THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
CHARLOTTETOWN, Friday, September 22, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 8:17 a.m. to examine and report on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act.
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning. The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is meeting today in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, to continue its study on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. Before inviting the witnesses to make their presentations, I would like to ask the senators to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Maltais: Senator Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Poirier: Senator Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick. Welcome.
Senator Cormier: Senator Cormier from New Brunswick. Welcome.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
The Chair: My name is Claudette Tardif. I have the privilege of chairing this committee. Before we begin, I would like to ask the senators whether it is agreed that Senate communications staff be permitted to take photographs during the meeting, to film excerpts of the meeting, and to distribute them. Agreed? Thank you.
This morning, we welcome Xavier Lord-Giroux, Acting President, and Véronique Mallet, Executive Director, of the Société Nationale de l’Acadie, a non-profit federation that also includes four Atlantic youth associations. The SNA also includes four youth associations from the Atlantic region. Since 2005, the SNA has acted as an advisory organization to the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, the OIF. It is also responsible for holding the Acadian World Congress, the next edition of which will take place in 2019. Thank you for being with us this morning. The floor is yours. I would ask you to be as brief as possible in your presentation to allow the senators to ask questions. I would also ask senators to be concise and precise in their questions. You have the floor.
Xavier Lord-Giroux, Acting President, Société Nationale de l’Acadie: Ladies and gentlemen, members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, as acting president of the Société Nationale de l’Acadie, or SNA, the representative organization of the Acadian people, which includes in its ranks representatives of the Comité acadien des francophones des provinces atlantiques, I want first to thank you for this invitation to appear before your committee to further pan-Canadian thinking on modernization of the Official Languages Act. Before venturing any further, I would like to introduce Véronique Mallet, who is our organization’s executive director.
Véronique Mallet, Executive Director, Société Nationale de l’Acadie: Good morning. Thank you for your invitation. I am pleased to be here today. I will let our president make the opening statement and will be pleased to speak during the question period.
Mr. Lord-Giroux: Thank you, Véronique. In this first round of consultations on the views of Canadian youth, the SNA will outline the viewpoint of an organization and a population in which youth shines by its leadership, engagement, and creativity. The contribution that young people make to our collective outreach, both on an association level and in terms of our political, social, economic, cultural, artistic, and identity outreach, is far more than secondary. Young people in all fields are the lifeblood of contemporary Acadia. We no longer consider youth as merely guaranteeing the Acadia of tomorrow, but also, and especially, as the core of our present vitality.
Young people are committed to the advancement of Canada’s official languages, bilingualism, and linguistic duality since they form the legislative foundation that enables us to work toward the equality and vitality of the official language communities. What is more, however, from a minority standpoint, young people are attached to their mother tongue and respect and appreciate linguistic diversity. Acadia has a rich range of accents from province to province, town to town, and region to region. Rather than the prescriptive speech that tends to promote a hierarchy of accents and linguistic insecurity, right-thinking youth today prefer a simple relationship to language and identity, an affirmation of differences, and a sharing of cultural and linguistic richness. If the Canadian government wants to contribute to genuine equality, identity-building, and the elimination of linguistic insecurity factors in minority communities, it must first ensure compliance with the principles of the Official Languages Act and rigorous implementation of that act.
Young Canadians, including Acadians, come into contact with federal institutions early in their lives, as citizens, professionals, and in other capacities. English and French must be on equal footing in the federal public service, in particular, but also in all federal communications from the Canadian government. The right to work in the official language of one’s choice and to be served in the official language of one’s choice in doing business with the government and its representatives must be fully guaranteed.
Minority francophones must not feel that they become a burden by demanding respect for such fundamental rights. Furthermore, public service employees must not fear for their job security if they request training or documentation in their French mother tongue. We must improve public service employees’ bilingual skills, work culture, and representation in that way. First, executives and managers must set an example with respect to language rights. The government must take upstream measures to ensure that formal equality results in genuine equality. Here are some recommendations. First of all, the act must be modernized. It is important that the new means of communication that the government and its representatives use today be entrenched in the Official Languages Act, or OLA. For example, social media is increasingly used by Canadians and, need we say it, by young people. It is now an essential platform that the government uses to communicate with the public. Consequently, we feel that a change is needed.
We have also observed that the provision of bilingual services is mandatory in all provincial institutions in New Brunswick, but not at the federal level. Consequently, you may find yourself in a Canada Post or Border Services office in that officially bilingual province and not receive service in the official language of your choice because the region in which you find yourself is not an official language minority community large enough to warrant it. We therefore believe that the federal OLA must fully respect the bilingual character of the province of New Brunswick, and we encourage the Canadian government to respect the asymmetry of the members of its federation. We also encourage the government to recognize that its population is increasingly mobile and that the provision of bilingual services in its institutions should be made standard across the country.
Furthermore, we believe that knowledge of both official languages should be a prerequisite for the appointment of all senior public service employees, ambassadors and high commissioners, and judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. We acknowledge that some excellent initiatives are in place to promote bilingual candidates to certain positions, but they are not enough. Proficiency in both official languages must be much more than an asset for a candidate. It must be a requirement.
Lastly, to prevent the OLA from gathering too much dust, we encourage the Canadian government to provide in the act that it be reviewed every decade. This is a practice that the New Brunswick government has adopted and entrenched in its legislation, one that enables it to adapt more effectively to new linguistic realities that emerge over the years. In addition to these recommendations, we believe the country’s linguistic obligations must be more strictly enforced.
The Official Languages Act differs from other legislation in that is apparently the only act with which one may avoid complying without suffering consequences. Large-scale non-compliance with an act fuels resentment of that act, its underpinnings, and its objectives. Consequently, we fear that widespread non-compliance with the OLA will result in tensions, representations, and unhealthy relations between individuals and the linguistic communities in Canadian government and society. The SNA therefore recommends that a stricter monitoring mechanism and penalties be put in place in the public service. For example, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages must enjoy real, not merely moral or symbolic authority to confirm the legitimacy of linguistic obligations in a tangible manner.
In the SNA’s view, apart from the reinforcement of Parts IV and V of the Official Languages Act, respecting language of communications and service to the public and language of work, it is Part VII that concerns youth more directly. It concerns the advancement of English and French, and sections 41 to 45 commit the federal government to use positive, not negative, measures to enhance the vitality of the official language communities, particularly minority communities, and to assist their development. In Part VII, young people find support for measures that enable them to live fully and genuinely in their language and culture. Part VII of the Official Languages Act should therefore be amended to further the federal government’s commitment to certain key areas of the vitality of the linguistic communities. Culture and youth, for example, should be expressly named in that part. Attachment to language and the vitality of linguistic groups are in dissociable from concepts of identity, art, and culture. The Department of Canadian Heritage is thus named as the department responsible for implementing this part of the act. The OLA should thus clearly urge the government to commit to the cultural vitality of the linguistic communities, particularly those in a minority setting.
Language is both an instrument of communication and a vehicle for culture, art, and identity. A language is spoken, but it must especially be lived. It is precisely in the prospect of a socially and culturally living language that young people find fertile ground for identity-building, which enhances the vitality of the linguistic communities, particularly in a minority setting. Part VII of the act should therefore include the promotion of culture and simultaneously promote a specific commitment to youth initiatives and projects.
In conclusion, the OLA must adapt to new Canadian realities and grow on existing bases to enable youth to develop fully in French in our Acadian communities in the Atlantic region and elsewhere in the country. Canadian youth are increasingly connected, mobile, adventurous, and convinced of the importance of bilingualism as a fundamental value in discovering Canada. Modernizing the Official Languages Act would thus take into account factors essential to the development of the Acadian people and the vitality of Canada’s linguistic minorities. Thank you.
The Chair: Now we will move on to questions from senators. I would like to begin with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Poirier.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your presentation. I hope you had a good trip here this morning. I just have a few questions because I know that many of my colleagues probably have questions as well. First, congratulations on the very good work you are doing. It is very much appreciated. Acadians are no doubt grateful for all the promotion you are doing for them to ensure access to services in the language of their choice across Canada.
We visited anglophone and francophone schools during the hearings yesterday and spoke with Acadians and other people who were studying in a French immersion program. I am aware that you are an Acadian society, but you have relations with other francophone groups in Canada that consist not necessarily Acadians but perhaps francophiles or anglophones studying in French immersion? Do you have connections with other organizations that help more forcefully meet our need to be respected in our language and to be served in our language?
Mr. Lord-Giroux: I can answer you first, and then Véronique will continue. Our organization relies greatly on the funding it receives from Canadian Heritage. Consequently, we use the Roadmap on Official Languages as our guideline. I do not believe a great deal of funding is currently being granted to encourage closer relations between Acadian and francophone minority and francophile organizations. That is definitely something we could work on. Many of our activities may benefit all those who speak French in the Atlantic region regardless of their attachment to Acadia.
Ms. Mallet: The Société Nationale de l’Acadie is the representative organization of the Acadian people. In our vision of what the Acadian people represent, the Acadian people identifies with the collective Acadian project. It is not our purpose to judge a person’s background, whether that person speaks French or English or was born in Canada or elsewhere. We do not think we should judge. We are trying to mobilize the energies of those who want to take part in the collective Acadian project.
On a more technical note, the SNA is somewhat open to the anglophone majority, particularly through the World Acadian Congress, which is an initiative of the Société Nationale de l’Acadie. We also believe that a major popular gathering lends itself very well to this kind of occasion. We see the effect this had with the first World Acadian Congress in 1994, when many Acadians — people who had Acadian names but had lost their attachment to the language and culture over the years — woke up and found themselves in an Acadian environment. The World Acadian Congress initiative is a very important opportunity to establish ties with the community.
Senator Poirier: Thank you. I am well aware of it. In 1994, I sat on the Saint-Louis municipal council. We were one of the municipalities most involved in the World Acadian Congress. My second question — I know you told me what your role was — is this: are you taking any steps to encourage people to continue living their culture and not losing it? Because a large part of our population, whether we like it or not, particularly in our province, is small, chooses to go study elsewhere and to live in a region that may be more anglophone and francophone. Do you do a lot of promotion to encourage people to retain their Acadian culture and their French language?
Mr. Lord-Giroux: I think that is our central objective and, personally, the reason why I am involved in the SNA. I want to ensure that the population of the Atlantic region can retain French and live in that language in an entirely acceptable manner. You asked whether we make an effort to retain the Acadian identity elsewhere in the country. Yes, but our financial and human resources are definitely limited. Our efforts focus mainly on the Atlantic region. That is our main playing field, but sometimes we have a chance to go elsewhere in the country. We try to stay in touch with the members of our Acadian diaspora in those locations.
Senator Poirier: Can you give us a few examples of the activities you organize for that purpose?
Mr. Lord-Giroux: Yes. Véronique, you can go ahead.
Ms. Mallet: A large part of our programming is youth-based. As Senator Tardif mentioned, half of our members are youth organizations. Consequently, our activities mainly focus on youth and the importance of contributing to identity-building among young people. The Société Nationale de l’Acadie hosts the Acadia Youth Festival every year. The festival brings together young people from the Atlantic region who travel from province to province. We also have the Parlement jeunesse de l’Acadie, which is a biannual activity in which participants travel from one province to another. We also organize a youth event at every edition of the World Acadian Congress. Many of our activities are associated with the preservation of language and culture. We focus on the youth component with an emphasis on youth identity-building.
Senator Poirier: Perfect. Thank you for your recommendations.
Senator Moncion: Good morning. Thank you for your testimony. You mentioned communications and updating social media. You talked about the weight of the minorities and access to services. You discussed proficiency in the official languages among judges and senior public servants. You mentioned reviews every 10 years and penalties that should be set forth in the act. You also discussed specific sections that should be reviewed. The part that particularly interests me concerns penalties because we have previously been asked at other meetings what penalties are provided under the Official Languages Act, whereas there are none. To date, I think the Official Languages Act has always been used to exercise moral suasion when people and organizations used it to ensure certain services were offered. I have a question about penalties, the type of penalties the act should provide for. My second question concerns consequences. If we added a set of penalties to the act, what impact would they have on official languages?
Mr. Lord-Giroux: Thank you. I like the expression “moral suasion” that you used to characterize the present act. As noted in our presentation, it is as though people can afford constant non-compliance with the Official Languages Act, and it so happens that an incident recently occurred to illustrate my remarks. Véronique, I think you know what I am talking about.
Ms. Mallet: We recently received an email as we were trying to reopen the process for recruiting a new Commissioner of Official Languages. The email from the firm of a third party was in English only. We felt that, if the firm that was supposed to carry out that recruitment initiative for the position of Commissioner of Official Languages was unaware, as a third party, of the content and application of the Official Languages Act, what was the status of that act? As a result of the lack of power and penalties in the act, the institutions that choose not to comply with it collectively thumb their nose at it, and we see this regularly.
Senator Moncion: What penalties should be provided for in the Official Languages Act? As you said, we have always talked about moral suasion. We constantly come up against these kinds of situations, aboard aircraft, in offices, and elsewhere. What should those penalties be?
Ms. Mallet: I think it is time to impose harsh penalties. We could put in place a system of monetary fines for agencies and departments that would penalize organizations that contravene the act, which would encourage them to comply with it. It is the government that enforces the act. Internal mechanisms are needed to create a system of penalties. The only penalty that currently exists is publication of the name of a department or agency in a report. This is a disgrace because the act is not being complied with and there are no penalties. This annual report exercise is completely swept under the rug. We could therefore put in place a system of penalties in the form of fines.
Senator Gagné: Thank you very much. I really enjoyed your testimony. Your brief provided us with some good solutions and food for thought as well. You are the half-representative of youth councils in four provinces: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. You have associate members virtually across Canada and around the globe. It is interesting to see Acadians across Canada and elsewhere in the world. Young people leave their region or province to go and settle elsewhere. At some point or another, however, this alters the demographic weight. I believe that, when you compare various provinces, you realize that each region has its specific characteristics and that they are all different from one another. What do we do then to offset this exodus and the loss of an active and engaged francophone population to other regions of Canada or elsewhere in the world? How do we go about revitalizing declining communities with other people?
Mr. Lord-Giroux: With regard to the Official Languages Act, I get the impression it would be difficult to put in place measures to counter the exodus from the regions into the country’s major urban centres, but, if I take the thinking a little further, perhaps encouraging anglophones to learn French as a second language would, despite this exodus, help increase the figures, raise the percentage of people who can speak French, through exogamous relationships. Exogamous families and allophone newcomers must be encouraged to enrol their children in French-language schools. I think these are measures that can be taken to reignite the linguistic vitality of the various provinces and to rally their official language minority communities.
Senator Gagné: Should the immigration sector be included in the measures that should be promoted?
