and Acadian community on the island. I was reading in reports that came out recently that education is a hot topic, and we have to make sure of the availability of not only education in French but also childcare places. We are told that there is a lack of childcare in French. Between 125 and 150 children are on waiting lists for two main reasons: first, the lack of space, and second, the lack of educators. So the problem lies in infrastructure and human resources. We know that the second reason is the pressing one because the salary for educators is between $11.25 and $15.25 an hour. It is difficult to make a career with a salary like that. In addition, those educators are bilingual and are therefore in great demand. A good number of them are going to be able to command better salaries. The turnover rate is very high. So we have to find a way to pay those bilingual educators better in order to strengthen the base of the pyramid represented by early childhood. That is the end of my report.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Blanchard.
Ms. Lemire, the floor is yours.
Jacinthe Lemire, Director, La Coopérative d’intégration francophone de l’ÎPÉ: Good afternoon, everyone. First, thank you for the invitation. As you said, I am the director of La Coopérative d’intégration francophone de l’ÎPÉ, or CIF. The CIF is the settlement organization for French-speaking newcomers to the island. We have also taken on the community responsibility for the entire area of francophone demographic growth on Prince Edward Island, which therefore involves francophiles, migrants and immigrants. At the CIF, we are able to serve immigrants who are either temporary or permanent residents. So it is an interesting area for us. In recent years, we have experienced a lot of advances in recruiting, integrating and retaining French-speaking newcomers. This is very encouraging for us on the island.
Although I am speaking to you today as the director of the CIF, I would also like to tell you that I sit on the province’s regional economic advisory council for Queens County. I also chair the Comité consultatif de la communauté acadienne et francophone de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard, which advises the minister responsible, our premier, on the implementation and development of the French Language Services Act, as well as on any matters considered to be a priority by the francophone and Acadian community.
Despite the very official tone of this meeting, I would just like to tell you about some observations of mine in recent years. I have been living on Prince Edward Island for nine years, and soon it will be 10. I am from Quebec originally. So I would like to share some observations with you.
The topic is modernizing the act. Certainly, the act will soon be 50 years old. Fifty years ago, the term “immigrant” was not on everyone’s lips. The expression “cultural diversity” was perhaps not yet as current as it is today. This is a theme that I believe should be addressed, particularly in the new Official Languages Act. A lot of newcomers here have neither English nor French as their first language, and, unfortunately, they are often in francophone minority communities or in provinces outside Quebec that are dominated by the majority anglophone community. This is quite a pity for a number of them who come from member countries of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, for example, or from the Maghreb or Europe, and the like, who could certainly become integrated in French. But since we are talking about youth issues today, I am thinking particularly about their children, who could very easily become trilingual here in Prince Edward Island in particular and in Canada in general.
The law in Canada often looks like it has two heads. You are either francophone or anglophone. If you do not indicate that you want service in English or in French, you are directed to English right away. I feel it would be interesting to consider allophones a little more.
Another observation that I make in my work is that, when newcomers become permanent residents — though there have been some advances recently — I find that services in French provided in Canada, either federally or provincially, are not very well communicated to them. Although the act is under federal jurisdiction, after all, I find that, in terms of education and health, for example, a lot of work remains to be done. Unfortunately, we too often discover newcomers who have been on Prince Edward Island for three months or so and who are in anglophone schools because they were not aware that there are good quality francophone schools here on the island.
Along the same lines, I can tell you that schools and daycares really need to become more French, not just for newcomers and allophones, of course, but also for Acadians and children from exogamous families. We have one daycare in the province where the children have no francophone parents. So, at home, everything is in English. The parents, however — remember the emotional side that Stéphane was talking about — have that desire and they want their children to be able to speak the language of their parents and grandparents, so they raise them in French. I feel that, economically, being bilingual always adds value later, but that means that those children need to be exposed to more French in addition to childcare services. I feel that it could be possible, as the act is being modernized, to establish or plan funding programs to enhance the French nature of childcares and francophone schools in minority situations.
Another observation of mine, and this is changing the subject a little, is that our particular funding, for the Coopérative d’intégration francophone, comes from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, IRCC, and from the huge envelope set aside for settlement organizations. I think the envelope contains $600 million with, to my knowledge, no roadmap money. So, this year, the funding we received to help new francophone permanent residents on Prince Edward Island is only $50,000. It is difficult for us to work with that. There are a number of reasons for the draconian decline. The figures are based on data from the province, from each province, that are three years old. So I have less funding and my sister English-speaking organization, the PEI Association for Newcomers to Canada, also has less funding and, I think, in about the same percentage. The problem is that, to provide a basic level of service, you have to have a basic amount of money. It is difficult to have a local coordinator, activities, and everything else, with only $50,000. Of course, we are creative and we try to find money here, there and everywhere, but the fact remains that, with that amount, it is impossible for me to provide quality service to francophone newcomers here on the island. In the new act, I wonder whether francophone newcomers could be considered a priority. After all, they and the francophiles are the only way in which Canada’s francophone population is going to increase in the next years. So the lack of money is affecting the young francophone immigrants whom we are helping.
I have two other points. I wonder whether, when the act is being modernized, there could be some funding to collect data on the language. I am thinking about the health field. I know that it is actually in provincial jurisdiction, but there could be initiatives to improve the collection of data on the language used by users of health services and the like. I feel that it would encourage young people and the public in general to feel comfortable asking for services in French.
As my final word, I believe that the federal government must show leadership in ensuring an active offer in French. For example, I went into a federal building here in Prince Edward Island and the commissionaire was sitting there with a sign on his counter reading “English/Français.” He said, “Hi, can I help you?” I replied in French and it turns out that he was francophone. So perhaps it was just a reflex action on his part. I can understand that reflex action in all the rush of a work day, but I believe that federal government employees must be leaders and make an active offer at all times. That’s it. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Lemire. Mr. Arsenault, go ahead, please.
Jérémie Arsenault, Owner, Simple Feast Catering: Good afternoon, and thank you for this invitation. My name is Jérémie Arsenault. I come from the Évangéline region of Prince Edward Island, so I went to the school in Évangéline, which was one of the first French-language schools here on the island. Now we have six francophone schools. My mother and my grandmother were teachers in the little schools, so French is important in my family. In 1999, I moved to Charlottetown with my family for Grade 12. I could not go to the francophone school in Charlottetown, because they did not offer the same selection of courses. So I went to the anglophone school to finish my studies. I also did a distance learning course so that I would be able to go to the Université de Moncton. It was an obstacle for me to continue my studies in French. So, when I got to the Université de Moncton, I was not as strong in French as most of my friends from New Brunswick, who had been at French schools and who had lived and worked in French almost all their lives. We are isolated here in Prince Edward Island. It is a lot better now. Beforehand, you could not leave the village and do business in French. Everything was in English. Whether it was sport or any other activity at school, it happened in English. English dominated French.
I studied at the Université de Moncton. I also worked in the restaurant business, which is why I am now an owner, but my entire operation is in English. Most office work is done in English, as it even was in New Brunswick when I was there. When I came back to Prince Edward Island, English was even more prevalent.
I have worked in French a little in the community, but I have always been told that my written French is really mediocre. My written English is much better. That’s the reality in which I was raised. Most reading I do is in English. I have a business diploma in English. It was much easier for me and I really had no choice because I could not take business courses in French on Prince Edward Island.
When I was working as a waiter, francophone customers, from Quebec, New Brunswick or France, would often come back to my restaurant because I spoke French. As you can hear, I speak it very well, but you do not want to see how I write. Ten years ago, I remember, the National Hockey League came here for a rookie selection camp. Most of the coaches kept coming to my restaurant all week to be served in French. So it is much appreciated. Wherever I have worked, I have always noticed that service in French is much appreciated in the tourism sector. It is great to see the reaction on the faces of people who can speak their own language while all around are speaking English. It gave me the opportunity to make a lot of money as a waiter. It translated directly into dollars. It really did.
I have also done a lot of substitute teaching at school. In the past, you only needed one year of study. It gave me a lot of opportunities for work. Now I am a businessman. I work with francophone organizations and companies. I am able to provide service in French, but I am not able to provide full service in French. It is very hard to find bilingual employees. My wife works for the federal government here. She is anglophone and she learned French in an immersion program. She kept it up at university. Now, at home, she speaks to my son in French. Organizations like Veterans Affairs attract all the bilingual people on Prince Edward Island. As Stéphane was saying, it is really hard, even in daycares, to find bilingual employees and pay them only $11, $12 or $13 an hour, when they can earn $22, $23 or $24 an hour working for government organizations that often need staff.
That is the reality in my business. I have one employee who speaks French because of an immersion program. It is not for lack of trying, I have already been in contact with community centres, I am fully involved in my community. I have contacts, but I still cannot find bilingual employees. They are rare, and when you have them, you generally lose them because someone comes along with a better job offer and takes them.
I have a little boy who is two years old and I will have another one in five months. My kid is enrolled in an anglophone daycare. I tried a number of times to get him into a francophone daycare. About six months after he started at the anglophone daycare, I got a call saying that he had been admitted to a francophone daycare. But, as you know, once children are placed, it is not easy to change. We also both work, so we said no. I regret it now. I have been on another waiting list for a year and a half. It is a pity, because my little boy now speaks English 70 per cent of the time and French 30 per cent of the time. He understands it very well. I always speak to him in French at home, and so does my wife, but, for eight hours a day, he is in a completely anglophone daycare. It is a pity; it should be easier for me to put my children into a francophone daycare. In addition, it is not always easy to get books or activities in French for my children.
Something else I would like to see is more support for francophone entrepreneurs like myself who do business in English. As Stéphane said, the reality of our markets is that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of my customers are anglophones. As I mentioned, my written French is not as strong as when I speak it. At times, translation is very hard and it takes me a lot of time to make all my documents bilingual. I would like there to be some support for entrepreneurs who want to provide service in both languages. Just because you are bilingual, does not mean that you have the time, the money, and the knowledge to properly translate all your documents. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for sharing your personal story, Mr. Arsenault. You are right, we went to a restaurant last night and we were served in English. I asked whether they had a bilingual menu, something in French to help their customers, and the lady said, “No, we have nothing like that.” I asked her to suggest it to her manager. Anyway, it is just a matter of getting the message across that having service in both languages is important for the customers. So, well done!
I have to tell you that Mr. Arsenault was a finalist in the “Dragons’ Den” competition hosted by the Chambre de commerce acadienne et francophone, where a prize was awarded. So, congratulations!
It is now the time for questions; we will start with Senator Gagné, followed by Senator Moncion.
Senator Gagné: Thank you very much for your presentation and for the candour of your remarks. I found it very interesting. It brought to my mind that wonderful saying that it takes a village to raise a child. A village has a number of well-established areas of activity, and is capable of nurturing the development of a child, a family, and then the extended family.
You talked about the importance of early childhood education, immigration, and the ability to bring back young people who have left the province in order to pursue their studies elsewhere. You also talked about federal institutions, and their role in providing a range of services and in actively promoting official languages. I want to come back to that last point. I heard a variety of experiences; with the RDEE, you are part of a good national network and you can also deal with the federal government. You are funded by the federal government, if I understand your organization’s role correctly. I also gather that a number of francophones and francophiles are recruited by federal institutions here in order to help the public. In general, do you find that the service is actively offered and available at all times? Ms. Lemire, you gave an example that told me that the offer is not active. What is your impression of the service provided by federal institutions here?
Ms. Lemire: I must confess that it is pretty rare for me to need a federal service in person. On the few occasions when I have gone to the Service Canada counter, it was difficult to find someone bilingual or who spoke French. There’s a little story that happened to me this week. I wonder whether the same thing happens in the federal government as it does in the provincial government. For non-bilingual positions at provincial level, even if people speak French, they prefer not to say so because it is going to give them more work, especially in nursing, for example. If bilingual nurses say that they speak French, it will be too much work for them because they are going to have to translate — or interpret — in addition to caring for their patients. I am no expert in human resources at federal level, but I wonder whether it is because it’s too much work, lack of instinct, or a lack of commitment. Sometimes, it may be because of the higher-ups or the environment. At Parks Canada, you always get bilingual service. It is quite remarkable. I can send emails to Parks Canada on various situations in French or in English. It is incredible. They are great, but they are perhaps not the most important department that needs to be bilingual, in my opinion. I am thinking about justice and all the services provided in person such as at Service Canada. It seems to me that Service Canada should be completely bilingual because the service is for customers, for the public. But, again, these are observations. I cannot express an opinion or judgment. They are actually just questions that occur to me.
Senator Gagné: Would anyone else like to comment?
Mr. Arsenault: I agree with Jacinthe. It really depends on the organization. Often, I ask for service in French first. Either you get someone right away or you can wait two hours.
Senator Gagné: That is not “of equal quality” in my book.
Mr. Arsenault: No, not at all. As she said, I have done business with Parks Canada before, always in French. Same thing with Service Canada. I know some people who work in the office. Since I know them, I can get service in French, but in most cases, it is not possible. It depends on the organization, on the leadership. There are a number of problems: who is asking for what, whether it is a big human resources issue to provide better quality service, the salary offered, and the number of francophones available to help the public. There are probably more bilingual positions than there are francophones.
