Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 6 - Evidence - Meeting of September 26, 2016
OTTAWA, Monday, September 26, 2016
The Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:34 p.m. to continue its study on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act.
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senators, I call the meeting to order. Good evening. My name is Claudette Tardif, a senator from Alberta, and I am pleased to chair this evening's meeting.
Before I give the floor to the witnesses, I would like to take the opportunity to welcome my honourable colleagues back to the opening of Parliament, and I would invite them to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Fraser: My name is Joan Fraser, and I am a senator from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Poirier: Senator Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick. Good evening.
Senator Mockler: Senator Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.
Senator Maltais: Senator Ghislain Maltais from Quebec City, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Oh: Senator Oh from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Senator Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
The Chair: Before we hear from our witnesses, I would like to welcome Silvina Danesi, who was appointed clerk of our committee last week. I believe she has undergone a baptism of fire because we had to make some last-minute changes to our witness list.
Thanks as well to Marie-Ève Hudon, our analyst who has been working at the Library of Parliament for many years and whose work for our committee is exemplary. Thank you very much, Marie-Ève.
I would also like to note the good work of Max Hollins, who was our clerk and who has spent much time in the past few months preparing for our study mission in British Columbia.
I would like to offer warm thanks this evening to our witnesses, who managed to organize themselves quickly, at several hours' notice, to attend our meeting. We are very grateful to you for doing so.
The committee is continuing its special study on the application of the Official Languages Act, specifically on the challenges associated with access to French-language schools and French immersion programs in British Columbia. Today's meeting will be an opportunity for us to examine the proposals of three national francophone organizations for modernizing the federal approach to funding in the field of education. We will be hearing proposals for the modernization and subdivision of the Protocol for Agreements for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction to enhance the vitality of the francophone and Acadian communities.
We are pleased to welcome Sylviane Lanthier, President of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada; Suzanne Bossé, Director General of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada; Melinda Chartrand, President of the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones; Roger Paul, Managing Director of the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones; and Jean-Luc Racine, Executive Director of the Commission nationale des parents francophones. On behalf of the members of the committee, I want to thank you for taking part in our hearings this evening. I am told Mr. Paul will begin, followed by Ms. Lanthier and, to conclude, Mr. Racine.
Since there are three of you, I would ask you try to limit your presentations five to seven minutes so the Senators can then ask questions.
Roger Paul, Managing Director, Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones: Madam Chair, senators, thank you for your invitation to appear here today. I know this was a last-minute change for you — it was for us as well — but we are very pleased to be with you this evening.
Your committee is studying the challenges associated with access to French schools and French immersion programs in British Columbia. On September 15 last, the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones sent the chair of this committee a request to discuss the renewal of the Protocol for Agreements for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction and the need to modernize and subdivide it in 2018. The invitation came sooner than expected, but I believe we were ready.
Our remarks will be consistent with your mandate to study access to French-language education in British Columbia. However, that mandate must also extend beyond British Columbia's borders because it concerns all federal transfers made for education in French as a first language.
We are here today to discuss with you two recommendations, recommendations 5 and 6 from your 2005 interim report, the interim report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages entitled French-Language Education in a Minority Setting: A Continuum from Early Childhood to the Postsecondary Level. Now some 10 years later, we would like to ask you re-examine the situation from a current and updated perspective.
The Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, the Commission nationale des parents francophones, and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada were thus encouraged when they read the Government of Canada's response to the 2015 Senate report Aiming Higher: Increasing Bilingualism of our Canadian Youth, which paves the way for changes to the protocol that will be renewed in 2018. The FNCSF, the CNPF, and the FCFA have produced a report entitled Objectif 2018/2023, of which I believe you have received a copy. Do not worry, we do not intend to review that 40- or 50-page report because we unfortunately do not have time for that this evening.
As we did not have a lot of time, we are submitting report in French only, but we intend to have it translated. As I mentioned, we did not think we would be here this evening, and so, given the lack of time, you have only the French version for the moment, and will have the English version shortly.
Let us move on to the Protocol for Agreements for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction. For decades, the Department of Canadian Heritage has concluded a protocol with the Council of Ministers of Education (Canada), which is commonly called CMEC, to govern the means for transferring federal funds to finance the additional costs of minority-language education and second-language instruction.
With a common voice, national organizations representing parents, communities and school boards are calling for the modernization of federal funding allocation systems directed at French-language education in francophone minority communities. They are demanding that best practices from other domains be applied to decisions made regarding minority-language education. The protocol has never been modernized to reflect the new reality of primary and secondary education from kindergarten to grade 12, that is to say to reflect the entrenchment of section 23 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the 1990 decision in Mahé or the establishment of francophone school boards across the country during the 1990s because the protocol, as it stands today and stood before 1990, does not reflect the new reality of Canada's francophone school boards.
The protocol, in our view, has three historical gaps that significantly undermine its effectiveness. First, it allows the provinces and territories to determine unilaterally the educational needs of the minority, which is contrary to section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For example, the Department of Canadian Heritage meets with CMEC and the education departments of every province and territory and asks them what their primary and secondary education priorities are, from kindergarten to grade 12. As I am sure you will agree, only the francophone school boards are able to determine those needs.
Furthermore, the education departments are responsible for establishing the action plans to implement the protocol and decide what should and should not be funded. To do that, the education departments may — that is the word used — disregard the needs of the francophone communities because they have no duty to consult them.
Second, the protocol does not allow the Department of Canadian Heritage or the school boards to require effective accountability from the ministries of education in determining the purposes for which the funds are used. We have a number of examples. The way the provincial and territorial governments use federal funding continues to raise concerns.
Third, funding for elementary and secondary education in French as a first language outside Quebec is often used to fund the essential costs of our education as guaranteed by section 23 of the Charter of Rights and not the real additional costs of such education. For example, the creation of a French as a first language curriculum is an essential expense that must be funded by the province, not by the federal envelope. That unfortunately is not always the case.