Ms. Mallet: I wanted precisely to address immigration, which falls under Part VII of the act respecting advancement. Whether it concerns the advancement of our communities elsewhere — I think the Canadian government has a responsibility under Part VII — the settlement of newcomers in our communities should also be encouraged. Should we create mechanisms in the act to encourage immigrants to come and settle in our community? I am not prepared to venture an answer to that question. I do not think we have done enough thinking on that issue. I am fully aware that the government has a responsibility under Part VII respecting advancement and our communities. People who are interested in our region must know that we exist and that we strongly encourage them to come and settle here. It would be interesting to see if we could introduce positive incentives for them.
I want to make another connection with your question on youth movements. We should not forget that there are three attractive places for Acadians who move around within Canada. The Montreal region is enormously attractive to our artistic and cultural community. The Ottawa and Gatineau regions draw many of our young thinkers and intellectuals to the public service. And despite the slowdown in Alberta, in Fort McMurray in particular, many of our workers have settled in that province and are still living there.
In the context of the act, it is still very important for us to be able to work in French in the National Capital Region because it attracts our young people who move to and pursue careers there. The opportunity to work in their mother tongue is very important and has a direct impact on the preservation of their mother tongue and culture, which they will subsequently choose to pass on to their children. We think direct connection should be made with this issue and in the act as such.
Senator Gagné: I also see something of this exodus, which attracts and ultimately enables people to find jobs elsewhere. Is it due to a lack of employment opportunities for young people in the Atlantic region? Should economic development measures be put in place?
Mr. Lord-Giroux: Yes, but I admit that is outside my area of expertise. Yes, the federal government and the provinces should take measures to keep our young people at home.
Ms. Mallet: With respect to Part VII, I would like to add that the federal government has a responsibility to advance the communities. The federal government has a moral responsibility to ensure the survival and well-being of our communities, and that is also done through economic development. We focus our efforts on youth and culture, which we think should be explicit, but I think the issue of the economy should also be related to Part VII. This is outside my area of expertise, but I think connection is easily made.
Senator Mégie: Thank you for your presentation. I wanted to add to what Senator Moncion said. You cited the example of a private firm that sent you a proposal in English. What about the websites of the various levels of government? Sometimes I hear people complain about the quality or absence of French on government websites. Have you previously experienced that?
Ms. Mallet: I could cite you examples of those kinds of errors virtually every day. Here is a very specific example. Last summer, I filed a funding application under the Young Canada Works program, which is administered by the Department of Canadian Heritage. That department is also responsible for implementing the act. The connection is very direct. The new system was put in place quite quickly, and I was aware of that because the department really wanted the implementation to coincide with the new funding application period. The interface was in French, but, when you clicked on a link, the content was not translated. Everything was in English. As we often say in our organization, we can see and sense that the federal government operates in English. We do not feel the federal government operates in French. We know that documents are translated by its translation department, but we do not sense that the underlying thinking was done in French. I can give you examples like that every day.
Mr. Lord-Giroux: If I can help this topic along, we have an important job to do and therefore do not have the time to dwell on problems such as those ones, which arise quite regularly. We have other things to do; we have more important things to accomplish than that.
Ms. Mallet: I would like to add another comment directly related to the issue of penalties. It is always up to citizens to file complaints to show that the act is not being complied with. In a community such as ours, where two-thirds of francophones in New Brunswick do not have the necessary literacy levels to function in today’s society, it is up to that population to file complaints when the act is not being complied with. It is outrageous that this weight should fall on citizens, particularly when we know that our communities face enormous economic and literacy problems. Consequently, I think it makes no sense for this weight to fall on our communities.
Senator Mégie: We will have to reflect on that matter because we cannot be both judge and jury since we have to determine penalties. We will have to continue thinking on that issue.
Senator Maltais: Thank you for your testimony. Before asking my question, I would ask you never again to discuss French as a second language in my presence. I started the war in British Columbia and I do not know where I will finish it. There is no second language in Canada. Do not use that term. Each one is an official language. That being said, the Acadians, the Acadian people: I like using the word “people.”
Ms. Mallet: And rightly so.
Senator Maltais: And rightly so. We talk about the aboriginal people, who were here before us, but you were here before most of the population of Canada. We should therefore recognize you as such.
Mr. Lord-Giroux: Tell that to the CBC.
Senator Maltais: Pardon me?
Mr. Lord-Giroux: You can tell that to the CBC.
Senator Maltais: I already have. I told the CBC it had not read the kindergarten and Grade 1 level history of Canada. I am still waiting for the report on the cost of the actors and the historian who did that. From the moment you are a people, and it is not easy to gain recognition as a people. It took 400 years for Quebecers, barely a few years, but do not give up.
I come from the Côte Nord in Quebec. I sat as a provincial MNA and dealt with various Acadian villages. I was talking about that with René. I even knew his uncles and family because it was Acadians who populated — When they left Acadia following the expulsion, they went off in all directions. I was wondering whether you have drawn up an inventory of all the Acadians, in the Maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario, and in the West? They are called Cajuns in the United States, but they are in fact Acadians. Is there an Acadian inventory?
Mr. Lord-Giroux: There are maps identifying the regions where the Acadians settled after the expulsion. To my knowledge, that has not been done recently. Things may have changed since then. Many Acadians today are increasingly mobile in the world. Some will say Acadia has no borders because people come from everywhere. Yes, there are some maps showing the Acadian historical regions outside the Atlantic region.
Ms. Mallet: I would like to add a comment. We at the Société Nationale de l’Acadie have an associate membership that comprises members from the entire Acadian diaspora. We have members who come from the Coalition des organisations acadiennes du Québec, the COAQ, who are important to us. We have a member in the National Capital Region and in the Fort McMurray region, as well as an associate member in the Magdalen Islands. We have associate members from Louisiana. Even though the Atlantic provinces represent our direct membership, we have an associate membership. Those people have a major influence on the Société Nationale de l’Acadie.
Senator Maltais: There is something I do not understand. New Brunswick is an officially bilingual province. In some sectors, it is possible to be served in French, even if you are only mailing a letter or buying a stamp. How can the provincial government provide support for that? Because it created the bilingualism legislation in its province. In fact, either you are bilingual or you are not. You are bilingual all the time, not just in the morning. If you are bilingual in the morning and unilingual in the afternoon, that does not work. There is a contrast that runs counter to the act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Canadian Heritage. There is a connection that is not being made somewhere when it comes to citizens’ right to speak the language of their choice.
Mr. Lord-Giroux: Yes. When you say contrast, you mean between New Brunswick’s provincial act and that of the federal government?
Senator Maltais: That is correct.
Mr. Lord-Giroux: The federal act does good things, and New Brunswick’s provincial act would do well to do the same. I live in Fredericton, and I believe we have five post offices, only one of which is designated bilingual. When I go to pick up my mail, I do it at a post office that is not designated bilingual. I cannot be served there in the language of my choice.
Senator Maltais: You cannot get your mail.
Mr. Lord-Giroux: I can get my mail if I speak English. However, in some provincial institutions such as NB Liquor, the hospitals, health centres, and so on, you can theoretically be served in both languages. So you can see that difference. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages has previously told me that we live in a federation and that the act cannot apply in the same way everywhere. And yet the federal government makes less of an effort to provide services in French in New Brunswick. That is what we have observed.
The Chair: Pardon me, but the clock is running.
Mr. Lord-Giroux: Yes, go ahead.
The Chair: I would also like to give Senator Cormier a chance to ask a question. We have about seven minutes left.
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much. As you will understand, I refrained from asking the first questions. People are aware of that. I have a connection with the Société Nationale de l’Acadie. Thank you very much for your testimony. I think you managed to make the direct connections with the Official Languages Act and to identify how we should transform it from within. You talked about asymmetry, and I would like to hear you say more about that, knowing that, in your territorial organization, Acadia is very asymmetrical from one province to the next. You talked at length about New Brunswick. In the context of the act and of the review of the Official Languages Act, how do you think we should take that asymmetry into account? How should it be taken into account given that the situations are very different in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador, for example? We must also be aware that responsibility for implementation of the Official Languages Act does not fall solely to Canadian Heritage but to all the departments. We would very much appreciate it if you had any more specific ideas to suggest to us on this asymmetry question.
Mr. Lord-Giroux: Absolutely. We talked at length about New Brunswick because it is a province that has good laws but always seems to want to extend them a little more across the country. As regards the asymmetry in the other provinces, what we see in Acadia is that here we have homogeneous francophone regions where francophones are in the majority. Here in Prince Edward Island, for example, we can cite the Évangéline region, which at one time had the only French-language school in the entire province. If the government tries to develop an asymmetrical approach, it would be acknowledging that there are francophone majority regions in the Atlantic and that there is a kind of double standard whereby, for example, a threshold of five per cent of the population must be met for services to be provided in French. On the other hand, when you are in the majority, French takes a back seat on signage. French is probably not the language of work in those regions either, in the federal institutions that are established in the homogeneous francophone regions. So this is a double standard that should be corrected using an asymmetrical approach.
Ms. Mallet: On that point, once again I would add the importance of Part VII, which concerns advancement, but it also has an underlying consultation aspect. I think the underlying spirit of Part VII is that the government has a duty to listen to and understand our communities. To be able to enforce the act asymmetrically based on the needs of the communities, you must understand them, you must comprehend them. Consequently, I think the asymmetry issue turns on Part VII of the act and the importance of clearly understanding the communities. The idea behind asymmetry is to meet different needs on the ground. We cannot meet needs if we do not listen to what the communities have to tell us. I think Part VII is very important.
Mr. Lord-Giroux: If I may add a comment, we suggested in our presentation that the Official Languages Act be reviewed every 10 years. That would help in refining this asymmetrical approach.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Gagné, please be brief.
Senator Gagné: This goes back somewhat to everything we said about significant demand. The fact remains that we have an Official Languages Act, and we also have regulations that limit the scope of that act. The calculated figure of what constitutes significant demand under the regulations is 5 per cent. Five per cent in the Évangéline region is not a problem, but 5 per cent in Charlottetown, where there may be just as many francophones, would mean the loss of bilingual office designation. Should the act be amended to alter the regulations so we can comply with the offer of service provisions of the Official Languages Act? Mr. Lord-Giroux, did you also mention that the act should be strengthened to guarantee equal quality of service to the public? How could all that be adjusted?
Mr. Lord-Giroux: As I mentioned in my presentation, Canadians are increasingly mobile, and the act takes little account of that fact. Consequently, we would like to see a comprehensive implementation of the Official Languages Act independent of the 5 per cent threshold, of all proportions and percentages, and recognition of the basic fact that Canada is a bilingual country and that anglophones and francophones across the country are entitled to services in French. I also get the impression that increasing numbers of people have become capable of working in both official languages since the act was drafted.
Senator Gagné: Are there any other criteria that might be considered in determining significant demand? You mentioned the idea of expanding the definition of what constitutes a francophone.
Mr. Lord-Giroux: Yes.
Senator Gagné: Would there be anything else?
Mr. Lord-Giroux: Yes. There are many problems involved in identifying what constitutes a francophone. We would like to see a more generous way of determining that status. Earlier I mentioned exogamy. It is increasingly difficult for the children of exogamous relationships to identify as one or the other. People in minority communities are frequently inclined to identify with the majority. Consequently, we would like Statistics Canada to take that fact into account, for example. I am finding it hard to express myself. Can you show them?
Ms. Mallet: As Xavier mentioned, mobility is not reflected in the act because the act has not undergone an in-depth review since it was drafted. Many people who work in Charlottetown today live in the Évangéline area. Consequently, if those offices were located in the Évangéline region, they would have a different designation. I think it is important to review the act to ensure we do not wind up with regulations that do not reflect the new reality 40 or 50 years down the road.
Mr. Lord-Giroux: Yes.
Ms. Mallet: I think that is an excellent example. Although our Acadian communities are increasingly urbanizing, some people in the rural regions still have to travel for work. When they do, it is as though they were crossing a kind of invisible border. As they leave their francophone majority rural region to go to work, those people suddenly fall into a void, into the abyss of an anglophone majority community. I do not think the current act takes that into account.
Mr. Lord-Giroux: Yes. In fact, identifying as francophone is a burden that we bear and would like to lighten so we could be more generous and identify the percentage of people who speak French in a region. Consider, for example, the OIF, which does not necessarily take into account French-mother-tongue speakers in determining the percentage of people who speak French but which votes more based on those who can speak French, regardless of whether it is their mother tongue, second language — I apologize for disappointing you — third language, or whatever. Consequently, the idea would be to adopt a more generous approach in identifying the needs of francophones in the various regions.
Senator Gagné: Pardon me, but may I add a comment?
Mr. Lord-Giroux: Yes, yes. Go ahead.
Senator Gagné: I found something you said quite striking, but I believe it is true. Identity is a burden that we bear, and that is sad.
Mr. Lord-Giroux: Yes, it is sad always to be worried, even when it is established, even when it is a right, not to be able to use one’s language and to have to carry that burden. It is so much easier to use the majority language. That is why we focus on dynamic upstream measures. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Pardon me, but our time is limited. We have a very busy day today with many witnesses. Thank you for your presentations. You have raised many questions and provided our committee with much food for thought. You are excellent spokespersons for the Acadian people. Thank you for all your work, and your presentation will encourage us to reflect on all these issues. This is a very good start to the day, which we will be spending with other witnesses. So thank you very much.
Ms. Mallet: We can hardly wait to see you at the joint reception this evening. We will be delighted to continue the discussion if you wish.
The Chair: Of course.
For our second panel of witnesses, we have Marianne Cormier, Dean of the Faculty of Education at the University of Moncton; Éric Forgues, Executive Director of the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities at the University of Moncton; Isabelle Violette, Assistant Professor in the Department of French Studies at the University of Moncton; Mathieu Wade, a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute of Acadian Studies of the University of Moncton; and Madeleine Léger, an Acadian student. Welcome to you all. I must say that time is limited. We are eager to hear what you have to tell us, and then senators will ask you questions. Please be brief, concise and succinct.
We will begin with Ms. Violette. Go ahead, please. The floor is yours.
Isabelle Violette, Assistant Professor, Department of French Studies, University of Moncton, as an individualHonourable senators, first I want to thank the committee for its invitation. I am here today as a professor of sociolinguistics at the Université de Moncton, a position in which I study relationships to languages and bilingualism with francophone students mainly from New Brunswick, but also from Quebec, Ontario, Haiti, Mali, Morocco, and other countries who converge on Moncton and now make up this Acadian francophonie.
The perspective I am offering today is necessarily rooted in this reality, particularly since I myself am Acadian and a native of this region. I will begin by saying that young people are increasingly mobile and that their English-French bilingualism ensures their entry into globalized spaces. Although they are aware of the power relationships underlying their individual bilingualism, young francophones also feel they can take advantage of these minority conditions to carve out a choice position for themselves in today’s world. However, that advantageous position is assailed by tensions and inequalities that I will briefly outline and that affect, first, the place of French in inter-group relations and, second, in the development of French in minority communities.