Senator Gagné: So, speaking of modernization, could the act be improved in order to strengthen this role of federal institutions?
Ms. Lemire: In my opinion, anything to do with customer service should be provided bilingually as much as possible, with no ifs, ands or buts, and with no waiting. For some other departments, perhaps it is less important or less urgent.
Senator Moncion: So I have some questions for Mr. Blanchard. You talked about the young entrepreneurs program that RDEE offers. Could you talk to us about RDEE’s programs for business succession? Could you also give us some statistics? I imagine you have businesspeople here who want to retire. So what business succession work is RDEE involved with? I will have another question afterwards.
Mr. Blanchard: A year or two ago, through the co-op model, we had people from New Brunswick come to make a presentation on business succession through a co-operative, which is being done more and more frequently in New Brunswick and in Quebec. It was one of the options they offered. Often we work case by case. If someone comes to see us with the idea of retiring, we will work on a case-by-case basis at that time. But it is one of the options we have offered to the public. It was Marc Henry, from New Brunswick, who was involved in the co-op movement. I also told you about Coopérative services jeunesses. We do a lot of work with the Coopérative de développement régional-Acadie, CDR Acadie, and also with Marc Henry, to show how the co-op movement can be used to pass on a business to the next generation. You should also know that the Évangéline region has been declared the world co-operative capital on a per capita basis. There are a lot of co-operatives for those who live there; it really is remarkable. So that model would be well regarded in the region, because it is a movement, a model, that is well known and well established here.
Senator Moncion: Do you have enough money for the activities you conduct as a provincial RDEE, or are you under-funded, like the other programs? For example, just now, we were talking about an immigration program funded to the tune of $50,000. You do not get very far with that today. Programs come with financial needs.
Mr. Blanchard: We have 10 or so employees at RDEE Prince Edward Island. We can’t really complain. The bulk of our work is often finding other funding to be able to contribute more to economic development. Of course, if we had more money, we could offer more programs to young people. Right now, I’m showing you three, but we do other things. We could do more, that’s for sure. Often, the sinews of war, the crux of the matter, is finding other sources of funding, applying for funding in order to be able to offer other programs. So it’s a never-ending quest, if you will, but if we had more funding, we could certainly provide more services.
Senator Moncion: Mr. Arsenault, did you use the services of RDEE to start your business?
Mr. Arsenault: As a source of funding? No.
Senator Moncion: Or even for human resources.
Mr. Arsenault: I had some support, a few meetings to guide me, and information on organizations that could perhaps help me financially. With respect to the “Dragons’ Den” competition you mentioned, anglophones have $200,000 per year to give out for the Ignition fund. On our end, we have $10,000 for one prize for three people. Let’s just say that being francophone did not help me have more funding than another entrepreneur. It’s the anglophone system. I contacted them, and they told me who to contact, but they did not have the funds.
Senator Moncion: Now, this is my last comment, I will give you a bit of information. You mentioned that you don’t have a lot of francophone resources for your children. Let me give you a website for them. It’s the Télévision française de l’Ontario, TFO, and there are a number of sites and sub-sites. There is one called Boukili and there are many others. There are a lot of books in French. The TFO website also has a section for children. There are videos in French. There are nursery rhymes and songs. With Boukili, children can learn to read. By registering, you will find all sorts of resources. It is exclusively in French. There are games too, all kinds of things for kids. There are also resources for adults, but they are especially for children.
The Chair: Senator Moncion is from Ontario, so she is promoting it.
Senator Moncion: She also sat on the board of TFO.
Senator Mégie: Thank you for your presentations describing your reality, your real life. We met with students yesterday, and they talked about the Jeunes Millionnaires, and I saw that you are behind that. Tell me whether this is realistic or not, but could the PERCÉ program be used now to give a boost to the childcare centres that are looking for resources? They told us about the underlying financial problem and the wages of employees. In the PERCÉ program, I saw the wording “financial assistance to the employers in exchange for an enriching experience.” Would that be possible?
Mr. Blanchard: Yes, it is absolutely possible. In fact, we have been encouraging it for a few years now. This summer, I think we had perhaps two or three educators who went through PERCÉ and worked in the daycares. The PERCÉ program is there for those kinds of people pursuing post-secondary education and wanting to have experience in their field. So yes, it’s entirely possible. Given the situation, as I said, we are already promoting it, and it is being done. You have read our minds.
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much for your presentations. They accurately reflect the reality of the Acadian and francophone community in Prince Edward Island. I have a few questions for the representatives from RDEE — I was going to say New Brunswick, excuse me, because I’m from New Brunswick — Prince Edward Island. How do the programs you put in place, Jeunes Millionnaires, Coop, PERCÉ, help shape entrepreneurs? Those programs are meant to promote entrepreneurship. We know that, in francophone communities, it has traditionally been a bit of a challenge to develop the entrepreneurial spirit so that it grows into concrete businesses such as Mr. Arsenault’s. What challenges do these programs face in shaping entrepreneurs and economically viable communities? How can the federal government also help with this economic development to ensure that, ultimately, all the efforts you put into RDEE are successful? I have a supplementary question to that. Mr. Arsenault talks about the challenges of managing his business in French. You say that much of what you do is in English, including the documentation. Does RDEE provide support to businesses to enable them to make the transition to managing their business in French? If so, what is it? That’s my first question.
Mr. Blanchard: Great, thank you. The Jeunes Millionnaires program has been around for 25 years. It celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary this summer and it is also available in English. In fact, the Central Development Corporation, the CDC runs the program, and we receive part of the funding from the CDC to offer it in French. Your question is what we can do. Unfortunately, we do not really keep track of the entrepreneurs, because it is a program for young people aged 12 to 17 or 8 to 16. So we do not have the funds or the resources to follow them once they become adults to see what could be set up to keep pushing them or encouraging them to start a business. That said, on the French side, we have the good fortune, the opportunity for our young millionaires to repeat the program for more than one year. As a result, they have the opportunity to upgrade their skills, to better understand the process from year to year, and to improve their business ideas. I think that’s a benefit for us.
For young francophones in the program, the first years may not go too well, but there are young entrepreneurs under the age of 16 who earn $5,000 or $6,000 in one summer. It’s quite impressive for young people who sell products for $1 or $2 each. So to answer the supplementary question as to what the federal government could do, perhaps if we had the resources to keep track of the young people we think have potential, it could be a win-win situation for both the francophone community and for the young up and coming entrepreneurs. So that might be something that could be done to ensure follow-up when they are approaching adulthood.
Senator Cormier: Before I ask Ms. Lemire my question, I have another question.
In small communities, with few francophones, one of the challenges for entrepreneurs, such as Mr. Arsenault, is to stay in touch with other entrepreneurs. Are there any francophone networks in Prince Edward Island? And outside, are there francophone networks in Atlantic Canada? Are there interprovincial networks?
Mr. Blanchard: In Prince Edward Island, our young millionaires are often invited to participate in sales events together. So, in that sense, yes. However, with other provinces, there’s nothing like that for this sort of program. In terms of the other program I am talking about, the Coopérative services jeunesses, we are working a lot with New Brunswick. Our cooperative facilitators will take the same training as the cooperative facilitators in New Brunswick. I think in New Brunswick, there may be seven or eight youth service cooperatives, as they call them. Our facilitators receive the same training at the same time as those in New Brunswick. As a result, there is some interprovincial exchange. I’m not making a suggestion, but if our young millionaires could meet with young entrepreneurs from other neighbouring provinces, that would be a great way to get them to learn best practices together.
Senator Cormier: I don’t mean to take all the time, but I would like to say this, if I may, Madam Chair. One of the issues provinces deal with in terms of assistance, which often comes from the federal government, is the ability to develop interprovincial projects, agreements that allow Acadians and francophones on the island to work with other provinces on structuring projects. In terms of federal funding, I think there are issues. This could be one of your suggestions for the modernization of the Official Languages Act. Perhaps you could suggest that there be an envelope to help support projects between francophone minority communities in the various provinces, because there’s not much money for that. In closing, that’s my suggestion to you, if you wish to do so. I will ask a question in the second round. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: That’s fine. You can think about it and come back with the recommendation following Senator Maltais’ question. Senator Maltais, please go ahead.
Senator Maltais: Thank you for your presentations.
Mr. Arsenault, you talked about a problem that is not easy to deal with in terms of childcare. I am trying to figure out where in our mandate we can place the role of childcare centres in minority language communities. Perhaps there’s a place, but I cannot find it. However, if you had a recommendation on that, could you put it in writing and send it to our clerk? You are not the only one to point this out; parents and teachers have done so. A lot of people have said it is a problem. Now, fixing it is a whole different story. Can it be settled just with money or with something else? I do not know. We would accept your suggestions on that. After the hearing, perhaps you could see the clerk for the committee’s contact information.
Mr. Blanchard, you are an entrepreneur. What sort of business do you have?
Mr. Blanchard: No, I am not an entrepreneur. I work in community economic development, but I’m not an entrepreneur per se.
Senator Maltais: Okay. I was under the impression that you were an entrepreneur. As for the 8- to 17-year-olds you mentioned earlier, what do you get an 8-year-old boy or an 8-year-old girl to do?
Mr. Blanchard: That is a good question. First, as I said, in June, before the end of the school year, just before Canada Day, we provide three information sessions in the span of that one month. At those sessions, we tell them how to start a business and what a business is. We’re really talking about the ABCs, the basics. At those three sessions, they are provided with a nice binder with good resources; everything is inside. It even tells them how to do a business plan. We work with them during those three sessions, and they will submit an idea for a business plan. We don’t tell them what to do. Most of the time, the young people who register have already thought about what they would like to do as a small business. To start their small business, they are offered a non-refundable grant — $100 for a one-person business, or $150 for a partnership business. With that money, they might buy the thread and beads for necklaces that they will make and sell at a festival. Our role after that is to find places for them where they can sell their products. Some of them also provide services. Sometimes young people may want to cut grass, paint fences, or something like that. So, what the 8-year-old kids do is up to their imagination.
In one of the sessions we offer, we brainstorm. We bounce ideas around. What can you do for $100? Everyone comes up with ideas. Even if someone came without any ideas of what they wanted to do as a small business, the workshop will enable them to think about what they can do. Sure, $100 is not much, and I think it has not increased in 25 years. I think it’s the same amount it was 25 years ago, so it’s not huge, but there are children who find ways. Their parents lend them some money that they will pay back over the summer. All sorts of ideas can emerge. They can always try to find money elsewhere, but most of the time, they find ideas that are not too expensive and they start their small business with the $100.
Senator Maltais: I have one last question, Madam Chair. Yesterday, we had the opportunity to meet young people at Évangéline school. I had three little rascals at my table who were very nice. Two of them were fishermen’s sons, and later, I asked them what they wanted to do, other than music and playing the violin, which they do very well, as they showed me. I said, “Do you have money to buy a boat? Your father’s boat? That is his pension fund.” They said, “No. The bank will lend us money.” Go to the bank right away, because banks do not lend money to fishermen. Is the transfer of businesses something you look at in your work? I mentioned fishermen. There may be other people, such as farmers or dairy processors. Is there a short-, medium- and long-term policy to help young people who wish to succeed their parents? Seventy-five per cent of the time, for parents, their company is their pension fund. They can give part of it to their children and sell it to them at a very reasonable price, as they say, but they have to have enough to live on, and they have worked all their lives to accumulate that. Does your organization offer something to help them?
Mr. Blanchard: As I mentioned to Ms. Moncion earlier, transferring the inheritance through the co-operative approach is an option. In terms of your question, I think we do, but as I said earlier, we have about 10 RDEE employees. I know the person who could give you a complete answer. But I do not have an exact answer for you.
Senator Maltais: I understand. I do not want an answer right away, of course. But could you support the young people who want to acquire their family business, because they don’t learn that in school? Could you give them the opportunity and say, here are the taxes, the company is worth this much, your daddy is going to sell it to you for a certain amount of money, he is able to finance it in part. Here is where you can find more money, because in the case of fishermen, we know that it is seasonal. It depends on many factors, balancing out the good and bad years. That’s actually what most of those young people need.
Mr. Blanchard: As I said, we provide those kinds of services. We provide services to entrepreneurs. I do not have concrete examples. It’s not really my area, but I know that Velma, who works with us, is involved in that. She does everything she can to help entrepreneurs. You make an excellent point; transferring businesses is important. In Prince Edward Island, we know that the fishing industry and the farming industry remain very important. That is not what I do, but I know that at RDEE, we will do everything we can to help entrepreneurs with the resources we have. We should also look into whether we could do a better job of providing the service or even provide it directly.
Senator Maltais: That is a service you could provide to the anglophone community.
The Chair: So if you can send us the information that the committee has requested or if you have anything else that comes to mind, we would be happy to receive additional information.
