THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, October 23, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5 p.m., to continue its study on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act.
Senator Rose-May Poirier (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Good evening. My name is Rose-May Poirier, and I am a senator from New Brunswick. I have the pleasure of chairing this evening’s meeting.
Before I turn the floor over to our witnesses, I would like the senators to confirm whether they all received the clerk’s note regarding the transcript of the September 8 round table.
We therefore have the following motion on the floor:
That the committee agree to adopt the transcript of the round-table meeting held on Friday, September 8, 2017, in room 9 of the Victoria Building; and that the work conducted at that meeting be considered committee work pursuant to the order of reference on the modernization of the Official Languages Act.
Senator Maltais: I so move.
The Deputy Chair: Support for the motion by all the senators is noted, and the motion is agreed to.
I would now ask the committee members to introduce themselves.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Bovey: Patricia E. Bovey, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: The Standing Committee on Official Languages is continuing its study on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act. Today marks the official start of the second stage of the study: the perspective of the official language minority communities.
The committee will hear testimony from two organizations on this stage of the study.
[Translation]
This evening, from the Commission nationale des parents francophones, we have with us Véronique Legault, President, and Jean-Luc Racine, Executive Director. From the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, we have Lise Bourgeois, Co-Chair, and Lynn Brouillette, Acting Director General.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here today. Ms. Legault, you may go ahead.
Véronique Legault, President, Commission nationale des parents francophones: Madam Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and honourable senators, as president of the Commission nationale des parents francophones, or CNPF for short, I would like to begin by thanking you for inviting us to appear before the committee today.
I am a parent, the proud mother of two daughters: a 12-year-old in Grade 7 and a 10-year-old in Grade 4. Both of them attend Halifax-area schools in Nova Scotia’s Conseil scolaire acadien provincial. My family and I have lived in the Halifax area for a year now. Prior to that, we were in Cape Breton, a more rural area with a different set of challenges.
Jean-Luc Racine, Executive Director, Commission nationale des parents francophones: Good evening. My name is Jean-Luc Racine, and I am the executive director of the Commission nationale des parents francophones.
Ms. Legault: We are delighted to be here to share the views of the CNPF on three important issues. We will be discussing the strategic agreement we signed with the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, or ACUFC, and the Réseau de développement économique et d’employabilité, or RDÉE Canada. At the same time, we will speak to the issue of early childhood education from the standpoint of the country’s francophone minority communities. Next, we will address the strategic agreement struck by the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne and our organization. Lastly, we will discuss the modernization of the Official Languages Act.
The CNPF is the national voice of 12 provincial and territorial parent organizations, as well as all francophone parents engaged in helping their children and families thrive in their language and culture. It is important to bear in mind that parents are the first educators, caregivers and cultural minds to whom their children are exposed.
The CNPF is active at every point of the education continuum, working to support francophone parents in the educational process, from early childhood to post-secondary development. We do that through a variety of initiatives and with the help of numerous partners. On September 25, we were thrilled to sign a strategic agreement with the ACUFC and RDÉE Canada to partner on the issue of early childhood education.
Not only is early childhood development a vital part of the education continuum, but it is also the gateway to it. Fewer children in francophone daycare means fewer francophones in the entire education continuum. Early childhood education is therefore paramount to the development of healthy and dynamic minority communities.
According to the latest census data, more than 54 per cent of parents who are rights holders enrol their children in English-language daycare. It has been shown that those parents would have preferred to enrol their children in a French-language daycare but ended up having to choose the English-language system because of a lack of francophone daycare spots. The fact of the matter is that francophone daycare centres across the country are overloaded. Some have up to 300 children on their wait list. In fact, that is the situation in the Halifax area right now.
We compile the experiences and feedback of people on the ground, and it is clear that, once a child has been placed in English-language daycare, the chances of that child integrating into a French-language school afterwards are very slim. That’s the case in Yellowknife, which currently has 18 francophone daycare spots but approximately 50 children on the wait list. The head of the Commission scolaire francophone des Territoires du Nord-Ouest recently told us that, if he managed to enrol two or three children who were on the wait list in junior kindergarten, that was a lot.
A number of factors explain why we have so much trouble meeting the francophone demand for early childhood education. Of course, one of the biggest reasons is the shortage of human resources or complete lack thereof. I’d like to give you an idea of just how serious the problem is: last year, in Prince Edward Island, they thought they were going to have to close two of their six daycare centres because they didn’t have enough staff, even after mounting a recruitment campaign in Quebec and outside the country.
The CNPF is therefore extremely glad to have signed this agreement with the ACUFC and RDÉE Canada. By joining forces and working together to expand the availability of early childhood education services in French throughout the country, we hope to promote the value of early childhood educators in francophone minority communities.
This past summer, we were also thrilled to sign a strategic agreement on education with the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne.
For decades, French-speaking parents in minority communities have fought to have French-language schools. In the 1980s and 1990s, it was also the parents who led the fight for full recognition and complete management of homogeneous school boards. That is why we are so glad to have signed a strategic agreement with the Department of Canadian Heritage and our school and community representatives; it allows us to expand our efforts to help francophones obtain everything they need to fully manage their schools.
One of the things the strategic agreement does is strengthen the consultation clauses of the Protocol for Agreements for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction so that minority-language school boards are consulted. For too long, the consultation process has been inadequate vis-à-vis federal funding transfers to the provinces and territories for minority-language education. It is essential that francophone communities be consulted before decisions to allocate funding to francophone school boards and their community partners are made. The agreement was established with a view to encouraging the consultation of francophone parents and communities through school boards. We are very much looking forward to participating in the consultations. Parents care deeply about their children’s education and intend to have their say during these consultations.
We are also very pleased that the agreement between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the three national organizations seeks to improve accountability mechanisms, in particular by providing more details about the use of federal funding and by ensuring that the reports are made public.