First of all, with respect to inter-group relations, I note that young people frequently interpret official bilingualism narrowly as the possibility of receiving service in the official language of their choice, very often confusing the obligations of government, the public service, and the commercial space. In other words, they lack an understanding of the act. However, I have observed that the active use of French in inter-group interactions in public and digital spaces is a source of discomfort, a fact that casts doubt on this egalitarian philosophy of choice. Many young people have internalized the idea that speaking French with an anglophone is legitimate only if they have trouble speaking English, which is rarely the case, but which also explains why francophone immigrants, who are recognized as coming from abroad, tend to be treated with greater indulgence in this regard. This means that French is not considered a legitimate inter-group language, a language that can guarantee communication among various linguistic groups. Places and opportunities in which anglophones may or should speak and write in their second language remain too few and undervalued.
In inter-group contexts, French often occupies a subordinate position, which reduces it to a language of translation or a value-added attribute for access to the labour market. The resurgence of anti-bilingualism groups in New Brunswick in recent years has helped spread the idea that francophones are somehow dishonest beneficiaries of the Official Languages Act. I believe this is a dangerous shift that the government should address through strong political leadership. Every language policy should address both relations among government, official language communities, and citizens — which the act already does, for example, through support programs for homogeneous French spaces — and relations between the two language groups so they can learn to live together. The act has everything to gain by reflecting this symbolic aspect of linguistic relations and thus the attitudes and perceptions that also influence behaviour and that can reproduce inequalities in the use of French as an official language.
Furthermore, the use of French in formal and public communication contexts is also associated with the ability to handle standardized forms of language, and here I come to my second talking point, the development of French in a minority setting.
The Official Languages Act has helped promote the social, political, and economic value of French in a process called status development. However, the effects of this status development action are limited unless money is invested in the usual qualitative aspects of language, what is called corpus or code development. There are enormous disparities among the forms of French usage, and young people are not all equal in their acquisition of a legitimate form of the French language. Too many minority francophones today live with the feeling that their French is not a proper or suitable form of expression outside their family and social circle. This feeling, which is called linguistic insecurity, often reduces young people to silence, to an uncomfortable, even painful, or humiliating reluctance to speak that, in most cases, leads them to adopt English in spaces where standard French is deemed necessary. Although young people increasingly recognize linguistic insecurity — and I see that this issue is discussed in academic and association circles — I think that the proposed means with which to eliminate it are insufficient and even problematic. The current response to this problem is mainly a discourse about pride in speaking and living in French, a discourse that values linguistic differences and varieties and promotes the relative nature of accents. You have previously heard testimony to this effect. However, it would be a mistake to be satisfied with such discourse, which moreover is necessary and beneficial — I want to emphasize that — but it is not true that all forms of French are socially speaking equal, and, by saying that they are, we tend to reproduce inequalities among francophones. Thus, those whose bilingualism consists of standardized forms of languages will probably be more mobile and have access to more prestigious spaces. It is my conviction that, for the Canadian francophonie to be the real driver of linguistic duality in Canada, all young people, regardless of socioeconomic situation, must be able to acquire the legitimate linguistic skills and resources of French without that excluding their vernacular from their repertoire.
This therefore calls for measures that develop the language itself, normalization and standardization tools that reflect French usages within the communities and that address neglected aspects of the present act. This requires a technical and terminological investment in French, measures to support early childhood and literacy to give young people the linguistic resources they need to take part in a political, economic, and digital space in French. Thank you for your attention.
The Chair: Mr. Wade, you have the floor.
Mathieu Wade, Postdoctoral Fellow, Institute of Acadian Studies, University of Moncton, as an individualSenators, thank you for your invitation. The review of the Official Languages Act is potentially a good opportunity to rethink the federal government’s role in protecting the advancement of official languages. I say potentially because the federal Official Languages Act must navigate somewhat between the Charter and the provincial and municipal jurisdictions, which are closer to ordinary citizens. Consequently, although the federal Official Languages Act is necessary for the survival of French in Canada, it is nevertheless limited in its scope. It is therefore difficult to navigate that landscape.
Will the review that is planned for 2019 be structural or, on the contrary, limited and technical? It will all depend on the way the government views the communities and the powers it decides to grant them so they can develop and take charge of their development.
The act is based on two major components, including an individual component that entitles every citizen to interact with other citizens in the language of his or her choice. This part of the act is well codified. We know exactly what to expect in most cases. Second, there is a more collective conception of language rights that is based on francophone community organizations, particularly on schools and on a government commitment to take positive measures to enhance their development and vitality. This more recent part of the act is still vague, and I think the act should be improved in this respect, but I believe someone will be discussing that later and therefore do not want to dwell on it too much.
Today we have been invited to talk about youth, and I think that is the central issue. By “youth,” I mean two things. I mean young people as an age group and therefore that we must interest young people in speaking French and therefore in ensuring a kind of linguistic continuity. However, by “youth,” I also mean the demographic regeneration of our communities, which is achieved by birth rates and immigration. I believe we must think about these two issues — young people, and encouraging them to take an interest in and think about immigration, and birth rates — in a complementary way.
Consequently, I have three major recommendations, suggestions, or ideas to offer you. The first is that, in order to play a role with young people, the Official Languages Act must provide a form of promotion of linguistic duality in early childhood. Youth and minority communities understand early on which language is dominant, which language forms the structure of the social, economic, and political spaces. I suggest we create a space in which French is a normal language starting in the early childhood years. I think that will have an impact on the rest of young people’s lives. This is a provincial jurisdiction, but the federal government has a spending power that could assist here, provided this is deemed to be part of the government’s role in enhancing the vitality and supporting the development of the communities. If action were taken in that direction to create a kind of duality in the early childhood field, then it would have to be determined who would be entitled to frequent those spaces and thus, I imagine, the schools. This is a complex question. Marianne will discuss it, and I will focus mainly on the immigrant issue.
Immigration has been perceived for some 15 years now as the solution to our demographic challenges, and I believe that is a legitimate and fair assessment, except that we have not at all achieved the objectives we set for ourselves, and they were limited. Those objectives were not to promote the growth of our communities but rather to maintain their populations. In that sense, we have not been successful. I think that is partly due to our conception of what a potential francophone immigrant is, and, in our view, it is an immigrant who already speaks French. Consequently, we will seek a certain class of immigrants. I think that, if we established a form of duality in early childhood, we would have to open those spaces, those child care centres, to other immigrants and other populations than those that are already francophone.
We have very few institutions through which to receive and integrate immigrants. We know we will be unable to integrate immigrants into most of our communities through the labour market. The labour market is essentially English, except in special sectors such as the public service and so on. We have very few institutions through which to do that, but the child care centre could be one such institution, and our schools are some of the strongest institutions for achieving objectives such as this one.
I think that, if we want to ensure that young people are interested in the French language and to guarantee the regeneration of our communities, we cannot limit ourselves to young people who are already francophones. We must transform our francophone spaces into places for francizing a larger population, but that will not occur without a public outcry because it necessarily results in a form of anglicization of spaces set aside for francophones. Consequently, this must come about through awareness campaigns and resources that enable those spaces — and I am thinking here of child care facilities — to play a francization role. We must develop expertise, and we must have the necessary funding, but I think that, unless early childhood is opened to a broader population, we will not be able to recruit new young people or regenerate our communities. In short, if we want to develop, I think we must expand the profile of what a francophone is and of who may become a francophone and determine the institutions through which one can become francophone. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Wade.
Ms. Cormier, go ahead, please.
Marianne Cormier, Dean, Faculty of Education, University of Moncton, as an individualGood morning. I too want to thank you for your invitation and this opportunity to present our thoughts. Personally, I will be presenting two key actions designed to address the vitality of the francophone minority communities. The first concerns the importance of maximizing participation in French-language schools and the second the critical need to promote feelings of belonging and competence among young people. The one cannot be done without the other.
As my colleagues have said, Part VII of the act encourages institutions to take positive measures to enhance the vitality of the minority communities. The act’s modernization must include the addition of more expressly stated elements to ensure the revitalization of communities by targeting youth. The viability of a language and its culture depends on youth speaking that language and taking part in its culture. For young people, this process begins at school. School is the heart of the community and the key to linguistic and cultural revitalization. At the national level, however, only 50 per cent of children eligible to attend French-language schools actually attend those schools. Think about it. There could be 160,000 more children in our schools, and there could be even more than that because I believe the time has come to re-examine the eligibility criteria.
The aim of section 23, as the case law tells us, is to right past wrongs, to reverse the effects of the assimilation ideology that long prevailed in Canada. It is therefore important to repatriate families of francophone heritage that have lost their eligibility. The potential for schools to play their revitalization role would thus increase considerably, including schools that embrace immigrants of all nationalities and languages. Consequently, we should maximize school enrolment among those who are eligible and repatriate those who have lost their eligibility.
But how? I suggest four ways. Actions in the early childhood field produce results, as do high-quality services in French, welcoming and supportive initiatives that provide a positive experience and encourage parents to pursue education in French. A national marketing campaign designed to inform parents about French-language schools and their value would help inform parents that the schools offer francization programs that boost language and reading development in positive ways.
Lastly, schools must be high-quality institutions where young people can develop a sense of belonging and competence. As a result of their circumstances, which are far more diversified than they were in 1969, students’ first language may be French, English, both, or another language. Students’ language practices are part of a complex dynamic involving switching between those languages and modified by power relationships among languages, identity relationships, and their awareness of the cultural elements of the languages with which they are in contact. Language usages in students’ circles tend to manifest themselves more frequently in the majority language. Their sociocultural space and contact with the media and technology are mainly in English. These young people have the impression that their French does not and never will compete. But do they understand the relevance of speaking French, and do they want to be part of the community? They must have positive language experiences that encourage them to speak, read, and write French to say what they have to say and to take part in the conversation. Classes must be inundated with and invaded by high-quality works of literature and provide students with learning experiences that engage them as citizens and develop rich language skills. The quality of this kind of school will soon become known and attractive to parents. I would like my children to go to this school.
It is therefore important to include in the act wording that connects “culture to language and language to all school subjects,” a strong statement that affords students the opportunity to discover the richness of that culture through literature, theatre, music, the digital world, and social media and gives them this feeling of belonging and competence. In my view, this is how you right past wrongs. First, encourage students to go to French-language schools and then offer them an experience that will increase their sense of belonging and competence. If that is done, they will subsequently become parents who enrol their children in French-language schools. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Forgues, go ahead, please.
Éric Forgues, Executive Director, Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities, University of Moncton, as an individualThank you for inviting us to take part in your review. As the clock is running, I will get straight to the point. First, I will talk about the Official Languages Act, particularly Part VII, and then discuss the cultural space of young people in general and the youngest in particular. Consequently, in the context of the review of the Official Languages Act, I believe, as has been mentioned, that Part VII must be clarified. Although I am not a legal expert, it seems to me that this part of the act may be interpreted and implemented in several ways.
I remind you, as you undoubtedly know, that the act refers to enhancing the vitality of the English and French minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development. How then is development defined? How is the vitality of the communities defined? As legal expert Michel Doucet has noted, “The Federal Court of Appeal therefore acknowledges the existence of obligations in Part VII of the act” — he was referring to the 1988 review of the act — “which flow from section 42 and 43, even though it does state that those obligations are as general and vague as can be.” Since then, it has also been said that every federal institution has the duty to ensure that positive measures are taken for the implementation of those commitments. Consequently, this obligation to take positive measures means that government institutions must take the lead to ensure compliance with the act. They must commit to enhancing development, and governments must play an upstream role. Is it up to government institutions to define that development and those positive measures, or is it up to the communities? We have a guideline for defining the meaning of that development, which must tend toward genuine equality between the communities. I am still quoting legal expert Michel Doucet:
Part VII of the act is remedial in nature, in our opinion. Part VII does not seek to entrench the status quo, but rather to correct the historic, progressive erosion of the official language minorities by requiring the federal government to take their interests into account and to promote their development in order to foster genuine equality between the country’s official languages communities.
I also think it is essential to listen closely to the message of the players who ask that we respect the principle of “by and for.” This is really an integral part of the discourse and thus a development for the communities and defined by them. This principle stems from the historical will of the communities to take charge of their own development. It has also been adopted by the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française and its members, and I believe it should be added to the new Official Languages Act.
To my mind, the review of the act is an opportunity to review the contract between the Canadian government and the communities. If the government has an obligation to support the development of the communities, it cannot do so without their full participation. It can no longer do so in a vertical-governance, or top-down, perspective. The communities aspire to greater autonomy. To my mind, it is also this genuine equality that is advocated and promoted by the Official Languages Act. The partnership between the government and the communities must be based on respect for the communities’ autonomy.
Consequently, to answer the question I asked at the outset, the communities are in the best position to define that development.
The second point on cultural practices and the francophone space that I would like to address is the francophone space on the Internet and in social media in particular. As you know, the act was drafted before the Internet and before social media. That has already been noted. Today, these new media provide an interactive space for socialization that has become very important for young people. It is also a space for the consumption of cultural products, as well as a space for cultural production by regular artists and ordinary people who can create content, such as new bloggers; a whole new market is being developed in digital spaces. Are these spaces francophone? Do we know the dynamics of these spaces in a minority context? I think very little is known about the subject. I think it is important to develop these francophone cultural spaces for young people, with regard to digital issues in a minority context.
Canadian Heritage conducted a national consultation on digital issues. In its report, it refers to minority communities. They have not been forgotten, but I think we should go further and conduct these kinds of studies for minority communities that are facing specific challenges. It is important to consider young francophones in developing an environment for socialization, the production and consumption of cultural products, and interaction in French in the digital world. If we want young francophones to consume cultural products in French, those cultural products must be offered in French. Since it is important to develop the capacity to produce content that reflects Canadian francophone realities, the “by and for” principle must also be applied here. However, we must do more than just produce cultural content. We must promote that content in the schools, the community spaces, and on social media. The idea is not to create content for it to be automatically used. A culture of reading and consuming francophone cultural products must be developed and promoted.
I am opening a door, as previously mentioned, but I will not go any further. In some regions where literacy levels are low, some cultural products are inaccessible owing to a lack of skills. Digital media also offer engagement spaces for young people. Organizations must also adapt to young people’s reality and further integrate Internet tools into their lives in society to promote youth engagement.
I have discussed the Internet and the digital world, but we should not forget that it is also important to create personal meeting spaces and events for young people. The Jeux de l’Acadie and the Jeux de la francophonie play an essential role in developing language and identity, but sports and recreational events are not the only ones that do so. Travel is also a way for young people to learn about the country and its linguistic and cultural aspects. I am thinking, for example, of Katimavik, the kind of experience that can also play a very positive role for youth. I will stop there. These are a few ideas.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Forgues.
