Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 7 - Evidence - Meeting of October 17, 2016
OTTAWA, Monday, October 17, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:33 p.m. to continue its study on the challenges associated with access to French-language schools and French immersion programs in British Columbia.
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening, my name is Senator Claudette Tardif, from Alberta. It is my pleasure to chair the meeting this evening. Before I open the floor to the witnesses, I would like to invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Poirier: Senator Poirier from New Brunswick. Welcome to the committee.
Senator McIntyre: Senator McIntyre from New Brunswick.
Senator Maltais: Senator Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Gagné: Senator Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Mockler: Senator Percy Mockler from New Brunswick. Thank you for being here.
The Chair: The committee is continuing its special study on access to French schools and French immersion programs in British Columbia. The committee travelled to British Columbia from October 2 to 7, 2016.
The purpose of today's meeting is to get a better understanding of the right to instruction in the minority language in that province and the conduct of court challenges in that regard.
We will have the pleasure of hearing from Mark Power, a lawyer, and Marc-André Roy, also a lawyer, from Power Law. On behalf of the members of the committee, I would like to thank you for generously accepting our invitation. I would ask that you make your presentation, and the senators will then ask you questions. Mr. Power, you have the floor.
Mark Power, Lawyer, Power Law: Good evening, Madam Chair, senators. Thank you very much for your invitation and your welcome. I will start and I will then yield the floor to my colleague, who will continue by giving more concrete examples of the information I will be presenting.
First, you should have a package in front of you in which you will see a table of contents and also, at tab 1, the French version of our presentation, and, at tab 2, the English version of it. You will also find various documents of interest later in the package.
It is impossible for me to read you the text in a few minutes, nor would that be useful. I therefore intend to highlight only a few aspects, but I wanted to let you know that a relatively complete presentation has been submitted to you, which I invite you to read when you have an opportunity.
The reason we are here to talk to you about British Columbia is in part because we work all across Canada, and especially because we have just completed the famous trial in British Columbia where we were members of the legal team for the Conseil scolaire francophone de Colombie-Britannique and the Fédération des parents francophones in the province, in addition to being counsel for several co-plaintiff parents.
That trial dealt with the implementation of section 23 of the Charter, which governs instruction in French outside Quebec and in English in Quebec. Before going any further, it would be useful to say a few words about immersion, given the objective of your study.
To begin with, the objective of immersion is to teach French, at least in British Columbia, as a second, third or later language, without necessarily trying to transmit a culture. The objective is to teach the rudiments of the language to people who do not speak it, who do not necessarily have a francophone heritage, in order to increase the number of French speakers in Canada. The objective is therefore very different. In legal terms, the concepts are different. There is no constitutional right to immersion, whether in New Brunswick, in British Columbia, or elsewhere; there are not even any statutory rights to immersion.
The immersion programs that are offered in British Columbia exist through the goodwill of English-language school boards, and in fact — as we do have to recognize — the province of British Columbia has made this a priority. A relatively high priority? Probably not. That was one of the reasons for your study, but in legal terms, we have to start with that observation.
That brings us to the instruction that is the subject of section 23 of the Charter in British Columbia. That is what is referred to as instruction en français langue première and, in English, French First Language Education. What is different is that everything is done in French, including teaching subjects, except for teaching English. The signs in the school are in French, the school is managed in French, the pay slips are in French. Literally everything is in French, not to mention the cultural aspect that is conveyed in the schools. This means that the two areas are very different.
Section 23 includes several different rights. If you turn to tab 1, in the French version of the presentation, you will see paragraphs 6 and 7. Each paragraph is numbered. First, paragraph 6 sets out the three types of rights guaranteed by section 23. The first is a right to instruction, which you know intuitively; next is a right to facilities, that is, to buildings, some of which you visited on your recent trip; and last and perhaps most important is a right to management and control, that is, the by and for francophones formula, to control the quality of the education.
The objective of section 23 is to try to stabilize the francophone community, to preserve the community, and to try to correct what are today considered to be injustices. In British Columbia, historically, there was an established francophone presence. Section 23 is an attempt to give British Columbia back the francophone visage that has been lost, not to say forgotten, for a very long time.
Section 23, and I am moving ahead to paragraph 13, grants a right to substantive rather than formal equality, and this includes a right to have that equivalence assessed from the perspective of the parents and not the perspective of accountants or functionaries — the perspective of the rights-holder parents. This is the right to have the equivalence analyzed locally and not on a province-wide basis. All of the decision-making factors that are important in the parents' eyes, and, perhaps most importantly, what the Supreme Court of Canada has told us, that is, not to consider costs or practicalities, must be taken into account. That means that once the numbers warrant a program of instruction, once the numbers warrant a facility, the province or territory, in this case British Columbia, must provide the funds to enable substantive equivalence to be achieved.
Beyond the broad principles, there are practical consequences and what is still a relatively vital role that must, in our opinion, be played by the government of Canada. I propose to limit my remarks to that subject.
Historically, the government of Canada has exercised its federal spending power to support teaching French outside Quebec, and in particular in British Columbia. It has done that, historically, for constructing buildings. In 1997, Ms. Copps, who was then the Minister of Canadian heritage in the former Liberal government, put nearly $11 million on the table to encourage the government of British Columbia not to appeal a judgment that was delivered in 1996. This was therefore a federal subsidy to try to coax the province, to discourage an appeal, and to encourage British Columbia to comply with a judgment that had just been given. Of course, I stress this because the parallel with the present situation is striking. I also stress it to cite this concrete example of the federal subsidies that British Columbia has received, not only to build theatres or community spaces, as you saw, in fact, on your trip, but precisely to buy or build schools.
I would like to draw your attention quickly to paragraph 5005; it is not in the package. At paragraph 5005 of the judgment that was recently handed down, Justice Russell concluded that there had been a breach of section 23 in Mission — which is on the outskirts of Abbotsford, in the centre of the Fraser Valley — because of the fact that the gymnasium was almost as big as the room we are in, that is, minuscule, for middle school students. However, Justice Russell declined to order a remedy, and instead urged the Conseil scolaire francophone and the province to bang on the door of the government of Canada to get it to solve the problem. That is really rather surprising. I wanted to point this out to you, that even in the eyes of a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the government of Canada plays the part of the guardian angel of the francophone community — in her view, in any event — and that we can imagine a violation of section 23, but only to the extent that the remedy must come from Ottawa and not from Victoria. At least, this is the first time this has been said in black and white in a judgment. We thought it worth bringing this fact to your attention.
A second example that I want to highlight is the fact that the government of Canada does things, makes decisions, that have serious consequences for the francophone community in British Columbia. I therefore suggest that you recommend to the officials and to certain federal departments that they take the needs of the francophone community into consideration before making certain decisions.
I will explain. If you would, turn to tab 16, where you will find a map that should be familiar to you — a map of downtown Vancouver. If you open it up, you will see that the government of Canada is still responsible for two enormous properties located in one of the most expensive real estate markets, if not the most expensive one, in Canada. I will describe them for you. First is the federal Jericho site, which is a yellow rectangle in the upper left. That site consists of 52 acres, which is not negligible, and I am talking about the federal portion. Next is the headquarters of "E'' Division of the RCMP. Just beside the yellow circle is Rose-des-vents school, which you recently visited. Beside the school, you can see the headquarters of "E'' Division of the RCMP. Until recently, that site was owned by Public Works and Government Services, while the Jericho Lands belonged, until recently, to the Department of National Defence. The two sites are currently owned by the Canada Lands Company, which is redeveloping them.