In response to a comment made by Senator Maltais about the place early childhood takes in the legislation, it seems to me that Part VII of the act is very appropriate when it comes to the federal government’s responsibility to ensure the vitality and development of communities. Of course, early childhood is the foundation for a good start and for building an identity, so I think it can very well be placed there. I think Senator Cormier wants to ask a second question.
Senator Cormier: Yes.
The Chair: We have 10 minutes left.
Senator Cormier: Very well. Thank you very much.
The question is for Ms. Lemire and it’s about all the issues around immigration. You have already given us some suggestions for the modernization of the Official Languages Act. You talked about the importance of cultural diversity and, of course, immigration as a whole to be taken into account in the Official Languages Act. You also talked about the inclusion of allophones who may be candidates, if I may put it that way, for francophone immigration in our communities. You talked about the failure to promote francophone communities, meaning that some allophones integrate into the anglophone community because they do not know that there are francophone communities. I would like to better understand the funding issue that you mentioned, the $50,000. As part of the modernization of the Official Languages Act, what should the federal government’s priorities be to help you increase the francophone demographics of the province?
Ms. Lemire: Thank you for the question. I would like to emphasize that the $50,000 we receive is for direct services to francophone newcomers. We have other amounts for other projects, such as indirect services. I coordinate the francophone immigration network in Prince Edward Island. We have other amounts for that. The provincial government is very much involved in our projects and our action plan. That said, in terms of settlement services, service providers mandated by IRCC are usually fully funded by IRCC. Those are really calls for proposals, not grants. What we really have is contribution agreements from the federal government. We are agents, if I may put it that way, of the federal government, mandated to provide settlement services to newcomers. So I don’t think it is normal that a settlement agency like mine has to take time and human resources to find money elsewhere to provide this service that is mandated by IRCC.
I feel that, as part of the modernization of the Official Languages Act, it is important to consider that it costs more in a minority situation to provide settlement services to newcomers or allophones who choose French as a language of use in Canada. Of course it costs more per capita to serve 35 or 40 clients a year than to serve 1,000. That’s normal. I don’t think IRCC is taking this into account right now, simply because we have no money coming from the famous roadmap, as I understand it. This may be a special situation, because we have a contribution agreement. We are in a network of institutions, but frankly, I think it’s absolutely unfair that we are treated in the same way as our sister organization, which has more than 1,000 newcomers per year, whereas we had 35 last year. We put in a lot more effort; the services that we need to provide take more time because we often have to be an interpreter. There are fewer services in French in our province, and we have fewer clients as well. So we make an effort to promote our services because we feel there is a gap when the federal government grants permanent residence to newcomers. They do not know that our organization exists, for example. There have been some improvements, but there is still a long way to go.
Senator Cormier: Am I to understand from your observation that the Official Languages Act should have more teeth so that the ministries that do not fall under Canadian Heritage are more accountable under the Official Languages Act?
Ms. Lemire: Whatever the issue, I am talking about immigration and I think it is very important that all other departments be more in tune with the legislation and, yes, respect it more. The legislation may prescribe certain things that are actually not followed on the ground right now. I have no examples to give you. I’m sure you already have some in mind, since you have more expertise in this than I do.
In fact, I talked about modernizing the act and about newcomers and cultural diversity, because, like everyone else, even anglophones, Canadians are evolving. Canadian society is more diverse and I think all newcomers to Canada, whether angolophone, francophone or allophone, should have the right and be encouraged to integrate into a francophone minority community.
Senator Cormier: Thank you, and thank you very much for your commitment to the francophone community of Prince Edward Island.
Senator Gagné: My question is fairly short. I just want to know whether the communities have been consulted in the development of federal programs. Are you consulted on that? Do you have an opportunity to comment? When programs are offered, do they address your situation effectively? Do they take into account your community’s unique character?
Ms. Lemire: I can tell you that, in terms of immigration, we have been consulted by IRCC on a number of occasions, before their call for proposals in 2015. We also attended a major conference two or three years ago, I believe. It was called Vision 2020. It’s for their next call for proposals in 2020. Yes, we are consulted, but not always as a francophone community. All settlement agencies are involved. All service providers were consulted, but the proportion of francophones is small.
Senator Gagné: I meant the francophone minority community specifically.
Ms. Lemire: Yes, to some extent, but I think the emphasis is more on consultation in general.
The Chair: Did you have anything to add, Mr. Blanchard?
Mr. Blanchard: Yes. I was also going to add that, in my involvement with the youth sector, I work a lot with Employment and Social Development Canada, ESDC. Recently, there have been many changes to the ESDC program, and we have not been consulted. To answer your question, no, not in that area.
The Chair: Before we finish, Mr. Arsenault, would you like to add anything?
Mr. Arsenault: I would like to add that I was in the Jeunes Millionnaires program for two years. I set up a greenhouse, a dog walking service, and things like that, but I also have to admit that there is no transition afterwards. I am an entrepreneur because my family members are all entrepreneurs, more or less. I am sure the program helped, and I was a partner. I think that’s all.
The Chair: In that case, on behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, I want to sincerely thank you for your presentations today. Thank you for taking the time to share your experiences and expertise with us, and good luck in your future endeavours.
We are now pleased to welcome three young people, two currently enrolled in French immersion programs and one graduate from a French immersion programs. We welcome Thomas Haslam, a student enrolled in a late French immersion program at an English-language secondary school in Kensington, Prince Edward Island; Katie Toole, who recently graduated from an English-language secondary school in Bonshaw, Prince Edward Island, where she attended the late French immersion program; and Victoria Gibbs, a student enrolled in an English-language secondary school in Little York, Prince Edward Island. Welcome.
These young people have already had some interesting experiences and they have been ambassadors representing their schools and province at various events, so we look forward to hearing from them. We will start with Thomas, please, followed by Katie and Victoria. After your presentations, senators will ask questions. Thank you for being here with us today.
[English]
Thomas Haslam, Canadian Parents for French: Good afternoon, honourable members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, fellow presenters, dignitaries and guests. My name is Thomas Haslam. I am a youth from Prince Edward Island and a high school student studying to become bilingual through the late French immersion program. Today, I have the pleasure to present my thoughts on how bilingualism has shaped my Canadian identity, the importance of bilingualism in our Canadian society, and how it has provided me with many experiences and opportunities through an active involvement in French language learning. Throughout my presentation I will use both French and English equally, so be prepared if I make a sudden jump.
[Translation]
As a Canadian, I believe it is a tremendous privilege to have contact with our Franco-Canadian culture and the opportunity to pursue French education and the goal of bilingualism. All my French skills came because of my social experiences and my education, thanks to the late immersion program offered by my high school. Before I was in high school, my experiences with the French language were minimal. However, as I got closer to graduation, I felt that my abilities and understanding had increased through my dedication and the support of my peers, relatives and parents.
[English]
An appreciation and understanding of the French language grants myself, and all Canadians, the amazing opportunity to feel and celebrate the cultures and values of our Acadian, Québécois, francophone and Canadian society. Both of our official languages are unifying factors across our great nation, and I’ve been honoured to participate in numerous events where I shared fellowship with other Canadian youth through bilingualism and gained exposure to the different facets of our country.
Having an ability to speak French totally enriched my experience at the Forum for Young Canadians as I could then effectively, fluently and informally engage with other students from every provincial, linguistic and cultural background.
Competing at the national level of concours d’art oratoire, I became acutely aware of the value of learning a second language, as I heard the varying levels of oratory abilities from my fellow, dedicated competitors.
Yet, the most impacting and inspirational event I have participated in has been the week-long immersive experience of Les Jeux de la Francophonie canadienne. My discipline is basketball, and I am very grateful to have represented my province, competed alongside such skilled athletes and artists and, above all else shared a week with those proud to say “I am a French language speaker.”
It is these opportunities, provided and sustained by the federal government, that motivate young Canadians to pursue bilingualism and mutually express their cultural identities to others. With these experiences, Canadian youth are exposed to the French language in a different intensity to perhaps that which they have previously encountered. By returning to their communities with newfound skills and aroused interest, participants of these public speaking competitions, student exchanges, francophone games and youth assemblies can further embrace the culture of their region and help promote the growth of the French language in their communities.
[Translation]
Looking forward, bilingualism is the key to the future of Canadian youth in our ever-diverse society. The French language and the English language are part of our heritage, and they are the linguistic foundations that indicate how we express our Canadian identity. So it is really crucial that we provide these ways of expression to our evolving society.
New and existing Canadians can benefit from this linguistic tool, in that it opens up a multitude of career or post-secondary education opportunities and provides a new environment for developing new friendships. It deepens our appreciation of our Canadian culture, but above all, it helps Canada to be a more cohesive, cooperative and supportive nation. The more Canadians share the advantage of being bilingual, the more our national vision could be unified and current. So, in my opinion, from the perspective of an anglophone, a student and a resident of Prince Edward Island, bilingualism is an influencing and really esteemed factor of our Canadian identity, and a Canadian value that will be maintained for a long time.
Bilingualism is achieved by exposing young people to it and by engaging their interests in their own francophone communities. For me, it’s Acadia. The French language is something that unites Canadians, their history, and promotes an appreciation of a comprehensive Canadian mentality. Thank you for giving me this time. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Thomas.
Now, Katie, please present your remarks. Thank you.
[English]
Katie Toole, French for the Future: Hello and good afternoon. I would like to start off by welcoming the committee to Prince Edward Island today, and I hope that the insight and what you are hearing today will help you in your discussions moving forward.
When I was contacted by the committee about a month ago, I began to think of where all my experiences in French started. That took me back to going into a late immersion home room in Grade 7 for the first time. My motives behind learning French weren’t necessarily what I would have considered nowadays.
Back then, as a 12 year old, I was thinking that the English standard program doesn’t really push me as much as I might like it too, so I will try something new. It will be an adventure, and I will get that certificate and that will make me look really good after high school.
But once I started French immersion, I really liked it. It was always pushing me to be better. It was something that I could do good at, but if I wanted to be great, I needed to work harder. It always gave me that extra motivation and challenge.
I also began to see a different side of things. Growing up as an anglophone, I had always experienced the anglophone culture, and that is something that was normal for me. I didn’t really think of anything else outside of that. But when I began French, I began to experience a little bit of the French culture — not a lot in the school system, but there was a little bit of it. That was really intriguing and different and something that we didn’t get exposed to a whole lot in the English culture. So that was something new to me.
One experience that I had to really discover the French culture was at the National Ambassador Youth Forum in 2015.
[Translation]
In 2015, I went to Moncton for a week to attend the National Ambassador Youth Forum, which was designed to expose young people to the French culture and promote the bilingualism of young Canadians, as well as to help young people to understand the French culture. We took part in activities, went to a tintamarre, and had a French-Canadian night where we really got to know the French culture. It was really important for me because it was the first time I had been immersed in the French culture. I was able to see how the life of francophones is different from ours, even though we are all Canadians. The life and culture are different, and that was something really good for me.
[English]
Which leads me to my next point. I was able to really identify with the culture when I was in that program. One of the questions I was asked when I was approached to speak to this committee is how youth identify with the language and culture of French, and the simple answer is that most don’t. Many immersion students, whether they start in Grade 1 or Grade 7 — or whenever they start — see it as a language only. They are just going to class for 75 minutes and writing tests and reading a novel, and then they are done with French for the day. Many do not want to continue with their French, even after high school, after going to either one or twelve or however many years because to them it is just a language.
Moving forward, I really think if we are going to give them a French immersion program, let’s really immerse them in it and give them not only the French language but the culture that goes along with it. How do you identify with a language if you don’t understand the culture behind it? Whether it is promoting groups that host forums like this or taking students to different French villages or whatever it is, we really need, moving forward, to help kids identify with this culture because we are going to have more kids continuing with their French after high school if they understand the culture better and feel like they are part of it.
I know that moving forward, if these kids continue with their French, they will be given so many more opportunities. I look at the opportunities I have been given, from attending that forum in 2015 to being hired as a first-year summer student at Parks where my day-to-day routine was working with both French and English visitors, transitioning back and forth all the time and being able to interact with anyone, not just saying, “Oh, well, I can only speak English, so I can’t help you, sorry.”
I never thought, entering a French immersion classroom in Grade 7, that I would be sitting here today speaking. There are so many opportunities, and they are endless. I don’t know what is going to come next, but I know that because I have my French, I will be able to tackle the opportunity.
To close, I would like to summarize my points. When I went to that classroom in Grade 7, I thought, “Well, I’ll get the certificate and if I keep my French, I keep it, and if I don’t, I have the certificate anyway.” That’s definitely not the way I think anymore. French immersion definitely gave me the chance to be confident and walk into a classroom and say, “You know what, I got this.” I’m always striving to do better. I’m striving to be better, but I have that chance to do it.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you so much, Katie.
Victoria, it’s your turn.
Victoria Gibbs, French for the Future: Thank you for having me today. I’m very excited to be here.
My presentation is mostly about the National Ambassador Youth Forum because that program is what really started to make me connected with the French language for the first time since starting the French immersion program in Grade 7.