Then to our last guest, Ms. Léger, please.
Madeleine Léger, Student, Mount Allison University, as an individual: Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, good morning and thank you for your invitation. My name is Madeleine Léger, and I am a philosophy student at Mount Allison University, which is located about 30 minutes away from the University of Moncton.
As a francophone student at an English-language university, my situation is perhaps atypical, but not at all unique in New Brunswick. This morning, I am speaking to you, not as an official languages expert like the other guests, but rather as a New Brunswick student who is interested in the future of her province and country.
My father is an Acadian who passed on the legacy of his clever and determined people. Thanks to him, I have deep roots in Acadia. However, my love for my language was equally fostered by my mother, an Albertan born to a German father and an anglophone mother. My mother chose to make Acadia her home and her homeland. Because of her choice, I speak French today. Her decision to raise me in French gives meaning to the expression “mother tongue.” So my love for my language and my culture came as much from my anglophone mother as from my francophone father.
[English]
I believe that the question of official languages in Canada has little to do with our genes and a lot to do with our cultural contexts. Of course, heritage matters, but I do not believe for a second that our family history must dictate the languages we come to speak and love.
[Translation]
I do not claim to have found a panacea for our country’s linguistic challenges, but my goal instead will be to share with you my reality and my personal observations, observations that are fresh and come from my life here in Acadia.
From my perspective as a student, the answer is clear: education must come first. As a province, as a region, and as a country, we must provide high-quality primary, secondary, and post-secondary education to all those who want to learn in French. We must continue investing in the University of Moncton. That is not a question. It is the veritable heart of the francophone community in the Maritimes, but we must not forget Sainte-Anne University, New Brunswick Community College, and all the other institutions that offer a French-language education in the region. We must take action to ensure all students, including those who have adopted French as a second language, can choose to study in the field of their choice in French. In English-speaking areas, we must immediately start promoting French immersion programs and making them a priority. I truly believe that the key to harmonious bilingualism lies in this cultural exchange, starting at a young age.
Immersion programs are not currently available in all schools, and those who can enter an immersion program have trouble maintaining their second language after graduation. These programs should underline the importance of French-language literature, music, and culture because no one falls in love with the rules of grammar, after all. We learn to love a language by speaking it and learning it in its cultural context. Of course, we cannot discuss French in Acadia without mentioning our distinctive dialects. We have already done that today. Our language has developed in its own way and survived many journeys. It currently reflects our unique character, our vitality, and, above all, our perseverance. I firmly believe that preserving French in Acadia requires preserving Acadian French.
Finally, I want to point out that the languages discussion in Canada cannot end with the official languages.
[English]
Without presuming to be able to speak for my entire age group or for every New Brunswicker or Canadian, I would like to emphasize that my generation is growing tired and weary of the dialogues surrounding the “Two Solitudes” in our country. Yes, we are a country of two official languages, but we are not a country where two languages are spoken. This land has witnessed thousands of years of indigenous knowledge and speech and these languages are in great need of attention today, so we must follow through on our engagements to rectify our mistakes in this respect. This land has also welcomed immigrants from all four corners of the world. Yes, some from England and France, but others from everywhere else as well. We must realize that our country is made up of an incredibly complex web of cultural identities and languages.
[Translation]
We can celebrate and preserve one linguistic community without hurting another. Canada is an amazing country, and we are also an unfinished project, but I am convinced we have the ability and the responsibility to preserve our distinct and multiple heritages. I have no doubt that we will be up to the challenge. Thank you for listening.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Léger.
Senator Mégie: Thanks to all of you for your tremendous input and the solutions you have proposed for the future. I would single out the presentation of Mr. Wade, who said that immigration could help starting in early childhood, and the remarks by Ms. Cormier, who spoke about all that. Have any measures already been taken in this area? Whether people are allophones, anglophones or whatever, if we start in early childhood, a time when the brain is very malleable, children will really understand French, even if they speak differently at home. So that would really be a good solution. Has it previously been tried in the sector?
Mr. Wade: Well, there is currently no real duality policy in the country. Consequently, we have a kind of triple regime. Some child care centres are anglophone, others are francophone, and still others are bilingual, and it is difficult in those circumstances to acquire the resources and concentrate enough resources to make a francization effort. I think there is a certain lack of awareness among immigrants who arrive. There are francophone immigrants whom we recruit and who are able to integrate into the community through our network of associations. In that way, we are creating two classes of immigrants: our immigrants and other immigrants who integrate in the anglophone sector.
I think those immigrants, the other ones, will not naturally turn toward the francophone sector because they can see that French is not the dominant language. Consequently, we must try to emphasize at the early childhood stage that, by learning French, you acquire bilingual skills and that that is what gives you the proficiency in both official languages that confers a comparative advantage. I think it would be desirable to have an official strategy in that area.
Senator Mégie: So that will require promotion.
Mr. Wade: Yes, and concentrated effort because we have three different types of child care centres for early childhood, and I think it is difficult for people to get their bearings. It is hard to establish best practices and expertise.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Ms. Cormier: I totally agree with Mathieu, but I would like to add that there are ad hoc, provincial, and local initiatives that are producing results, and the research shows it, as I noted in my remarks. In Nova Scotia, for example, a free, full-time junior kindergarten program has been established in several Nova Scotia regions to promote child development in French from the age of four. This encourages parents to enrol their children, who will then continue in the French schools. Consequently, Nova Scotia has managed to increase its participation rate in French schools in this way and has established what I think is an excellent initiative for children under four.
We still have to think about other, younger children. Prince Edward Island also has parent information initiatives. So there are initiatives, but I think they are dependent on political will, the will of the people, and perhaps the energy of the people who are prepared to invest their time and effort in those programs. Joint efforts should be made, and they should be better coordinated with a national strategy focusing on duality, as Mathieu said.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for your presentations. In fact, given the wealth of information in your presentations, we could spend an hour with each one of you. I think we could have an in-depth discussion. I am going to try to synthesize the many questions I have. We have heard a lot of comments about asymmetry in our communities, some of which are homogeneously francophone and others less so. Consequently, on the issues you addressed, how can the Official Languages Act as worded and its associated regulations reflect that asymmetry? For example, on the connection between language and culture, we have heard testimony that, at times, I found troubling. In some cases, the link between language and culture was a tool to strengthening the connection with the French language, while, in others, it could be an exclusionary factor because, if French speakers do not identify with Acadian culture, for example, they will obviously not associate with that language specifically. Consequently, in this complex context of asymmetry in the areas of connection to the French language, early childhood strategies, and French immersion schools, do you have any thoughts on how the federal government might take that asymmetry into account in this review of the act? That is my question.
Mr. Forgues: It is a good question, and I think the entire asymmetry issue deserves considerable thought. In fact, what we want to do in discussing asymmetry is address realities that are different from one region to another. I think that, if we take a top-down approach — and I touched on that very briefly in my presentation — that perhaps is a slightly more rigid approach. We are less open to differences between realities. If we are in favour of the communities taking charge of matters by determining their needs and the means with which to address them, we will assist them with approaches that are flexible enough to address different needs. This is why asymmetry will be defined using an approach that is supple, flexible, and capable of adapting to different needs. Consequently, I think we must review the action approach in the communities to enable communities that have different needs to express themselves and to provide them with the tools necessary to each of them. That is the approach we should take another look at.
Senator Cormier: I would like to ask a supplementary question focusing on youth. Young people’s vision and relationship to the francophonie and to the French language and culture are obviously different from those of previous generations. Consider this specific example. The youth association here in Prince Edward Island recently changed its name. It was essentially called the Acadian federation. Perhaps not “federation”, but the word “Acadian” was essentially connected to the name of the association. It wanted to expand its definition and became “Acadian” and “francophone.” What does that tell you about the definition of what constitutes a francophone, about the definition or relationship between language and culture, and about the need for openness? I do not know whether you have any thoughts to offer us on that?
Ms. Violette: Perhaps I could make my contribution. It is true that we have really imagined the francophone communities since the 1960s as having this very strong combination of language, identity, culture, and territory. Today, however, we increasingly promote the francophonie by spreading the idea that French is a skill, a resource, and that weakens the connection that could be envisaged between language and culture. I think it is a bit of a mistake to rename associations such as that one as Acadian and francophone associations — this is really my personal opinion — because I think that, instead of trying to redefine what it means, what it signifies to be Acadian in the 21st century, we tend to create two categories: Canadians who have a historical connection with French, a certain affiliation, and francophones who fall into a separate category and who have a more utilitarian long-term connection. Consequently, I do not really know how to respond to that challenge, but French is not a language of identity for all francophones, and that has to be acknowledged. It has to be acknowledged as a reality. If we just invest in the francophonie, in the idea that it is the preservation of the past, we also set aside an entire population that could also contribute to that francophonie.
Mr. Wade: I fully support that idea that we our creating two categories. I believe that then “ethnicizes” the entire Acadian identity as though it were precisely a matter of affiliation. To address asymmetry, we focus on culture — there is a reason why Canadian Heritage handles official languages — and if we want to move beyond that, then it has to be a language that serves a purpose, that enables people to act in the world, and that can be done, I do not know, through many causes, such as the LGBTQ movement, environmental movements, and so on, or through other ways of acting in the world, to do it in French. Then we will circumvent somewhat the problem of culture-sharing. We are part of the community because we fight for an issue in the language of the community. I think that is one way to do it.
Ms. Violette: I would like to quote Ms. Léger’s comment that “no one falls in love with the rules of grammar,” but you can fall in love with a song or a literary work. That is the meaning I want to convey when I talk about connecting language to culture. A few years ago, I conducted a study in which I questioned Grade 10 students in Dieppe, New Brunswick, about the kind of music they liked. They systematically told me they liked English music. I want to emphasize that English music is not a type of music; it is a language. When I asked them to talk to me about French music, they were unable to do so. They had no knowledge of music in French and they had not really taken the time to listen to any. They listened to music in French for three weeks and, as a final project, had to produce a video for their favourite song. It was an enriching experience for them. It was like music in English, except that it was in French. There are all the genres in French, but they did not understand that concept. The only kinds of music in French they were initially able to tell me about were violins and “zigzags.”
I think that pedagogical interventions must focus on knowledge of francophone culture. I would like to have more time to tell you about my current research project, in which we are including young adult literature in Grade 8 science courses. We extract scientific concepts, make connections, and achieve extraordinary results because the students are starting to love reading, even the boys who were not readers. Thank you.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your presentations. Ms. Cormier, I just wanted a brief clarification or more information on a topic you discussed: the number of students who are eligible to study in French and choose not to do so for one reason or another. Were you referring to students from kindergarten to Grade 12 or the post-secondary level, college or university?
Ms. Cormier: It was the school level. The percentage I cited comes from a study by Rodrigue Landry based on census data to determine which children were eligible under section 23 to attend French-language school in a minority setting. He concluded that approximately 50 per cent of children who are eligible attend French-language schools. According to the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires de langue française, the figure is approximately 160,000 students in our minority schools. So we could have 160,000 more.
Senator Poirier: Does the research explain the reason why? Is it because there is a shortage of francophone schools in the region where they live? Is it because some families have decided to enrol their children in anglophone rather than francophone schools?
Ms. Cormier: Both in some instances. In some cases, the school is too far away. If there is an anglophone school across the street, the parents will send their children there because it is easier than having their children travel 45 minutes by bus. In other cases, it is a matter of choice or a question of insecurity or a feeling of incompetence. In other cases still, some feel that the francophone school is not as good as the anglophone school, that there is less choice. Some studies explain the motivations and reasons why parents make those decisions. If we can intervene at the early childhood stage, that can often influence the decision to enrol a child at a French-language school.
Senator Poirier: Are there any rules as to whether a student may be admitted to an anglophone or francophone school provided one of the parents speaks the language of that school? For example, a student may not go to an anglophone school if both parents are francophone, and vice versa. If both parents are anglophone, the child may not be admitted to a francophone school. I thought that rule was in effect in New Brunswick, but perhaps not elsewhere, no?
Ms. Cormier: That is true for French-language schools. To attend French schools, students or parents must meet one of the three section 23 criteria: that the parent’s first language learned and still understood is French, that the parent previously attended a French-language school, or that the parent had another child attending a French-language school. At least one parent must meet the criteria. This is true for French-language schools but not for English-language schools. English-language schools are the schools of the majority. They are the schools for everyone. Anyone may enrol a child in those schools, even if the child does not speak the language of the school. However, there are minor differences in New Brunswick. Under the act, children who speak French should attend French schools. If they speak English, they may nevertheless attend French schools. That is the difference.
Senator Poirier: Would you like to comment?
Mr. Wade: Yes, I just wanted to comment because earlier we talked about the cleavage between Acadians, who are the people who have a filial relationship to the language, and francophones, but section 23 somewhat confirms that connection as well. Some people have access to French-language schools as a result of their genealogy, while others do not. That is something the Official Languages Act cannot touch because this is a Charter provision, but the Canadian government uses somewhat the same logic regarding schools, and that is a problem for immigrants. For example, to have access to French-language schools, immigrants must often file an application with the school board. The application will be accepted if it is found that they meet certain criteria, but access is really quite limited. I think I understand the reasons why that was done, but it is also a challenge for the potential growth of our communities.
Mr. Forgues: I have an additional piece of information. We lose approximately half the children of rights-holders in the school system. You should also know that we lose even more at the secondary level. There is a percentage — I do not remember the exact figure; perhaps Marianne does — but a significant percentage of students decide to attend English-language schools when they reach the secondary level.
Senator Poirier: I have a final question, with your permission, Madam Chair. Most of the students who study in French, either at university or at one of our community colleges, have French as their mother tongue. However, what percentage of students do not have French as their mother tongue but took a French immersion program starting in Grade 1 or Grade 3 and decided to continue their studies at a French-language institution after Grade 12? Do you have an idea of the percentage?
Ms. Violette: I do not know the figures, but it must be a really small number because we recently received the figures. Twenty per cent of students at the University of Moncton are international students. Consequently, French is not the mother tongue of many of them. That does not answer your question because these are international students. I believe that 60 per cent or 70 per cent come from New Brunswick’s francophone schools, and the remainder includes students from other provinces and New Brunswick’s immersion program. So we are talking about a small percentage.
We are seeing more and more of them. I see more and more in my courses. I believe we have conducted campaigns to attract them because I have been teaching for nearly 10 years now, and there were none when I started. Now I have two or three every year. So something is happening. There is a potential source of students, but it remains very limited.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Léger, do you want to add a comment?
Ms. Léger: Yes, thank you.