My FCFA and the CNPF colleagues will cite a number of examples of situations that have occurred since 1970 and that lead us to say that these are historical gaps. In particular, they will briefly discuss the authorities that have been informed of those historical gaps since 1970.
The solution is to adopt a separate tripartite protocol. We must give a real voice to the communities in relation to elementary and secondary education. Concretely, the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, the Commission nationale des parents francophones, and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada call for the adoption of a separate tripartite protocol in 2018.
The modernization and subdivision of the protocol is not a radical proposal. The request is simple: the federal government should apply its best practices in the area of funding to minority-language education.
For example, it would now be inconceivable to enter into an agreement with an indigenous people without the latter being a signatory. In 2010, the federal government signed tripartite education agreements, that is to say agreements involving an organization representing the Aboriginal peoples of a province, the ministry of education of a province and the federal government, such as the Tripartite Education Framework Agreement signed by Canada, British Columbia and the First Nations Education Steering Committee.
The mission of that organization is to facilitate discussion on education issues affecting the Aboriginal people of British Columbia and to promote and encourage the provision of high-quality education to the province's Aboriginal students. My FCFA colleague will cite another example of an agreement recently reached between the federal government and the francophone communities in areas of provincial and territorial jurisdiction.
I will stop there so that I can answer your questions and give my colleagues the time to speak as well. Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Paul. Ms. Lanthier, please.
Sylviane Lanthier, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: Madam Chair, members of the committee, this is the first time the FCFA has appeared before you since the end of the summer. Allow me to take this opportunity to welcome you back from the summer recess.
I sense we will have several opportunities this year to discuss the issues associated with linguistic duality and the support the government provides for the development of our communities. At any event, I hope that is the case.
The issues associated with federal investments in education and the Protocol for Agreements for Minority-Language Education are not recent. In fact, these issues of accountability, consultation, and participation date back almost to the origins of the FCFA itself, when it was called the Fédération des francophones hors Québec. In 1981, the federation devoted an entire brief to this question. In a document entitled À la recherche du milliard, analyse critique des programmes fédéraux de langues officielles dans l'enseignement, the FFHQ observed that there was no control mechanism for determining precisely how the provinces used the money the federal government invested or to determine whether provincial and territorial education spending was in fact used to achieve the program's initial objectives.
That observation is still valid today, and, what is more, the communities have been excluded from federal-provincial/territorial negotiations on minority-language education for the past 40 years. The protocol and agreements following therefrom empower the provinces and territories to determine our education needs unilaterally.
The reference here is to education, but in a more fundamental way. The way governments deal with our communities must be examined. The communities must now be seated at the bargaining table, for two reasons: first, to ensure we are taken into account and, second, with a view to taking charge.
First, let us talk about being taken into account. The brief that the FNSCF, the CNPF, and the FCFA have signed indicates how important it is that the clauses of a new protocol establish a clear, effective, and binding obligation to consult the francophone and Acadian community. This demand moreover echoes the remarks that the FCFA made last spring before the Committee of Assistant Deputy Ministers on Official Languages, the CADMOL. In the federation's view, there are recurring and endemic issues regarding consultation in our communities on government policy and programs. This is an irritant and, in some instances, an obstacle to the development of our communities.
We are told that the education protocol engages the provincial and territorial governments, which do not have the same obligations as the federal government. In my view, when the federal government transfers money to the provinces and territories, it also transfers its obligations. Furthermore, the obligation to consult the francophone minority communities is clearly established in Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
Following our presentation to CADMOL, it was agreed that the government end communities would jointly develop a satisfactory, coherent model clearly indicating what constitutes a proper consultation. That model would apply very well to the type of protocol that my colleagues and I are seeking for minority-language education.
Now with regard to the matter of taking charge, in recent decades, the francophone and Acadian communities have invested in many development sectors ranging from schools management to the management of our cultural centres, from health to community media, and from early childhood to old age. Far from being observers of our own development, we are the principal players in that process. And for good reason, since our communities are more familiar than anyone else with their own situation, which is in many instances very different from that of the majority. Experience also shows us that the communities are best equipped to offer solutions that meet the needs of francophones.
All this requires that the communities be full participants in a genuine partnership with the government to implement initiatives and programs that have an impact on them. That intention is clearly outlined in the community strategic plan that emerged from the 2007 Sommet des communautés francophones et acadiennes, and I quote:
The communities acknowledge that it is important for the francophone citizens of Canada to take charge collectively of the development and future of their community.
This is the backdrop against which the FCFA supports full participation for the FNCSF as the voice of the community on a specific protocol on education in French as a first language. Senators, it is time that we had a say, both in consultations and in decision-making processes. We will be speaking out on several occasions during the parliamentary session. Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Lanthier. Mr. Racine, you have the floor.
Jean-Luc Racine, Executive Director, Commission nationale des parents francophones: I would like to thank you for your invitation to take part in this meeting. I also want to extend greetings to Ms. Legault, from Halifax, who is unable to be here this evening.
The Commission nationale des parents francophones has long addressed the question of modernizing the education protocol, which is in fact our main concern. In 1996, CNPF published a report entitled Where Did the Billions Go?, which was in fact a comparative study on the allocation of grants made under the Official Languages in Education Program from 1970-1971 to 1995-1996. That study revealed some significant deficiencies. The federal government was spending millions of dollars on official language education support programs, but parents were seeing no improvement in the schools.
The report also revealed serious accountability problems in the provinces and territories, as the CNPF, the FCFA, and the FNCSF are doing today. Flipping through the detailed summaries prepared by the Department of Canadian Heritage, you can see that the grants made under the Official Languages in Education Program were simply used to pay employees, transport students and heat buildings. In short, they were used for any purpose whatever except to cover the additional costs associated with francophone minority education.
There has unfortunately been little change in the situation since 1996. In 2002, the vice-president of the CNPF reiterated the findings of the 1996 report to the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages. The federal government has spent nearly $10 billion on official languages education over the past 32 years. It is extremely distressing to see that the money has been used for those purposes. The provinces never say how they have spent it.