The province has asked the federal government to reserve spaces on those sites for French schools. The Conseil scolaire francophone has repeatedly asked the government of Canada to set aside spaces. Nothing has been done, however, and in her recent judgment, at paragraphs 3709 and 3711, Justice Russell acknowledged that the problem at present with finding sites in downtown Vancouver is the fault of the government of Canada. In my opinion, that is serious, and we have to ask why and how we got to this point.
As we all know, education is a provincial responsibility; however, that does not mean that respecting the division of powers entitles the government of Canada not to comply with section 23 in its decision-making.
I will explain. First, federal institutions have to take section 23 into account when they make decisions that will have serious consequences. Second, Part VII of the Official Languages Act requires that federal institutions think about us, think about the francophone community of British Columbia, before doing things. I am not saying that we automatically have a right to acres of land, but it has to at least think about us. The evidence shows that the government of Canada did not consider the question, and did not think about it before transferring those sites to the Canada Lands Corporation. Is it too late? No. It is not too late to require that Mr. Sohi, the member for Edmonton Mill Woods and Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, but, most importantly, the Minister responsible for the Canada Lands Company, have the Canadian government set aside five acres, or even less, for building two French- language schools, as the court recently recognized.
In our opinion, you would do well to recommend something more structural as well. Some provincial governments require that their ministries, their public bodies, take the needs of francophones into account before selling buildings, before selling properties.
I now invite you to turn to tab 6. You will see a rather long regulation there. I simply want to draw your attention to the title. It is Ontario Regulation 444/98, and the long title is: Disposition of Surplus Real Property. Who made that regulation? The Mike Harris government. Mike Harris had the wisdom to require that English-language school boards offer their surplus properties to francophones, in priority, before selling them on the private market. Why? Because, in terms of public policy, it is logical to keep real property within the government, whether it be federal or provincial, or school boards.
In our opinion, your committee should seriously examine this question and require that Ms. Joly, who has that power, make the same kind of regulation, under the federal Official Languages Act, so that the Vancouver real estate disaster does not happen again. Is this a fantasy? No. The government of Canada still owns vast properties, in Winnipeg, at the Edmonton airport, in Downsview, in Toronto, and on the LeBreton flats here in Ottawa. We should at least think about the Canadian francophone community before selling those lands. I understand that profits need to be made, obviously; I am not naive. But, on the other hand, the legal obligations imposed by the Official Languages Act have to be met.
I could go on, but I do not want to take time away from my colleague Marc-André Roy.
Marc-André Roy, Lawyer, Power Law: Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for your invitation. I am going to go back to British Columbia and talk to you a little about some specific problems experienced in that province.
As your committee may have observed when it travelled to Vancouver and Victoria two weeks ago, the Rose-des- vents elementary school, which you visited, is a very good example of school infrastructure that is completely inadequate to serve the population in its catchment area. The school is old and overcrowded and the property where it is located is too small. The school is also difficult to access, given how long the trips take by bus.
The worst thing is that Rose-des-vents school is far from being the only one with these kinds of problems in British Columbia. In fact, it is not even in the worst situation.
Section 3 of our brief, which you can find at tabs 1 and 2, sets out the problems that the Conseil scolaire francophone in the province is facing as it tries to offer an equivalent education everywhere in the province. I will give you a few general examples, using some images and maps that you will find at various tabs of your document.
At tabs 7 and 8 of the document, you can see the Sechelt school board's elementary school in British Columbia. It is an example of a school located in a heterogeneous situation. It is a campus composed of several buildings that house a number of English-language programs, including an adult secondary education program and a Strong Start program for young children. The board's school is located where you see the letter A. You can also see the other buildings located on the campus. It is a school that is not owned by the Conseil scolaire, which rents spaces that are very old and inadequate. There are therefore students who have to go to elementary school in those conditions. At tab 8, there is another photograph that shows the condition of the premises in that school.
Next, at tab 14, we have another example of problems in the Conseil scolaire francophone de Colombie- Britannique. Here, we see the Whistler school, a francophone school that has 80 students from kindergarten to grade seven. Whistler is one of the attractions in the community where francophones want to settle in British Columbia, but the school has to rent premises in the anglophone school in the town. The tab shows two pages, back and front and in colour, where we see the various spaces occupied by francophones. The shared spaces are in green and blue. We see that there is a francophone program that is spread out within an anglophone school.
At tab 9, we have another kind of problem. Here, we are in Pemberton. This is another rather atrocious example. The school does not exist. There are a few portable classrooms that you can see at point A on the map, behind the anglophone school in the town. There are several portables, and the students have access to the school gymnasium for a few hours, and to other spaces that they can occupy temporarily, shown at point B. The school also rents spaces in a community centre, shown at point C. The map is very small, but what is not apparent here is that for kindergarten, grade one and grade two students, walking from point A to point C to get to a class takes twenty minutes. They have to walk and cross a major artery in the town. It takes a lot of time and it cuts into the time that could have been spent on education by the same amount, and that is very bad.
In addition, at letter D, as you can see, there is a café. The space shortage is such that the school principal has to go to that café to hold parent-child meetings. This means that relatively confidential meetings are being held in a public place. This is another type of example of a very inadequate situation.
Next, if you go to tab 12, this is Anne-Hébert elementary school, which has kindergarten to grade six classes, and is located east of Vancouver. You saw the Rose-des-vents elementary school, which is the school that covers the catchment area west of Main Street. Anne-Hébert is to the east. It is a very old and overcrowded school. The school has 432 students enrolled this year, when it was built to accommodate fewer than 300. As you can see in the photograph, you can count eight portable classrooms, and the photograph is not up to date. The school has had to add two more this year. I think that is the maximum number of portable classrooms that can be physically accommodated on the site, if they want to preserve a playground for the children, which is already too small. This is another type of problem.
Now, to go to a completely different category of problems, in order to focus more on the buildings, I invite you to look at another map, which is found at tab 18 of our file.
So tab 18 is the map of the catchment area for the Sentiers-alpins school in Nelson. Here, we see a catchment area that is much too large. This means that to get from the top to the bottom of the catchment area, we are talking about more than an hour by car, and it takes more time if you travel it by bus. It is much slower by bus. The red points on the map show the places where the families, the rights-holders, live. The children are all concentrated in the centre of Nelson, and the school, which is the yellow point, is not even in town. They have to travel more than 30 minutes by bus to get there every morning and go home every evening. That is much longer than the short bus trips that the anglophones who go to schools located in Nelson, which are nearby, have to take.
Tab 19 shows the secondary school in the Fraser Valley region. Here, you see what is proposed as the catchment area for a secondary school in the Fraser Valley, and it covers three elementary school catchment areas, including Abbotsford, where there is no school at present. If we look at the little square in the upper left, we see the locations of the two existing secondary schools. There is the Gabrielle-Roy school, which you visited, which is very nice, that received funding from the federal government and has a lot of community spaces, but that is also too small now. So there are five portable classrooms on the property, and there is certainly a market for more secondary schools. Here, there is a need for a new school, because there is already strong demand for secondary instruction and the secondary schools are located very far from the elementary school.