I cannot give you the exact number of students at the University of Moncton, but I could tell you how to increase those figures. The University of Moncton has made enormous progress in recent years in increasing the choice and quality of programs offered. We are already seeing an increase in the number of students who choose the University of Moncton over other universities. We must continue offering scholarships to students who choose to study in French, particularly those for whom French is their second language. That is already being done, and I can confirm that as a student who has to pay her tuition fees. It makes a big difference.
Lastly, I think that exchange programs between anglophone and francophone universities might help increase the number of students. For example, Mount Allison University is located 30 minutes away from the University of Moncton, and we share several programs. It would not be very difficult to bring those communities closer together by offering courses here during a semester and other courses at the other university the following semester. That would promote cultural exchanges.
The Chair: Thank you.
Following up Senator Poirier’s question, Ms. Léger, did you decide to go to an anglophone rather than a francophone university for financial reasons?
Ms. Léger: The answer is a bit complicated in my case. First of all, I identify as a francophone, but I am also bilingual. I firmly believe it is important to experience these cultural exchanges. There is also a financial aspect and the fact that I am studying philosophy.
Like every institution with limited funding, the University of Moncton needs to choose the programs it invests in, and philosophy is not one of them. That is why I went to Mount Allison University. You can also experience your francophonie at an anglophone institution with support programs and strong communities. You have to paint a big picture. I am experiencing my francophonie with several other francophones at Mount Allison.
Senator Gagné: Earlier some witnesses told us that French is not really a living language in the federal government and that it is more a translated language. I wondered whether you think the federal government has a role to play with regard to the vitality of our communities and, if so, how it should do so.
Mr. Forgues: I will begin, and my colleagues can perhaps join in. Yes, the government has a role to play with regard to the vitality of the communities, and that is an obligation — it is set forth in the act — and it must therefore provide that support. The English term is “vitality.” The French word is “épanouissement,” but the English version of the act really refers to “vitality.” So, yes, there is a role. The question is really how it can enhance the vitality of the communities. As was mentioned, there is currently an entire approach whereby a whole set of community activities are being funded in various sectors. I think we should look at its impact on the communities, and my impression is that this is one of the directions they want to take. Earlier we talked at length about results-based management. Funding is provided to an organization, which must then show us it has achieved its results without us necessarily measuring the impact that may have on the communities.
Now they want to do this, and I think it is a good thing. Consequently, they fund a number of organizations or activities and then examine the impact they have on the community. I think the community intervention approach should be reviewed because the figures are showing it. If the situation continues this way — and I mean we are seeing it in the census data — no reversal is really under way in the major trends in the communities.
Perhaps it would be worse if there were no intervention, but let us say we could expect a better impact on the vitality of the communities. I also think we must reflect on the approach and really take the time to ask ourselves the right questions, questions that may be somewhat disturbing in some instances. For example, are we using the right approach? How can we improve it? I think some improvements can be made. There is potential because they are very much targeting people who speak French. We want to protect French, but there are also those who have lost their French. Is there a way, for example, to revitalize certain communities that have lost their language, culture, and identity?
I had a minor revelation last year when I visited Chezzetcook, which is a small village near Halifax. In the 1980s, Ronald Labelle conducted a study and essentially said in his report that he had observed Chezzetcook’s linguistic, cultural, and identity decline. Chezzetcook is an Acadian community but had lost the use of its language. What Labelle failed to anticipate was what subsequently happened. The residents joined forces to establish a school. The Acadian World Congress took place. The residents obtained funding to build a museum and publicize their past, their history, and the ensuing revitalization resulted in a sense of identity. It all took place in stages. Something happened. Perhaps we could learn some lessons from the experience. These people had fallen away the francophonie and were no longer engaged in the francophone world because their community had anglicized over the years. They no longer spoke French and had therefore been overlooked in favour of those who speak French today. I think you have to do that. You have to focus on people who speak French, but there is potential as well in certain communities that have been assimilated over the years.
Ms. Cormier: We have spoken at length, the University of Moncton team and Ms. Léger as well, about education in early childhood, at school, and at the postsecondary level. These are provincial, not federal jurisdictions, but the federal government can form partnerships and strategic plans with provincial governments to establish policies, regulations, and investments that promote early childhood, French-language schools, and francophone communities. As I said, the school is the heart of the community, and, to cite another example, here in the room we have one of my doctoral students, Rachel Gauthier, who was born an anglophone and did not know she had a francophone heritage. She eventually became principal of the French school in Rusticook, which is a refrancization school that is restoring French to the community, a community that has experienced considerable assimilation. I am eager to read her thesis because she talks about her students, who attend our French schools and come from francophone backgrounds but did not speak French when they started school.
Senator Gagné: I would like to go back to the vitality of a community. In the end, my question is as follows: at the relational level — because vitality is based on relationships — what we have heard from some francophone organizations is that the federal government offices in our regions must be part of the community. So I asked myself the question because, once again, with access to information, we are told that, most of the time, although not all the time, English is published first and the French version second, but that it is a translation. With respect to the services designed to support community vitality, then, should we move beyond a translated language.
Mr. Wade: Yes, very definitely, but I think the vitality of the communities is influenced by access to services, which is an essential part. However, we must realize that citizens’ day-to-day interactions with the federal government are quite limited and do not have a very significant impact on the way they experience their identity. Some improvements or minor adjustments could be made to this part of the act, but, in my view, this is not where vitality determined.
There is a measure of vitality, and vitality remains to be defined. I think efforts have been made to define what it is at the Institute for Acadian Studies and in the work of Rodrigue Landry because, according to one conception of vitality, it is often within the community. In all the studies conducted, French speakers are questioned. The idea is thus to determine what their feelings are and so on, and their environment is not at all taken into consideration. The vitality of a community also depends on the other group’s attitude toward our existence, and I think that, in Canada, in our social sciences and our research work, we do not talk about anglophones when we conduct research in the francophonie. They are the other side and not part of our community. Consequently, we take no interest in them, and I think that part of the Official Languages Act leads to this kind of logic. There are two communities fighting for money, and we francophones want our share of the money.
I therefore think we must find a lexicon, a vocabulary, to address relations between linguistic groups. We are starting to make enormous progress in addressing many tensions that may exist among religious groups, sexual identities, and gender identities, and we are finding a vocabulary to do so, to put a name on the inequalities, but we do not know what constitutes discrimination or injustice when it comes to languages. Is it a form of discrimination to be constantly told, “Sorry, I don’t speak your language”? I do not know what the federal government can do in this field, but I think it is the question of more social relations that must be addressed because a community’s vitality also depends on all those relations.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
Senator Maltais: We had an experience yesterday. We went to visit three schools, one of which is called Évangéline, if I am not mistaken. To my great surprise, there were Grade 9 students there who had not yet started learning English. What you said earlier, Mr. Forgues, made me think of this. Do we in the francophone community start learning English too soon? Could we not give them the first 8 or 10 years in French and teach them English in the last few years, as the anglophones do? You know, when you face an army, you do not just attack it head on. It has flanks. It has wings, and, if you do not feel strong enough to move forward, perhaps you should look to its flanks. We took the liberty — and I think all the senators have asked their little groups the same question — of asking them with what culture they identified. The answer was 100 per cent Acadian culture, but I was unhappy to learn that people in a small village in your region did not identify with Acadian culture.
Could you examine this matter at some stage in your thinking and determine whether francophones who start learning English too early tend to lose their French as they approach adulthood? Do they tend to forget it and switch completely to English? Perhaps that is an indirect assimilation method.
I have a final question, Ms. Léger. You say in your brief that the only way to improve linguistic relations in New Brunswick is to forge links between the communities, which sometimes have trouble communicating with each other. You are entirely right. That is an extraordinary statement. What would those links be?
Ms. Léger: To answer your first question, back home people say you learn French but you catch English. I do not necessarily think you should prevent English instruction because I think that is one of the links that would promote better communication between our province’s two main linguistic groups. Like Ms. Cormier, I think that bridges are built at the cultural level.
Here is an example from my personal life. I host a radio program in English at Mount Allison, but I only play music in French, and I explain the context of the songs and their content. This is my way of bringing some of my francophone culture to an anglophone majority environment. To me, that is what building bridges means. It means making an effort to speak to a francophone in your second language, and vice versa. These are links that we forge by taking the time to understand each other, to learn the other person’s language, and I think that should be done at school, as was mentioned today.
Senator Maltais: I want to go back to my first question. You touched on it. My children grew up in Quebec under Bill 101, which prohibits students from learning English from kindergarten to the last year of high school. Once they got to CEGEP, of course, they had to learn English, and CEGEP is not a good place for English. They chose professions in which all the books are in English because the French have not produced books on medicine, as far as I know, or electrical engineering. It also cost me a lot of money for them to learn English. Now I have grandchildren, and my grandson, who is in Grade 4, is almost completely bilingual. He is starting to learn English, which is linked in his timetable with soccer, skating, and hockey. It has become a minor subject, but a compulsory one. So they are learning it, of course. I also have to say that my children did not have today’s social media. So their children will learn English young. They are young, and they are learning, but they need not fear losing their French. Where you live, on the other hand, you have to do the opposite and give them enough French when they are young and teach them English later on because they will never lose their basic French if they learn it over 10 or 11 years. I am convinced of that. I am not an expert, far from it, but I am convinced from experience that it can be done.
Ms. Léger: I am not an expert either, but, having recently gone through the New Brunswick school system, I absolutely agree. An education in French must start at a young age. It must be intensive but also interactive with cultural and community elements. I think that the real solution for more sustainable bilingualism must also be implemented on the anglophone side. French immersion should start earlier.
Senator Moncion: I want to thank each of you for your input. I found the aspects you presented extremely interesting, and they were all different but complementary as well. My question is more about what is missing from the Official Languages Act that might help improve it in all the areas we have heard about, because you talked about culture, language, education, exchanges, and community identity. You discussed everything relating to the various solutions. What is missing from the Official Languages Act that might give more teeth to the initiatives you want to put in place or that you must work toward? In the context of our work here, this would go into the recommendations we want to present to the government to tell it what is missing and what must be done.
Ms. Cormier: When you read the Official Languages Act now, as Mathieu said, it is very much about the relationship between citizens and the federal government, whether they can obtain a service in French. It therefore has limited impact on people’s everyday lives. Action must be taken so that it enters their daily lives, their habits, what they do every day, and not just when they have to mail a letter or submit a passport application.
Mr. Forgues: I would also reiterate what I said in my presentation about the “by and for” principle. I think it would be a good idea to include it in the Official Languages Act. It could be couched in more legal language, but the idea of respecting and acknowledging the autonomy of the communities should serve as a basis or foundation. I am thinking of a new contract between the government and the communities, and, based on that new social and political contract, the communities will be provided with the means to determine their needs and take charge of their own development. I think it is Part VII that remains to be clarified. A major effort must be made to clarify Part VII, in particular what is meant by development, which can veer off in all kinds of directions. We must know how we want to define it, and that will require a major collective thinking effort on the part of the communities. Then it will be its implementation. Consequently, we will need a lot more resources, at the implementation stage, in any case, than we have available now.
Mr. Wade: I think that, when the Official Languages Act was drafted, its purpose was never to make the population bilingual. On the contrary, it was to make the Canadian government bilingual so that citizens did not have to be, and that is the major limit of the Official Languages Act. Then, through case law and a series of struggles, the government gradually came to acknowledge that the communities had to be supported and provided with funding and have their own recognized space. With regard to that space, however, I do not think there is any measure that would suggest the Official Languages Act has achieved its immigration or language retention objectives. The “bilingualization” of citizens is largely occurring among francophones and very little among anglophones. Consequently, it is francophones who shoulder the burden of the Official Languages Act and bilingualism. Bilingualism need not be a burden, but it is if it is borne unequally in society. That is the case at the moment, and I think that what is missing from the Official Languages Act is a genuine plan to democratize the acquisition of both official languages among the population.
Senator Cormier: You have talked at length about the “by and for” principle. We are focusing on a study, a consultation on youth. We can see the relationship that youth in the communities have with the governance of civil society, with the way in which we organize our governance in terms of organizations, the increase in the number of organizations, and the inclusion and exclusion of all French speakers in and from organizations. Do you have any ideas on how the Official Languages Act, its measures or regulations, might help the communities redefine their governance, if, obviously, we deem it necessary to redefine it, depending on the various views expressed?
Mr. Forgues: Yes, I do not know how we can provide for that in the act, but I think it must be done at some stage, and governance must be reinforced if we really want to recognize the autonomy of the communities. That will require that governance be reinforced at the community level, by which I mean we must find ways to make it more legitimate and encourage greater participation. There is the whole issue of mobilizing and engaging the public and youth as well. There really must be stronger engagement. Consequently, I think there is a process that must be followed to reinforce that governance, and, when we think of youth, we think of a young generation that makes extensive use of social media and engages in a different way today. The current structure of our governance is designed somewhat along 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s lines, but I think that governance today must also modernize, and that aspect must be examined as well. I do not know whether others want to add anything.
Mr. Wade: Yes, I also think more legitimacy is needed. We have organizations that are the official representatives, but we know they struggle to get 100 people to attend their AGMs. Are they really the representative organizations of the community? They represent a certain class in the community, people who are engaged, people we hear and who are committed to the francophonie, but other francophones are not necessarily represented or heard within those organizations. I do not know what role the federal government would play to make those organizations more legitimate because that is the problem of a federation: there are so many levels of power sharing or jealously sharing their jurisdictions, and some jurisdictions must be delegated so that power becomes a legitimate collective issue. If there is no real issue, if those organizations do not have power to act, people will not take an interest in them because they will remain all talk and consultation. They must have power to act. Then people will mobilize and direct the actions of those organizations and give them power to act.
The Chair: Thank you, then, on the half of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, I want to thank you sincerely for the quality of your presentations. Your briefs are truly an eloquent testimony to the importance you attach to our study, and we thank you for that. Your comments are very relevant, and we will definitely consider them very seriously and incorporate them in our recommendations. Thank you all. It was a pleasure to have you here this morning.
For our third panel of witnesses, we have the opportunity to hear from Paul Cyr, who is Director of Instruction at the Commission scolaire de langue française de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard; René Hurtubise, who is Director of Innovation and French Programs and Services at the Public Schools Branch; Anastasia DesRoches, Executive Director of the Fédération des parents de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard; and Gail Lecky, who is Executive Director of Canadian Parents for French for Prince Edward Island.
Welcome, everyone. We are pleased to have you with us this morning. I am told you will be speak in order from left to right or right to left, as the case may be, starting with Mr. Cyr. Following your presentations, senators will ask questions. As time is obviously limited, please try to keep your presentations and answers to senators’ questions as concise as possible.