The money was often placed in pooled funds, and the provinces themselves did not even know how the credits were spent. In 2002, the CNPF pushed further for a revision of the protocol and made the following proposal to the House of Commons Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages:
Stop giving provincial governments additional funds provided for the education of the French language minority. Give these funds directly to the minority school boards elected to govern our schools, while making sure that the provinces will not be able to penalize them by taking the money back. [. . .] supporting organizations mandated to strengthen our official language minority communities.
That was the committee's position at the time. Today we are taking a wiser approach by suggesting to you another modus operandi.
As you will see in this report, under the protocol, the provinces and territories are able to determine minority education needs unilaterally. In 2003, Marc Gignac, who was Director General of the Fédération des parents francophones de Colombie-Britannique and a member of the CNPF, suggested to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages the possibility of signing a separate protocol for minority-language primary and secondary education.
There is currently a great deal of confusion about the various funding programs, funding allocation criteria, and the entities responsible for funding management. In British Columbia, the francophone school board has considerable difficulty planning its operations because it does not know how much funding it will be receiving until nearly the end of the school year. In short, it is virtually impossible to develop a budget plan in the circumstances.
In 2000, Nova Scotia's education minister said she felt free to spend the money intended for the Official Languages in Education Program as she saw fit. In 2013, Official Languages Commissioner Graham Fraser stated that a former provincial education minister had admitted to him that, once the cheque was received from the federal government, needs were numerous and there was considerable pressure to add the funds to the overall envelope and spend it as seemed most appropriate. Consequently, the communities are not consulted. We spend the money as we see fit.
In 2006, the Yukon Department of Education reallocated funding of approximately $2 million intended for the francophone school board to second-language instruction without obtaining the board's prior consent. When the deputy minister was compelled to testify on the subject, we learned that the funding had been used for immersion programs rather than education initiatives for the francophone communities. These examples prove that there is a real need to amend the existing protocol. Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Racine. Now we will move on to the period of questions. Senator Poirier, the committee's deputy chair, will ask the first question.
Senator Poirier: Thank you all for being here. This is very interesting. My question is a general one and you may all answer it.
If I understand correctly, you are proposing a third protocol. Why do you want to create a third protocol rather than ask the minister to include you as a signatory in the next protocol?
Mr. Paul: I will try to answer your question. It is a good one, and I thank you for it. It is central to our demand.
The current protocol includes fields such as immersion and postsecondary education, to name only a few. Those fields are not protected by section 23. As you know, francophone school boards have been created since the Mahé decision. They were not in existence when the first protocols were developed and negotiated. Now the French-language school boards have a right to manage language, the French language, and culture. This money, which is provided to fund additional costs, not ordinary costs, is granted to the provincial government to enable it to meet additional needs. That costs more in the French-language school boards — I am telling you nothing new here — because we have to ensure the identity-building of our students.
The entire issue of culture in our communities and schools is governed by section 23. If we were asked to be signatories to the most important protocol, as it initially stood, that is to say concerning education in French as a first language and second-language instruction, we might wonder why we would have the authority to decide and influence whatever goes on in the field of immersion education and instruction in French as a second language. However, we have no more right to exercise influence than any other organization that might wish to do so. When we deal with language and culture in our French-language schools, that aspect is protected by section 23 of the Charter.
That is why we came to think this was not unreasonable, as my colleagues mentioned. We have been raising concerns about the way this money is spent for 15, 20 or 30 years, whereas it should be allocated to education in French as a first language. We do not know where these budget envelopes go. If we are seated at the bargaining table, and the communities, school boards, and parents are also there from the outset, and if the entire process is subject to a new protocol. . ., but that does not mean we do not have an opinion on the money that is requested for postsecondary education. We have an opinion on that matter, and we also have an opinion on instruction in French as a second language. We support second-language instruction, but the funding that is allocated to education in French as a first language in our schools, which concerns language and culture be spent elsewhere, is unacceptable. We have mentioned this in the past. This is already the case. There are education departments that already deal with the federal government and with representatives of Aboriginal organizations in the provinces and territories and that sign tripartite protocols that do not correspond to the framework of the current protocol we are discussing. This has already been done and is still being done. That is why we should put an end to the discussion and set aside the funding allocated to education in French as a first language, which is being lost in a long protocol. This is a complex protocol involving millions and millions of dollars.
May we have a measure of control over the funding that is granted to our communities and schools? The only logical way — this is not a revolutionary idea and we have been requesting it for a long time — is to develop a separate protocol for the budget envelopes that are allocated to our schools for education from kindergarten to grade 12.
Senator Poirier: Have you had a chance to discuss the matter with Minister Joly? If so, does she seem amenable to the idea of developing a third protocol?
Mr. Paul: We are just starting discussions and consultations. The government conducted consultations throughout the summer on renewal of the next action plan, formerly called the protocol. We had a chance to present all these points to Minister Joly and Parliamentary Secretary Randy Boissonnault. We do not want people to encounter any surprises when the decisions are made, and that is part of the reason why we are here today. We want to discuss the matter long before the decisions are made. We have even made presentations to senior executives at Canadian Heritage. They know what we are talking about, and they of course will not make any promises in advance. We are at the consultation stage, the discussion stage, and we feel the door is not shut.
However, to answer your question, no, we have not received a clear answer in one way or another.
Senator Maltais: Thank you for appearing at such short notice. It is really kind of you and we are grateful to you for it.
I have two questions. Ms. Lanthier and Mr. Paul, you said several times there was a problem of consultation on the part of provincial authorities. They consult you on nothing, or on very little. If they do not consult you, they can stop your funding because, if they do, you can present the school boards' needs to them. In short, the provincial authorities do not consult you and do what they want with the money.
When Treasury Board President Scott Brison appeared before our committee, I asked him whether the federal government exercised any control over the funding it allocated to the education program through Canadian Heritage. He told me we did not have a control mechanism. It is hard for the federal government to determine how the provinces use this funding. Do they spend it on public roads, infrastructure, or universities? They can spend it anywhere because the federal government has no control. I imagine there is an education minister in every province.