Since we are talking about the Fraser Valley, I would like to talk about the La Vérendrye school in Chilliwack, which is at tabs 10 and 11 of our file. This school is very small, it is old, and it is located outside downtown Chilliwack, on a busy street, which is relatively dangerous for the students. As we can see at tab 10, the school is in a bad location. It is across from a softwood lumber plant and a metal plant. It is not a very pleasant environment for young children. At tab 11, you see that the school is very small and there is a need for portable classrooms to accommodate some spaces. In addition, as may not be apparent, the school has no gymnasium. So the school has to rent space in a community centre, which is point B on the map, and that causes all sorts of problems. It is not a space that belongs to the board, and so it cannot store its equipment there. Essentially, a community centre is a place where there are events on weekends. So they run into all sorts of problems, such as the smell of alcohol, a dirty room, and so on.
The Chair: Mr. Roy, can I ask you to conclude so that we have enough time to answer the senators' questions?
Mr. Roy: I can conclude, Madam Chair, by saying that it is a well-kept secret in the history of the francophone community in British Columbia that that history starts well before the province entered Confederation. Until the end of the 1950s, French was the most commonly spoken non-Aboriginal language in the region. Like the Aboriginal communities, the francophone community in British Columbia has contributed to the economic, social, cultural, religious and educational life of the province. It is important that the francophone community of the province receive the resources it needs in order to flourish. The federal government has an important role to play in that regard, and the community is counting on you in the hope that your final report will contain very useful recommendations that will enable the federal government to achieve that objective.
Thank you very much for your patience.
The Chair: I would like to thank our witnesses for this very complete file. Truthfully, it will be very useful and valuable in our committee's work and discussions. It is an excellent document. Thank you very much for that.
We will now proceed to questions from senators.
Senator McIntyre: Gentlemen, thank you for your presentation, which I found very interesting. We had an opportunity to meet in British Columbia very recently.
I would like to come back to the Supreme Court's decision on September 26. As you mentioned, it is a 1,600-page decision. That prompts mixed reactions from the parties, with a mixture of joy and disappointment.
That being said, I understand that the parties have until the end of October to appeal the decision. Do you intend to appeal this case?
Mr. Power: Senator, you have more experience than I have in litigation. Ultimately, that decision is up to the client. It is up to the Conseil scolaire francophone de Colombie-Britannique and the Fédération des parents to make the decision that has to be made by October 26.
It goes without saying, on the one hand, that the gains made have to be weighed, particularly the major gains in systemic terms. This is the first time that a judge in Canada has ordered a separate and autonomous budget item for francophones. She has ordered as many as nine programs, nine future schools, and we are talking about millions of dollars.
On the other hand, the judge seems to have adopted a much more defeatist vision of the future of French in British Columbia. In her opinion, French is destined to fail and will necessarily disappear; it is a matter of time. It goes without saying that this aspect of the decision could be appealed, not to mention the application of section 1.
In the case of Pemberton, my colleague Mr. Roy showed you the school where the principle holds individual meetings with students in a café. On the one hand, the judge found that there was a violation of section 23, and, on the other hand, she concluded that it would be too expensive to solve the problem. So the violation of section 1 is justified, in a province that had a surplus of $800 million last year. It is not money that is lacking.
Senator McIntyre: In the megatrial, the Supreme Court also recognized systemic problems in terms of funding for instruction in French in the minority language. I understand that some parties believe that the court's conclusions could have impacts on the funding systems in other provinces and territories, so that they better meet the needs of francophone schools.
Could you tell us more about that question?
Mr. Power: Of course. All francophone school boards outside Quebec are used to being told by their ministry of education, "Yes, we understand, you have needs, but we have other needs too. We have to build hospitals, we have to build schools for anglophones, we have to repave some highways.''
What the judge concluded, in one sentence, is that those considerations will now no longer be relevant when it comes time to funding and meeting the needs of francophones. In systemic terms, this is very important for British Columbia and for other provinces and territories.
However, to connect the conclusion to your work and your level of government, this is also a field in which the federal government plays a role. That means, for example, that the government of Canada must set aside the necessary funds to ensure that the Official Languages Act is implemented and to ensure that the services it must offer in French are genuinely offered and are of equal quality. That principle is useful elsewhere, but also at the federal level.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Power, this is my last question. You mentioned a recommendation we could bring to the attention of Ms. Joly. Do you have other recommendations to make to the committee in connection with its study?
Mr. Power: I have two more. First, you have heard from witnesses concerning the protocol for agreements on teaching French and English and the need for francophones to be at the bargaining table from now on. It is clear that if the francophones of British Columbia had a greater voice in the negotiation of federal-provincial agreements and of the protocol, it would have a very concrete impact. I therefore encourage you to consider that.
My second recommendation may be counter-intuitive. In fact, immersion is in very great demand and spaces are selling like hotcakes. Being enrolled in French immersion in British Columbia is very desirable. The problem is that a large majority of rights-holders are attending immersion schools, because there are not enough places in the French- language schools. Your recommendations should be to the effect that more places should be provided in French in British Columbia.
I am talking about French first language instruction, which will have the ricochet effect of creating places in immersion programs. Rights-holders will move into the right system, the one that transmits the culture in addition to the language, and the result will be that places in immersion programs are freed up. In other words, it is possible to kill two birds with one stone by focusing more on the need for French first language education.
Senator Maltais: We have just come back from British Columbia, and I want to mention that the welcome we received was extraordinary. It gave committee members a chance to see how strong francophone young people are in British Columbia and how committed they are to retaining French. However, they have appalling constraints. First, there is a total lack of will on the part of the government of British Columbia. I think we can say that in all honesty.
Second, there is the thinking like that of the Supreme Court judge who says that French will disappear in 10 years. I am prepared to bet, myself, that the judge will have disappeared and French will still exist in British Columbia, with all the young people we met. We might also say the judge is lacking in judgment.
There are also problems relating to the transfer of land from the federal government to the provincial government. Three or four years ago, the Harper government decided to transfer the National Assembly of Quebec property, which belonged to the federal government for one very simple reason: that is where the first Parliament of Canada was located. It was done by negotiations, because the federal government owns almost half the land in Quebec City, including the Plains of Abraham, the Port of Québec, Beauport Bay, and Promenade Samuel-De Champlain.
There has always been healthy bargaining, regardless of what government is in office, because the province and the federal government wanted the same thing. In the case of British Columbia, if the government has no will, the government of Canada will not have, either.
I think there is some reconciling to do. Rather than constantly ending up in court, let us try to reconcile. Whether it is done through politicians or lawyers, let us try to reconcile, because we have seen all of the situations you have described to us. This is 2016, and this makes no sense. We have to solve this problem.
Mr. Power, you cited the agreement with the government of Ontario. I think you did your law in common law. In terms of the history, we have to remember that in Quebec, New Brunswick and some other corners of Canada, all the schools were built on land that belonged to the church. There was a provision under which the church was allowed to dispose of land for educational purposes only. There were long-term leases for 99 years. When the school board no longer needed the land, it was automatically returned to the parish corporation. If the parish did not want it, it went back to the municipality, which could dispose of it. So Ontario did not invent anything, given that this regulation dates from before the Conquest.
My last point relates to the parents. It is very difficult for them to have a social life in the francophone culture. I think the parents are admirable in this situation, because the students who get out of the French school have nowhere to gather. The gathering place belongs to the municipalities and the government of British Columbia.
I think we have to arrange for there to be community centres available to francophones, because we get the feeling that the francophones in British Columbia are scattered. There are no ghettos and they have no political clout. However, the Official Languages Act applies for them too. With Bill S-209, we are certainly going to be adding some political clout. Thank you, Madam Chair, I do not have a question.
The Chair: Do you want to comment on Senator Maltais' comment?