For far too long, it was impossible for our school boards and communities to know where federal funding for francophone education in minority communities was really being spent. Francophone parents are hopeful that the signing of this agreement will mean more transparent reporting so that they can clearly see how the provinces and territories are spending the funding for their children’s French-language education. While recognizing provincial and territorial jurisdiction over education, francophone parents believe that the Department of Canadian Heritage has a legal obligation to the country’s linguistic minorities and, therefore, a duty to acquire all the information necessary to ensure that funding for francophones in minority communities indeed goes to those communities and truly meets their needs.
Mr. Racine: I am going to take over and speak to you about the modernization of the Official Languages Act. Like the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, we believe that the federal government should show greater leadership when it comes to the implementation of the Official Languages Act. From the standpoint of francophone parents, the current efforts to implement the Official Languages Act are basically a series of half-measures and compromises so that the federal government can have its cake and eat it too without, above all, causing any inconvenience. Instead, those efforts should be aimed at truly respecting the objectives of the act. Although certain institutions implement the act diligently, it is clear that many take a minimalist approach, seeming to subscribe to the imperative of doing just enough not to break the law. Others, still, fail to meet even the minimum requirements.
As you no doubt saw in the office’s recent report, the official languages commissioner flagged a simply unacceptable state of affairs regarding the delivery of federal services in both official languages. Not only do francophones receive French-language services in just 75 per cent of federal offices designated as bilingual, but they also receive an active offer of services in no more than 25 per cent of those offices. The active offer is a vital part of the effective implementation of any official languages legislation. This situation is completely unacceptable to francophone parents. How can they not think that the federal government is doing the bare minimum to provide services in both official languages in the country?
Canada, however, is ready and willing to fully implement the Official Languages Act. Public opinion has come a long way over the years. Surveys commissioned by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages in 2006 and Radio-Canada in 2007 clearly showed that the vast majority of Canadians now recognize the added value of linguistic duality and citizens’ rights to receive service from the government in the language of their choice.
We strongly believe that, from the outset, substantial changes in governance are needed when it comes to the implementation of the Official Languages Act. As we speak, the Department of Canadian Heritage is unable to make other federal institutions implement Part VII of the Official Languages Act. The structure in place puts that responsibility squarely on the shoulders of a single department, the Department of Canadian Heritage. It is time to revisit the previous structure, under which implementation of the Official Languages Act was, first and foremost, the responsibility of the Privy Council Office. If that were the case and the Department of Canadian Heritage were no longer in charge, responsibility for the act’s implementation would rest with an organization higher up the government ladder.
Furthermore, ultimate responsibility for implementation of the Official Languages Act should fall on the Prime Minister. That is essential in our view. The Prime Minister should be responsible for embodying the spirit of the act, promoting it and ensuring its full implementation. We also submit that greater importance should be attached to the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages. The recommendations often go ignored, so the commissioner’s powers should be strengthened. Would it not be possible to give the commissioner the authority to impose sanctions on federal institutions that contravene the Official Languages Act, or to recommend such sanctions?
I have one last comment regarding the regulations. We have a duty to go beyond the figures. The current regulations governing the implementation of the Official Languages Act rely on complex statistical formulas to identify where francophones in Canada live and which federal offices are required to provide services and communications in both official languages. This creates confusion among francophones when they try to figure out which federal office in their region has an obligation to serve them in their language. A francophone community cannot be reduced to a number of individuals or a percentage. If a region has a French-language school, a cultural centre or a community centre, it clearly has a community supporting that institution. The regulations, then, should take that factor into account. The resulting calculation would and should be much more inclusive.
Those are a few recommendations that could go a long way towards improving respect for and implementation of the Official Languages Act. Our organization’s president and I would be pleased to answer your questions afterwards. Thank you.
Lise Bourgeois, Co-Chair, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, and President, Collège La Cité: Madam Chair, on behalf of the board of directors of the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, or ACUFC, Lynn Brouillette and myself, Co-Chair of the ACUFC and President of the Collège La Cité, I would like to thank you for inviting us to appear before the committee. To begin with, I will share with you the views of the ACUFC and its members on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. Then, Ms. Brouillette will speak to the strategic partnership the ACUFC entered into, on September 25, with the Commission nationale des parents francophones and RDÉE Canada, in order to increase the availability of French-language early childhood education services.
I will start with a quick overview of the ACUFC and its membership. The ACUFC represents 21 francophone and bilingual colleges and universities, all of which are located in French-speaking communities outside Quebec. The ACUFC works to expand access to post-secondary education in French to ensure a real French-language education continuum — from early childhood to post-secondary development — is available throughout the country. In addition, the ACUFC coordinates the Consortium national de formation en santé, or CNFS, and the Réseau national de formation en justice, or RNFJ, collaborative initiatives in health and justice, two service areas that are essential to our communities.
The ACUFC views the modernization and implementation of the Official Languages Act as priorities, given that the ability of Canada’s francophone community to reach its full potential hinges on respect for the act. As the latest census figures show, the French language is in decline in Canada, despite experiencing a growth around the world. That reality directly affects the vitality of francophone and Acadian communities and deprives them of the linguistic security they are entitled to.
Last year, in preparation for the 2018-23 official languages action plan, the ACUFC submitted recommendations to the federal government in order to address this challenge. The recommendations put forward innovative solutions at the structural level to foster lasting systemic change, while addressing community needs and government priorities.
By supporting and strengthening the network and capacities of the post-secondary institutions of the Canadian francophonie, they could better support the federal government in the implementation of its vision and official languages obligations, and in fostering the development of communities.
However, when we talk about post-secondary initiatives contributing to the development and vitality of our communities, we must remember that education is under provincial and territorial jurisdiction. However, the federal government can set its own objectives to advance the development of minority francophone communities. Under Part VII of the Official Languages Act, and as stated in paragraph 4(2)(g) of the Canadian Heritage Act, one of the areas of jurisdiction of that department is:
(g) the advancement of the equality of status and use of English and French and the enhancement and development of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada;
To that effect, post-secondary institutions can be instruments allowing the federal government to meet its obligations. One example is the support the federal government has provided since 2003, through Health Canada, to the initiatives of the Consortium national de formation en santé, which allows for the training of a larger number of health professionals in the post-secondary institutions of the Canadian francophonie. This contributes to increasing the offer of quality, safe health care services in French, as well as the development of minority francophone communities.