Mr. Racine, you made me shudder when you said Nova Scotia's education minister could do what she wanted with the money allocated to her by Canadian Heritage. I am sorry, but that is not the way it works. This is a federal act. Canadian Heritage is a federal organization. When funding is allocated to meet specific needs, for a need as pressing as language, it must be allocated to the culture of that language, not to anything else. That is a serious breach of the federal act. I am surprised no one has reported it. I assure you that, if I had been an MP in that part of the country during that period, I would have given the minister a hard time. I have been an MP long enough to know that, when the federal government allocates funding to a province, it must reach its destination.
Given that you are consulted very little or not at all, it is therefore very difficult to request funding accordingly. As Mr. Paul said, if you are consulted in May and school is out a month later, in June, we can see that you should have been consulted in August based on the start of the new school year in September to enable you to prepare your programs. So there is a consultation problem.
I think the federal government is paying enough money. However, it is not doing enough monitoring. The provinces will have to be reined in, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage will have to do it. It is incomprehensible today that parliamentarians can have passed an act and that it can be circumvented. Regardless of political party, the federal government is failing to meet its responsibilities by not requiring accountability for this money. The problem will continue as long as you do not know, for example, whether $20 million has been granted to New Brunswick for language instruction, but you have received only $500,000. As long as you do not know that, it will be very difficult for you to meet your needs and you will continue to operate virtually in the dark. The situation is very difficult for you.
So there are two points that must be resolved: consultation and accountability for the money that is granted by the federal government. I would briefly like to hear your opinion on the subject.
Ms. Lanthier: I encourage you to read the brief of the FNCSF, the FCFA, and the CNPF. As you read the history of the protocol, you will find compelling information about how the accountability process has evolved. Between the initial protocols and the one we have now, the federal government has tried in various ways to encourage the provinces to do more in the area of accountability. Although the situation has evolved, that evolution has not achieved the desired results. Consequently, over the years, many people in our community have appeared before committees such as yours, and their successive demands have become increasingly interesting in that they have ultimately gotten to the root of the problem and proposed solutions for taking that step and ensuring that there is true accountability and not merely consultation, but also, as we said in our presentation, a genuine effort to take charge of the matter.
What we are seeking is the creation of a tripartite protocol that would subdivide the present protocol. This would make genuine schools management possible and would put tools in the hands of the francophone school boards. It would also achieve greater accountability. The federal government's money, which would then be transferred to the provinces, would also have a greater impact on the communities. It would be used to achieve results that would address the communities' priorities. It would help us take action where there is a need in order to promote successful teaching in the French-language schools so that graduates can play an active role in our communities while continuing to live in French. That is precisely what we are talking about. When we look at what is going on in our French schools, it is very much the future of our communities that is at stake. That is why this issue is such a constant concern for us.
This protocol, as we describe and are requesting it, would give us a basic tool to correct historic deficiencies and achieve results that transform our communities, results that we are seeking for our French schools and that we are currently unable to achieve.
Senator Maltais: You are absolutely right. However, there is a matter of fairness as Canadians. The anglophone school boards are consulted about their students' curricula and about the programs and funding that will be allocated to them. However, you are not. From the outset, I see discrimination at work here, and we wind up with situations such as those in Nunavut — and that really takes the cake — in which the education department turns its back on the public and really does not care about it. We are heading toward complete assimilation. I would like to know where the federal government's money is allocated in that specific case.
Mr. Paul: I can tell you, in response to your first question, that we have a lot of examples and supporting evidence. My colleague Mr. Racine referred to the $2 million that was transferred from the French first-language education program to the French second-language program. I can simply tell you briefly that we have analyzed all the reports from all the provincial and territorial education departments in an attempt to follow the money. It is important to follow the money. You can say you have received $25 million or $50 million, but where did that money go?
We hired experts and researchers to analyze the reports. I even examined them myself. The reports are quite voluminous and provide a lot of general information. There are areas and priorities. Authorities claim they have spent $10 million here and there, but we can find no details. The school boards try to obtain details on expenditures, but they are not provided to them. That is the situation with the reports submitted to Canadian Heritage.
We just witnessed a striking example not so long ago, and it is described in the brief we submitted to you. That information was obtained by means of an access permission request. In one small province, the Canadian Heritage money that was intended to cover additional costs was taken and used to pay for 13.5 teacher positions. These were teachers who had to be paid to teach core French and other subjects. The money was not used as additional funding. And yet those payments were made out of funds granted by Canadian Heritage for the Official Languages in Education Program.
Here is a third example. When Canadian Heritage grants funding to the provinces and territories for education, there is an obligation to match contributions. The provinces and territories must undertake to pay the same amount of money. So it is a 50-50 proposition. We try to determine the shares of the province and territory, but they remain a mystery.
Lastly, we talked about consultation. In another province, the consultation was conducted in the following manner. They took the school board's strategic plan, looked at it, and decided on priorities based on what they had seen and on their own interpretation. As you will recall, these people do not work in education in the French-language schools. However, without consulting the school board, they established the priorities for the current year.
I could go on and cite many other examples.
Senator Fraser: Thanks to all of you for being here, especially at such short notice. We very much appreciate that.
The lack of accountability you complain of is a source of enormous frustration for all minority communities, including my own, and has been from the start. We realize that the provinces' firm refusal has not changed. We are told, "You will not interfere in our fields or jurisdictions.''
Do you see even the slightest indication that you can hope for a minor change on the provincial side, or are you still patiently pleading your case in the hope one day it will all work out? My question is a bit cynical, but it is genuine.
I have a second question. In your recommendations, when you say the additional tripartite protocol must include a definition of "additional expenditures,'' which excludes costs, do you have any figures or comparisons? I am not talking about anecdotes, but rather something that cannot be denied. People always love to deny. Do you have any evidence or figures to give us, and potentially to give to the public, to indicate the cost differences in the area of minority-language education? These are the additional costs you are talking about.
Mr. Paul: To answer your first question, as to whether we will continue year after year to demand the same thing we have been seeking for more than 20 years, I would say that is the purpose of this meeting. We need support. We need your help to that end.