Mr. Power: I have a quick comment, more out of professional duty than anything else: we must render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. The government of British Columbia has been generous in operational terms. It was one of the first provinces to give a 15 per cent supplement per student. The community was asking for 25 per cent. Where the province has been stingy is when it comes to capital assets. Of course, we are disappointed with some aspects of the judge's decision. I have no doubt that she took her work very seriously and she sincerely believes that she gave the right decision. On the other hand, we have to think that the Supreme Court of British Columbia or a court somewhere else in Canada could correct some of those mistakes. However, I want to point out that I think she did what she believed was the right thing, even though we believe she is mistaken.
Senator Gagné: Language battles are a source of anxiety for me. I have to admit that when I was in British Columbia, I had the same feeling all over again as we had in Manitoba. We have certainly seen progress everywhere in Canada, but we have a long way to go yet.
I also note the financial investment in the court case. In a report on September 25, the CBC said that the Conseil scolaire francophone had spent nearly $17 million on the megatrial for education in French, which took 239 days of hearings spread over more than two years. We always have to try to weigh the pros and cons. Do we go to court, to try to win a case and make progress? On the other hand, we know that the $17 million could have been invested in French education in British Columbia, in infrastructure, and so on. Were those investments worth it? In addition, what share did the Language Rights Support Program (LRSP) contribute to this legal proceeding? Was the funding received more than or less than what the Court Challenges Program could have offered when it existed?
Mr. Power: The Court Challenges Program provided $125,000. That is more than the former program could have offered, but correcting for inflation, and not much more. It is literally a drop in the bucket. The Conseil scolaire francophone and the Fédération des parents francophones de la Colombie-Britannique appreciate the gesture, but it is a negligible amount.
Is it worth it? On the one hand, I have to tell you that before the CSF and the FPFCB decided to jump in, in 2010, they had exhausted all other avenues. Their elected representatives had met with quite a lot of provincial and federal ministers, looking for support, to get some progress on the matter. In addition, the managers at the Conseil scolaire francophone had knocked on the doors of all the deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers — mainly in Victoria, but also in Ottawa — looking for support. The conclusion, in 2010, was to wonder what would have to be done if there was no progress. Would we have to leave our children in schools like the ones described by my colleague, Mr. Roy, or move on to the last possible resort, the courts?
Was it expensive? Absolutely. However, the benefits are financial, first, in the hundreds of millions of dollars for building schools, and systemic, second. British Columbia has given Canada a gift: a separate budget item for francophones. The Division scolaire franco-manitobaine (DSFM), as one example, will be grateful. Yes, it was a big decision to institute proceedings in 2010, but I assure you that it was the last option. In addition, the benefits will be very substantial. That being said, I am not disregarding the fact that a number of families had to mobilize. That has not been easy since 2010, but the results are significant.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your very interesting presentations. I have one comment to make, simply to explain a regional difference, and then I will have a few short questions for you. If I understood correctly, the reason for a shortage of francophone schools is that there are francophone children in British Columbia who are enrolled in French immersion programs in the English schools. Did I understand correctly?
Mr. Roy: The problem in British Columbia is that there are rights-holders who, for various reasons, including the shortage of French first language programs in the province, enrol their children in immersion programs instead.
Senator Poirier: But they are francophone students?
Mr. Roy: Yes, and children of rights-holders.
Senator Poirier: In New Brunswick, a francophone individual is not entitled to enrol in a French immersion program.
Mr. Roy: That is correct, yes.
Senator Poirier: They have to go to French school. It is totally different.
Mr. Roy: That is what New Brunswick has chosen, for reasons of its own.
Senator Poirier: At tab 16 of your presentation, you talk about federal lands that have been transferred to a crown corporation that manages them. That corporation is independent of the government; it does not receive funds from the government for its management. Is it the federal government that gave it this authority and that established the corporation?
Mr. Roy: The Canada Lands Company reports to Minister Sohi. Ultimately, it is he who makes certain decisions under its enabling legislation. The essential point of my presentation, however, is that Part VII of the Official Languages Act applies to the Canada Lands Company. In our opinion, it would be illegal for the Canada Lands Company to dispose of these enormous land holdings, that are so valuable, without at least considering the needs of francophones, needs that have been clearly established and have recently been recognized by a court.
Senator Poirier: But have these lands already been transferred to a crown corporation?
Mr. Power: Yes. One of the properties belonged to the Department of National Defence, and the other to Public Works and Government Services Canada, which is responsible for the RCMP. They transferred those lands to the Canada Lands Company and to certain Aboriginal peoples under a 50/50 agreement. That is an important detail, because when you are a 50 per cent shareholder, you have enough power to block a transaction.
Your remarks, Senator Poirier, give me a chance to point out how structural and serious the problem is. National Defence sells 52 acres located in downtown Vancouver to the Canada Lands Company without once thinking of our communities. Then the Canada Lands Company tries to redevelop that land, together with the Aboriginal peoples, to generate profits. I understand that we need money, but this development has to take our needs into consideration. That is what the Official Languages Act requires. It would be desirable to avoid the courts, and it would be a fine legacy for the community if your committee would recognize the important role played by the Canada Lands Company, so that you could help to improve this redevelopment project so it would take the francophone community into consideration, particularly given the extent of the needs on the ground.
Senator Poirier: A few weeks ago, three organizations came to testify concerning the protocol for agreements that you mentioned earlier. Their goal was to create three different protocols specifically for the additional costs of education in French, for the elementary and secondary schools in official language minority communities. Would a protocol like that be beneficial?
Mr. Power: Yes, very much so. The government of Canada gives out hundreds of millions of dollars to support French instruction outside Quebec in postsecondary and early childhood education, continuing education and immersion. Those are all fields that are not protected by section 23 of the Charter, and over which francophones have the power of neither management nor control. We are not talking about that, we are talking about the $150 million for implementing section 23 of the Charter, which relates to instruction in French outside Quebec, from kindergarten to grade 12. That falls perfectly within the right of management and control. It is not logical for the government of Canada to transfer such large sums of money for our benefit through the provinces and the territories. That is like me being 25 years old and my father making decisions for me, and deciding to spend the money that was owed to me. School management has borne fruit; we are mature in this field, the managers are accountants, lawyers and experienced people. We are therefore able to manage this money directly, and the government of Canada should deal directly with the school boards.
The last point that is relevant to your answer, in my view, is that the government of Canada already does that. In the case of the Aboriginal people, there are tripartite agreements. There is a tripartite agreement between Canada, British Columbia and the Assembly of First Nations. If we can do it for the founding peoples — and that is a good thing, we should not begrudge them anything — then let us apply this best practice for the francophone founding people of Canada as well. No more nor less is being requested. It would be the right public policy. It would eliminate abuses and make the funds granted by the federal government more effective on the ground.
Senator Poirier: Although I did not have the opportunity to go to Vancouver with the committee, I followed what went on. Is British Columbia so different from the other provinces and territories? Is the problem experienced in British Columbia the same as in the other provinces? Is the situation in British Columbia worse than in the other provinces? What is it that is different?
Mr. Power: In nearly all respects, practically all the legal issues raised are similar to those that were debated in Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Alberta, that is, the schools are too old, do not exist, or are too small. What is unique in British Columbia is that it is so hospitable and interesting, its economy is doing well, and the weather is good, and it attracts a lot of Quebecers, Acadians and Franco-Ontarians, and people from all over the world who decide to settle there. We therefore find a high concentration of French speakers with a ridiculous shortage of spaces in French-language schools. This is a problem on a large scale.