[Translation]
In the summer, I took part in the National Ambassador Youth Forum, the NAYF, with French for the Future. The program completely changed my perspectives in French. Before the program, I had learned French with the goal of having a better job in the future and because my teachers and my parents said it was good for me. In reality, I was studying the language without reason. That all changed after the NAYF. I’ve had experiences in my life that gave me the idea that French was an afterthought for most Canadians. The same is true for people who have spoken French since birth, because in almost every Canadian province, we can’t simply choose to order a hamburger in French when you want to or decide to write a letter to a school board in French when you need something. It isn’t possible for most Canadians to live in French. I think it’s sad.
But do you know where you can do this? In New Brunswick. During my week at the NAYF with French for the Future, I lived with 23 adolescents from across Canada, and the theme was common. For almost everyone, it wasn’t possible to live in French in their communities or in their provinces in general, but I found that the youths from New Brunswick always said that it was a little different for them because they can live in French. New Brunswick is the only bilingual province in Canada, and I think New Brunswick is an example that Canada needs to follow.
The first step is to promote French for everyone, not just in schools, but in communities as well. This is something that I really learned at the NAYF with French for the Future, that if we can find ways to promote French in a way that everyone likes and in which everyone is interested, adding French to their lives becomes simpler; it is like a domino effect.
I think modernizing the Official Languages Act is the first step that can create a domino effect that will begin in communities and spread like a good virus in every province and across Canada.
Another important thing is to start making connections in French with students when they are younger. For students who attended an English-language school like I did from Grades 1 to 6, Grade 4 is a little late to start learning French, and for me it was only 30 minutes every three school days.
Experiences, whether games, conversations, videos, or something else, are the most substantial way to create enthusiasm among children for learning French and making them proud to live in a bilingual country, so that they can enjoy and understand their country’s full history. And that’s just a small part, a very small piece of the pie. There are many social and mental benefits for young people who know both languages, or at least have some understanding of a second language. In my opinion, every word you know in your second language is another benefit to you.
I love the idea of programs that promote a bilingual life for Canadians, such as the NAYF and French for the Future. I love the idea of modernizing the Official Languages Act because I like all the ways of promoting French in Canada. We have immersion programs, we have some activities at school sometimes, but it isn’t something that takes place in schools every day. We need to keep promoting French outside the classroom, because when students have finished French class, in the hallway, in the cafeteria, at home, I don’t know anyone who speaks French with their friends outside of class.
Finally, I would like to say that I know I have spoken a lot about young people today, and that’s because I think a more bilingual Canada must begin with them. I am very glad you decided to start with young people for this reason. Initially, I said that for four years of my life, I was learning French without reason. Now, I’m learning the language because I am a francophone, someone who is proud of her language and who loves French. Thank you very much for your time and for the opportunity to speak to you today.
The Chair: Thank you very much, and congratulations to you three for your presentations and, above all, for continuing to be interested in French and for deciding to enroll in these programs and in programs outside the classroom that have created this great motivation in you. So, congratulations!
Senator Cormier will ask the first question, followed by Senator Moncion.
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much for your presentations. If you all participated in this great event for ambassadors, we have the proof today. I think you are destined for brilliant careers, either as politicians or ambassadors, because you speak to us so eloquently of the values of bilingualism, the values of both official languages, and how being bilingual is enriching for you. So we get the impression when listening to you that, in fact, there is no problem in Canada when it comes to working in both official languages, since you present a very positive picture.
I have two questions for you. The first one is about culture, because you’ve talked a lot about it. What is your connection to the island’s francophone culture as Prince Edward Islanders, as anglophones in Prince Edward Island who are bilingual? You talked about enhancing francophone culture. What is your connection to the Island’s francophone culture? My second question is: If tomorrow morning you were appointed prime minister or the minister responsible for official languages, what would you do to make sure that more young people like you could speak both official languages?
Ms. Gibbs: For the question on culture in Prince Edward Island, I find it difficult to participate in French culture because it’s a bit of a hidden gem, in my opinion. It isn’t easy to find it here. I have friends at school who attended a French-language elementary school and, after secondary school, they decided that they wanted to do something that wasn’t at the French-language school, so they chose to attend an English-language school. They lost a bit of their culture.
I think the most important thing is to participate in the culture and be part of the culture and look for opportunities to speak with other bilingual youth. When you know that they are bilingual and don’t know much about French culture or have opportunities to participate in French in Prince Edward Island, you need to tell them that French is really fun and is something to be proud of. It isn’t something to learn in class and then forget afterwards.
For the second question, if I could change something or be a minister of official languages or something like that, I think the first step would be to promote French. As I said, I would like to find all the people in Canada who want to create organizations, activities, things that are in French, who are bilingual, who promote French, and I would take all these ideas. I would say, okay, we need to use these ideas. If there is an organization in English for something, we need the same thing in French as well. I think the first thing is for Canada to be a country where the proportion of French and English is 50-50, a mixture, not just French here and English there.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Ms. Toole: So for the first question, I'm in a similar situation. I don’t have direct ties to the francophone community. I am an anglophone, but I think I can influence the francophone community in Prince Edward Island and promote the French language. I have spoken to immersion classes at my high school. If you’re promoting French, you’re going to help the situation. There will be more people who want to speak French and want to be bilingual, and that is the goal. We want people to be bilingual and be able to speak both languages.
To answer the second question, I think that if I were prime minister, I would put a lot more emphasis on symposiums or organizations such as French for the Future or Canadian Parents for French or similar groups that want to promote bilingualism so that there are people who can speak French and English and be comfortable in both languages. So having more people who can speak both languages.
Mr. Haslam: Like the others, I’m an anglophone, so my ties to Prince Edward Island’s francophone culture are as an ally of my francophone and Acadian friends on Prince Edward Island. The way I support the culture here as a student of the language is by promising to speak the language.
[English]
Because I believe when you apply the French language outside of a professional setting or like a classroom, it allows a way for the culture to be demonstrated, because if it is never spoken, it’s a lot harder to promote the culture of its own language.
[Translation]
For the second question, if I was prime minister, I would probably try to put my efforts into the programs offered to new Canadians who come from francophone places, like the Ivory Coast and Congo. Francophone new Canadians and francophone existing Canadians who unite to promote French.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: Congratulations on your commitment to French. My husband calls it “the language of love,” by the way. What brought you to appreciate the language was having an experience that made you discover the language.
Senator Cormier and I have met with young people from across Canada and have facilitated roundtable discussions; the youths were from across Canada except for the Northwest Territories and Quebec, because Quebec doesn’t have a provincial Francophonie organization. Everyone told us that it was precisely the exchange programs and the experiences they had had in a group that made them discover a different Francophonie within the country, that you would recognize young people like you who were facing the same challenges. I would like to know what sparked your interest and made you say, “I want to learn French; I want to continue in French.” There has to be a common thread.
Ms. Gibbs: Do you want to know what the fire was when we participated in organizations, games and other activities? I think Thomas said it, Thomas or Katie, I can’t remember. Someone said that, in class, you could learn verbs, how to say something, the right vocabulary, but when you have experiences outside the classroom, that’s really where you have the opportunity to be immersed in culture. For me, it was when I realized that French is the same as English. It’s just another language. I can have the same experiences in both French and English. It’s a little more meaningful, because it’s a second language. The fact that I can have these fantastic experiences in another language is amazing to me because I can make connections in a second language or, as Katie said, we can help people with their work in English and French. I understood that French is not just something in the classroom, but a tool to use in my life in the same way that I use English every day. It’s something in your body, it’s the fire in you, it’s the French truth.
Mr. Haslam: My interest in learning really started in 2014, I think. When I was younger, I went to Encounters with Canada. My French skills were very limited then, so I was jealous when I heard other students speaking in French with such speed. They were proficient in the French language. So after that, I looked for opportunities to improve my French skills. It was really good to be in a circle that speaks French.
Ms. Toole: For me, whether it was in a classroom or in any other forum I attended, it was the passion in the people speaking French that amazed me. They were so proud of their language and culture. That always struck me. Oh, my goodness, they are so proud of their culture, their ability to speak French in the same way that they are proud to be able to speak English. I always thought that I wanted to be proud to speak both languages. I am proud to be an anglophone, but I also want to be proud to speak French; being comfortable in both languages. For me, it was the passion I saw in those people.
Senator Gagné: Young people who speak eloquently always inspire me. I would like to thank you and your parents for choosing to enroll you in an immersion program. As a Canadian, I feel it is a privilege to be able to meet you. You have a lot to offer. You will be able to contribute much to the development of the francophone community. You also have a lot to offer to the development of our country. So, well done!
I would like you to try to look into the future. Where do you see yourselves in five to 10 years? Will French still be important in your day-to-day life?
The Chair: That’s a difficult question.
Senator Gagné: In three years?
The Chair: It isn’t a test, so you can feel very comfortable answering it.
Ms. Gibbs: Could you please repeat the question very quickly?
Senator Gagné: What grade are you in right now, Victoria?
Ms. Gibbs: I’m in Grade 11.
Senator Gagné: What do you plan to do when you finish school?
Ms. Gibbs: I want to study psychology.
Senator Gagné: Psychology at the University of Prince Edward Island? Are you considering a French-language university?
Ms. Gibbs: I think I want to start at the University of Prince Edward Island, but I also want to study in New Brunswick. I hadn’t really thought about French-language universities until a month ago when I needed to talk about it. I want to continue my studies in French. Afterwards, I want to take a French course in something, but I don’t know if I’m capable of studying psychology in French. This is something I learned at the NAYF. I will see in Grade 12 before I choose a university. It’s an option because I’m bilingual. When Katie began late immersion in Grade 7, it was a challenge. It was something that pushed her in her studies from Grade 7 to Grade 12. I think that if I want to study something very different that isn’t offered at my school, that’s another challenge for me that may push me, as it did for Katie, who forced herself in Grade 7.
Senator Gagné: So you have invested a lot of time. All three of you have invested a lot of time into learning French. Are you worried that when you leave school, you won’t be in contact with the francophone community anymore? Is that a concern?
Ms. Toole: I'm in that position now. I finished high school, and I’m no longer studying French at university because of my program of studies. For me, the challenge is that I continue with French, that I am still able to speak French, because I have spent so much time on it for the last six years. Also, I now understand the importance of being able to speak both languages. So in 10 years, I know I will still try to speak the language. Whether it’s at work or watching shows, I will continue to speak French. In 10 years, French will still be important to me, and I want it to be important for my children one day.
Mr. Haslam: In 10 years, for me, I think I will have completed my university studies. Now, they are different francophone universities like the University of Sainte-Anne, the University of Moncton. They have different programs. As Katie said, I will also instill the value of French in my children. I will speak the language with friends and different francophone people perhaps across Canada. I don’t yet know where I’m going to live for the rest of my life, maybe not on the island, maybe in another province or another country, but I hope there will be a French influence in my life so that I can contribute to the French influence in my environment.
Senator Gagné: As Senator Moncion mentioned, French is the language of love, so there may be hope that you can continue to live in French.
Mr. Haslam: This has an influence.
Senator Maltais: Love has no language. Let me congratulate you on the work you’ve done to learn French. It’s a bit backwards, Madam Chair. Since we got here, we’ve seen people who are making extraordinary efforts to preserve and learn French because they are francophones, and we see anglophones who are making the same efforts, but to learn French. It’s a bit topsy turvy, but it’s the Canadian reality. A mari usque ad mare. I am impressed to see you because you are a very good representation of the Canada of tomorrow. We are in the age when computing is universal and instantaneous. We aren’t in a vacuum anymore. In 10 years, we won’t be Canadian citizens anymore; we’ll citizens of the world, and being citizens of the world means mastering a minimum of one, two or maybe three languages. What I would like to know from you is what your brothers, sisters, and friends you see every day do, knowing that you have a second language. Do you have any discussions with them? How does it work?
Ms. Gibbs: I don’t think I had conversations with my friends in French before this school year. Neither my sister nor anyone in my family knows French, but almost all my friends are in a French immersion program. So I have the opportunity to speak French with them, if I want to, but I didn’t for four years. When I spoke with other students in my class and my friends, it was just a joke. It was “hello, do you understand?” If I was talking about French classes, if I was walking down the hallway and happened to see a friend, and I said “hello” in French, I’d get asked why I was speaking to them in French. But this school year, when I started, because of the experiences I had during the summer, I began to speak in French with at least one of my friends. I had short conversations in French with a second friend, but one friend and I have been speaking in French half the time since last month. This is the first time I’ve had the opportunity for that. It’s funny. It isn’t like a French class where you’re asked if you know how to conjugate a verb, for example. It’s not just about the facts in French. These are questions like, “Do you want to go to the movies this week?” And “What do you want to see?” It’s like another world that I like to discover because I started learning basic French in Grades 4 and 6. I started late immersion in Grade 7, because I had so much to learn, but now I have the opportunity to live in French a little with my friends, and it’s new to me. I love discovering this world.