You have already done it, perhaps not you here around this table, but your predecessors on the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am quickly reading one of your recommendations that was not approved last time. We had high hopes, but 10 years have now passed. Perhaps, with your help, it will be approved this time.
Your committee recommended that the federal government and its partners develop a new management framework for the Official Languages in Education Program to ensure that francophone school boards would participate directly in negotiations on education agreements. This idea of splitting minority-language education and second-language instruction programs in negotiations on the education protocols and agreements comes from your committee.
We mentioned it to you at the outset; we are inventing nothing here; people will not be bowled over by what we are requesting. We are repeating verbatim the conclusion you reached in 2005. You would be giving us a real boost if you could examine it. You know, sometimes the old recommendations are not necessarily obsolete. What we are telling you is that, if this recommendation had been adopted when you proposed it, it would have been a great help to our communities, schools, and school boards.
As for your second question, I do not have the figures to hand, but it is absolutely relevant, and we can send you a document that has just been prepared, entitled La spécificité, la vitalité et la valeur ajoutée.
We are not certain we can continue to ensure the vitality and continued existence of our francophone communities, particularly in education. The question that must be asked is this: why does it cost more to teach in French than in English? Allow me to cite a very simple example: I was executive director of a school board in a former life, and, during that term, I saw many rights-holders' children enter kindergarten who were not proficient in French. They were at a disadvantage from the outset. Is that often the case in English-language school boards? There may be exceptions, but these are not merely exceptions in our boards. This means it costs more to francisize these children. Anglophones do not have to do that in their school boards.
If we wanted to go further, as you saw in our brief, the thing to do would be to implement a unifying project that has emerged from a national round table that would involve three major partners. We understood that the community school needed a unifying project to ensure that we operate differently in our communities and school boards so as to secure their vitality and continued existence. This has an impact on education.
Someone who comes from outside our community to teach in our schools, a member of one of our education faculties, for example — and there are a lot of them — in a minority setting, will imagine that things work the same way as in an English-language school or a school in Quebec. No, in Quebec, when French is taught in French, teachers are not necessarily concerned about transmitting culture to ensure the community's vitality and continued existence. If we do not teach language and culture at the same time in our schools, we are doomed to disappear. However, not all our teachers are prepared to embrace that message because they come from everywhere.
I have a lot of examples I can cite to show you why this is a specific situation and why it must be addressed differently. It costs more because we have to ensure we emphasize identity-building in our students
Senator Fraser: Could you send us the documentation?
The Chair: Mr. Paul, we would be grateful if you could send us that documentation.
Senator Gagné: Thank you very much for helping us kick off the session this year. I very much enjoyed the passion with which you transmit your message about minority-language education.
I witnessed the negotiations that have already taken place between CMEC and the Canadian government; I saw them take place. I would like to know whether you have begun to discuss the way you think this process should be conducted.
First, CMEC and the Canadian government agree on a funding allocation formula and then bilateral negotiations are conducted between the Canadian government and each of the provinces. Who do you see at the table for the signing of this tripartite protocol? Who would be the third party?
Ms. Lanthier: Thank you, Senator Gagné. That is an excellent question. The organization we see at the table representing the communities at the signing of the protocol, of a protocol that, as we are asking, would be tripartite, would really be the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones.
We are working closely together to determine how we can ensure that the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones does not have the same shortcomings as a signatory as the provinces had, that is to say to ensure that there is better cooperation with the communities in the areas of accountability and transparency. With a community partner, we, the francophone community in general, could also promote better working relations and be in a better position to achieve the results we want to see in our schools.
Mr. Paul: To add to what my colleague just said, I do not know whether you know how things are going with regard to the protocol, but not all the education ministers are at the table. I know you know that because you negotiated it, but for your information there are one or two representatives. They normally rotate. It is Prince Edward Island's turn this year. The negotiations will be conducted with representatives of the administrators, the Deputy Minister of Education of Prince Edward Island, on behalf of the province. That person has to clear the way, as it were. Then there is a president, who represents his colleagues from all the education departments, who will be Prince Edward Island's Minister of Education.
One or two individuals therefore represent all the education departments and speak on their behalf after conducting consultations. However, it would be the same process. As Ms. Lanthier just mentioned, the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones would be at the table from the start and at the signing of the protocol because we do not want to have 10 or 15 people around the table. That would not be efficient.
However, this is a heavy responsibility for the person who is the representative because he or she is not just representing the school boards Do not forget that this is a brief that we presented to three organizations. Consequently, the person nominated will be a member of the FNCSF and will not represent just its interests but also those of our communities and the parents' education interests, as CMEC does; one or two individuals on behalf of everyone.
Senator Gagné: My question concerns the bilateral agreements. Do you feel you have a role to play in the negotiations between the province and the federal government? Do you see three parties at the table and later on when the bilateral agreements are negotiated?
Mr. Paul: That is also an excellent question. We are there, but, at the same time, we are very cautious. As we know, education is a provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Our communities, parent organizations, and school boards have their own independence in each of the provinces and territories. We can oversee them and support them at the national level, but we may not negotiate for them. That role belongs to the province or territory. If we are there from the outset to help frame the discussion — and I mean "help frame'' — we will not negotiate amount X for one province and amount Y for the other. That is up to the provinces and territories, not us. We will not interfere in the affairs of the provinces and territories, but it will be an enormous help if we are there to oversee matters. In that capacity, without negotiating for our provinces and territories, we could ask how accountability will be carried out in each of the provinces and territories, where most of the problem lies.
Senator Mockler: Zachary Richard should be here this evening to sing the song Réveille.
Having said that, I believe the senators have asked questions that will likely open the door so that we can achieve better accountability and determine where the funding goes.
You cited a few examples of certain provinces. Mr. Paul, you said you had completed distribution taking each province and territory into account. In what year was this report prepared? Can it be distributed today?