What we find in some communities here and there elsewhere in Canada, we find in virtually all of the communities in British Columbia. The reason this case dealt with such a large number of schools is that the system, the way the provinces handles requests from francophones to build and renovate schools, does not take francophones' needs into consideration. I am not the only one who says that; Madam Justice Russell also said it in her conclusion, after hundreds of days of trial.
Senator Mockler: The people change, but the cases stay the same. We have to fight constantly to retain our rights in French or in English, as the case may be, as in Edmundston. There are a lot of francophones there, and the anglophones are in a minority. They have had schools built for them.
I agree with Senator Maltais when he gave a historical overview of what has gone on across Canada, particularly in Quebec, but also in New Brunswick and Manitoba. This spring, I visited what is called the Canada Lands Company in British Columbia. I had the opportunity to speak with people about what you have talked to us about. It is not falling on deaf ears. The Canada Lands Company does have responsibilities in order to dispose of certain Canadian properties or assets. Section 23, according to the research done by the Library of Parliament, says that the court will order that a policy be established to improve the relationship between the Conseil scolaire francophone and the Ministry of Education. There are still many positive things for making progress on our francophone issues across Canada. The fact that the court has not recognized the obligation under section 23, well, we are all human, and sometimes we literally err in interpreting certain things. As lawyers, you have certainly seen people and not known whether they were right or wrong. I too have no problem with that.
We have to make allies and be visible in our communities. An election is coming up in British Columbia, so will we be visible in our communities during the election, to make the situation more widely known and make politicians more sensitive to the need to respect the francophone communities of British Columbia?
Mr. Power: The francophone community in British Columbia is very large, but very dispersed. It has practically no political clout at the provincial level. I am not saying there is no enthusiasm for French or that some members of the Legislative Assembly in Victoria would not give them a very attentive hearing, but there is no Madeleine Meilleur in British Columbia, there are no former premiers as there were in Manitoba, for example. That is how things have happened, but that is not a reason not to talk or make the attempt. Rather, it means that the provincial election on the horizon in British Columbia will not solve the problem, that is certain. That is why the systemic change announced by the judge is so important. She says that regardless of who is in power, regardless of who is in the legislature, it is necessary, from now on, to have a budget item reserved for francophones for renovating and building schools, and that officials, let alone their minister, may now not compare the needs of francophones with the needs of anglophones.
I must say, on the other hand, that the political actor that can step in and take action is the government of Canada. A number of MPs from British Columbia are in the cabinet today, including Ms. Wilson-Raybould. The need to act comes down to them and to her, not just in moral terms, but also in legal terms. Part VII of the Official Languages Act requires that the government of Canada think of us and act in our interests, and do so constructively. It can absolutely do more.
Senator Mockler: We should still encourage them to be visible. Do they intend to meet with the premier of British Columbia to make her aware of what we have now seen, with the judgment?
Mr. Power: I assure you that the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique and the Fédération des parents francophones will meet with anyone who wants to take the time to discuss the implementation of the judgment and respect for fundamental rights.
Senator Maltais: I am going to ask one question that will include four points that cover what I learned during our visit.
First, there is no will on the part of the provincial government to go all out. Second, there is no will on the part of the Canada Lands Company to go all out to solve the problem. Third, the teachers: I have described them as missionaries. And fourth, a sensitive point, education is under provincial jurisdiction. So the only way to take action is under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, through Canadian Heritage. That is delicate and it can be challenged, because Canadian Heritage is interfering in things that are not within its jurisdiction. We are entitled to do it under the Charter, but not under the constitution.
The other problem is one that I raised with the President of the Treasury Board, Scott Brison, when he appeared before our committee. The government of Canada has no accountability method for determining where the money paid to the provinces is spent. I ran into him entirely by chance on Parliament Hill, and he told me that his team was working to solve the problem, because he thinks it makes no sense to pay out $150 million without knowing how the money is spent. We do have a general idea, but it is far from clear.
Correct me if I am mistaken, because we have to file a report and we want it to be as effective and as complete as possible.
Mr. Power: The Canada Lands Company is required, from a legal standpoint, to think about the communities before signing contracts. To my knowledge, it does not do so, or does not do so enough.
I have a second clarification concerning what you consider to be a sensitive subject, the preserve of the provinces. Certainly, the government of Canada may not and should not create schools out of whole cloth. That does not prevent the government of Canada from exercising is spending power, and, when it does that, it must do it in compliance with section 23, and in compliance with Part VII of the Official Languages Act. Selling real estate without thinking about us violates Part VII of the Official Languages Act. Signing agreements with the provinces for $150 million without us being at the table violates section 23 and Part VII of the Official Languages Act, in my opinion.
Mr. Roy: On the question of accountability, the government has an obligation under Part VII of the Official Languages Act to take positive measures, and accountability is the way to make sure that the measures are genuinely positive. At present, they may not be as positive as the government might believe, and therein lies the rub. Reforming the way funds are distributed would improve this aspect.
Senator Maltais: I am persuaded that the President of the Treasury Board will ensure that there is some improvement over the next year.
The Chair: A group of witnesses who will be appearing by videoconference is waiting now. So, quickly, Senator Mockler?
Senator Mockler: I would like to suggest that Minister Sohi appear before our committee. That way, we could bring our concerns about his region to his attention. He is responsible for the Canada Lands Company.
The Chair: We could certainly invite the Canada Lands Company. In fact, on the government of Canada website for the directive on the sale or transfer of surplus real estate, it clearly says that the government must consider the interests of communities, including official language minority communities, and other levels of government. That is clearly stated on the government of Canada website, including the Canada Lands Company. So there it is, it is clearly stated, and the company is subject to the Official Languages Act.
Mr. Power, Mr. Roy, thank you. Your expertise in this area is widely recognized. You have argued many cases before the Supreme Court of Canada. We thank you for sharing your expertise and your experience with us.
Honourable senators, we are going to hear the next witnesses by videoconference. On behalf of the committee members, I would like to thank Nour Enayeh and Joseph Pagé, from the Association des parents de l'école Rose-des- vents, for being with us this evening. We met informally with them a few weeks ago. I have to say that our committee received a very warm welcome and we very much appreciated our discussions at our public hearings and our visits to sites in Vancouver and Victoria. It is therefore a pleasure to see you again and to hear from you.
We had an opportunity to visit the Rose-des-vents school on Monday, October 3. As you know, we are studying the question of access to French-language schools in British Columbia. On our visit, we saw the condition of the infrastructure at your school. You certainly have some challenges to overcome.
I invite you now to take the floor, and the senators will then ask you questions.
Nour Enayeh, President, Association des parents de l'école Rose-des-vents: Good evening, everyone. Thank you for inviting us today. Thank you especially for taking the time to come and visit our school and give us the opportunity to tell you about our concerns and the problems associated with our school in Vancouver. I will now give the floor to Mr. Pagé.
Joseph Pagé, Member, Association des parents de l'école Rose-des-vents: Thank you, Madam Chair. I am happy to see you again. Perhaps we should meet once a month to talk about our case?
I have to say, at the outset, that the parents of Rose-des-vents and Jules-Verne were very proud and happy that you visited. I think it was good for them to meet people like you, to listen to them and hear them. Unfortunately, we have the feeling that we are fighting all alone, that we are doing battle with no allies, and your visit certainly encouraged a lot of parents.
My name is Joseph Pagé, and I am the parent of a child who attends Rose-des-vents school and another child who attends Jules-Verne. I know that you did an on-site visit a few weeks ago, but I am going to present a brief history for the members who were not with you. I will then make a few suggestions that we did not have a chance to share with you when you visited, and we will be prepared to answer your questions.