Paul Cyr, Director of Instruction, Commission scolaire de langue française de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard: Thank you, Senator Tardif. The Commission scolaire de langue française, or CSLF, was established in July 1990 when francophones in the province were granted the right to oversee their own education. At that time, there were two francophone schools in Prince Edward Island. Between 2000 and 2003, four new schools were established, serving six regions in the province. This year, the CSLF will have just over 930 students in its schools. Enrolment has been increasing over the last few years.
The CSLF provides its services in a minority context. Therefore, the importance of bilingualism is critical in a number of ways. For the francophone population in the province, the ability to be able to interact in both languages is very important: francophones need to be able to speak with each other in French, and they also need to be able to communicate in English with anglophones, either here in P.E.I. or elsewhere. In addition, parents who enrol their children with the CSLF want them to be able to pursue post-secondary education or job opportunities in either French or English. Bilingualism is therefore a significant asset in their eyes, and for good reason. Lastly, even after pursuing their secondary and post-secondary education. being bilingual is a key advantage in everyday life.
As regards promoting bilingualism, being in a minority context makes it much easier to use the language of the majority. Therefore, in P.E.I. it is quite easy to learn English. Our challenge is more to promote the use of French to ensure that young people become bilingual citizens. In our opinion, promoting bilingualism often means highlighting its advantages not only within the province. but also in all of Canada and around the world.
Promoting bilingualism is definitely easier when people live in minority communities. It is far easier to convince a francophone in P.E.I. of the advantages of bilingualism than it is to convince an anglophone of those advantages. This is equally true for francophones in majority communities. The need to learn English is less pressing in a place where French is the language people use every day.
We want to implement an additive bilingualism approach to the relationship between our two official languages. We try to promote both languages in a bilingual context, showcasing the advantages of using two languages. That said, in a minority community, the CSLF must promote French more to balance people’s perception of language learning. This must be done respectfully. without denigrating the language of the majority, given that many of our students are from exogamous families. Students living in families where one parent is anglophone and one parent is francophone should not be put in a position where they have to choose one over the other. This approach cannot work because language is closely associated with culture, emotions and family ties. As a result, the additive bilingualism approach often focuses more on learning the minority language, which is French in the case of P.E.I.
As I mentioned earlier, in a minority community, the motivation to learn the majority language, or English, in this case, is very strong. This is particularly true for exogamous families, or for families with rights-holders who have lost their mother tongue. Even in francophone families, the motivation to learn English is very strong, to the point that sometimes vigilance is required to ensure that French is not neglected. However, it seems to be easier for students from francophone or exogamous families who speak French at home and attend school in French to become bilingual. Rodrigue Landry mentioned this fact in his research on bilingualism.
We at the school board often talk about future prospects and jobs when we are promoting school in French in P.E.I. We point out that many of our former students have interesting jobs, and that being bilingual gave them an advantage. Once again, our starting point is that fluency in two languages is an asset, since Canada recognizes its two official languages. It is important to francophone minority communities in Canada that our country remain officially bilingual and that both languages be promoted. The CSLF has a strong desire for parents to continue to see the advantages of bilingualism and to enrol their children in a French-language school. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Cyr.
Now we will turn the floor over to Ms. Lecky from Canadian Parents for French.
[English]
Gail Lecky, Executive Director, Canadian Parents for French: Hello.
Canadian Parents for French is part of a nationwide organization that champions the opportunity to learn and use French as a second or additional language for all those who call Canada home. Please note that during this presentation I’ll use the term FSL quite a bit. It stands for French second language education, which is both French immersion and core French.
CPF PEI is a volunteer-based organization with an elected board of directors, one full-time staff member and an office here in Charlottetown. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input into this committee study.
In a province so small in geography, we have found that we have a wide reach and therefore our programs reflect that. Annually, we give each student to the FSL program a welcome package. Encounters with Canada Program places go to five French Student Excellence Award winners. We have a French second language educator of the year. We have École Ambassadrice du Français Program where we acknowledge schools for striving for excellence in their FSL programs.
We send students to French summer camp. We offer support for French second language teachers with school treasure chests, classroom visuals, music performances and more. We hold a Concours d’art oratoire with tens of thousands of dollars in scholarships available. We meet with parents and offer information and advice on FSL education on P.E.I. We do this with supporters and partners like Société Saint-Thomas-d’Aquin, UPEI, Collège de l’Île, the Department of Education Early Learning and Culture, Université Sainte-Anne, Université de Moncton and of course the Department of Canadian Heritage. We also include francophone youth in some of our programs.
Although P.E.I. is fortunate to have the third-highest enrollment of French immersion per capita in Canada and has had for many years, only 50 percent of our schools offer French immersion and only five out of those offer late French immersion. So access is where it all begins. If students do not have a doorway to learning their second official or their additional official language in the public school system, then they have little chance of becoming conversant in both of Canada’s official languages.
As a perspective on the advancement of both official languages, we would say that learning French should be the right of all anglophones or allophones in Canada. Therefore, we recommend that the early and late French immersion opportunities be provided to all those who would choose to do so, no matter where they live.
Indeed, all French language learners, not just immersion students, need to be able to learn essential communication in the second language, with emphasis on auditory and oral speaking.
We recommend, then, that core French education be mandatory from K to 12, with emphasis on speaking and communicating. Presently in P.E.I. it is mandatory from Grade 4 to Grade 9.
In P.E.I., the redesign of the core French program supports the development of students’ critical thinking, creativity, communication, collaboration skills. It is literacy based and is learner centred, flexible and focuses on skills and strategies that lead to lifelong, self-directed learning. The end goal for language instruction is to enable learners to transfer those skills and knowledge and to accomplish similar activities successfully in the real world using the target language. Language is learned to be used. When students are able to apply what they have learned in the classroom to the wider community and eventually to the world beyond the classroom, language becomes very powerful.
The next recommendation relates to how youth identify with learning languages and related cultures. We recommend that students have additional opportunities for authentic experiences in the target language in and out of the classroom. Learning a language without the cultural framework in which it exists is like cooking ethnic food without the spices of the region. Here is a great opportunity for rapprochement between the official languages communities to work together, fostering a dynamic French first and second language community.
What motivates learning the other official languages? We believe that depends on when the student starts to learn and what they experience while they’re learning. Early French immersion parents tend to look at the overall benefits, while late French immersion parents and the students look at the employability factor more often. We work hard to have parents and students understand that learning a second language is not just for job futures but a life skill; increasing communication, cognitive capacity, multitasking skills and improving the functionality of their brains.
In the end, does this make them more employable? Yes, but it also will enrich their lives, and who would not want this for their child?
To help facilitate this, recognized proficiency levels needs to be in place. Language learners, parents, teachers, post-secondary institutions and potential employers have to have a common understanding about each French language learner’s abilities.
Governments need to be accountable for reporting on achievements of FSL students. Parents and community stakeholders need to be actively engaged and involved in decision making with the school boards.
In summary, our recommendations on measures to strengthen the federal government’s support for linguistic duality is to ensure the continued high level of financial and moral support for learning both of Canada’s official languages.
We understand that this might mean broad changes. More access means more French teachers and more classrooms, all leading to a bigger investment. It is difficult to say what a country should spend on maintaining and improving its population’s ability to communicate with each other, of supporting and contributing to its national identity.
What should the price of official bilingualism be? The question might be amended to how much should my country invest in bilingualism, given our current national and international profile? The amount a country should invest, then, depends also on what it aspires to.
This afternoon you will hear from some FSL youth. Thomas Haslam, a Grade 11 late French immersion student from Kensington Intermediate High, is one of them. Kensington is a rural area and has only this one school for accessing French immersion. Thomas has spent many hours, days and weeks enjoying his ability to communicate in both official languages. He has participated in one of our Concours d’art oratoire, spent a week at the Encounters with Canada Program, was one of the participants in the Prime Minister’s Youth Council and will be able to speak to this committee today; all because he is bilingual, all because his school was able to offer him the program, and all because the OLEP agreement supports FSL education.
Sadly, the school’s program is in jeopardy because of the enrollment requirements for FI programs in P.E.I. Where will the Thomas Haslams be, then, if these programs are not supported and protected?
Canada is to me a country that is reflective of the fabric of all the people who live in it. It is bold, big, beautiful, multicultural and multilingual. Our two official languages tell the world that we are a country that embraces diversity. We need to continue to embrace all that Canada is.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you so much.
Mr. Hurtubise, please.
[Translation]
René Hurtubise, Director of Innovation and French Programs and Services, Prince Edward Island Department of Education, Early Learning and Culture: Good morning and thank you for having us. I would like to clarify one point before I start. I am not employed by the Public Schools Branch. We have a somewhat curious situation in Prince Edward Island: our English-language school board does not exist; consequently, the Public Schools Branch has no educational services. Educational services are provided by the Department of Education. My official employer is therefore the Prince Edward Island Department of Education.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Hurtubise: In my position, I am responsible for all French-language programs offered in the province, often in cooperation with Mr. Cyr, which is good, but I would prefer to discuss French as a second language with you here today. I read your invitation and I have tried to stick to the five points you proposed because education and the two official languages form a very broad field. Consequently, I am going to discuss the advancement of the two official languages, French as a second language, the identity relationship between the two languages, motivations for learning the other official language, employment prospects, and measures that should be considered.
I will start with the prospects for advancement of the two official languages. The advancement of official languages in Prince Edward Island in any case is not done through advertising campaigns, but rather by the face we present. We recently had some tourists from Quebec here who noticed that all our road signs in Prince Edward Island are bilingual. French has a place here. We do not attract people by telling them to come to PEI because it is bilingual. No, I think you have to see that, and this is one of the lessons that often must be learned. I look at the co-operative in Morell, on the way to the Magdalen Islands. There is a big sign at the co-op, and Morell is really an anglophone village, but the co-op has opted for bilingual signage. Everyone notices that sign on the road to our francophone school in the Fortune area, near Souris.
Encouraging people to post on the Internet in English and French is also something that speaks volumes. The idea is to have people in the public space, such as our hockey players, who speak both English and French, our politicians, who are increasingly able to speak both official languages, and our national news. As a bilingual person, I am always somewhat disappointed when I come across a simultaneous translation. I like translation, but when you have a simultaneous French translation of someone speaking English on the news, or vice versa — because many of our students understand both languages — I think there should be subtitles instead.
In PEI, we also look at officially bilingual positions. Officially bilingual positions are dangerous because sometimes they are hard to fill, but we are trying to create more and more of them within the PEI government. The same thing is happening in the Public Schools Branch. Officially bilingual special education programs would be a good thing, but, once again, you have to find the people. Consequently, to conclude this segment on the prospects of advancement of the official languages, in my view, the federal government should consider ways of further promoting English and French in all communities, in our 10 provinces and 3 territories, so that this aspect becomes part of real life and not something that is promoted separately.
The second part concerns the identity relationship between the two languages and their respective cultures. First of all, we have had many discussions on the identity issue in PEI, and it is increasingly complex. It is becoming increasingly difficult for exogamous families and newcomers to define themselves as anglophone or francophone. Census data, for example, do not help us in this area. Our population of French speakers in PEI represents over three to four per cent of the total population. We really have to see how that statistic can be taken into account at the national level.
I have friends who have children who declare themselves bicultural because, when you ask children what their mother tongue is, they answer that their father is English, their mother French, and they learned both languages at the same time. So are they anglophone or francophone? To my mind, it is not important to define oneself that way at 18 years of age, and this is increasingly the reality in PEI.
The other issue is that the minority culture is a real presence in our environment and that the federal government must continue to encourage that presence strongly at the legislative level by passing legislation on essential and cultural services in both languages. Considerable investment is being made in culture. In our French-second-language programs, we talk extensively about the fact that French must be authentic, but it is difficult for our students to live in French authentically in Prince Edward Island. You have to go to the Magdalen Islands and take advantage of CPF’s money to do that or go somewhere else. We have great opportunities now with the Internet, which is an increasing presence, and I always say that the Internet is a beautiful gift because, when you have an Internet platform, depending on the sites you select, you can get the feeling you do not live in a minority community. Consequently, the Internet can help us in this area.
Since our numbers in Prince Edward Island are small, French culture in the public space is a challenge. We have six francophone centres in PEI that are very helpful in putting French culture “in people’s faces,” and I think that is important. The majority makes an effort to support the minority language and culture, but the more our majority develops skills in its minority language, the more accommodation, support, and effort are extended to expand the minority and help it flourish. What I mean is that a minority must absolutely rely on the majority if it wants to flourish, and the majority that speaks French as a result of French-second-language programs is there to support it. Finding the way to connect those two aspects is still the part of my job that fires me up the most.
The challenge, and Paul mentioned it, is that it is too easy for the minority to blend into the majority. Presenting yourself in the minority language and demanding and using services require additional efforts. When I am at the grocery store, I always wonder whether I will speak to the cashier in French or English. When I am tired, I speak English because it takes an effort to present yourself in French. We really have to work with our young people here to make them aware of the importance of using their language in public and of obtaining more services, whether it be in health, tourism, or education.
The third part concerns motivations for learning the other official language. We do not have problems with motivation to learn the other official language in Prince Edward Island. Some 25 per cent of our students are enrolled in immersion programs, which is very high for Canada. I think only New Brunswick and Quebec have larger percentages than that. People are attaching increased value to the core French program. If our 20,000 graduates could be proficient in French one day, that would be a beautiful goal to achieve. We currently graduate approximately 350 students with immersion skills every year. We award them the Diplôme d’Études en Langue Française, or DELF, which is internationally recognized. I believe that aspect has encouraged many parents to commit to French by showing them that language is not just something institutional but is also an international passport. Parents seek more access points, and Gail does a very good job in that area. The difficulty with access points is the critical mass we need to attract teachers. We can spend all the money we want on educational resources, which is a costly education expense, but it is not the education resources or even travel but rather human resources that count because paying professionals is very expensive for small populations.
We also have interesting program modules. We have created the Collège de l’Île, which is our post-secondary institution in Prince Edward Island. It is situated in the middle of Holland College, our English-language college, which has developed a great partnership in which the Collège de l’Île can promote its services for Holland College, and Holland College can also use the Collège de l’Île. There is great chemistry between the two organizations, and post-secondary education is becoming increasingly important because our students graduate at the end of Grade 12 with a certain level of proficiency in French. But what happens after that? Our post-secondary institutions must also play a role in this regard, and funding for those post-secondary institutions must be guaranteed.
As regards the job prospects and future of our bilingual youth, the employment prospects of francophones and bilingual young people in Prince Edward Island are excellent. There are major job shortages in teaching, early childhood, health care, and tourism, where bilingualism is highly valued. Our bilingual youth have a lot of opportunities. Are there any needs? It is currently very hard to find teachers and specialized teaching services. In the Public Schools Branch, nearly twice as many human resources are working in French as a second language in our schools now as there were in 2001. We are talking about some 300 teachers, whereas there were 150 10 years ago. I think the same is true of the Commission scolaire de langue française.