Mr. Paul: Senator Mockler, the report straddles two years; we can say it was written last year. It is up to date. Yes, we can check to see whether we can send you a copy, but what you will see in the report is that there are no details. It contains nothing but general points. There are areas. The areas are priorities, and, in the areas, we know how many millions of dollars are granted to which province, and so on. However, we do not know how that money has been spent, apart from the fact that amount X has been allocated for primary and secondary education for student retention.
Was that money allocated to the school boards for them to conduct studies and research on student retention? Why are we not retaining our students? As you know, Rodrigue Landry, an eminent researcher on French-language education in Canada, has said that only one rights holder in two attends a French school. We are talking about rights holders, not non-rights holders. In other words, they are entitled to French-language education but do not exercise that right. One in two. Why? It seems to me we should check that information.
The other aspect is that we thought we had some success admitting students at an early age. However, they do not remain in our school boards. Why not? Because they are under enormous pressures. French-language schools are not everywhere. Students have to travel on school buses for an hour and a half; that makes no sense for a child. You would think we could use the money to get some answers to these kinds of questions, but we are given no details on how the money is used.
Senator Mockler: Madam Chair, the left hand should know what the right hand is doing, and vice versa.
In another world, New Brunswick, I was responsible for ensuring that budget envelopes were spent as provided in the protocol. As you say, modernization means subdividing the protocol for second-language instruction. You have to have these reports in order to bring everything to the federal government's attention. You cited some examples, but we must go beyond that. You have to sit down at the table and be present in order to show both the federal and provincial governments that these amounts are included in the protocol as provided by section 23.
Mr. Paul: I entirely agree with you, but that is not how is being done.
Senator Maltais: I have a supplementary question, Madam Chair.
It is no longer a matter of programs and consultations; it is a matter of honesty. First of all, could we not ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage to account for the money granted to the province? You are in a minority situation. Why then are these amounts not paid directly to the school boards?
You have provided us with evidence. The minister must be shown that the funding granted is not allocated to French-language education in the minority communities. That is the key. That money must be paid directly to the school boards. If the provinces keep it, the minister can make every effort to provide more, but that will not change matters. It will yield no results.
Mr. Paul: In that sense, Senator Maltais, we think that, before implementing that solution, we would like to suggest that we work together within a framework. Then let us play by the rules. There is a protocol. We are seeking nothing revolutionary here, simply to add another stage, a process for the French schools, which alone are covered by section 23, which I think is legitimate.
It is not up to me to tell anyone what must be done, but the discussion must first take place with those around the table, that is to say Canadian Heritage, the provinces, and the territories. I think we will see, during another stage, what could happen. For the moment, we are not asking that the money be paid directly to the school boards. We are asking to be included in the framework.
Senator Maltais: Even if you ask for it, that does not mean you will get it. That would definitely scare the provincial education ministers. They would see that minority francophones are taking care of their business and that they would do well to adapt to the situation. That might be good for you. Perhaps if you stir up the pot, they may be afraid to be the first ones to lose out and then will think about the matter as they should.
The Chair: Is that remark coming from a senator who has often stirred up the pot?
Senator Maltais: Yes.
The Chair: We are still on Senator Mockler's first round of questions, and then senators Poirier and Gagné will ask questions in the second round.
Senator Mockler: You are doing an outstanding job. You are lucky to have these instruments because otherwise it would be worse
Every provincial government prepares a report on the way the envelopes are spent as provided by the protocol. If you tell me that has not exactly been the case for the last two and a half years, then we must open that door and bring the fact to the attention of the current government, which has a new mandate, in order to make the machinery of government aware of this requirement in particular.
Let me tell you that, when I was there, I had to provide the government with answers to show them how our funding was being spent and whether it was being allocated to primary or secondary education or elsewhere. No one could build a road in the transportation sector with money specifically allocated for the purposes of the protocol.
Regardless who forms the government, under section 23, you have to file an accountability report and clearly establish where those funds have been allocated. If you cannot do that — and you have not been able to do so in the past 10 years or since 1969 — let me tell you, we have a serious problem regardless of the government in power.
Madam Chair, perhaps we should devote more time to this question later on with other witnesses in light of what we have just heard.
Why do you think that the current government approach is contrary to section 23 and that the practice continues? I am going to give you my opinion. Perhaps there have always been challenges to accountability and transparency.
Mr. Racine: Transparency is important, but I would go even further. We want the communities to be consulted and a plan put in place so that agreements can be reached with the province in which francophone needs are taken into account. The idea is not merely to obtain reports from the various provinces in order to see where the money went. We want to be consulted. We want to work with the partners to ensure the money is really spent for the purpose of meeting francophones' needs.
There is a responsibility under section 23. I am going back to what Senator Fraser said earlier. With respect to funding, it is true the education departments are defending their turf. However, it should not be forgotten that this is federal government money that is associated with section 23. Consequently, a plan must be established with the community and there must also be accountability.
Ms. Lanthier: It is also interesting to note that, although the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted in 1982, there were protocols before that time. Court decisions have been enabled the provinces and territories to take over management of francophone schools. That should have changed something in the way the protocol is negotiated. School boards have been established, but nothing has changed in the way governments have behaved in establishing this protocol.
What we are requesting is a restorative change so that we can do what section 23 should enable us to do.
Mr. Paul: Indeed.
Senator Poirier: One of the presentations we received stated that, when the federal government transfers funding to the provinces and territories, it also transfers obligations. The obligation to consult the francophone minority communities is clearly set forth in Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
If I remember correctly, Mr. Racine mentioned that, in Nova Scotia, they had requested details and were unable to obtain them. Similar examples in other provinces were also cited. When you make that kind of request and are told, as was the case in Nova Scotia, that those figures do not concern you — I do not remember the exact words you used — do you take follow-up action? Do you file a complaint to the effect that those individuals did not discharge their obligations with regard to the cash transfers? Is there an avenue that you can use to take measures and proceed in that manner?
My second question is as follows. We realize what the problem is by listening to you. This may be a problem in minority communities across Canada. Can you think of one province or territory in particular that might be more of a success story, where officials work more in cooperation with you, a province or territory that might be an example for the other provinces to follow? Or are all the provinces and territories in the same boat?