Those are some of the main changes we would like to see in the context of the modernization of the Official Languages Act. Clearly, the modernized act must include the adoption of a more flexible and broader definition of the population of the francophone minority, one which will not only take into account the spoken mother tongue. We must also go beyond the quantitative aspect and take into account first and foremost the vitality of communities, including the vitality of institutions like post-secondary educational institutions. In addition, we believe a central secretariat must be created at the Privy Council Office, which would be responsible for official languages and the full enforcement of the Official Languages Act, as was the case from 2003 to 2008.
Finally, the important change which ACUFC and its member establishments recommend is the development of a new public policy. The purpose of that public policy would be to strengthen the capacities of French-language colleges and universities in Canada, and to increase their impact in the human, social, cultural and economic development of their communities, and of Canada as a whole.
Today, we wanted to present our perspective and our main objective in connection with the modernization of the Official Languages Act, that is to say the development of a new public policy. In the course of the coming year, we will also table a brief presenting the changes, measures and detailed amendments we will put forward.
Thank you for this opportunity; I will now yield the floor to Ms. Brouillette.
Lynn Brouillette, Acting Director General, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne: Honourable senators, ladies and gentlemen, I am happy to be here with you tonight and to have the opportunity to speak to you about the strategic alliance the ACUFC concluded September 25 with the Commission nationale des parents francophones and the Réseau de développement économique et d’employabilité, in order to enhance the offer of early childhood services in French.
The three national organizations joined forces and are counting on the complementarity of their respective mandates to explore and implement innovative solutions and improve access to quality French-language early childhood services in francophone communities throughout Canada.
This alliance will further an inclusive approach made up of strategies involving education, employability and entrepreneurship. As you know, the Canadian francophonie is facing an unprecedented shortage of access to French-language early childhood services in minority francophone communities, as we mentioned earlier. The demand far exceeds the offer of services; the infrastructures are absent or inadequate; human resources are limited or underqualified, and consequently, the waiting lists for families who want to register their children only get longer.
In addition, the preschool period is an especially critical time to invest in human capital. This investment is the key to innovation and creativity for a strong economy with sustainable, structuring effects. Developing French-language early learning and child care systems is one of the best investments we can make to bolster the vitality of our francophone communities and strengthen their, and Canada’s, economy. Early childhood care and education services are part of a French education continuum, as they mean that young children can be prepared to learn and to continue their studies in French from primary school to the postsecondary level. Various studies confirm that the critical stages in human development occur before the age of six. More specifically:
Investments in early childhood learning have produced remarkable results and indicate that the first years are critical for early learning. In addition, high quality interventions in early childhood have sustainable effects on learning and motivation.
In this regard, nine members of the ACUFC offer excellent French-language college programs in early childhood education and services. The experts in our member establishments will be able to actively contribute to this tripartite alliance, by participating among other things in the development and implementation of a national strategy to recognize and promote the value of the profession of early childhood educator.
In conclusion, we are very happy to be associated with our two partners, as we believe that together we will be able to implement positive measures to increase the offer of early childhood services in French throughout the country.
Thank you for your attention. Ms. Bourgeois and I will be pleased to answer your questions.
The Deputy Chair: I thank all four of you for these presentations. We will begin our question period with Senator Gagné, who will be followed by Senator Cormier.
Senator Gagné: Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair. I thank the witnesses for being here tonight, and for their statements. I will begin with a question for Mr. Racine and Ms. Legault about the Multilateral Framework on Early Learning and Child Care, a program that was announced last June and included a fairly significant investment of $7.5 billion over 11 years. This is a perfect opportunity to respond to the high demand for French- language early childhood education, and to increase the number of students in our schools, colleges and universities.
This is my question: first, were you consulted in connection with this national program? Are you satisfied with the agreements that were signed to date with Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Nunavut? Do these federal-provincial agreements embody your goals?
Mr. Racine: Yes and no. Yes, we were consulted; Minister Jean-Yves Duclos’ office was very open. We were listened to, and people understood that there were some very significant issues for minority communities and that these concerns had to be addressed.
We were very happy to see that the multilateral agreement which was signed by all of the provinces and territories contained specific provisions regarding services for minority communities. We are very pleased about that. We are also very pleased that these provisions were taken up in some bilateral agreements, such as the one with Ontario. We are waiting to see about New Brunswick, because as of last week, to our knowledge, the agreement had not yet been released. It has been announced, but we were unable to get the document; the department told us that we would have to wait a bit longer.
There is an issue with Prince Edward Island: the agreement was signed and francophones were guaranteed an amount of $180,000, which represents 1.77 per cent of the envelope for francophones. As for the rest of the envelope, we are told that francophones will be taken into account and that priorities have already been set, but those priorities are the majority’s priorities and not minority ones. We can have access to funding, but we fear that the criteria that will be set will not adequately meet the needs of francophones. We will have to see what happens with Prince Edward Island.
We have not yet had the opportunity of studying the Nunavut agreement, but overall, we are pleased. The provisions are there. We feel that there is a will to meet the needs of francophones and that the government is doing everything it can, though the reactions of the various provinces remain to be seen.
Senator Gagné: I was involved for 30 years in the creation of and training for daycares, and not much has changed. Government transfers are made, and this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. There are obligations related to the development of communities, and we have to try to ensure that both converge somewhere along the way. We still have trouble doing that.
In the modernization of the Official Languages Act, should early childhood education be mentioned?
Mr. Racine: Yes, I think that would be a good thing. In the context of the study on the Official Languages Act, it is important to examine the needs of francophones and take them into account. At this time, the act mostly recognizes needs at the primary and secondary levels, but things are very random with regard to early childhood. We hope that more attention will be given to that area, as we find it is sometimes neglected. There is certainly work to be done in that sector.
Senator Gagné: In order to respect the education continuum, should a mention of post-secondary education also be included in the Official Languages Act?