Senator Maltais: I think it was Thomas who said in his presentation that he didn’t just learn French, but that the language was tied to the culture.
Katie, what’s it like for you?
Ms. Toole: As I said before, my family is anglophone, but my parents have always focused on learning French because they know it’s the future. We want more people to speak French, and you can’t get a job these days if you can’t speak both languages. It’s always important in my family, in my home. They want us to learn French, so I’ve been in immersion programs. For my parents, you had to be part of an immersion program or take a basic French course or something like that so you could become proficient in the French language. Outside my family, when my friends and I were in French class, we took advantage of this opportunity to speak in French and use the language because we know that the French language is important in the future for what we will do.
While you were asking questions, I thought about the NAYF; I went in 2015. Even now, if I speak with someone who attended the program with me, if I want to send a message on Facebook or something like that, I send it in French. So, even if my friends don’t speak French to each other now, I have these friends who I can write to in French so that I can continue to use the language.
Mr. Haslam: It’s a bit difficult for me because, like the others, I live in an English-speaking community, and my friends, who are learning French in the late immersion program, speak English in and out of class. So every time I have a chance to speak French with my girlfriend, with people on Snapchat, people I’ve known from other provinces like Quebec and Calgary, I take the opportunity, which isn’t often. When I can, it’s really refreshing. It helps me to speak French outside the classroom. I really don’t often have the chance, but I like it.
Senator Maltais: Thank you.
Senator Mégie: Senator Maltais asked my question about your friends, but I don’t want to let you go without expressing my admiration for your choice to be bilingual. Your pride in being bilingual is obvious to us, and I congratulate you. But I have a small question anyway. If you go to Netflix to choose a film, would you be tempted to watch the French translation? This isn’t a trick question. Did you ever choose the French version of a film?
The Chair: Who can answer? Do you take the opportunity to watch films in French?
Senator Mégie: Or to listen to music in French.
Ms. Gibbs: In my French class this year, I started the early reading program. My teacher’s goal at the end of the two years is that everybody is able to answer the questions and read the paragraphs in French, as they do in English, and respond with the same level of language. She thinks, and I agree, that the best way to do this is to continue to speak French outside of school: practising French, listening to French, speaking French and reading French. At the moment, the only book I’ve read in French is a book I’ve already read in English, like Harry Potter. It’s a book I’ve read in English and started reading in French. For movies, I don’t think I have ever watched a movie in French. My teacher gave us homework every night, which was to do something in French for 15 minutes. I chose to watch a video in French and most of the time, every second night, on YouTube, I find an interesting video and watch it in French. Sometimes I use the subtitles if I think the people will speak very quickly, and I won’t understand. If it’s a cartoon, I try to watch it just in French without the English subtitles.
Senator Mégie: Little videos are still very good.
Ms. Toole: I’m much more comfortable with reading. I sometimes read an article in French. I like doing things like that. In terms of videos or programs, I have watched them in the past when I wanted to prepare for my DELF test or something like that. I used that kind of thing to prepare myself for the written part of a test. It isn’t something I do a lot, but I really like it and might do it more often if I had the time.
Mr. Haslam: I like Radio-Canada. I sometimes listen to Quebec rap from Montreal. I also have a small collection of Tintin books.
Senator Mégie: Very good.
Mr. Haslam: So I sometimes listen to French music or read in French.
The Chair: Bravo!
Senator Mégie: Very good, congratulations!
Senator Cormier: I would just like to offer a suggestion. You listen to Quebec rap groups, and there are some very good ones in Quebec and in France. Did you know there are some very good Acadian rap groups that do hip-hop? They are featured on the Radio-Canada, along with similar groups. You and others will no doubt be delighted by this, because there are a lot of cultural productions in French in the Maritimes. I encourage you to go see films, listen to CDs, and read. There are tremendous cultural offerings in French here, and that will give you some very interesting topics of conversation when you meet francophone Maritimers or francophiles like yourself who want to speak French. And CDs are often a good way of talking about love, on the topic of love.
The Chair: So you talked about the importance of culture in learning the language and the fact that experiences outside the classroom have really strengthened your interest and motivation to learn the language. I would also like to offer a suggestion. Have you considered doing part of your schooling and postsecondary studies in French? Victoria, you said you do not know if you are strong enough to do your psychology courses and studies in French. I can tell you that, in my former life, before I was appointed to the Senate of Canada, I was a professor at the University of Alberta. It was a francophone faculty. We had many immersion program graduates who did their studies entirely in French. They took their courses in French, did their B.A. entirely in French. They took psychology courses and did very well. After a month or two, it might take a bit of time to learn the terminology, but they did very well. Senator Gagné was the president of the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface and she could probably tell you the same thing.
So I do not think you should be worried about your skills. I think you can be confident that your language skills will certainly improve in the course of your postsecondary education. You could enrol in programs at bilingual or francophone universities or, if you continue your education in English, you could try doing some of your studies in French, perhaps through an exchange program.
Since the senators have no further questions, I would like to express our admiration once again. You are a source of inspiration to us, with your commitment and determination to continue learning French at school, but also outside the classroom and in the future.
[English]
I think there may be parents sitting in the audience or other members of the family. I want to say on behalf of all the senators how very proud you must be of the three who were here today, how well they have expressed themselves and how they represent the vision of Canada, and the one we seek, that bilingualism is a necessary asset for Canada’s world for the future. As we consider our role in this world of globalization, it is important to have two languages and sometimes three. These young people are really playing an important role and will continue to play an important role. I hope that you will continue to be models.
[Translation]
So thank you very much for being here and congratulations to the parents as well!
We will now continue our discussions and presentations about the youth component of our study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. We are very pleased to welcome francophone and Acadian youth from the Maritimes. We are very fortunate to have witnesses from all four provinces today!
We welcome Mr. Alexis Couture, Past President of the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française; Mr. Jérémie Buote, Deputy Chair of Jeunesse Acadienne et Francophone de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard; Ms. Sue Duguay, President of the Fédération des jeunes francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick; Ms. Mary-Jane Barter, President, and Mr. Gaël Corbineau, Executive Director of Franco-Jeunes de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador. What a wide range of viewpoints. Welcome.
I invite you to give your presentations. We will begin to the right and continue to the left with Mr. Corbineau. Then the senators will ask you some questions. Mr. Corbineau and Ms. Barter, please go ahead.
Mary-Jane Barter, President, Franco-Jeunes de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador: Thank you for inviting us. My apologies; I am really nervous.
The Chair: This is not a test.
Ms. Barter: Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Mary-Jane Barter. I am the President of Franco-Jeunes de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador and am accompanied by our executive director, Mr. Gaël Corbineau. First, we would like to thank you for the invitation to appear before you.
Our movement started in 1988 in response to a strong need among francophone and Acadian youth in the province to share communicate and develop ties.
Madam Chair, young people are often considered the future of our communities, but it is in the present that they must prepare.
Although there is a long-standing francophone presence in Newfoundland and Labrador, dating back more than 500 years, there have been long decades of assimilation and isolation. Fortunately, after the Official Languages Act came into effect over 40 years ago, we started seeing its positive impact, and our numbers have increased considerably in the past decade.
Much remains to be done, however, because Canadian society has changed since 1969, and so the act must also evolve. These changes include exogamy. The number of exogamous families is much higher now than in the past, when it was more difficult for the communities to associate for various reasons, including linguistic and religious ones. We can certainly be very proud to see these barriers between Canadians coming down, but at the same time, it is not conducive to practising and conversing in the minority language in those homes.
Since my time is limited, I will focus on the topic of education. French-language education in our provinces is a key topic. This education teaches us our language, but also and above all it helps us develop and experience francophone culture on a daily basis. Not all the provinces and territories are at the same level of development and, unfortunately, Newfoundland and Labrador seem to be at the bottom, and very far from having access to equal education.
We still face huge challenges with regard to school infrastructure and access to programs before we can achieve real equality. Since the focus of discussion today is federal, I would like to emphasize the need for the federal government to live up to its responsibility as regards the transfer of education funding. The federal government’s management of the official languages in education programs, the OLEP, has been very problematic to date, and this has been very detrimental to youth development. In Newfoundland and Labrador, hardly any money is invested in the promotion of cultural identity, even though this is a clearly defined part of the program. In some of the neighboring provinces, there is cultural identity officer at every high school, while we have a single officer for just a few hours per week, for all the schools in the province. Moreover, that person has only been in place for a few months.
At the same time, this year, Franco-Jeunes completely lost the small subsidy it received to help the provincial delegation take part in the Acadian Games. Year after year and up until last year, Franco-Jeunes received just 0.0005 per cent of the provincial OLEP funding, which amounts between $2,000 and $3,000 out of $4 million per year, a mere drop in the bucket. In 2017-18, we will receive nothing.
According to the brief presented by the Fédération des francophones de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador in 2016, whose study pertained to the management of the OLEP in our province, the provincial action plan accepted by the federal government is particularly unfavorable to the linguistic minority as compared to majority-language students. Moreover, despite its commitments, the provincial government has not carried out any of the consultations it had planned, and the federal government did not object.
It is not at all normal for the federal government to give a blank cheque to the provincial government like that and then completely turn a blind eye to what they are doing. We have been specifically told that education is under provincial jurisdiction and that the federal government cannot impose any requirements. I am sorry, ladies and gentlemen, but when I give someone money, I expect a service in return, and that is especially true if that service is not my responsibility. How can we continue to accept that the federal government does not require anything in return for the funding it provides for areas of jurisdiction that should be funded by the provinces? To be clear, I am not criticizing the transfer of funds to the provinces, but rather the complete lack of monitoring of the use of those funds for many years.
Senators, if the Official Languages Act can become more effective in the future, it is certainly by requiring the federal government to include linguistic clauses in all agreements with the provinces and territories, and that can only be done after consulting representatives of official language minority communities.
Since the federal government has linguistic obligations, there is no reason that the use of its funding should not also be subject to such requirements.
By creating leverage, that would greatly facilitate the development of our communities, especially our education system, but also other areas such as French-language health care services, another area that is very important and where the language aspect is completely overlooked in transfer agreements. Thank you, Madam Chair and senators. On behalf of all young people in Newfoundland and Labrador, thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mary-Jane. Your presentation was excellent; you had nothing to worry about.
We will now move on to Sue Duguay from New Brunswick.
Sue Duguay, President, Fédération des jeunes francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick: Thank you very much. Hello, honourable senators. My name is Sue Duguay and it is an honour for me to come to speak to you about a topic that I am passionate about, both professionally and personally. I am very happy to be here.
I am a graduate of École Carrefour Beausoleil in Miramichi, New Brunswick. It is a school in a community with a very large francophone minority. That is interesting because I was born on the Acadian peninsula, which is entirely French-speaking, but I moved to a more English-speaking area. So I have experienced both sides, which has given me opinions and perceptions that are different from those of other people. This fall, I just began my studies in French at the Université de Moncton, in New Brunswick. This is my second term as president of the Fédération des Jeunes francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick, the FJFNB. The federation represents all the students at New Brunswick’s 22 French-language high schools. We have approximately 8,700 members who are all students at those 22 high schools. We imagine a future where francophone and Acadian youth will be able to proudly assert their language and culture in society. We will be unveiling our program for 2017-18 next week. Our focus is on developing leadership among young francophones in New Brunswick, building their identity, and ultimately their commitment as citizens in their community, which is very important to us.
Today I would like to talk to you about the concept of language as we see it at the FJFNB, as our members see it, that is, more than a mere tool for communication. I was here when the immersion students were talking earlier. Their message was similar to what I want to say. There are some similarities.
The federation does not look at language simply as a tool for communication. It is a broad issue for us, which needs to be examined from various perspectives. It is a way of life, and I think it is in that sense that the Official Languages Act could be modernized.
I would like to present our view of language by talking about a concept I would call identity security among young people. This might be completely new to you, and that is normal, but there are similarities to what you have already heard, as I said. This does not come from major research initiatives or from a great philosopher — unless you consider me a researcher or philosopher, which is far from true — but these are things we experience at the federation. It is really what young people are telling us.
Identity security might remind you of another topic the committee has addressed, namely, linguistic security or linguistic insecurity, on the other side of the equation. Compared to that, identity security is a much broader concept. It goes beyond simply being able to converse in one’s language or one’s second language. Rather, language is seen as a vector for social, cultural and educational development, as well as socialization and even community involvement, which is so important to us at the FJFNB. For a young person, identity security could be defined as an environment that includes access to quality education, community involvement, and that allows for cultural expression, in one’s preferred language, be that English or French.
As you can see, we really take a holistic view of language. Language should not just be learned at school. It was terrific to hear one of the immersions students say that she learns the rules of grammar in class, but learns more than that about the French language. I cannot think of a better example. Quite simply, language must be experienced in order to truly feel the identity security that I mentioned.
I know that learning a second language is a different challenge, but I will focus in my presentation on one’s first language, because quite honestly, if a person does not feel that identity security in their first language, how can they work on a second language without that security?