Mr. Paul: No, they do not all operate in the same manner. From the outset, we have never wanted to cast everyone in the same light.
Yes, things seem to be better in certain provinces. However, we do see subtle differences. What do we mean by "be better''? First, we mean that things go well in a province as long as people want them to go well. When a new education minister takes up his duties and does not have the same ideas as his predecessor, there is no framework within which to institutionalize proper operations. The way things work depends on the good will of the officials and ministers in place.
When things go well, it is not because they have an obligation to make it so. One of the protocol's major flaws, as we said at the outset, is the lack of any obligation to consult. It is black and white. If they want it, it is because they really want it. However, if they really want it, it is because the incumbent really wants it.
The situation becomes a little more of a problem when it comes to accountability. My colleagues tell me, "Roger, we still have the money.'' Then I ask them whether they know exactly how that money was spent, other than in a general way. They do not know.
I would like to raise another point. Consider the province of Ontario. Ontario is a large province. It has 12 school boards. There is one in Timmins, one in Sudbury, one in Ottawa, and another in Toronto. However, the school boards do not have the same needs. Are they consulted, school board by school board, community by community, to determine what the French-language education needs are in their community? No. Forms are developed and determined by the province and the education minister. Once again, what is the level of consultation and accountability when the provinces are not required to consult or be accountable? The answer we are always given is typical: "You know, education is a provincial and territorial jurisdiction.'' We know that. However, when the federal government allocates money for education, it has a right to know how that money is spent, even though education is a provincial jurisdiction.
If the provinces and territories do not want to provide precise and detailed accounts, they need only refuse Canadian Heritage's money. No one has done so to date. You who have taken part in these discussions know that the situation is tough.
Everyone focuses on his own needs. There is the biggest problem, the smallest province, the priorities, et cetera. Then, it ultimately takes forever to sign the agreement because one or two provinces not get what they wanted. It really is not easy.
Once again, I am not talking about the entire protocol because it is very long. However, if we could extract a small part of it, one that is important to us, I believe we would be able to agree.
Senator Gagné: As regards the consultation issue, I am sure the provinces say they consult. They do it in accordance with their definition of consultation.
Lastly, I think we should put this entirely aside and say that the communities would like to take part in the development of the official language minority communities' education development plan. Ultimately, that is what I believe you would like, and I have heard it. The provinces tell the communities that they are being consulted. It is true that they all prepare strategic development plans. Do you have anything to add to that?
Then I will have another question for you.
Suzanne Bossé, Director General, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: Yes, the provincial and territorial governments often say they have consulted. Sometimes those governments tell Canadian Heritage that the proof is in their education action plan. When my colleague said earlier that Canadian Heritage does not require the provincial governments to consult, that is because the wording states that the provincial and territorial governments "may consult'', not "shall consult''.
However, we know very well that part VII of the act provides for this obligation to consult. Last May, as Ms. Lanthier noted, the FCFA and a number of partner organizations met with the Committee of Deputy Ministers on Official Languages, the CDMOL, the business of which is coordinated by Canadian Heritage. We asked that the theme of the meeting focus precisely on consultation obligations. During the meeting, we defined the parameters of a genuine consultation. We asked CDMOL to agree to work with the communities to define consultation mechanisms that would be satisfactory to us, and CDMOL agreed to do so.
Canadian Heritage has been working on that since May. We are eager to see the department's proposal and are also working on the file. We will be able to keep you informed of developments in this matter.
Senator Gagné: Thank you. My other question is further to that of Senator Maltais concerning the direct transfer of funding to the school boards. What is your view on that? Should funding be transferred directly to the school boards?
Then, in your view, would there be any benefit to having the funds remain in the government's coffers to ensure that all the work is done on the French second-language instruction programming plan, for example? Where is the happy medium?
Mr. Paul: With regard to the question on direct negotiations with the school boards, my impression is that this argument could ultimately be used by Canadian Heritage. The answer is not clear at this point.
I am far from certain the education ministers will agree to our being signatories. From your smiles, I guess you think as I do, because they would lose some of their independence. Ultimately, however, it is not up to us to tell Canadian Heritage how to win its case.
That is not asking them a lot. We simply want to be there to ensure there is a framework. It seems to me that is possible. Moreover, we have not gone into the legal arguments or into the protocols because that is already being done. You know that a school board can legally negotiate with the federal government. Nothing in the act prevents a school board from negotiating with the federal government.
I currently think we should seek a middle ground in order to try to win our case. Look, we are not asking them for the moon. However, they would think we were asking for the moon if we ever asked to negotiate directly with Canadian Heritage. I am not saying that will not happen, but that is not what we are asking for the moment. We want to give the runners a chance, the runners being the education ministers across the country.
Senator Mockler: My question is for all the witnesses. We are not satisfied with the current accountability practices; that is an observation. The other observation is that we have to determine mechanisms that will let us see exactly whether the federal and provincial investments are actually being directed where they should go.
If the committee asked you to prepare a single recommendation of no more than two lines to increase awareness of the machinery of government, in both officialdom and governance, what would you recommend they do, considering the role of the provinces and that of the federal government?
Mr. Paul: What we said at the outset is that it would be really useful if you could dust off recommendations 5 and 6 from 2005.
At the time, in 2005 and 2000, my colleague the late Paul Charbonneau, a former managing director of the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones and the Commission nationale des parents francophones, testified before your committee seeking virtually the same thing we are seeking today.
We all have the same demands — the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, the Commission nationale des parents francophones, and the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones — and we believe the situation in 2005 did not accommodate them for all kinds of reasons.
Moreover, the past is the past, but my impression is that the current circumstances, with the emphasis we want placed on official languages, is more favourable. I therefore think that you could dust off recommendations 5 and 6 and reword them in light of the discussions we have had. This is the intention behind all that.
Senator Mockler: But through a 2016 lens.
Mr. Paul: I would not say with a 2016 lens, but I believe it is possible do things differently. There has been a lot of discussion since 2005.
The Chair: I must have a lot of dust on me because I took part in that study in 2005, when we made recommendations 5 and 6.