Ms. Bourgeois: Yes
Senator Gagné: And why? I think it was quite clear in your presentation, but…
Ms. Bourgeois: Our presentation mentioned the fact that even though education is a provincial responsibility, if, in the context of modernizing the Official Languages Act, provisions were added that stated or specified these obligations clearly, that would be helpful. It is true that the provinces can include provisions in their bilateral agreements. Since I have also worked in school boards, I know that when there are specific provisions in the federal-provincial agreement that are repeated in the bilateral agreement, there are associated conditions. This strengthens the enforcement of the act, but it can also negatively impact the clarity of that enforcement.
Senator Cormier: I thank all of you for your presentations and your commitment to the francophonie. We know how deeply engaged you are.
You spoke a lot about the educational continuum. I think it is essential, and at the very heart of the issues that affect the development of the Canadian francophonie. I would like to hear your thoughts about the continuum of French-language life within communities. Are your institutions and organizations properly equipped? Do you have the necessary resources to be present at the heart of communities and to be connected to them? To be more specific, much has been said about the isolated development of the francophonie in areas like education, health, culture, et cetera. By the same token, some regions have more difficulty sustaining a French environment than others; there is an asymmetry. Do you have the necessary resources to be connected to the community, and to contribute to the continuum of life in French?
Ms. Brouillette: I would answer you by discussing elements related to the education continuum. In a knowledge economy such as our own currently, the continuum can go right up to the post-secondary level. This is very important. Early childhood is the gateway, as we were saying earlier. We can no longer function as though all these things were separate. We have to talk about a continuum, and this continuum offers living environments. The school system is central in our communities.
You spoke of resources. I’d like to give you some facts: together, all of our colleges and universities offer 1,150 programs in French in minority environments. This represents 8 per cent of what is offered in English. So there is the challenge of attraction. That is why our organizations have to work together. Even at the early childhood level, when parents are wondering where to register their child, if they know that a program is not offered in French, they already start to think that their child will do post-secondary studies in English, and this has an effect on the continuum as a whole. They decide to take the English door rather than the French door at a certain point, because there is a lack of programs or of access to post-secondary training. I like the idea of getting rid of silos. We have to emphasize the educational continuum, maintain it, and develop strategies with an eye to it from early childhood to the post-secondary level.
Mr. Racine: That is our reality; we often work in isolation, and it is simply because of a lack of resources. I am faced with that since I only have one employee, or one and a half. You do what is urgent in your specific area, even if you think in more global terms. You don’t have the time or the energy. And so yes, the lack of resources means that we are often forced to work in isolation, unfortunately. But there are certain initiatives like our agreement that mean that we can come out of our isolation. As for early childhood, the issue is too important for our francophone communities not to work in partnership; we must do that. It’s very important, but we have to have the resources to do so.
Ms. Bourgeois: I would just like to add that what distinguishes francophone communities and institutions is that not only do we have our primary mandate, which is education or health, but we also have a double mandate; we must support or contribute to francophone vitality. We need additional resources to fulfil that double mandate well. Otherwise, we will only fulfil our first mandate, and that is only a part of our work. I have seen the continuum from kindergarten to grade 12. I wanted to see whether we had more tools and resources at the post-secondary level, but that is not the case at all; it’s the same problem. We want the students to be able to come in, leave and be able to contribute to society, and as institutions, we want to be able to make a difference in our communities, because they are the biggest meeting point. We are to some degree the engine of our communities, but the resources are not there.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentations. I understand that you are pleased with the signature of the strategic alliance for early childhood, and you spoke about it briefly. I also understand that several parts of the Official Languages Act need to be revised. I am thinking of Parts I, II, IV, V, VI and VII. Certain powers also need to be reviewed. Mr. Racine, you mentioned, for instance, that it would be good to strengthen the powers of the Official Languages Commissioner. Ms. Bourgeois, you mentioned that powers should be granted to a central institution in charge of overseeing the implementation of the act as a whole.
Let’s go a bit further. Should we review the powers granted to the Minister of Canadian Heritage? Should we strengthen the powers of Treasury Board? Should we impose penalties on institutions that do not comply with their linguistic obligations? Finally, should we facilitate court trials in cases of non-compliance with linguistic obligations? In other words, there is a problem, and we have to solve it. As Mr. Racine said, the federal government has to show more leadership. Mr. Racine, would you like to comment?
Mr. Racine: I agree with you completely. As I mentioned in my presentation, I would add that the Privy Council has an essential role to play. That central organization has to be at the heart of the government’s concerns. The efforts at this time are leaning too much toward Canadian Heritage and we don’t necessarily sense an involvement from the other departments. As I was saying earlier, they do as little as possible while ensuring that they meet the obligations, but there is no sense of urgency to confirm that official languages are important and that they define our national identity. Those things are not being said at this time and we don’t see the type of leadership we need. If we want to have strong communities that are vibrant and healthy, there has to be national leadership.
Ms. Bourgeois: I think you have well defined the mechanisms it would be important to look at in modernizing the act. I would answer yes to every one of your questions.
Senator McIntyre: Would it be advantageous for the federal government to include measures in the Official Languages Act to trigger a periodic review?
Ms. Bourgeois: I don’t know what a periodic review implies. There should at least be a review every five years, because the francophonie evolves a great deal. Has there been a review during the past few years? The perspective has changed a great deal.
Senator McIntyre: I think a five-year review would be reasonable.
Senator Maltais: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your presentation. To summarize and not repeat what my colleagues have said, I would mention three things: modernize the act, grant increased powers to the Commissioner of Official Languages, and give a greater role to the Privy Council.
Ms. Brouillette, did I understand correctly that your association includes 21 colleges and universities? How many universities are there?
Ms. Brouillette: There are 15 universities and 6 colleges. However, three of our member universities also offer college level programs.