Rose-des-vents school opened in 1997. It moved three times before ending up at the present site, in 2001, which you visited. It is not surprising that the Supreme Court of Canada declared that there was an "breach'' at our school, because, in fact, it is a school that was built for 199 students, and we currently have 350. There are six portables on the site, there is no gymnasium or green space, the library is too small, and there are nine washrooms for 350 students and the teaching staff. It is the worst of the 38 schools located west of Main Street. You will recall that the catchment area for Rose-des-vents extends from Main Street, in about the centre of Vancouver, west almost to UBC. It is the only French school in that zone, surrounded by 37 English elementary schools.
We tried to negotiate with the school board and the provincial government for several years, but without success. We therefore had to bring proceedings in 2010. In 2012, the Supreme Court of British Columbia found in our favour, that is, it held that the service offered at Rose-des-vents is not equivalent to the service offered at the English schools in the same catchment area.
There were appeals; we went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which established the equivalence test. That is very important; it is something that did not exist before in the law. It involved determining whether a French or minority school is equivalent to the school offered for the majority. This was a very important step. However, of course, the Rose-des-vents parents were not too worked about the law; they were more concerned about their children's education. What they want is to get out of the Rose-des-vents school and develop a new building.
For procedural reasons, all of this ended up in the megatrial that Mr. Roy has undoubtedly outlined for you. The CSF, the school board, alongside the little application by Rose-des-vents, launched a huge trial on several issues. That decision was handed down on September 26. A component of Rose-des-vents had to be considered by a trial judge. That is what the judge did, and it is the famous section 1 of the Charter that allows a government, in certain circumstances, to exempt itself from its constitutional obligations. Justice Russell did the section 1 analysis in the case of the little Rose-des-vents school and concluded that, ultimately, the province could not exempt itself from its obligations.
So what we hope is that this will turn out well for one of the two schools, because, you will recall, the CSF is asking for two schools west of Main Street. The judge ruled that yes, certainly, we are entitled to one school, but for the second school, we shall see, that will come a little later. As you are very well aware, senators, when you build a French school in a minority community, it fills up almost instantaneously. So we know very well that once the new school is built, we will need a second one.
What we discussed with you when you visited is that in Vancouver, as in some other places in Canada, real estate is very expensive. It is very difficult for the CSF to acquire land, because, in fact, the developers are occupying the space, usually with condominium towers. That is particularly true when it comes to residential property.
What we raised when you visited was precisely — when we arrived, Senator Mockler was talking about the Canada Lands Company — that there is a piece of land right next to Rose-des-vents, federal land that is now part of the Canada Lands Company. It contains about 21 acres, 21 to 25 acres. In our view, if the federal government could transfer part of that land to the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique, that would settle the case for the first school west of Main Street. I cannot speak for the CSF, but I am virtually certain that if the federal government offered the CSF a piece of land tomorrow morning, the steam shovels needed for the construction would be there right away.
On that site, however, there are two buildings that have been used as schools in the past. It would undoubtedly be possible to renovate one of the two buildings. One of those buildings has been listed by Vancouver Heritage, I believe, as having certain heritage characteristics, so it will not be demolished and has already been used as a school. In my opinion, it would be possible to find space for our famous Rose-des-vents on one of the pieces of federal land fairly quickly.
So, that is our message number 1. The need is so pressing, as you know; we are living with a "breach'' and that is something very rare in Canada. We have been living with a constitutional "breach'' of the rights of Canadian citizens since at least 2010. This is unacceptable.
I am persuaded that Canada's founders, particularly on the eve of our 150th anniversary, would be extremely disappointed to see that Canadians are still fighting to obtain equivalence in education. We are not asking for more; we are asking for equivalence. With the 150th anniversary approaching, it is bizarre, it is shocking, that we should still be trying to resolve the issue of Rose-des-vents, an issue that should have been resolved long ago. That is the first suggestion I have for you. If the federal government has land available, it might be one way of helping the school boards and the rights-holders.
Another way would be in the census. In the census, there are questions about whether a person is a rights-holder under paragraph 23(1)(a), but there is no question concerning paragraph 23(1)(b) or subsection (2). It might be worth discussing this with Statistics Canada to find out whether those questions could be asked in the next census, because that is information that would be very useful to school boards and the Ministry of Education.
The third proposal I would make to you is that the Canadian Teachers' Federation is in the process of developing and implementing a language rights curriculum. They want to target students halfway through their secondary school careers, to offer them a component on language rights. This is to prepare the next generation to defend those rights. The federation is in the process of setting up a program, and I think that if it could receive some help with that, it would be very useful. It is in the next stage; it has brought some lawyers and teachers together. It is doing a study to determine what is offered at present. As I may have said earlier, at the moment, language rights is a subject that may be addressed in a social sciences, history or social justice course. What we should do, however, and what the federation is proposing, is create a separate component. It could be a course or a chapter in a history or social sciences course, where several weeks are spent on language rights. I think that will be a project that may serve us well very soon.
That is my presentation; I would not want to go too much over the seven minutes allotted to me.
The Chair: You have been very interesting, Mr. Pagé, and especially very concise and precise in your recommendations and suggestions for our committee.
The first question will be asked by Senator McIntyre, followed by Senator Poirier.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you both for your presentations. When we were in British Columbia, we heard the specific demands made by the Rose-des-vents school parents. One of the things we heard was that the provincial government has to meet the challenges associated with school transportation — I understand that students are spending more than three hours a day on the bus to get to school — and has to allocate the funds needed for that.
That being said, when I review the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, I note that the province of British Columbia has to commit to paying the Conseil scolaire francophone $6 million to fund school transportation. Could you tell us more about that question?
Mr. Pagé: Yes, I think it is fantastic that the judged ordered $6 million, but it is for problems in the past. If you study the transportation budget of the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique, it is very high. The CSF could tell you about that. I think we are talking about nearly $4 million per year. The $6 million announced is a payment for deficiencies in the past.
For the future, the judge did not announce anything, no obligation for the government to spend more. That does not mean that the CSF will have no demands to make and may not be able to get more. But the $6 million is for deficiencies in the past.
Senator McIntyre: I have a second question that relates to funding for education. Do you believe the federal government should review its approach to education funding?
Mr. Pagé: Personally, I am not familiar enough with the federal government's funding system; I know that Mr. Power was talking about it a little while ago. On the question of the land, that is one component, but I know that at Jules-Verne secondary school, the federal government funded the theatre. It has the power to spend on certain components of education, the community components. If the federal government had the resources, first, to spend more, but also, second, and I know that education is under federal jurisdiction, if the federal government could fund school construction, that might help school boards that are experiencing such difficult situations. I know that is not allowed at present, but it might be an avenue that should be studied.
Senator McIntyre: The reason I ask you that question is in connection with the brief that was submitted by three organizations, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the Commission nationale des parents francophones and the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, concerning modernization of the way federal funds are allocated to French first language education.
What do you think about those recommendations and findings, that are set out in the brief?
Mr. Pagé: Thank you, senator. We were not aware of that, but we will find those briefs and study them, and, if we have comments to make to you, we will certainly submit them to you. Perhaps we could meet again in a month to talk about them.
The Chair: The briefs are posted on the Senate website, Mr. Pagé. I encourage you to consult them.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your presentation. I have a few questions that I think are related to the first recommendation you talked about, to try to get access to land that belongs to the federal government for building a school. Has a request been made? If so, who made the request? Is it the school board or the province that negotiates with the federal government to get access to that land? If the request has been made, what are the problems that mean that the transfer is not happening?