Mr. Paul: I may not have used the right word.
The Chair: I very clearly remember taking part in it
[English]
Senator Oh: This is the minority of minorities. From your statement, it sounds like government funding has been there and has been filtered down but is not being properly executed, correct? Could the funding be transferred down in stages with conditions of accountability attached to monitor how the money is being spent?
Just now you also mentioned about how language and culture go together. Can you explain a bit more about that?
[Translation]
Ms. Lanthier: Language and culture go together in our communities because they feed each other. More particularly, when you raise children in environments where the spoken language is in fact English and we want to passed on French to our children, in environments where we suffer from assimilation because English is such a strong language, we have to make an additional effort to transmit that language to our children.
These are not just academic efforts, that is to say efforts to teach French grammar or spelling and so on. They are also attempts to make children understand why their language is important to them personally, for their ability to live in their community, to live in society, even if it is a second and minority language. They are also efforts to make them understand the values that that language can convey and the impact it can have on their society.
That language is a means of communication, but it is also a basic value in a society that has two official languages and that was built on the co-existence of those two languages.
Consequently, what we are trying to do in our schools is not merely to teach French, but also to transmit to the students the meaning of their history, the meaning of a sense of belonging, and the meaning of the value of that language and its relevance to their lives today and in the future. That requires very special additional measures
[English]
Mr. Paul: If I may add, we have a double mission. The first mission is of course the French language, but the second mission is the culture. Why is it so important? I could give you many examples, one being that our youngsters are not very confident. In school there's no problem. Usually in school they participate; they really like going to school, but as soon as they step outside of the school environment, then they have to speak English in many parts. Of course they speak French as often as they can.
You're talking about a minority in a minority. I'm sure that you would agree with us that it's not easy being a minority in itself and a minority in a minority. It's not easy to build identity, to be secure. Our students suffer from linguistic and cultural insecurities. If you have children that come from a minority, in order for them to be proud and confident, you have to talk about these issues. You have to make sure that they're comfortable with their identity. You don't have to do that in English-language schools.
If they're not proud of their language and don't really understand that they have a whole community and the community has their back and will help them out and they can contribute to the community, if they're not initiated to these thoughts and the way of doing it, then we're not going to be there as francophones very long.
This is an everyday struggle. I was saying that in Quebec, if you go to a French-language school, they don't think about the fact that they should build identity because they're not really insecure about their language. Sometimes in our communities they don't master the French language, and we have to help them to master it more than they do right now. How do they feel when they don't master their mother tongue? They feel insecure. It's for us in our schools to help them have this feeling or sentiment, for them to be proud of their origins, and this is not a given.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: This is a question that I put to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, and now I am putting into you.
Next year, we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation, and, as far as I know, the Maritime provinces, Quebec and Ontario are the founding provinces of Canada. Would that not be an opportunity to prove that Canada was founded by two people, the French-speaking people and the English-speaking people?
Canada and the provinces, which are agents of the federal government in education and under the Constitution of Canada, must prove beyond a doubt that both peoples can develop to their full potential. I believe you will have to work with Canadian Heritage. I am sure the minister will listen to you and perhaps even respond to some of your demands that are not heard by your respective governments.
The Chair: I have a final question. Some members of our committee will be travelling to British Columbia next week. Do you have any recommendations for us? We are studying the entire issue of access to French-language schools and, of course, to immersion programs, but you may have recommendations and subject that are of particular concern to you.
Mr. Paul: You will be meeting in British Columbia next week. . .
The Chair: In Vancouver and Victoria.
Mr. Paul: In Vancouver and Victoria. I would say to you that this will be a historic moment in the promotion — and I am sure you are already doing it — of official languages.
In British Columbia, one of our 28 member francophone school boards has been struggling for two and a half years to obtain equivalent infrastructure. This matter is as simple as the following equation: no school, no students; no majority-equivalent school, no students; no equivalent school transportation, no students. This means that there is the potential in British Columbia to increase the number of students in the French-language schools. The one takes nothing away from the other.
I testified before the Standing Committee on Official Languages on the value of immersion, and I believe in our two official languages. We cannot say that giving to one means taking away from the other.
Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to read the 1,600 pages yet since the document was only published at 10:30 this morning in British Columbia, 1:30 p.m. our time. We are examining, but we cannot offer an opinion on it before we have read it. Regardless of the outcome and what will result from it once we have studied it, it is your committee's mandate, and ours as well, to promote both official languages.
I have visited British Columbia's schools. The Supreme Court awarded us equivalent infrastructure for the École Rose-des-vents. That matter has not been settled, but infrastructure equivalence does not merely concern the École Rose-des-vents because several institutions are not equivalent to those of the majority.
We cannot speak about official languages without discussing the infrastructure needs of the francophone communities; the two go hand in hand. I would ask you, I would beg you, to support the idea that infrastructure is necessary in order to attract students. Without going into detail, I know from my experience as a former director general that, if my school is not as beautiful as the one on the other side of the street, and if I have trouble attracting students, I will have even more difficulty retaining them.
At the risk of repeating myself, we are in favour of immersion. If at some point you could find a way to make our rights-holder parents understand — we work on that year after year — that there are immersion programs and that there are also French-language schools, that would be useful. An immersion program is not the program of a French-language school, but people are confused and believe that their children should attend English schools in order to master both official languages — and that is what all parents want for their children. Parents think their children can only become perfectly bilingual at English schools. I can give you statistics on bilingualism. Students who come out of French-language schools are perfectly bilingual for life. I do not know whether I answered your question.
The Chair: Yes, indeed. You have made us aware of the situation that we will see and hear at our public hearings.
Since there are no further questions, I thank you on behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages for your engagement, your perseverance, and especially your passion to improve the fate of the francophone minority communities.
You have set a good example of cooperation among three national organizations, thanks in part to the publication of the brief that we read quickly but not thoroughly. Our committee has been moved by what you have told us this evening. We will definitely review recommendations 5 and 6 of the report that our committee prepared in 2005.
Thank you for your testimony.
(The committee adjourned.)