Senator Maltais: The committee covered a lot of ground. We went to British Columbia and to Prince Edward Island. The comments we heard were similar to what Mr. Racine was saying and to what you were saying, Ms. Legault. People have choices to make pertaining to their future professions. There are the language, the culture, and employment possibilities to consider. A young person of 18 or 20 considering going to college or university will look at the opportunities for well-paid work. He will not want to be a janitor or spend the summer on his father’s boat. Unfortunately, well-paid jobs in French environments are practically non-existent in some provinces. There are a few in provincial public service. That situation is not unique in the Maritimes; it is the same in British Columbia. We had the opportunity to speak to parents and children on Prince Edward Island and in Newfoundland, and the situation was the same.
For my personal information, in other provinces aside from Quebec, does the federal government subsidize child care or is that a provincial matter?
Mr. Racine: That is correct.
Senator Maltais: One hundred per cent?
Mr. Racine: The federal government has provided funds, but that is very recent, it has just been announced. Previously, there was no commitment and no involvement on the part of the federal government.
Senator Maltais: You know that early childhood services and daycares — we have had the experience in Quebec — have been created in Canada, but they started with us. It is a never-ending money pit. We are at $2 billion as we speak. I am not sure whether the funds are going directly to the children. We have unions involved. The workers want to be recognized as professionals but they often only have basic training. It is costing $20 or $25 per hour to have children looked after. But they have no college education, let alone university. It is a money pit.
According to the Official Languages Act, Canada is required to ensure that francophones can study from kindergarten to university. I really liked what you said, Mr. Racine. The Prime Minister, as the head of the council of ministers, has the legitimacy to delegate authority. In the Maritimes, where he has 32 members of Parliament out of 32 constituencies, the authority could not be more legitimate, with no one to challenge it. So what is he waiting for before he takes action?
I have a quick question, which is also a comment. My colleagues have touched on almost everything to do with revising the Charter. Ms. Legault, you mentioned this, I think. Is Statistics Canada being fair to francophones outside Quebec?
Ms. Legault: We are working on the whole matter of the census at the moment and I am sure that you are aware. Section 23 on rights holders has three components. Statistics Canada is only giving us a picture of the first component. So we are missing the statistics on the second and third components. That has a major impact when parents’ federations or parents themselves undertake legal action, as with the case in British Columbia. We are working with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne to ensure that Statistics Canada provides questions in the next census that can gather the data.
Senator Maltais: If you go by what Statistics Canada has done with Quebec, you are clearly at a disadvantage because, in Quebec, 98 per cent of the people are francophone and there, it is the opposite. If Statistics Canada was able to make that mistake with us, I wonder whether it may not have made others with francophone groups elsewhere. Senator Mégie will certainly remember; it caused quite a stink. Francophones no longer understood each other. You wondered whether your neighbour was anglophone, because, when you got up one fine morning, you could no longer speak to him because he has just been declared anglophone.
I want to know whether Statistics Canada is doing the francophones outside Quebec justice. This is critical, because money is given out as a result of the statistics. The money given out as the result of the statistics forms your safety net and if the statistics are not good, you are penalized right off the bat.
Mr. Racine: It is not that the statistics are not good; it is rather that they are not complete. We do not have enough data to determine the number of rights holders. One of the criteria is the mother tongue, but there is also the primary school the parents went to. Those are the criteria we are missing at the moment. We hope that, in the next census in 2021, the situation will be corrected and we will have enough information for the Official Languages Act to be enforced. Because, basically, the act recognizes our right to education in French.
Senator Mégie: Thank you for your presentations.
Personally, I go to the other end of the continuum, the university world. Your universities certainly have faculties of medicine where future physicians are trained. The information I had when I was president of Médecins francophones du Canada told sad stories of people going to clinics who were ashamed to speak French because they thought that everyone spoke English, that the doctor spoke English, and so they had to speak to him in English. Sometimes, the doctor was francophone, but they didn’t know. They got there, they spoke English, and when they left, they scarcely understood a quarter of what had been explained to them.
I do not know whether you have heard of a project established by a physician from British Columbia, Dr. Aurel Schofield, in partnership with Médecins francophones du Canada. The project is called Franco Doc and its aim is to compile a list of francophone medical students in all medical faculties in Canada. He was very surprised to see that there are quite a lot of them, contrary to what was thought. The need is still being felt, despite everything. So the aim of the project is to build a network and break open the silo.
Do you know whether that has begun to produce results? The project goal was to establish a network and a form of mentorship in order to maintain contact with those students once they become physicians.
Ms. Brouillette: I know Dr. Schofield and the Franco Doc project well. First of all, in our opinion, there are plenty of French speakers in those faculties. That means that other medical faculties could have been established in French.
We have also worked on the whole issue of the active offer, because even in our programs, it is important for people to have access to leadership training that allows them to provide services in French with confidence and conviction. Training people in a discipline is one thing, but then providing the services from the start is another.
Within the consortium of colleges and universities providing training in the health field, we have built the active offer into the hundred or so programs offered in French as a fundamental concept, so that the students understand the concept all through their academic training and provide the corresponding services from the outset.
Situations like the one you mentioned, where a patient speaks in English only to realize later that the doctor speaks French, should be happening less and less. We are working closely with the project’s leaders; it is important to provide French-language training in such a way that people can always be more confident with their ability to speak it.
The studies by Rodrigue Landry also tell us that the longer students do their post-secondary studies consistently in French, the more confident in French they are. In that way, they can become professionals who are able to provide services in both official languages. But clearly, we are interested in the services in French. I hope that answers your question.
Senator Moncion: Thank you for your presentations.
The comments you have made to us also reflect the same concerns with inadequate infrastructure everywhere in minority situations. We have heard about the urgent needs in the field of early childhood, whether that means daycare spaces or somewhere in the schools where parents can wait in line in order to register their children.
You talked about the continuum, and I find that it is an interesting alternative. You also talked about the Privy Council's responsibilities and the fact that you would like them to be re-established. You also mentioned the current plan that comes to an end in 2018. You said that there seems to be no sense of urgency. Often, when a plan is already in place, people wait until it ends before putting a new one in place. It is in preparing and implementing the new plan that differences can be seen and it can be determined whether urgent action will be built into the plan. Now, you do not have to wait for the plan, because if you do, and no urgency is built into it, you are going to have to wait another four or five years before a strategy is established and all the issues are understood.