To illustrate this, I will use myself as an example. There are young people who leave minority language schools and pursue their education in the majority language. At École Carrefour Beausoleil, in Miramichi, there was an English-language high school practically in our school’s backyard. To be sure, there were not many students at our school, but a high percentage of our students who went on to that English-language school were primarily anglophones. As you certainly know, this is in many cases all too typical of what happens in communities with a large minority. That being said, I think the lack of identity security can be attributed to young people switching to a majority-language school. Young people often experience poor socialization in their language, poor education or even not being able to participate in various sports or at their French-language school. This means that the student cannot develop in their language, leading to a lack of identity security which forces them to change to the other school system, for their own well-being.
I would like to point to the relationship here between the concept of identity security and the Official Languages Act. I would like to provide more detail on the very basis of the Official Languages Act, and on its purpose, which I will quote, as I do not know it by heart.
This is subsection 2 (b):
2 The purpose of this Act is to
—
(b) support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities and generally advance the equality of status and use of the English and French languages within Canadian society;
If you look attentively at the last part of that passage, it refers to the equality of use of official languages in minority communities. This is the simplest expression of the vision, and thus a utilitarian perspective on language. Let’s go back to that young person who decides to change schools and go to an English school because of an environment that does not support the security of his identity. That young person speaks and communicates in both languages. According to the Official Languages Act, he would be the poster boy for success. But is that really the case? Is that really what we want Canadian bilingualism to look like, that is that we be able to speak the language without the needed identity security for one’s first language? That is why I urge you, in your upcoming study, to adopt a broader and more inclusive vision of language and bilingualism, beyond the simple ability to speak and communicate, the vision we know so well, by ensuring that Canadian citizens can live in a context that nourishes their identity security. I will be pleased to speak with you during the question period. I thank you for listening, and for the attention you will bring to this dossier. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Sue.
Jérémie Buote, Deputy Chair, Jeunesse Acadienne et Francophone de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard: Thank you, Senator Cormier, Senator Moncion, Senator Tardif, Senator Gagné, Senator Mégie, Senator Maltais. My name is Jérémie Buote and I am the Deputy Chair (East) of Jeunesse Acadienne et Francophone de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard, the JAFLIPE. I am here to speak to you about the situation and future of official languages in Prince Edward Island, from my perspective and that of the people I’ve discussed this with. Both my parents are Acadian, but they were never registered in a French school because there were none where they lived.
In the 1950s, there were about 60 French schools throughout the island. Shortly thereafter, all of these schools were closed by the government. That means that French disappeared in many communities on the island, and that there was only one school left to serve the francophone population, in the Évangéline region. Those school closures accelerated the assimilation of a whole generation into an English environment. Today, only the residents of the Évangéline region are able to live in a majority French-language community. If you left this region, you lost the possibility of receiving a French education. After the creation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, people began to notice this. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states, among other things:
Citizens of Canada who have received their […] instruction in Canada in […] French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the […] minority population […], have the right to have their children receive […] instruction in that language […].
We now have six French schools in Prince Edward Island. During my primary years, I went to École Saint-Augustin. That small school is a good example of the minority francophone situation on Prince Edward Island. Following the Arsenault-Cameron ruling, the legal decision that led to the opening of a French school in Summerside, a group of parents in my region fought a battle to have a French-language school built in Rustico. In a pilot project, the École Saint-Augustin opened its doors in September 2000, and it obtained permanent status in 2003, without even having its own building. We rented space from a Lions Club, but that location became too small after a few years. Finally, in 2011, we moved into our own building, the Centre acadien du Grand Rustico.
As a French-language school student in an English community, I can communicate in both official languages with ease, just like the students in the many immersion schools throughout the island, such as those with whom you spoke today. Like everyone else, we have accents. Many students in the immersion programs feel shy to speak French outside their classroom, especially with those whose first language is French. Linguistic insecurity is a big problem here on Prince Edward Island, often felt by immersion students, but also by the French-language school students. Even in my French school, where we receive five hours of teaching in French, we always speak English in the school halls, and extracurricular activities exist, but are quite limited.
We feel embarrassed to speak with our accent, our French. In Charlottetown, it is often difficult to find services in French. Young workers who know how to speak French do not even say a simple, “Hello. Bonjour!” Moreover, bilingual services are rare except for Parks Canada. I also see a lot of young people who don’t realize that they have lost their French until they have to speak it.
As for the separation of cultures and official languages on Prince Edward Island, there are a lot of anglophones who celebrate Acadian culture. However, some of them are not open to the development of our language. Acadian culture, such as music, is very much appreciated on Prince Edward Island by both language groups, but natural dialogues are not common, they are like oil and water. The francophone cause has made enormous progress here, but there is still a lot to do on the ground.
Let me say a few words about JAFLIPE, which is the acronym for Jeunesse Acadienne et Francophone de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard. Previously, the name was Jeunesse Acadienne, and we changed it for a good reason. We often tried to engage young people and get them to join our youth activities in French, but they felt excluded for the simple reason that they did not feel Acadian. We did not like that. We wanted all of the young people who are able to communicate in French or identify with Acadia to feel welcome in our activities. And so in 2016, we added “et Francophone de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard” to communicate that wherever you come from, whatever your accent, there is room for you at JAFLIPE. With that change, we want to allow all citizens from 12 to 25 who speak French to live, flourish, and get involved in French.
Outside the walls of the school, I have seen that my friends who used to go to French school do not speak one word of French unless they are in school. And so I asked myself this question: how are we supposed to live bilingualism if we don’t even willingly speak one of the two languages? That is why I applied for the mandate to join the board of JAFLIPE. I want to change the environment for minority community francophone youth, to provide a French-language context, not only for our history, but also to highlight the usefulness and nuances of French, and provide opportunities to speak it.
Over the past 10 or 15 years, there has been a surge of popularity for the French language on Prince Edward Island. The major efforts made by community actors are starting to have a real impact on the ground. Increasingly, we see that there’s a reflex to include an Acadian artist in shows, and we see that French is used in the opening statements at political or other events. However, there is still work to be done for the two official languages to really be present in all of the spaces where they should be found. Whether we are talking about signage, access to services in French, social activities or jobs where French is the main language of work, there are still many gaps on the island, and our governments need to follow up to further our existing priorities.
To go back to the issue of the use of French outside the classroom, the committee must take into account the importance of the actors who do the work in the field. For several years, JAFLIPE and its network have had trouble finding sufficient programming to stimulate adequate socialization in French to maintain the interest of young people in the francophonie. Whether it is comparing the choice of courses in French and English schools, access to sports networks in French or in English outside of the school, or to clubs and activities in the region, it is easy to see that the majority can easily be more attractive to young people.
As I mentioned earlier, JAFLIPE is working to allow young people to live, flourish and get involved in French. For several years, we have been receiving core provincial funding of $55,000 to $65,000 a year, in addition to ad hoc projects that require more time and energy from the employees who are there. How can a provincial employee provide support to youth in six regions with that core budget? In addition, the organization has trouble receiving ongoing support from regional community centres, since they do not have the reflex of involving young people in their vision or governance process, and their activities target families and very young children.
And yet there are a lot of funds granted to our province for official languages in education through OLEP, the Official Languages in Education Program. For some time, our organization and the Commission scolaire de langue française de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard have been attempting to determine how those funds are used by the province, but we have yet to receive any replies. Even though this is public money, we see that there is no accountability as regards the use of these funds. We presume that these funds that should be used to help young people learn the minority language do in fact exist, but are lost somewhere in the government apparatus.
And so JAFLIPE wants to ask that the committee in its work examine the issue of the real use being made of these funds that are supposed to be used to support the teaching and learning of official languages in minority environments, in order to identify the grey areas that greatly affect people’s capacity to act in the field.
I hope that with the changes to come in official languages, you will strengthen support programs, and ensure that the clear message is conveyed to young people that French is not only useful in school, but everywhere else in life. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Jérémie. Our last presentation will be from Alexis Couture, Past President of the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française.
Alexis Couture, Past President, Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you very much for this invitation. It’s a pleasure to be here with you today, to share with you a perspective that is somewhat different from that of my colleagues, whom I congratulate for their excellent interventions. A few years ago, I was in their place myself, and I now have the advantage of a few additional years to present a somewhat different context from the one they gave you today in their testimony. I am a lawyer in my daily life; I enjoyed reading the Official Languages Act attentively in order to frame my comments today in the legislative context you work in.
I would like to begin by referring to certain points my colleagues evoked earlier with regard to the Official Languages in Education Program, OLEP, in reference to the programs that already exist in the context of the Official Languages Act, and, in particular, as to the need on the part of the federal state to be more aggressive and more vigilant with regard to its funds, but also with regard to its programs.
Through the Official Languages Act, of course, the country has given itself the mandate, or Parliament has given this mandate to the country, to promote official languages, to promote education in both official languages, and to execute that promotion through concrete tools. Those tools are offered among other ways thanks to federal funds. Unfortunately, in several provinces and territories, those funds disappear as though into a grey fog, and we don’t know exactly who is benefiting from funds that should be devoted to the development of our official languages.
From a more technical perspective, I would also like to underscore the importance, in the context of this evaluation of the Official Languages Act, of communicating well what the act does, as well as the obligations of the Canadian state that this law has created. I am thinking particularly of the delivery of bilingual services in airports, for instance. If you have had the opportunity — and I presume you have — of reviewing the criteria governing which airports are to provide service in both official languages, it is a veritable labyrinth of criteria and conditions, and it is not surprising that many Canadians, when dealing with federal government offices where it is more difficult to have access to services in French, do not understand why that is the case. However, there is a legislative framework around this that is hard to understand, and also not very well known. And so I think it is important that you transmit that information, but also that you examine those criteria to see whether today, 50 years later, it might be advisable to extend the scope of the legally mandated delivery of services in both official languages, in order to better meet those needs. We know that the sufficient numbers criterion is one of the ones that is used, but perhaps the number could be reduced so that more Canadian men and women may avail themselves of these services.
Finally, I note in Part VII of the Official Languages Act that the state has given itself the mandate of encouraging businesses, labour-management organizations, volunteer organizations and others to provide their services in French and in English, and we see that efforts have been made. However, once again, I think that the state could play a bigger role here, in particular with regard to employment equity in both official languages, in order to further that aspect in the private sector.
Now that I’ve covered the somewhat more technical elements, I would like to tell you about a terminology challenge I came across during my years in youth organizations in New Brunswick, as well as at the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française, at the national level. I think the term Sue used, “identity security,” is extremely helpful because what we are seeing more and more are young people who see themselves as bilingual or francophone, and those definitions, in my view, pose a challenge. The challenge arises when, seeing ourselves as bilingual, for instance, we aren’t sure which cultural reference to associate with. We don’t quite know which identity box we fit into, and the Official Languages Act, whose objective is nation-wide bilingualism and which promotes individual bilingualism, also seeks to facilitate the development of official language communities. These communities are rooted not simply in a language, but also in a culture. When we identify as bilingual, do we not really mean that part of our identity is Acadian, for instance, while the other part is tied to the New Brunswick anglophone community? This is a different challenge, one where anglophones, for the most part, have not yet found a name for their provincial identities, which are not the same as those of the francophone minority.
When we consider the act and the way in which it is structured, we see that it may be appropriate to establish a new legislative framework for the second component, that is, the development and promotion of communities. When we talk about bilingualism, at either the national or the individual level, and we combine it all with the cultural and identity components associated with the community in need of protection and development, we are essentially mixing apples and oranges. Not to mention, we are also creating a context where, for a number of organizations and institutions, the mandate becomes less clear and more difficult to fulfil, one for which they do not necessarily have the resources.
When Jérémie brought up the core funding received by JAFLIPE, I was struck by the amazing ability of youth organizations to do so much with such paltry amounts. I used to be president of the FJFNB, and when I began my tenure in 2008, our organization received $150,000 in core funding a year. Today, that amount is $155,000. Nearly eight years or, rather, a decade later, the funding has barely gone up. Despite that, however, the organization’s profile and work on the ground have skyrocketed, and the number of requests received has risen as well. What changes when we talk about identity security is that young people want to open themselves up to the other official language community. They want to engage with people in the community, they want to share their experiences. They are well aware that when people make a connection between the language and the culture behind it, they develop more than just language skills. They develop a genuine love of bilingualism and an understanding of its importance, and those who have appeared before the committee today are excellent examples of that. Young people want to share their experiences, but in order to do so, they need a context that gives them a sense of identity security. That way, when they reach out to the other community, they will lose neither themselves in that contact, nor their reference points, culture, tools or resources.
With that in mind, I want to recommend that you return to the origins from which the Official Languages Act emerged: the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, known as the Laurendeau-Dunton commission. Today, in Canada, we talk about multiculturalism, and I believe other factors also come into play, but the idea of biculturalism got a bit lost in the Official Languages Act. It may therefore be time for the federal government, for you as parliamentarians, to introduce a new legislative framework that is specifically designed to address the development of minority communities. That comprises not just official language minority communities, but also the country’s First Nations and Indigenous communities, who would benefit from a legislative framework that promotes the development of their identity and culture. It’s important to distinguish between the delivery of services under the Official Languages Act and nation-wide government matters such as these, by truly targeting the community level with a new legislative framework based, first and foremost, on the need to ensure the protection of official language minority communities, because that is the foundation.