The education world has also changed. We no longer need just teachers. We need special education people, literacy experts, youth services, and teaching assistants; the education world is increasingly complex. It is not just a matter of having one teacher in the classroom; we must provide them with a whole range of services.
We also have some major challenges in PEI, and I discussed them earlier, in that we can designate positions that we cannot fill as a result of the skills shortage. We also have people who are looking for jobs, but we have no jobs to offer them.
Lastly, my final point concerns measures that should be taken to reinforce the federal government’s support for linguistic duality. Federal government funding is definitely an important consideration. There have been no funding increases over the official education agreement in 10 years. As for the increase in access points for immersion programs, I agree with Canadian Parents for French. Ultimately, if people want to learn through immersion, we should be able to offer the program. This is currently impossible because, once again, the rural areas do not have enough students.
Let us also talk about teacher development by language and teaching level. Our teachers used to be francophones. Now they are increasingly people who are learning French as a second language. They have a lot of needs in this area. I would also like the federal government to exercise national leadership to create a language skills framework, particularly for French. We could do that and encourage cooperation between the French-mother-tongue and French-second-language programs and build bridges rather than walls between the two. I think it is important to do that. Invest in post-secondary education, and, lastly, my final point, walk the walk, or as we say in Acadia, “Boots must follow lips.” It is important that people believe in this. You must constantly show it as both a government and an institution, whether it be in the Senate or in Parliament. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hurtubise.
Ms. DesRoches, please.
Anastasia DesRoches, Executive Director, Fédération des parents de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard: Good morning. Thanks, everyone, for coming to see us in Prince Edward Island. This is really important for us. We often feel isolated here on our little island, especially in a minority setting. So thank you very much for coming to see us here. It is very important.
I am Executive Director of the Fédération des parents de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard. I represent a board of directors consisting of 12 members from each of the six Acadian and francophone regions of Prince Edward Island. They have given me a mandate to come here to speak with you today about francophone early childhood in PEI. Since I tend to talk a lot, I have prepared some notes and will follow them.
We have six French schools in Prince Edward Island. Each is located in a community school centre that houses an early childhood centre, or ECC. There are twice as many names on the waiting lists of those early childhood centres as the number of children we can currently accommodate. We have a major shortage of educators in our centres, which largely contributes to the waiting list issue.
To give you an idea of what that means for our francophone families on the island, I am going to tell you the stories of three families. I thought that would be a good way to show you what this really means here on the ground.
Family No. 1: Mother Mylène is a teacher at the French school, and father Brent a youth worker in the First Nations community in Lenox. Louis-Gabriel just turned five and started kindergarten this year. His little brother, baby Antoine, just turned one, and his mother is going back to work after her year of maternity leave. Mylène put Antoine’s name on the early childhood centre’s waiting list before he was born. The family did not learn that a space was available for the baby until two months before Mylène went back to work. They finally received confirmation, but now, over the next three months, the centre will be losing three educators who are leaving for jobs that pay more than the early childhood field. The parents are wondering if Antoine will lose his child care space or whether Louis-Gabriel will lose his spot in the after-school programs. They do not have enough educators. The only solution for an ECC is to cut groups. They wonder whether they will be forced to take leave from work or to look for an English-language child care service.
Family No. 2: Mother Julie works as a teaching assistant at a French-language school. Father Chris has enrolled at the community college to continue his education. Olivia, who is four years old, is in the junior kindergarten class at a French-language child care Centre, but the baby of the family, Brody, who is two, does not have a space at the early childhood centre. He has been on the waiting list for several months. Chris was forced to cancel his enrolment for the fall session at the college this year because the family cannot find a French-language child care service for Brody. The family has been forced to make the decision that Chris will not study or work until the family has found a French-language space.
Family No. 3: Mother Christine is a nurse and father Trevor a physiotherapist. They have three children, the older two of whom have started school. Maxim is in Grade 2 and Annabelle in kindergarten. Baby Samuel, who has just turned one, finally has a space at the francophone early childhood centre in the region. To secure that space, his family put his name on the waiting list before he was born, and Samuel needed a space this month, in September 2017. The family was also required to pay child care fees starting in March of this year, for a total of more than $4,000 in fees. The family, which considers French-language child care and French-language education priorities, was penalized and had to pay that amount while Christine was on maternity leave. These are enormous fees that most families could not have afforded and that make French-language child care in Prince Edward Island an elite service that does not meet the needs of our francophone families and rights-holders.
These are three stories among many in our province. As the Fédération des parents, we hear similar stories every week. We are encouraged by the early childhood funding recently announced by the federal government, but we are disappointed that, in our province, this funding cannot be used to address the issue of educator salaries that contributes to the shortage of employees.
In conclusion, I want to cite from the report prepared by former Commissioner of Official Languages Graham Fraser entitled Early Childhood: Fostering the Vitality of Francophone Minority Communities, published in October 2016. Mr. Fraser wrote:
In minority communities, early childhood is particularly important, on both an individual and a community level. For young children, this is a key time in terms of learning the French language, building identity and developing a sense of belonging to the community. It is also a critical period for community vitality and development.
In its 2011 report, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages summarized the importance of early childhood development for French-language school recruitment as follows:
Child care centres and early childhood and family centres are veritable nurseries that feed francophone minority schools. Many experts have also observed positive outcomes in terms of learning, communication, comprehension and vocabulary in young children when they start school if they have been exposed to French between the ages of 0 and 5.
I am happy to live in a province where school and community partners work together to find permanent solutions to this problem that puts us francophone families at a disadvantage in transmitting our language and culture to our children. We need to formalize the importance of provincial and federal governments in finding solutions for our families. The Fédération des parents has asked itself the following question, and it is a question I put to you as well: How is it that parents do not become rights-holder parents until their children reach school age? They are parents when their children are born. How can we disregard the importance of our children’s language and cultural development at the early childhood stage?
Thank you for taking the time to listen to us today, and we are eager to work with you to find solutions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. DesRoches, and thanks as well for presenting your stories of the three families. I think they very clearly illustrate the current realities and challenges. Thanks to all of you.
Now we will begin the period of questions. Senator Poirier, who is deputy chair of the committee, will ask the first question, followed by Senator Cormier.
[English]
Senator Poirier: My first question is for Ms. Lecky of Canadian Parents for French. In your presentation, you talked about the core French program. Yesterday, in our visits to the school we were at the Athena school in the Summerside area. We spoke to Grade 9 students who were in the core French program. In speaking with them, there was about probably 15 or 16 sitting around the table and the rest of the students from that class were sitting in the back.
First off, we asked if in taking core French they would consider themselves bilingual once they’re done taking it from Grades 4 to 9. From my understanding, the answer was no, that they did not feel they were competent in qualifying as French bilingual.
We asked that if it was not obligatory to take core French education, that it was optional, how many among the group would take it? Only three or four answered that they would take it, but others answered that they would take it if the program was changed. They felt that in the core program they were learning how to say certain words like school supply equipment; an eraser, “un effaceur.” Word to word. But they were not really learning how to communicate and to speak if they met with a French person.
Some mentioned that if that ability would be offered more in the core program or if there was more advancement and they were able to learn more, they would have more of an interest in taking it.
You recommended that you would like to see it be mandatory from K to 12. Are you thinking of the K to 12, if that would ever happen, to continue the core as it is now, or would you want to see it enhanced a little more to give the ability to the students to be able to learn it a little bit more?
I don’t think it would be as much as the French immersion. I’m not sure. The core program is not quite the same thing.
I was just curious to have your comments on that.
Ms. Lecky: Thank you. I should probably have been more specific.
There’s a new core French program. Actually René is more of an expert on it; I’m not even close. It was rolled out in 4, 5 and 6. It’s currently being rolled out in 7, 8 and 9. So those Grade 9 students at Athena that you talked about are just starting a new core French program.
The new core French program, from all I understand, is really based on that authentic oral competency.
Are you familiar with intensive French? Intensive French really is a literacy-based program. The old core, I think we would all agree, didn’t have and doesn’t have the outcomes that the school system I think expected and set it up for.
The idea now is that they’re to spend more time on writing and authentic communication; doing things rather than reiterating lists of verbs and those kinds of things. Again, I think René can speak to that.
I grew up in Manitoba, and at the time we had core French right from the start. I can remember having core French in Grade 1. Even though my French is almost non-existent today, I still go back to that.
I think it’s a matter of time on task. If the program is going to be a little less than an immersion program, then the time that it’s being taught or the time that the students are able to access it will give us better results in the end.
René, did you want to say anything about that?
Mr. Hurtubise: You’re doing a good job.
Very briefly, there’s a new core French program. We’re in our last year, the third year of the rollout in 4, 5, 6, and we’re starting the work in 7, 8 and 9 to precisely address what you have mentioned.
We have another study through CMEC that we are doing through the FSL engagement of students. We know that students are engaged. They have a sentiment of competency and of relevance — “Why am I learning that?” — and the whole collaboration piece: “There are other kids like me who like it.” We are working right now on that with the new core French program.
The challenge is that it’s still 10 percent of the day. How do you develop a language 10 percent of the day? There’s a lot on the plate in education.
I think the new core French program addresses partly what you have highlighted.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: I have another question, and anyone may answer it. Is there a partnership between the francophone schools and schools that offer French immersion programs in Prince Edward Island to promote the French language? Is there a cultural, social, educational, or sports partnership between the two? Is there is some way or thing to help increase the number of people who identify as bilingual in Prince Edward Island?
Mr. Cyr: Attempts at partnerships have been made in the past, and some partnerships are still being formed. They are not necessarily related to language. A school that does not have enough students to make up a sports team will form a partnership with an anglophone school near it, where possible.
However, I am going to go back to the first part of my answer. When we tried some experiments in the Charlottetown area between École François-Buote and Charlottetown Rural and Colonel Gray, two big English high schools, the idea was first that immersion students from Charlottetown Rural or Colonel Gray could come to our school for one class per day and vice versa. Since there were more students at the anglophone schools, they were able to offer programs that the small francophone school could not. We realized that the exchange was beneficial to a point, but also that the francophone school lost students because, when allowed to go to the English language school — the social aspect is extremely important at that age — those students liked it so much they decided to enrol there the following year. So we were losing our students.
We therefore terminated that program temporarily, and we have not found a way to continue it because, whether we like it or not, the education system is funded based on the number of students, and the number of students is often what makes it possible to offer programs. If we do not have enough students, we cannot offer specific programs. Consequently, the system works somewhat to the detriment of the Commission scolaire de langue française.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: My question or my comment will be along the same lines as those of Senator Poirier. What we have seen in the past few days is obviously that francophone schools are dealing with issues that concern the early childhood situation in Acadia, Prince Edward Island, and the francophonie as well. So we have gained a grasp of those issues. We now understand the issues of immersion schools and schools where core French is taught, the human resources challenges, and so on.
I am especially interested in the identity bridge between the two communities and in the challenges involved. I will admit to you very candidly that I was a bit disturbed by certain comments and information. For example, when we went into the immersion schools and anglophone schools where French is taught, their references to French language and culture were not at all those of Prince Edward Island. In fact, they cited Quebec, France, and Africa as francophone reference points, on the one hand. When we spoke with students at Évangéline school, for example, they told us in conversation, “When we talk to anglophones who are learning French, sometimes they do not understand our language as a result of specific aspects of our PEI French.”
Consequently, to my mind, that also reinforces the two solitudes, and I wonder what the federal government can do in its efforts to modernize the Official Languages Act, to promote those two poles, and what can be done, in a situation such as that of Prince Edward Island, for the francophone cultural reality of Acadians and francophones on the island to be more appreciated — if I may use that term — by the anglophone community and better understood or more integrated. How can we build those bridges? Do you have any ideas? I understand the challenges associated with assimilation and the transfer of francophone students to anglophone schools, but it seems to me that building those bridges is a major challenge for the future of official languages in Canada.
Mr. Hurtubise: I may have a partial response because this is a major issue. Cultural references are interesting because we have a lot of trouble here in Prince Edward Island making room for the island’s francophonie in our schools. In book publishing alone, I always tell Voix Acadienne, the only francophone newspaper, “You are probably the only newspaper in the world that publishes news in French about Prince Edward Island.” No one else in the world talks about PEI in French. And when you want to publish books for children, take a look around in a school. How many books in the library have been written by islanders? Very few because we do not have the critical mass to do it.
We have an ongoing project on the history of Acadians in Prince Edward Island that we want to present in our schools, but this is something we have to do entirely by ourselves because no publishing company in Quebec will be interested in publishing anything in French about Prince Edward Island or in publishing francophone authors from PEI. Consequently, they are conducting a market study on that.
I think that another aspect that could open some doors for us — and I think Mr. Cyr explained this earlier — is that we are now starting to offer more and more courses that our students take with students from other schools. There might be some opportunities to organize virtual cooperation between two programs.
Ms. DesRoches: I want to raise a point about parents that I consider very important. It is not that I am opposed to this idea. That is absolutely true, but we should not forget that French-language schools have a twofold mandate to build identity while educating children. Anglophone schools in the immersion program do not necessarily have that mission. Here at home, here is what distinguishes the two programs for many parents. If an immersion program is identified as an identity-building program, I think you really have to pay attention to the impact that could have on French schools and the decisions made by parents, the rights-holder parents who may not see a difference if you start talking about identity-building and contributing to the culture in an immersion school. I will say it again: I am not opposed to the idea. I agree that it may be an important element, but I think we must nevertheless find ways to draw a clear distinction between the two programs and to explain clearly which program is suited to which family.
[English]
Ms. Lecky: It’s true because, as René mentioned earlier, a lot of the teachers who teach in the French immersion program are French immersion graduates. They’re not Acadians or they’re not Québécois. They have, for the most part, no French background.
Even though the culture of the language is part of the curriculum in French immersion as it is in core French, not a great big piece of it, it probably should be larger. As I said in my notes earlier, the need for cultural experiences is important, and through those the understanding that it’s not just a language but rather a whole way of living.
You can’t really learn a language without the cultural piece. I think for many years that’s what we’ve been doing in core French and in French immersion. They’re learning the language, but they’re not really engaged. Therefore, when they complete Grade 12 and feel that they’re ready to go out into the workforce, that’s really almost all they’re interested in. We need to work so that they’ll go to the carrefour and they’ll go to the French plays and go listen to French music and join non-profit French organizations when they’re invited, those kinds of things.
The culture is part of both of those curricula, but it’s just not successful at this point in time. That’s why we say we need those cultural activities. That’s one of the things that Canadian Parents for French does. We definitely work with the francophone organizations to try and provide a P.E.I. cultural identity as well.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Cyr, do you want to comment?