Could you tell me about the work you have done with the Minister of Canadian Heritage to make her understand the issues you have each established? What work have you done and which departments have you met with? That work has to be done, after all. We are working from our end, because we are going to provide the moral suasion. We are going to make a lot of recommendations and we are going to meet with ministers. There are a lot of things, but we need to know which initiatives you have set in motion up to now in order to spread your message.
Ms. Bourgeois: I will give you an overall answer and then Ms. Brouillette can fill out my answer with concrete examples.
We know that the plan comes to an end in 2018. Our constant worry is that there will be no changes and that the status quo will remain in place in terms of the funding allocated under the plan. The same funding has been provided for 10 years. We know that the needs have not decreased and, if the funding does not change, a gap is created.
We have made a lot of representations. We have met with a number of politicians, and specifically with people from Minister Joly’s office at Canadian Heritage. We have submitted a brief. We have explained the various components: education, health and justice. In our case, we are always concerned with education. So there have been a number of approaches: to inform, to raise awareness and to propose not only strategies that could be adopted as part of the changes to the agreement, but also tools, specific mechanisms, that could provide solutions that, by definition, would meet the needs. That is what we have done.
I will ask Ms. Brouillette to give you more concrete examples and to talk to you about the proposals we have made.
Ms. Brouillette: For about three years, we have been developing proposals that we have submitted to various departments. Health Canada has been the department with which we have done most work in recent years in order to implement more programs in health care training. We also submitted a proposal to the Department of Justice, which is an area that interests us greatly. Why those two areas? Because people are in particularly vulnerable situations when they have to deal with health problems and justice problems. We are working very closely with those departments to fully understand the specific needs in the field. Then we assess the best way to implement structural and sustainable initiatives. The idea of the active offer that we have built into the programs is a good example of that. It results in professionals being better equipped to provide services in the first place.
The other structural effect ties in with program implementation. We provide one hundred or so programs in the field of health, which represents only 8 per cent of what is provided in English. So the ability to generate public interest remains a major task. Resources are essential if we are to be able to implement more programs. Structural effects are created when programs are established and then supported by the provinces and also by the federal government. It helps us to provide those programs. Even though the cohorts are not always huge, with the support of the federal government, we can offer a wide range of programs that can attract more students.
Mr. Racine: During the consultations, we did a lot of awareness building with Canadian Heritage about the urgency of addressing the issue of early childhood. Having heard Minister Joly’s remarks, I believe that we have been able to get the message across that this is a major issue for our communities in minority situations. But our real work was to convince Minister Jean-Yves Duclos that the investment of $7.5 billion must also be directed towards francophones.
We are also doing a lot of work with the department to show it that we are able to explain the problem and propose solutions. Restructuring services, such as centralizing certain administrative services for daycares at provincial level is a concrete example. When some daycares were centralized in Alberta, 96 new places were created without the need for additional public funds. Imagine the number of new daycare places that we could create if we were able to extend that new way of operating across the country.
We are holding discussions with the department to get it to understand that, if we receive the support, the assistance and the funding we need, we can move that process forward more quickly and we can be very innovative in creating new places with very few resources. However, we need resources to allow us to quickly embrace that way of working.
Senator Moncion: The money comes directly from the federal government…
Mr. Racine: No, it goes to the provinces. We have double the work to do. We first have to convince the federal department. We are basically quite successful, but we then have to convince the provinces and territories. You understand that the issue is in provincial jurisdiction.
Senator Moncion: Yes.
Mr. Racine: So the federal government is always hesitant to leave the provinces with a degree of latitude. However, the funds are federal. In my opinion, the federal government can set certain requirements for linguistic minorities. I can understand that it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction for the majority, but, for minorities, it seems to me that there can be a firm commitment on the part of the federal government. The proof is in the fact that it is done for indigenous minorities. There is a firm and specific commitment, because, as soon as the envelope of $500 million was announced, it was made clear from the outset that $100 million would be for indigenous communities. So, 20 per cent was already set aside for indigenous communities. Why not do that for minorities? The federal government was within its rights to require it from the outset. Why? Because those heading the government can provide the leadership. It is as simple as that.
Senator Moncion: One of you mentioned accountability. Accountability is becoming important for funding provided to provinces. I would like to deal with the work done at provincial level next. We have dealt with the federal government, but what have you done at provincial level? After all, there are 10 provinces and three territories to cover.
Mr. Racine: Essentially, when we became aware of the announcement of the $7.5-billion envelope in the most recent budget, we knew that there was a multilateral agreement and bilateral agreements. We also knew that, with bilateral agreements, action plans would be attached. So we wasted no time. We developed action plans for the needs of francophones for several provinces and territories. Unfortunately, it was right in the middle of the summer. We got the budget and the multilateral agreement in June. It was already announced in Ontario and coming up with an action plan in Ontario was more difficult. But we succeeded in doing so for Newfoundland and Labrador, for Manitoba and for Saskatchewan. For Alberta, it was done more in the form of a letter. British Columbia is in the process of finishing its plan and there is one for the Yukon. At least we have action plans where we state clearly what must be done for francophones. It was all sent to the department and each of our provincial associations is in the process of informing the province or the territory about the issue.
Senator Bovey: Thank you for your presentations. You talked about the responsibilities of the federal government and of the provinces. What is new in the act’s objectives regarding the private sector?
Ms. Brouillette: For early childhood, there are private-sector daycare centres. The private sector can definitely play a role in this critical sector of early childhood. Home daycares are businesses. That is why the RDEE is part of the partnership. It is examining the various types of child care settings.
Mr. Racine: I do not know if the private sector can be considered in the act. Honestly, everyone should think about this together. It is clear though that the private sector can participate and contribute to the development and revitalization of our communities.
As Ms. Brouillette said, there are child care centres, and we must not think of purely institutional settings. Yes, we need infrastructures at all francophone schools and, ideally, child care centres. But that would not be enough to meet the demand. We need other strategies, other ways of looking at it. Home child care services are one strategy; cooperatives are another. We are looking at all the possibilities. I do think the private sector could offer something and make a contribution in this regard.