What we saw today is that the situation is extremely different in three provinces, and yet, they are neighbours. If we were to examine the situation out west, we would find equally different realities. Communities, then, have their own unique needs, but they all need the same protection. Once we have a framework ensuring the protection of the communities, we need to consider their vitality and development of their full potential. This would be, in my view, the second pillar of the new framework: enhancing the vitality of the communities. It may then be appropriate to establish an asymmetrical approach to the measures that are proposed and put in place in response to communities’ needs, given that the communities of Rustico, Caraquet and Port au Port, for instance, do not all have the same needs. Taking a cookie-cutter approach to each of them is not the way to go; instead, the process that is adopted should serve to enhance their vitality and give each one of them the tools they need at the various stages of their development.
Lastly, the third pillar would focus on contact as well as dialogue and sharing, giving communities specifically dedicated tools, resources and funding to engage and share with one another. That capacity is crucial because it will build the foundation for a stronger country, a higher level of individual bilingualism, and a better understanding of the need for nation-wide bilingualism.
I am from New Brunswick. You are no doubt aware of the fact that province-wide bilingualism in New Brunswick is the target of hostile and occasionally excessive attacks by those who do not understand why it is necessary or how it benefits the province. Often, these are people who have not had the privilege of engaging with the other community and thus understanding it; that includes First Nations communities, which I know very little about. I regret my lack of understanding and ignorance of those communities, but I want to know why I was never given the opportunity to engage with them. Why did we never have the opportunity to get to know one another better? Having a new framework separate from the one that deals with nation-wide bilingualism could lay the groundwork for a better understanding of our founding communities, thereby promoting the benefits of stronger nation-wide bilingualism.
Let’s discuss Part VII of the Official Languages Act, because, like any decent person working with official language minority communities, I never lose sight of Part VII. People often say that the federal government has obligations under Part VII, but they have not really read Part VII and therefore aren’t certain as to what those obligations mean. It may be time to remove Part VII as a part of the act and incorporate it into a new framework aimed at promoting the full development of our official language communities. Doing so would help bring us back to the original purpose of the Official Languages Act and, to the extent possible, realize the full potential of the pact between nations that is Canada.
What is the role of youth in that context? Young people are the best ambassadors to perform these functions. An example I was given that stuck with me — one in which I was unknowingly an instrument — is recycling. There was a time back when no one recycled and a decision was made to begin recycling because it was important. Where did it start? With schoolchildren, and I was among that first group of schoolchildren who were taught the importance of recycling. When we came home from school, we told our parents about the importance of recycling. We were transformed into tools to help the environment. We have here a number of generations of eloquent young people who have worked extremely hard; they are ready and willing to play the role, not just to protect their community, and ensure its vitality and full development, but also to bridge the gap between the different communities. They are able to serve as the conduit through which an understanding of the other community truly develops. Young people can serve as the vehicle to ensure that, going forward, the country’s various official language communities and founding communities get to know one another better, understand one another better and work together more effectively.
They have a tremendously important role to play in this regard, but we simply can’t assign them the role and tell them to do it immediately, as we pile more onto their plate. They have to have the tools and resources necessary. Youth organizations across the country have shown that they are more adept at leveraging every single dollar invested than the vast majority of community-based organizations. I say that from experience. They are incredibly efficient, incredibly relevant and incredibly valuable. Thank you.
The Chair: I would like to thank all of you for your compelling presentations. I have no doubt that your remarks have given the senators plenty of food for thought and questions. We will begin with Senator Gagné, followed by Senator Mégie.
Senator Gagné: We saved the best for last. Great work! Wonderful! I’m extremely impressed by your eloquence and commitment. I am profoundly appreciative of your input and inspired by your words. Many things came through loud and clear. I certainly heard the importance of promoting equal-quality development of schools in the communities, development that contributes to young people’s socialization. Ensuring that extracurricular activities are possible to foster that socialization is key. I also heard how important it is to communities that they be consulted and that the federal funding handed over to the provinces actually go where it is supposed to go. Also discussed was the importance of making French-language services mandatory in our communities.
We hope the federal government will be able to modernize the Official Languages Act. The act is 48 years old. Our charter of rights and freedoms guarantees the protection of linguistic minorities. Is it normal that, as members of the francophone community, we should always have to turn to the courts to compel the federal government to respect our rights? We are talking about an act that has been around for 48 years. We have an act and a charter of rights and freedoms. Is it necessary to take the government to court in order to have our rights respected? How do we acquire the teeth we need to ensure the act is applied through regulatory mechanisms? The regulations often limit the scope of the act. I’d like to hear your thoughts on that. Alexis, you can go first.
Mr. Couture: That’s a great question, and one that is very timely for me given that I am currently on the board of a community organization that is considering legal proceedings against the federal government. As you can see, then, the question is quite fitting.
I think what is unfortunate here is that, within the government apparatus itself, there is still no recognition of the importance of official language minority communities and the support they should receive. The form that support should take is often misunderstood. It is frequently assumed that the support should be limited to serving the client in their preferred language, when there is a much bigger picture to consider. When we talk about identity security, most of the criteria Sue mentioned are the same as those used to measure the vitality of official language minority communities.
In terms of how to ensure a stronger approach, we can start by toughening up the act, replacing terms such as “encourage” with “require” and using terminology that is much stronger than “encourage” and “enhance.” Another possibility is to give the Commissioner of Official Languages a broader mandate, one that would cover not just the power to evaluate, recommend and occasionally criticize, but also the authority to intervene and take action at the federal level. Every one of my fellow witnesses mentioned it: we operate in a federal context with powers divided between the provinces and federal government. We have to find a way, however, to give the federal government a bigger say over how provinces handle official languages matters. I don’t have the answer in terms of what all that should look like, but I think a good start is to examine the existing act and take a hard look at the areas where, half a century ago, we were prepared to support and encourage action and, today, make that action mandatory.
The mandate of the Commissioner of Official Languages should also be revisited. A new commissioner should be appointed in the very near future. Indeed, the fact that the position has basically been vacant for a year now underlies a major problem I am sure you can appreciate. It is time to consider whether the next commissioner should not also be given enforcement power when it comes to the actions of federal departments and agencies.
Senator Gagné: Thank you. I’m not sure whether anyone else would care to comment.
Ms. Duguay: The question may seem somewhat technical to someone who is not a lawyer, but to break it down a bit, from where I am standing the federal government often may be getting attacked because people do not understand. Alexis said it, people in minority situations cite Part VII, but they do not necessarily know what it is. It is part of their identity security that I have been talking about. If only they could understand the power they have for this language, whether French or English, the strength it has, not just in terms of bilingualism, that it is important for them to become attached to their language and realize that the government is here and that there are committees like this one that have been created to consult them. They have the right to speak. They need to speak. It goes hand in hand with civic education, something that is very important to the FJFNB, and having informed citizens who know their rights and know that they have the right to ask as well. I say that people attack when they feel a need to be defensive. When people do not understand they want to defend themselves and they end up attacking. Animals tend to do that, but so do humans. When we feel attacked, we attack back. That is my take on this. We need to educate people. That might sound silly, but speaking about our school it starts with young people, as Alexis said. It starts in early childhood, but we are really focusing on young people that we target at adolescence. That is when social development happens. That is when a person learns how to become a citizen or should learn how to work as a citizen. Education is very important at this stage.
Senator Mégie: Thank you for your testimony and your concrete suggestions. I have two questions. I have a shorter one for Jérémie. I would just like to know whether changing the name from Jeunesse Acadienne to Jeunesse Acadienne et Francophone produced the desired results. For example, did the number of members increase and did the number of members who usually felt excluded increase in your group?
Mr. Buote: In my first events, when we were still called Jeunesse Acadienne, there were enough people, but then when we changed the name to Jeunesse Acadienne et Francophone de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard, I noticed that there were more new people. There were people younger than 12, who were attending their first event and they were more engaged. Now, they knew it was more than just a group of people who ate pasta and played violin. Before when I would ask a young person, “Hey, do you want to come to a super awesome Acadian youth event?” they would say, “No, I’m not Acadian. I don’t think I could be part of the group.” I would say that it’s not just Acadians who attend, and they would say they would think about it.
Senator Mégie: That’s good. That’s interesting.
My other question is for Alexis or Sue, or both, because when you talked about identity security you talked about the need to develop a framework to consolidate this aspect in the individual, the citizen. Besides federal government funding, are there other ways for the federal government to establish this framework?
Ms. Duguay: I think that my favorite expression — and I use it a lot in the youth network — is that there is no use reinventing the wheel. We have agencies, we have the FJCF at the national level, and every province and territory has similar organizations for working with minorities and youth organizations, except Quebec, which also has systems in place. We met with them to work with their active youth. Nunavut does not have a youth organization. In any event, the wheel is there. We have systems, and I know that what I’m proposing is new ideology, a new way of thinking, but the organizations are there with missions, mandates, and visions that target what the government would want to see for its citizens. It’s not about creating a framework. It’s about structuring that framework, adding some nails and glue to it.
Senator Mégie: Okay.
Ms. Duguay: I would say that everything’s in place.
Senator Mégie: Okay.
Alexis, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Couture: I would add that it is harder for the federal government to intervene directly in people’s lives because of the authority it has. It goes a bit further. To me, when we talk about identity security there are a number of stages: early childhood, family, school, post-secondary as well. There is room for federal government intervention through various existing programs. I think it’s a matter of ensuring that the right players have the right tools and that when the federal government implements a structure or programs that support these different stages of development it specifies where the money should go, but also what approach should be taken for this funding and these programs that are put in place. It is important at that level and I think that I can elaborate a bit. Under the previous Harper government there were a lot of directives tied to the funding that supported youth organizations. Under the federal government’s evaluation criteria at the time, it was important to have a bilingualism component and for both communities to interact. This was done in a context where there were no additional resources, therefore this additional component had to be included to the detriment of the organizations’ initial mandate, which was already hard to fulfill with the means available to them.
When these programs are evaluated we have to make sure that the evaluation meshes with the objectives, such as identity security for example. At the time, it was not in the best interest of the official language minority communities to force everyone to engage in bilingual activities without additional resources and without thinking that through.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: The thing I admire in all the testimony we have heard so far, whether in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, or from your point of view as a lawyer, your legal perspective, is the element of francophone advocacy that you all have. Each one of you has identified some very important things. For example, for Newfoundland, you talked about education in French, infrastructure and funding for educational programs. Then, Ms. Duguay, you talked about identity security and everything that goes with it. Jérémie also talked about identity security, but more in the sense of implementing programs and you gave us many suggestions on how to frame the legislation. Now, within the federal government, when we look at the implementation of that framework in each of your areas, what I often hear is that you want more money to help put the programs in place and that it is also about frameworks and follow-ups. How can you help us bring all that in a tangible way to the federal government level? We can produce a report, but in a tangible way, when it comes to tools, how can we bring this to the federal government so that it listens to your needs and concerns?
The Chair: Mr. Corbineau.
Gaël Corbineau, Executive Director, Franco-Jeunes de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator, it is interesting because in your question you brought up additional funding and the fact that in many cases, there isn’t necessarily a need for additional funding. The current funding needs to be used, if I understand you correctly. OLEP was mentioned a number of times.
I believe that Mr. Couture described a foggy environment. Back home we like to say that this is used to pave the way. Clearly it’s not enough when you look at the state of our roads. When it comes to OLEP in particular, the whole problem boils down to reporting the true usage of funding allocated to francophone communities for first language French. This is a real issue. Let’s hope that the next agreements will improve. We are hearing good things about this, but there is a problem with reporting and the federal government’s obligations, and the entire issue of transfers between the federal government and the provinces. That has been raised already more or less. I would like to address the issue of youth a bit. A very interesting precedent was set this year outside the area of language — or I see it that way — having to do with federal health transfers. Negotiations were held and if you recall, the provinces were not very happy with the federal government’s direction. When Prime Minister Trudeau imposed certain directions, and I am thinking about the area of mental health in particular, the provinces had to abide by that. Why isn’t that the approach to official languages? Why health in particular? There is no linguistic provision in the transfer of funding even though that would save money. The better a patient is cared for in their own language, the better prevention and treatment work because the patient has a better understanding of dosages and other treatments. Then there are fewer health problems because as everyone knows, the longer treatment is delayed, the more expensive the care costs. In some cases it really isn’t about additional funding. It is about simply directing the funding better to ensure that it is used properly, including in education.
I thought the health debate with the provinces was very interesting. I thought to myself, it is great that we are doing this for mental health, but why not do this for official languages? There you have it. I’m not sure if I answered your question, but that allowed me to come back.