Mr. Pagé: I can tell you, senator, that yes, the parents have, in fact, made efforts. Concerning that land in particular, which was a former RCMP site, there is a building, as I said earlier, that was used as a school in the past. For the moment, the building is for rent; there is a "For Rent'' sign. The parents have tried to communicate with the Canada Lands Company, but they have been told no, with the explanation that a school is a long-term project, and they simply want to rent it short-term for three to five years. The company therefore did not want to discuss it any longer with us them.
I know that the school board has approached the Canada Lands Company, but nothing came of it. The result was the same; the Canada Lands Company recommended that they apply to the municipality when the proposed development takes place, because it wants to redevelop the land. It told them that they would be part of the process. That means that a school will not be built for a decade. That is not acceptable; we need land now. Before the development takes place, we would need to have part of it severed, three or four acres, to build a school, so the rest of the land would be part of the Canada Lands Company's development. So far, what I have understood from the CSF is that the Canada Lands Company is refusing to consider that proposal.
Senator Poirier: The Canada Lands Company, if I have understood correctly, is like a crown corporation, like a right arm of the government. So the federal government, if I have understood correctly, gave the authority to manage those lands to the crown corporation. Have I understood?
Mr. Pagé: That is what I understand too.
Senator Poirier: So for these negotiations, the federal government would have to go to the crown corporation to see whether there was a possibility of negotiating something. When it comes to the province, is there a way put pressure on? Would negotiations between the federal government and the provincial government help?
Mr. Pagé: I think so, senator. Also, in the decision of September 26, the judge stated that the Minister of Education of British Columbia has to assist the CSF in its negotiations. So it will be very useful, but while we are waiting, I do not think that the Minister of Education has taken part in the discussions that the CSF has had, to date, with the Canada Lands Company.
However, I agree with you: if the CSF went with the Minister of Education to request a part of the land that belongs to the federal government, I think that would help. To date, the provincial government seems to be telling the CSF to negotiate with the federal government, which is not within its authority. I think that not having the Minister of Education alongside us is a weakness in our negotiations.
Senator Poirier: I agree with you, because the provincial government has the obligation to offer the same education to anglophones and francophones in the province.
Mr. Pagé: We would say that the political will exists only when the Supreme Court of Canada requires the provincial government — especially ours — to act. While we wait, we would say we are doing the best we can, but we will not get far, because they are not obliged to do it. It is unfortunate, but it is our experience now in British Columbia.
Senator Poirier: As I said to a colleague earlier, an election campaign is a good time to put pressure on the people who are seeking election.
Mr. Pagé: I agree with you. In fact, we have done that. Before elections, we meet with the ministers. They are happy to receive us and talk to us. But because there are not very many of us in the province, we do not have enough francophones in an electoral district to make a difference. We cannot even elect a member of the legislature of British Columbia. We put pressure on, they listen to us, but again, we do not have political clout. To them, we are a few hundred or thousand votes, and that is not what is going to make them win.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for sharing your challenges, which are still substantial.
The Chair: Do you have a minister responsible for the francophone community in British Columbia?
Mr. Pagé: That was another of my suggestions. I don't know whether you could have an influence, at the federal level, in that regard. What we would really like to have is an associate deputy minister for French education. There is one in Ontario, but not in British Columbia. There is the Minister of Education, there are deputy ministers of education, but none of them looks after French education in particular. It is important to have that kind of resource, but I don't know how we can persuade the minister to create that position.
The Chair: These are major challenges.
Senator Gagné: Mr. Pagé, you referred earlier to the equivalence test. You mentioned that in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Association des parents de l'école Rose-des-vents v. British Columbia, it was ultimately suggested that the principle of substantive equality be adopted, that is, that official language minorities can be treated differently, if necessary, taking into account their situation and their special needs.
On the other hand, Justice Russell's judgment runs counter to the principle of substantive equality. Rather, she refers to the principle of formal equality, where it says:
. . . the right to complete, distinct educational facilities of equivalent quality to those offered to the linguistic majority exists only where the francophone schools in a geographic area have numbers comparable to those at the anglophone schools.
I would like you to talk about the differences between the two judgments.
Mr. Pagé: Senator Gagné, that is one of the questions that I hope will be appealed by the school board. It is not our case, the parents. But I agree with you entirely. It is a mistake, and, as Senator Mockler said earlier, judges are human and can sometimes make mistakes. As you said, the issue is substantive equality. She seems to be saying that we are entitled to equivalence only where we have the same numbers. That means that we will be able to enjoy the same rights as anglophones only when we have the same number of children enrolled at the school. But that is not how it works.
Judges sometimes forget that there is a political compromise. Linguistic minorities, whether here in British Columbia or in New Brunswick or Manitoba, for example, have been living with that compromise since 1867. It deprives us of our schools. We have to understand that in some places, there are not 500 children. At the Rose-des- vents school, we are lucky, because, since there are 350 children, as in the English schools, our situation meets Justice Russell's interpretation. However, if her interpretation is based on the fact that we are entitled to equivalence because we have 350 children, she is mistaken. That is not the concept of equivalence that has been developed under the Charter. I hope that the CSF will appeal that concept, because we need to explore that issue and say, as you have said, Senator Gagné, that the issue is substantive equivalence, that is, the experience must be the same as for our anglophone neighbours. We are not trying to take anything away from our anglophone neighbours; we want the same thing as them, nothing more. If our anglophone neighbours are entitled to a school with a gymnasium and a daycare centre, we are asking for the same thing, nothing more.
As I said at the outset, the members of the committee know very well, from having experienced it, that when you build a French school, it fills up very quickly. I appreciate the judge's interpretation regarding section 1 when it applies to Rose-des-vents, but like you, Senator Gagné, I agree that there is a legal error that must be corrected.
Senator Mockler: Mr. Pagé, with the experience you have had in British Columbia, how do you think this error can be corrected?
Mr. Pagé: I hope the CSF will appeal that part of the decision, because, in fact, it detracts from what had already been established by the Supreme Court of Canada. What I hope is that it will go to the Supreme Court of Canada so that it can again clearly rule on the fact that the issue is substantive equivalence. So it is a legal error, Senator Mockler; obviously, the judges of the Court of Appeal and then the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada have to examine the issue to get us back on the right track.
You know, this is not the first time. When it comes to language rights, it is very rare to win them at the trial level, and even on appeal. It is the Supreme Court of Canada, even if it does not always find in our favour, that is in a position to ensure that this Canada-wide section is applied.
I would like to make one little note about the presentation we made in our argument in the Supreme Court of Canada. The Chief Justice has been on the bench since the earliest language rights decisions of the Supreme Court, and I have to tell you that she understands the issues very well. As I told you, that does not mean that she always finds in our favour, but we believe the legal analysis is right when it goes to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Senator Mockler: Have you and the francophone group in British Columbia personally met with the Premier of British Columbia?
Mr. Pagé: No. We have met with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education, but never the Premier. That might be an avenue we could take. After what happened with Rose-des-vents, I think, Senator Mockler, there will be negotiations between Rose-des-vents and the Minister of Education about next steps. The province could still appeal Justice Russell's judgment on the Rose-des-vents issue. We hope that will not be the case, that there is enough legal clout with the Supreme Court of Canada decision and Justice Russell's decision to finally get a conclusion for Rose-des-vents.