Senator Cormier: We are trying right now to see how we can modernize the Official Languages Act. So we are looking closely at each section in each part of the act. As a reminder, I will quote Part VII of the act, which pertains to the advancement of French and English:
41(1) The Government of Canada is committed to
(a) enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and
(b) fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.
In discussions about the official languages, it often seems that we are speaking with the converted, with people who espouse the cause, but behind all that is the issue of advancing the official languages in a broader sense, within the majority. The majority also votes and participates in the implementation of laws through its civic action.
How in your opinion could we further mobilize the majority, whether through the act or outside the act, around issues related to the Official Languages Act? Should we add something to the context, the preamble or the objectives of the act about the way the official languages help strengthen national identity? Let us not forget that the two official languages are the foundation of Canada’s social contract, so the Official Languages Act does not concern minorities only. Do you have any ideas or opinions to offer as to how to further mobilize the majority?
Ms. Bourgeois: You have already indicated one avenue: by including in the preamble to the act, at least, a recognition or statement that could help us mobilize the majority as well.
I was talking earlier about the changing francophone landscape. There is already growing recognition, I believe, of the benefits of bilingualism. As Rodrigue Landry pointed out, bilingualism is a truly an excellent tool. Francophone institutions are often bilingual. As to school boards, there are many immersion schools in English-language school boards. What we see, however, is that after 12 years of immersion schools, if the students are not interested in pursuing their education in French, they cannot be considered bilingual.
So there is growing interest among families, parents and workers. As Senator Maltais said earlier, in some provinces, there are no positions for unilingual francophones. We want to recognize the bilingualism of positions, regardless of where they are located. This might be a way for the majority to mobilize around the fact that immersion cannot start at age 5 and end at age 16. A lot of money can be spent on that without necessarily achieving linguistic duality. Students must learn a language not only by studying it, but they must also live in that language and participate in linguistic duality.
Ms. Brouillette: The modernization of the Official Languages Act is a good opportunity to give it greater force. The statistics published this summer show a decline in French in Canada. I cannot accept that French is in decline in Canada, a bilingual country, when studies show that by 2050 French will be the third most widely spoken language in the world in business.
So this is a good opportunity for Canada to support the francophonie. I think the act is the best tool to strengthen the francophonie. For those who are interested in figures, we hope to work soon with the Conference Board of Canada to determine the economic value of being bilingual as opposed to being unilingual. I think that will give us other tools and arguments. It cannot be solely an economic argument, but we all know that this can be a very strong argument. The act should provide a clear change in course in order to prevent the decline of French in Canada.
Mr. Racine: I think the preamble must clarify that the Official Languages Act belongs to all Canadians.
I would like to share an anecdote with you. In the spring, I attended the Sommet sur l'éducation, and participated in a workshop that included students from exogamous families who had decided to pursue their postsecondary education in French. The surprising thing to me was that, in contrast to what I had thought, it was the anglophone parent who encouraged the young person to pursue their education in French, not the francophone parent. At least three witnesses around the table said that it was thanks to an anglophone parent that they were continuing their education in French. In other words, the more open the anglophone mother or father is to French, the more comfortable the young person felt with their dual identity, which in turn encouraged them to pursue their education in French. One young person told me that his father made an effort to speak French to his grandmother, which is what won him over.
The act needs to highlight the fact that the official languages are among our country’s strengths for all citizens, and in so doing highlight the responsibility and role that anglophones have to play.
Senator Gagné: For your information, on September 28, I asked the government representative in the Senate some questions, and also asked for information about the $7.5 million in funding for the Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework. I asked the following questions: what percentage of that funding, over 11 years, will go to francophone daycare centres, early childhood centres and nursery schools? Does the government have expectations in that regard? Will reports be provided? What will the consequences be for provinces that fail to invest in francophone communities?
Once I get the answers, I will pass them on to you.
Ms. Legault: It is our understanding that these agreements are for three years and that the accountability requirements are quite strict. There are linguistic provisions, but also other provisions pertaining to children with disabilities and so forth. We were told that those reports will figure into negotiations later on.
Ms. Bourgeois: If I may say so, Senator Gagné, you still ask the right questions.
Senator Gagné: Mr. Racine, you mentioned the regulations related to Part IV, which pertains to communications with and services to the public. Those are the only regulations under the Official Languages Act. Should there be other regulatory frameworks for other parts of the act?
Mr. Racine: Yes. It would be helpful for Part VII. If regulations are made with respect to certain parts of the act, other parts of the act could also be subject to regulations, that is for sure.
Senator Gagné: There are also some challenges with regulations. You mentioned challenges related to the regulations under Part IV, which defines the offer of services to the public based on a rather restrictive criterion, that of “significant demand”, which means 5 per cent of the population of a riding. That is quite restrictive. You also mentioned the importance of measuring the vitality of the community in which the service is provided and so forth. So regulations can be a double-edged sword. Regulations could still be helpful to us, as long as they are strong and were subject to regular review. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
Ms. Bourgeois: Yes, indeed, adding something or clarifying certain things can also have drawbacks and be restrictive. But I think that if there were provision for review of the act every five years, as Senator McIntyre recommended, I believe, that would also be an opportunity to review the regulations.
Ms. Brouillette: Another matter that we have also been considering for a while is public policy. In our opinion, if certain public policies were developed around this act, that would also serve to align efforts. At some point, we are going to need strong strategies in order to reverse the decline of the francophonie in Canada. That would be another instrument to align efforts, and public policies would serve to advance the francophonie, linguistic duality and broad public interest in that duality.
Mr. Racine: I think that is a very good question and it gives us pause to reflect. We will ask our colleagues for their opinion on your question. Let me give you an example regarding Part VII: the idea of “by and for”. We are realizing that “by and for” can be interpreted in many ways. I think regulations that more clearly define the parameters in Part VII, especially the concept of “by and for”, could be helpful. This requires further thought, but it is certainly an interesting concept.