Senator Moncion: In fact, when you talk about using funding, you are talking about federal-provincial transfers and the accountability related to the funding, and what the provinces do with the funding. The funding is not always directed to your organizations. It might be used elsewhere. When you ask for accountability you are looking for an explanation for how the funding is spent. Even you, in your dealings with young people, do not have access to that funding because often there are other organizations that get the funding that was earmarked for you. There is that whole side of things. No follow-up is done, so we will make recommendations to the federal government with regard to official languages. However, concretely, how can we make sure that you get the money in order to put in place the programs you need? You talked about $50,000 or $55,000. You talked about $150,000. The amount has not increased in the past seven or eight years. All these things point to the fact that it becomes a habit to hand out funding without any follow-up measures, for example. Aside from following up there is also inflation to consider when it comes to all these projects. There is a lot of activism among young people. There is commitment and by all accounts everything should work, but then we realize that there are plenty of obstacles involved. We will make recommendations, but we need to know how we can ensure that you have access to funding in order to move forward with your projects.
Mr. Couture: I believe that it is important to try to eliminate politics from the allocation of funds. In the case of federal-provincial transfers, there is also the issue of how funds that come directly from the federal government are spent. The legislation is obviously the main framework, but then there are the regulations and the programs developed to implement the legislation, and they are often somewhat of a black box. We are told, “We took the criteria in the legislation and now we are creating a program with our own criteria.” We do not know how this transition happened. I believe that one thing that could be extremely useful when revising the legislation would be to shed light on this black box by consulting the communities about program development.
Community consultation is often done at a very high level. For example, one year ago, Minister Joly held consultations on the official languages roadmap, or whatever one wants to call it. There was one table, we had one hour, and there were 30 people. That does not constitute extensive consultation. Everyone had the time to say, “Hello, I am from such and such organization and my main point is this. Thank you.” There needs to be a better mechanism for clarifying what happens in this black box where the government applies the criteria and develops the programs. That will give us an opportunity to ensure that the program meets the needs of the communities for which it is intended. I think that would be a good first step.
Senator Moncion: And if you, the young people, had that money, what else would you do?
Ms. Duguay: That is a terrific question. I love those sorts of questions. I will quickly tell you. We have some fantastic projects. Incredible things are being developed in every province. I will use the example of New Brunswick so as not to encroach on the projects of others. There is the project Accros de la chanson, which is a singing competition in its fourteenth year. Some artists got their start at this competition. Les Hay Babies participated in this competition as did Lisa LeBlanc and Pierre Guitard, who just won the Festival de Granby. When the proposal for this project was submitted many years ago, we received funding for it. However, it is an annual event which does not receive funding. We have the money for basic operating expenses, but there is only so much we can do and young people are asking for more.
This year young people are interested in entrepreneurship. Thus, in addition to managing more than one major project like Accros à la musique, managing our federation, and managing young people’s new ideas, we have to do all this with the same amount of money that Alexis was receiving when he was president. We have the same funding now that I am president, and we continue to manage the good projects that were proposed back then. However, we do not want to give up on projects that are working so well because we are a springboard for emerging artists. There are many projects like it. It is not the only one. If we had more money, we could definitely continue to expand projects such as that one. There would be no limits. We could also work in a larger area.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for your presentations. I will curb my enthusiasm given the close ties established with all of you over the years through my previous endeavours. However, I do want to reiterate my colleagues’ comments about the richness, pertinence, and precision of your interventions.
I would like to take a closer look at Mr. Couture’s proposed legislative framework. If I have understood correctly, there is one part of the Official Languages Act that actually addresses the issue of services and individual bilingualism, and it is a stand-alone section. You would take out that entire section, which would be like Part VII, and it would become a new legislative framework with three elements: protection of communities, development of communities, and contacts and exchanges. It seems to me that the protection and development of communities are already covered by the Act. What I would like to know is how do you think it would change? Furthermore, you mentioned First Nations when speaking about contacts and exchanges. I believe that all Canadians recognize the importance of promoting indigenous languages, which are not official languages. What do you believe would be the context for including this dynamic in the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Couture: In fact, that is exactly why we perhaps need to remove these matters from the Official Languages Act. Bilingualism is what Canadians automatically think of when the Official Languages Act is discussed. I don’t believe that the development of communities is the first thing that comes to mind when we think of the Official Languages Act. For example, in New Brunswick, we make that distinction with the Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities, which was later enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We could do a better job of making that distinction.
It is not a matter of taking out all of Part VII. Paragraph 43(1)(a) states the following: “…enhance the vitality of the … French linguistic minority.” In my opinion, this could serve as a framework in and of itself, and that is how we can reach out to indigenous communities, for example, without necessarily getting into the debate about whether their languages should be official languages. I am not commenting on that today. We need to differentiate identity and community from the language issue, and make the distinction between language as a vector of cultural exchange, the cultural competence, and language strictly as a technical skill. I think that is where we would benefit from making the distinction clearer and giving each one the resources and tools that are really needed. Individual bilingualism can be developed through immersion, but strengthening the development of a community requires a language school. Immersion does not have the same function. I believe it is important to distinguish between the two to ensure that we have a framework that will allow us to fully attain the objectives in these two areas.
Senator Cormier: If I may, people would benefit more concretely from all aspects of contact and exchange. You spoke about the conduit and the role that youth can play. Earlier, witnesses highlighted the issues. They spoke about schools, immersion schools, French-language schools, and of the issues connected with the loss of the francophone identity when one associates too much with the anglophone majority. What are your thoughts on that? How do you envision it?
Mr. Couture: I believe that Sue talked about this. She spoke about having a secure identity and the need to ensure that the groundwork has been done so that when we come to this third pillar people are ready to make this contact and to meet. To do that, we need strong communities and an entire network. Basically, when young people come into contact with other young people, they must not have the impression that they have fewer resources than the others. We often see that in communities in a very minority situation. Young people ask themselves why their school does not have a basketball team, an art program, or why all “advanced” courses are given via videoconference. When that contact occurs, we must ensure that we don’t make them want everything that the majority enjoys and propel youth towards the majority. We must ensure that these young people are comfortable, that they have a secure identity that allows them to have that contact, to appreciate what happens in the other community, and to share and perhaps bring back to their own community the best of what they have experienced.
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much.
Senator Maltais: Thank you. I was hoping that you would not forget about me. I would like to thank Mary-Jane, Sue, Jérémie, and Alexis—who is quite at ease in the courtroom from what I can see—because there is something remarkable about you: your passion is reflected in your eyes, your language, and your culture.
Jérémie, you were wondering where the money goes. I, too, wonder about that. About 14 or 15 months ago, Minister Scott Brison appeared before our committee. The chair can tell you that I asked the following question: “Where does the money go?” Across Canada, francophone organizations in minority communities are complaining that they do not have the money allocated to them by the federal government. So, I asked the minister if someone was keeping track of the money. He answered that there was not, but that he was working on legislation and that a bill would soon be introduced whereby the provincial governments that did not account for the money would have their funding cut off. As Alexis said, it is well and good to help organizations, but if they do not receive the money the federal government does not understand you, because it knows that it disbursed the money. Thus, there is an intermediary channelling it elsewhere. It is simple. There you have it. Of course, there are the infrastructures. I certainly agree with that. But we at least need to know. If your school built a gymnasium with funds allocated for official languages, you should know about it.
Support for organizations is the key to the very vitality of language. Here, we are talking about French language and French culture. For some time I have been dreaming of one thing. I come from Quebec, and, as you know, Quebec is the only province where French is the official language. There are not two, there are not three, there are not four. In discussing the official languages, Alex pointed out — but I do not want to dwell on this — that when referring to indigenous peoples, we use the term “peoples,” which is the plural form. I do not know how many there are as I have never counted them, but there are many. The Acadians are one people. You are the first. As far as I know, Roberval did not come to Vancouver. He went to Acadia. The aboiteaux were not built on Ste-Catherine Street in Montreal. They were built in Acadia. Your people were dispersed, not by you, not by choice, but you are a people and I believe that until you devote yourselves to being recognized as a people — It took some time in Quebec, it took 450 years, but I believe that we could really help you in that regard.
Jérémie, I was very impressed by your presentation. I don’t mean to pry, but could you tell us your age?
Mr. Buote: I’m 15 years old.
Senator Maltais: Fifteen! Hats off to you, young man.
You’re very committed, very professional, and you are too, Sue and Mary-Jane. If people like Alexis planted seeds of French when he was your age — people like your parents, grand-parents and great-grand-parents — then this is harvest season. Now, the language will have to be nurtured, which will be your challenge over the coming years. I’ll ask you no questions since you have already answered them, and you were very thorough in your briefs.
I’d like to touch on one last point, that of the power of the official languages commissioner. He doesn’t have the power to purchase dustpans. He has the power to criticize, to complain, but that’s pretty much it. He prepares massive reports every year or two. He makes these massive reports that no one ever reads — not even himself, I suspect. The government and the media talk about it for a day or two and then that’s it. That’s not what we need. We need a commissioner that has the power to act, which he does not at the moment, and that is why we will eventually have to reopen the issue of the commissioner’s powers as part of a review of the Official Languages Act. It is essential. You said so yourself, quite rightly. If a 15-year-old says so, then how can a bunch of old senators not do the same? Thank you very much for your testimony. It was very informative. Thank you very much.
The Chair: I know it's getting late, and senators have been in a public hearing since 8 a.m., but no one has mentioned the issue of broadening. For example, in Prince Edward Island, I know you’ve just passed a new French Language Services Act in which the definition of “francophone” has been broadened to include those with a common knowledge of the French language, and not just those for whom French is the main, spoken official language. Do you think it would be important in the context of an upcoming review of the act to broaden its definition of the concept of “francophone”? Jérémie.
Mr. Buote: Yes. I personally believe that francophones are not just those whose mother tongue is French, but also those who learned the language later in life, at any age. I believe it is very important that we also include those who want to learn French.
The Chair: Okay, then. Everyone is in agreement? Yes.
Mr. Corbineau: The notion has no choice but to evolve. Why should I not have the right to English language services in Quebec, and why should a francophile in Newfoundland not have the right to French language services? On top of everything else, the numbers help us determine not only what services to offer, but also the required funding. I apologize for returning to this topic. Ours has obviously dropped. In Newfoundland in particular, there are 10 times more francophiles in St. John’s than there are francophones and people who are officially bilingual. The events we organize, in our youth centres and elsewhere, attract a great many people, and we don’t have the means to accommodate them all. When we find a way to do so, it is without resources, so the definition of a francophone that is used to determine what resources to allocate will certainly have to be reviewed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: This isn’t a problem, but you asked a similar question to the one I was meaning to ask on the issue of broadening the definition of “francophone.” Actually, maybe what I have is more of a comment than a question on the impact of this potential broadening on the issue of identity security. As far as I’m concerned, this raises a whole bunch of questions on the pillar of contacts and exchanges. How do these spaces take into account the difference between someone who identifies as a francophile and someone whose mother tongue is French? I think that the francophiles we have met speak the language quite eloquently, but they do not talk about it the same way as actual francophones whose mother tongue is French, and whose language is deeply rooted in a wider culture.
Though I don’t have the answer, Madam Chair, the point I’m trying to make is that I believe the notion of identity security to be extremely interesting in the context of a renewal or modernization of the Official Languages Act. I can’t help but think of you and your association, Jérémie, to which you added the words “francophone and Acadian.” I’ve had discussions about this in the past, and it’s an important question; you made an important decision, because in the end, when I talk about your association to French-speaking friends, they hear “Acadian and francophone association” and wonder why Acadians are not considered francophones. Should we then broaden the definition of what an Acadian is in the current context or would that be denying them their identity in order to make them fit into the definition of a francophone? Simply put, if I’m taking up the committee’s time at the end of the meeting like this, it’s because I believe this issue of identity security to be extremely important. I will keep those comments in mind. I will also keep in mind those that deal with federal-provincial agreements, and also the whole notion of asymmetry. Indeed, there is an asymmetrical application of the Official Languages Act in the various provinces and regions, and I’d like to close by thanking you sincerely. What more can I say? I’m very proud to be a part of this community. Thank you very much.
The Chair: As you can see, senators are feeling inspired by your speeches today. You have our most heartfelt thanks. The wealth of relevant information and innovative ideas featured in your presentations didn’t go unnoticed. I believe you’ve given us a new perspective on things. You talked about this new way of thinking of language and of the act in terms of identity security, which is great stuff, really. We’d heard about linguistic insecurity many times. You then turned the question around and introduced the notion of identity security, which will certainly spark much debate. There was the issue of reviewing all of Part VII and establishing a new legal framework for Part VII by distinguishing between individual bilingualism, supporting the development of language communities and enhancing their vitality — the three pillars. These are truly valuable and useful suggestions and recommendations for the committee’s work. We appreciate them a great deal. We’re very proud of all of you, and we thank you for your commitment and your passion.
This brings today’s hearing to a close, at the end of a very insightful day on the theme of youth and the modernization the act. We were right to start things off with youth; you all proved that today. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)