This case, however, is our own. That leaves all the other schools. There are also parents who are calling me, whose children attend other schools, in the other catchment area, like Anne-Hébert school, because they are very disappointed with Justice Russell's decision. They will want to pursue other avenues. We are not working just for ourselves; we are working for the entire francophone community of Canada. Even if we sometimes forget the others are there, we are working together.
What is sometimes disappointing is that when we lose cases, especially in the Supreme Court of Canada, we do not lose only for ourselves; the repercussions are felt across Canada. That is why it is important, when you are deciding to go to court, to make sure that you have a good case and that your chances of winning are very good.
Senator Mockler: Based on your experience, and after meeting the senators on the committee, you have prepared some statistics. You say that Rose-des-vents school is the worst of the 37 schools in the region. What would you like the committee to do, in collaboration with the federal government?
Mr. Pagé: For us, the priority is really the land. It would be to help us in the negotiations with the Canada Lands Company. You could play an important role. At an informal meeting, Senator Maltais told me that you did not have executive power, but you were "naggers.'' If you could help us in our talks with the Canada Lands Company, it would be very much appreciated.
Senator Mockler: If Senator Maltais told you that, it is because it is true.
The Chair: The next senator to ask a question is Senator Maltais himself.
Senator Maltais: The only place where I saw roses growing at Rose-des-vents school was in the hearts of the children and the will of the teachers, because there is not a square inch of grass. You cannot plant a rose there.
Mr. Pagé, there is something I would like to discuss with you. You have a typical case: the Charter has not been applied and we are on the eve of the 150th anniversary of Confederation. You have Radio-Canada where you are. But the problem is that all the reporting it does on your community is not broadcast east of the Rockies. In fact, Canadians know nothing about the problems you are having. I think that if you did some reports that explained the situation as you have just done, it might help you.
The francophone community in Canada represents about one third of the population, and it must start being heard somewhere. Not many people in Quebec know about your problems, apart from me. I have come back from our trip to British Columbia and I did not know about your problems before going there. That is why I wanted to go. I would therefore recommend that you get a lot of publicity.
My other recommendation is what I suggested to your lawyers earlier. Before appealing a decision, I think what is needed is some good mediation between you, the government of British Columbia and the Canada Lands Company. The process is less expensive and might produce good results. If there are no conclusive results, it will be in God's hands, as they say where I come from, but before incurring costs, you should consider the possibilities that mediation could offer.
Mr. Pagé: Senator Maltais, I agree with you entirely when it comes to Radio-Canada. The SRC has always told our story, but as you have said, it never really crosses the Rockies.
Concerning the decision of September 26, Radio-Canada British Columbia did some good reporting, but I agree with you. The francophone community east of the Rockies does not know much about what happens here. In Quebec, we should participate in broadcasts like "Tout le monde en parle.'' Senator Maltais, I am going to go there with you. We will explain in the interview what is going on in Vancouver. I think that would be interesting. You are right when you say that we have to support the other 11 million francophones, including our Acadian cousins. Often, those people are experiencing something similar, and it will be our turn to buy a round, but for the moment, we are the ones who need their help.
In terms of mediation, once again, I agree entirely with you, Senator Maltais. I am not certain that the Minister of Education would agree to meet with us, but if the school board and the parents agree to have the lawyers to stay out of the initial discussions, that works. Maybe we can even ask the senators to get involved.
We would have to have that first discussion to determine what could be done with federal land that is available. That first approach has to be made to the Canada Lands Company.
Senator Maltais: Radio-Canada has the annoying habit of doing reports on you that do not make it past the Rockies. When it does reports on the francophone community in Alberta and Manitoba, it carries them in the Rockies region, but they are not broadcast in Quebec either. Something is out of whack; I don't know what is going on.
With respect to mediation, there might be a senator who will not ask you for anything. He has spent a lifetime as a great constitutionalist and a great lawyer. I think that Senator McIntyre would be happy to be the mediator in your case.
Senator McIntyre: It would be my pleasure.
The Chair: You see how ready the senators are to help you.
Senator Gagné: I would just like to mention that before the cuts to Radio-Canada, Manitoba and Saskatchewan were a region, as were Alberta and British Columbia. Now, the four provinces are grouped together. I would say that the situation is even worse than the one you have just described. And you are right when you say that the reports do not make it out of Western Canada.
You mentioned that in her decision, Justice Russell did not necessarily tell you that a school had to be built. Nonetheless, she did say that the province had to help the francophone school board in its negotiations to acquire the site. What do you think would be a reasonable time for this situation to be resolved? Are you feeling patient, or not?
Mr. Pagé: That is a good question, Senator Gagné. The Supreme Court of Canada found there to be a breach, and it is supported by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The time cannot be too long. Remember that in 2011, the Minister of Education promised a budget envelope for building a school. In this case, we are not talking about land.
That money is available. Some would suggest a deadline of three months, but I would say that if the CSF is not able to announce the construction of at least one school within six months, we will have to go back and see Justice Russell and tell her that there has been no progress. We would explain to the judge what was happening and why there was no agreement, because the case is still before her. We would have liked her to give us deadlines, and tell the Minister and the CSF, "In the case of Rose-des-vents, you have six months to find me a site. Come back to see me in six months to tell me what you have found.'' We go back in six months, they have found a site. Her next order would be, "You have six months to find architects and build the school; come back and see me in six months.''
She did not do it and she was not obliged to do it, but certainly if there is no progress for Rose-des-vents, we would have to go back to see her and ask her for certain specific orders concerning building the school.
The Chair: Is the city of Vancouver aware of the francophone community's interest in the acquisition of the land?
Mr. Pagé: The city is aware, but it is not a priority for the city, unfortunately. I told you earlier that in 2011, an envelope had been allocated for the construction of a school, because the city was going to give the CSF a piece of land very close to the Olympic village. Unfortunately, the city required that the site be shared by an anglophone school and a francophone school. There were debates between the school boards. The land was changed and we were given a piece of land beside one of the bridges. However, we learned that for seismic reasons, if there were ever an earthquake in Vancouver, the bridge would collapse on the school. We did not want that either, so the project in that area, near the Olympic village, fell apart.
We are still looking for land. Certainly the city has land, but if the Minister requires that the city sell a piece of land, you can imagine the discussions that would take place. The province also owns land in Vancouver, so it might be easier if the province were the one to provide us with a piece of land.
Senator Maltais: I have a very short comment. My advice to you, Mr. Pagé and Madam Chair, is not to give up. People on this side of the Rockies are with you. Tell your teachers and your children that we will not give up on them. This is 2016. When I was told there were only nine toilets for about 300 children and teachers at Rose-des-vents, I fell over. There are more toilets than that in shelters for homeless people. That is unacceptable. I do not know what we will do, but we are going to shake things up and we will not abandon you. Thank you, and good luck.
Senator McIntyre: I understand that you have until the end of October to appeal Justice Russell's decision. Pay attention to the deadline, it is very important. Publicity and mediation are important, but pay attention to the deadline, and good luck!
The Chair: I hope you have got a feeling for the interest and especially the commitment on the part of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. We are here to listen to you. We went to British Columbia to hear you, to visit the sites, and to talk to the students, parents and teachers. We came back knowing a lot more, but also troubled by what we heard. As Senator Maltais so eloquently said, keep going. Thank you for your commitment, your perseverance and your dedication, not only for Rose-des-vents school, but also, of course, for the entire francophone minority community in Canada.
Mr. Pagé: Thank you.
The Chair: Goodbye, and thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)