Senator Maltais: Ms. Bourgeois, we talked earlier about how it is difficult for young francophones to make their way in minority communities after they have finished college or university. What I find incredible is that, when I went to British Columbia and Prince Edward Island, I asked young French immersion students the following questions: “Why are you learning French? Is it embarrassing for you?” They said, “No, no; if I want to apply for a federal government job, I have to be somewhat bilingual.” Not a single francophone told me that, after completing university, they would apply for a federal government job that required some bilingualism. In any case, they do not need to learn English at school. They learn it on the street since they are surrounded by anglophones. They do not need a degree from UBC; they can speak English. This shows a distortion among Canadians, among citizens of the same country.
My last question is for Ms. Legault, but I also invite Ms. Bourgeois and Ms. Brouillette to answer. Ms. Legault, you are from Halifax?
Ms. Legault: Yes.
Senator Maltais: In the past decade, do you remember hearing on Radio-Canada that there are francophones in Halifax? I heard about it when the boat exploded in Halifax Bay in 1918 or 1919. Other than that, I have never heard it. That was because a sailor from Quebec was killed there. Other than that, I have never heard it. Do you hear it from time to time?
Ms. Legault: For your information, there are 11,000 speakers of French in the Halifax area. Our schools that are part of the province’s French-language school board, the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial, are overflowing. We are in negotiations to get a seventh school in the area. The Halifax area accounts for about half the enrolment in the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial.
Senator Maltais: I do not know if your house lot is on higher ground; that would put you on the same level as Montreal’s Plateau district and you could take part in the program called Tout le monde en parle and talk about the francophones in Halifax, because Radio-Canada does not know about them. The station has never taken the time to go there.
Ms. Legault: I actually lived in Cape Breton for ten years and have been in Halifax for one year. When we moved onto our street, we quickly noticed children playing in French outside, and parents speaking French. A lot of French is spoken in Halifax. For your information, I went to the grocery store on the weekend, to Sobeys, and the students at the cash had bilingual tags on. It is possible to be served in French at Sobeys. Yes, French is very much present in Halifax.
Senator Maltais: I can tell you myself, because I go scallop fishing in Digby every year. There are not a ton of francophones, but the young people working on the boats in the summer with their parents speak French that is much better than my English. I commend them for that.
Do you know that people in Quebec do not know what is happening in Halifax, any more than they know what is happening in British Columbia? We have a public broadcaster, which is also part of the heritage act, if I am not mistaken. We just gave it $685 million, so it could hire a freelance reporter to tell us that there are 11,000 francophones in Halifax.
Ms. Legault: I get news from Quebec on Radio-Canada, but in Quebec, you do not get any news about us.
Senator Maltais: They do not even know you exist. In British Columbia, Radio-Canada does not get past the Rockies. Radio-Canada employees told us that. They do good reports, but Radio-Canada Montréal and the CBC do not get through.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Moncion, do you have another question?
Senator Moncion: Yes. For your information, Ontario’s French-language television network, TFO, did a whole feature on French-language education needs, including one city’s fight to get a French school. There was a whole series about that.
Senator Maltais: That is TFO, not Radio-Canada. I am a cable subscriber and, in Quebec, we get TFO. They are people like you and me. They are not specialists who know everything and would say, “You don’t come from the Plateau, so where do you come from?”
The Deputy Chair: Would anyone like to comment?
Ms. Bourgeois: I want to say to Senator Maltais that, at La Cité, we have a journalism and public relations program. We train excellent students who are hired by Radio-Canada once they graduate. Perhaps we should starts instilling that perspective in our students, so that Radio-Canada would be more national in scope.
Senator Maltais: And so that news reports would make it past the Rockies!
Senator McIntyre: Before I put a question to you, I would like to make a comment, to follow up on a question asked by Senator Bovey regarding the private sector and the role it must play in reaching the objectives of the Official Languages Act. We have to move on to the next stage.
Earlier, I talked about whether legal recourse should be facilitated in cases of non-compliance with linguistic obligations. As you know, the Supreme Court of Canada has rendered a number of decisions in that area. Do you think the Official Languages Act, in its current form, takes legal precedent sufficiently into account?
Ms. Bourgeois: That is another good question. As Mr. Racine said earlier, it deserves special attention. Your questions have given us some direction, especially as we prepare a memorandum that would elaborate on some components and propose potential solutions. We will keep in mind your question on whether the legislation is sufficiently targeted to take legal recourse into account. I’m tempted to say that it is not quite targeted enough. However, the question warrants further consideration.
Ms. Brouillette: I am not a lawyer, either. As Ms. Bourgeois just said, we will address those kinds of questions in our memorandum. Ultimately, a generous interpretation of the jurisprudence should be encouraged. People have invested a great deal in advancing those causes, and I think we should rely on those results as we move forward. I am thinking of section 23 of the Charter, for example, which supports the entire education system. Why would it not also support post-secondary education? In terms of jurisprudence and legal matters, work needs to be done to determine what the most promising development would be.
Senator McIntyre: It is not just a matter of jurisprudence. I would add that you should ask yourselves in your memorandum whether the Official Languages Act, in its current form, takes new technologies sufficiently into account.
Ms. Brouillette: Exactly.
Mr. Racine: As an organization, we went before the courts to have parents’ rights to French education recognized and to request that francophone school boards be created. That legal action should be taken into account. That is why it is important to have a piece of legislation that is very specific, very detailed and somewhat restrictive. The last thing you want is to end up before the courts. That sort of thing can tear communities apart. It is not clear or easy. It’s a big job for small organizations.
So continue with your work. I think that we need a piece of legislation that is very detailed and specific, and that meets communities’ needs.
Senator McIntyre: However, in cases of non-compliance with linguistic obligations, there is no other choice but to go to court.
Mr. Racine: Exactly. And believe me, we will do it.
Senator McIntyre: Great.
The Deputy Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your remarks and your answers to our questions. It has been very interesting. You have helped us understand the issues your organizations face. Thank you for coming. We appreciate it very much.
(The committee adjourned.)