Mr. Cyr: Yesterday you met the students of Évangéline school in the Évangéline region, which historically is the only region that kept it school in 1960, when all the francophone schools except Évangéline — there were some 50 of them in the province — were assimilated by the anglophone side. Consequently, that region is an area where Acadian culture is still strong. If you had met the students at François-Buote yesterday, you might have gotten a different perspective. The challenge that you mention of giving students PEI reference points is a major one at François-Buote, and it is major challenge in the other regions as well since francophones in those regions are slightly more multicultural. They come from various nationalities. Many of those students have anglophone parents and have lost francophone culture and a sense of the importance of that culture.
Consequently, when we say that, historically, we have seen changes in the way people talk about Acadian culture in Charlottetown, it would not be enough to talk about just Acadian culture. This concerns Acadian and francophone culture. Consequently, it is slightly harder to find those reference points outside the Évangéline school region. Despite the fact some students nevertheless identify with the language, they find their reference points somewhere, but not necessarily in Acadian culture.
Senator Gagné: Thank you for your presentations. I found them very interesting.
I greatly appreciate the fact that you have just given us a snapshot of the school system, both the francophone school board and the French immersion programs. I would like perhaps to take a closer look at the entire issue of rights-holders and the data available for recruiting rights-holders in the school system. To begin with, I will ask Mr. Cyr what percentage of your students in your system come from exogamous families?
Mr. Cyr: Currently, more than half, approximately 60 per cent, I believe, and the number is increasing.
Senator Gagné: Then what would be the number of rights-holders who choose to enrol at an English school?
Mr. Cyr: A lot. Too many, really.
Senator Gagné: Can you identify them? Do you have reliable data to identify them with?
Mr. Cyr: In some regions. If we take a region such as St. Augustine, a study was done a few years ago. Someone went from door to door in an attempt to identify rights-holders and the reasons why students were not going to Saint-Augustin school. A very large number of students attend the immersion school in the region. In West Prince, which was a francophone majority region in the 1960s, there are a lot of French family names, such as Arsenault, Gaudet, Richard, and Gallant. There are an enormous number of francophones in that region. Now we have a school that is struggling to fight back assimilation, and, therefore, a majority of students who are rights-holders are once again attending English-language or immersion schools.
Over time, the danger in that is that the right, the status of rights-holder, is lost. As a result, in the school board’s admissions policy, we now have what is called the acquired right clause, under which students who have lost the right to attend French-language schools may go back in their genealogy to see whether their grandfathers or grandmothers were fortunate enough to attend French-language school and pass that right on to their children, because there were no French-language schools in the region at that time. To answer your question, the number of rights-holders enrolled in the immersion program is a large one.
Senator Gagné: Do you think the federal government has a responsibility to support the provinces and school boards in enumerating rights-holders so that you can at least identify them and even have an opportunity to recruit them?
Mr. Cyr: We are conducting a lot of promotional campaigns in an attempt to recruit those people. We would like them to come to French-language schools on their own. Choice in education is always up to the parents. The Commission de langue française — and I say this with all due respect to my colleagues — would like to see an act such as the one in force in New Brunswick under which rights-holders do not have the option to choose the immersion program. Rights-holders must go to the French-language school or to the English-language school, and the immersion program is really reserved for francophile anglophones who want to give their children French as an added-value attribute. There are several factors that should be analyzed, but rights-holders should be able to receive support in order to attend French-language schools.
I am going to make a brief detour here, and I do not want to drag out my answer here, but, roughly three years ago, we filed an application with Canadian Heritage for a major three-part project. The first part concerned the francization of students from kindergarten to Grade 2. The purpose of the second part was to support rights-holder parents who had lost her language and were unsure they could support their children if they enrolled at a French-language school. The third part concerned free preschool education for children four years of age, a project somewhat similar to what is being done in Nova Scotia. We have since managed to implement part one of the project, the francization of pupils from kindergarten to Grade 2. This is producing incredible results for our students because most do not understand French when they arrive in kindergarten; they have no proficiency in French, but this program helps them progress quickly to the desired level. The second part concerns parents who are unsure. We certainly cannot force anglophone rights-holder parents to enrol their children in French-language schools if we cannot provide them support so that they are comfortable helping them.
Senator Maltais: I would like to thank you first for coming to testify. We have learned a lot from you, but we have also learned a lot by visiting your schools.
Mr. Hurtubise, I congratulate you on your brief. There is a minor point in it that I do not like, and I am going to tell you about it right away. Never talk to me about second languages. There are two official languages. I will tell you what a second one is. You have four tires on your car and a spare in the trunk. That is a second tire. There are two official languages. We speak English or French, regardless of the person to whom we are speaking. To say second language is an insult to my mind. I am not a second-class citizen because I am francophone, and I think we must instil that in our children. In a minority community such as yours, there are English and French, the two official languages of our country. That said, you made a point that struck me as odd, that it is difficult to recruit qualified personnel. Yesterday we visited the Collège.
The Chair: De l’Île.
Senator Maltais: Correct. Thank you, Madam Chair. Some people, as you said, were still in Charlottetown, and we were at the college by videoconference and therefore could speak to each other. Is the difficulty involved in recruiting personnel related, for example… There are certainly young francophones pursuing their education studies elsewhere, in Moncton or at other universities in French. Why do they not return to Prince Edward Island? Is it because of salaries? It is definitely not because of living conditions because you have a phenomenally beautiful island. Why do they not come back here?
Mr. Hurtubise: Thank you for your point about the second language. We are in perfect agreement. We always refer to our “FSL programs,” and we should come up with something else.
Why do they not come back? I do not think the teaching profession is as valued as it could be among our youth. I was talking to the dean of the education faculty in Moncton, which is really a nursery for us. It would be fantastic, but she told me enrolment was down by half. So the numbers are down from the outset. I do not have much experience with recruitment. Given our budgets and recruitment strategies, we are slow in getting around to it. The dean told us that the western provinces are much more organized for recruiting on the ground. What has been of some help to Prince Edward Island is the fact that the education faculty at the University of Prince Edward Island offers a bachelor’s program in French-language education in Prince Edward Island. We of course do our practicums in the regions, in the province, but there is the attraction of staying in Prince Edward Island. For us, developing a program in the province is definitely an asset in recruiting our teachers. If they are trained here, there is a good chance they will stay. I think that, at some point, we will have to look at our recruitment strategies somewhat in the way doctors look at theirs. Can we pay for teachers’ training and sign them to a blood contract to ensure they come back? That might be an option.
Senator Maltais: What you say about recruitment is very true. The committee travelled to Vancouver and saw that the vast majority of teachers in the francophone school boards of Vancouver and Victoria came from Acadia. I do not know whether it is the weather, the salaries, or the skiing, but they seemed to love working there.
I want to address another minor point with Ms. DesRoches. You are a parent, of course.
Ms. DesRoches: I represent parents, but I am not a parent.
Senator Maltais: You represent them. In the definition of language, it is hard to say who is anglophone or francophone in the immersion schools. Perhaps the following deduction means that the definition of language is culture-based. In your schools, at Évangéline school, they conducted the following experiment. They asked the students what culture they were attached to. They answered, “100 per cent Acadian.” They not only told us that; they showed it. To my surprise and great satisfaction, they put on a little show for us, of very high quality, and I asked the small group that I had what their life was like in their community. Most of them naturally lived around Mont-Carmel, and there are not many anglophones in Mont-Carmel. So I asked them what their contact with anglophones was like, and I learned to my great surprise that they began to learn English in the second term of Grade 9, which means they do not learn English from kindergarten to Grade 9.
Ms. DesRoches: In Grade 4.
Senator Maltais: We understood that it was Grade 9.
The Chair: I think the young man in question meant that English instruction for that grade did not begin until the second term.
Senator Maltais: In any case, he had no problem with that. He said, “My brother is showing it to me.”
In the context of the review of the Official Languages Act, if you had two recommendations to make on provisions in the act that should absolutely be amended, which ones would they be? Perhaps Mr. Cyr and Ms. DesRoches, as the parents’ representative, could give us those examples.
Mr. Cyr: To be honest with you, I really do not know what should be changed in the Official Languages Act. My experience in Prince Edward Island is that it is very easy to get along in French in the Évangéline region, where I live, but when you leave Évangéline, you have to be bilingual. I learned that at my expense when I came here. I am from a small francophone village in northwestern New Brunswick. My family is still there, and they do not speak English because they do not really need to speak English. When we arrived here in Prince Edward Island, it was a shock because, if you are not functional in English, you will have trouble. You need to become functional quite quickly.
What could the official languages have done in my situation? When I lived in and northwestern New Brunswick, perhaps I could have been more aware of the fact that our country is bilingual and that it is a major asset to be able to speak both languages, even if you do not really need to do so in some regions of the country. That is perhaps one of the things I would say on that subject.
Senator Maltais: Thank you.
Ms. DesRoches.
Ms. DesRoches: I said in my remarks that we must recognize early childhood and that the parents of children in early childhood are rights-holding parents from the time their children are born. I think that is an important point.
I would also like to share my brief history with you. In the family into which I was born, my father was a DesRoches and my mother a Gallant, so two francophone families, but they were assimilated. My mother, whose first language is French, never spoke to us in French. I am 44 years old, and there was no French school in my area at the time. I went to the immersion school, as my two sisters did. I am the only member of my family who speaks French now. I have two sisters who do not speak French. They are uncomfortable with it.
I looked for a job in French. I am a member of the francophone community. I live in Mont-Carmel. What attaches me to that community is my culture. I have taken step dancing courses, I play the violin, I became attached to Acadian culture at a young age, and these are factors that have helped me integrate into the Acadian and francophone community. I consider myself francophone. I live in French. I say I am francophone, even though my education was initially in immersion.
I think that, when we talk about what we can do for the communities, the reason why we have francophones is that our Acadian communities were here in Prince Edward Island in the 1700s, before the expulsion. If we start talking about bilingualism, second language, and all those factors, that is important. We are going to rely on that. We need them in our communities to support us. They are a good support, but we must not forget the importance of French as a first language and of our Acadian communities, which are the reason why we have francophones in Prince Edward Island today.
Senator Maltais: Thank you very much.
Senator Mégie: I just have a question further to Senator Maltais’ comments and question. Coming back to Ms. DesRoches’s distressed call over early childhood, we met some children in early childhood yesterday afternoon. However, I understand from listening to you that there may not be enough of them to make up the demand. So I was wondering, in view of the funding and mechanisms necessary, whether it is realistic for you to cooperate or establish a partnership with francophone resources from other provinces to bring in resources under a limited contract, for example. Perhaps they will fall in love with Prince Edward Island and want to stay here. That is fine. Mr. Hurtubise, I heard you talk about the possibility of an employment premium, as is done for physicians in Quebec. Are these two solutions that might be realistic for you?
Ms. DesRoches: I will start by saying very briefly that the salaries that the educators working in early childhood education earn in PEI are among the lowest in the country. In our two nearest francophone regions, New Brunswick pays at least five dollars an hour more than the base wage we pay here in PEI. When we go to Quebec, it is six dollars an hour more. Consequently, we have no way of recruiting people. We try, but we do not have the resources to recruit those people here to work at those wages. We are considering international recruitment. Sometimes we bring in people, but it is often hard to retain them here.
Senator Mégie: That is unfortunate.
Mr. Hurtubise: This is a topic that is hard to discuss, but I think there are nevertheless mechanisms to help students pay their tuition fees, for example, if they then come and work here in early childhood education or in other fields. For the moment, that is not being done.
The other aspect that I was thinking about and that Anastasia was talking about is that we must also address our working conditions. We cannot increase salaries, but do we have the best possible working environment? That is something we can work on. Working on salaries is a long-term job.
First of all, Prince Edward Island is fantastic. All our early childhood centres are located in community centres. And another one will be opening soon. I hope you visited the Souris area because it will be fantastic to have a new community centre there. I think we have environments that we can work on together to make work more pleasant because, if salaries are not good, at least the environment can be as pleasant and professional as possible and provide the necessary support.
Senator Mégie: That is good thinking. Thank you.
Senator Moncion: I would like to make an additional comment on the information you have provided on community centres. I believe all those organizations operate on a budget and that their budgets are extremely limited, as result of which they face challenges in the area of salaries and all that. In addition, early childhood is an extremely difficult working environment, just in terms of the health of the people who work with the children, the high levels, and the risks associated with the diseases of all kinds that they catch. I know this because my son-in-law works in this sector and is a coordinator at one of those centres.
This is more the topic that concerns me because the other questions I had concerned precisely recruitment and your recruitment strategies, and they have been asked.
What troubles me most is what you said earlier. You were three girls at home, I believe, and all three have in fact attended immersion schools. You are bilingual now, but your sisters are not. Why is it — and this is simply a matter of curiosity — that two people in your family chose one path and the third chose another?
Ms. DesRoches: I think this is where we can talk about the importance of investment in our communities. French was not highly valued as a language in my family, but it was something that was very highly valued in my community, at my community centre, and in music. Consequently, I became attached to it because music was very important to me, and I formed connections with my francophone grandparents. I made those connections through music. My two sisters never had those ties with the community and culture. They are less of a presence in immersion. They got jobs, positions that did not require knowledge of French, and they did not consider the language important for their families. I have a sister who has four children and another who has one, and, despite my efforts, those children do not attend French-language schools.
Senator Moncion: That challenge is not just for the people of Prince Edward Island. It is for all the families that become exogamous at some point. It is therefore a challenge for people who want to advance one language or the other or bilingualism. So, bravo.
Ms. DesRoches: That is why I do the work I do today with parents.
Senator Moncion: Excellent. Please continue. You are doing a good job.
The Chair: I think we went so quickly that we can take a second question from Senator Cormier.
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much. Before asking my question, I would like to go back to the question about access to cultural reference points and to cultural documentation. When we spoke to the students at Évangéline school about their cultural references yesterday, it was not merely about PEI references. They told me about the Réveil group from New Brunswick and so on. As regards Acadian culture, there is an enormous amount of literature, music, and so on that lends itself to that in the Atlantic region. So my question is as follows. I understand the issue associated with the loss of students from PEI’s francophone schools, but how could the federal government help the francophone school district do an even better job of attracting rights-holders otherwise than through culture? How could we increase the power of attraction of the francophone schools — I believe there are six of them — and how could we increase that power to offset the effect you mentioned whereby rights-holders tend to drift away to anglophone schools. What could the government do?
Mr. Cyr: As parents, we decide at some point where we will send our children to school, and parents often have expectations based on what the final product will look like. When my child finishes Grade 12, what benefits will I have.
One of the things we do not do really well — and this is not so much the federal government’s fault or that of the Commission scolaire de langue française; it is, in a way, everyone’s — is promote our final product. For the students who complete their studies at French-language schools, virtually all doors are open, all the doors of the colleges and universities, in English and in French, everywhere. They can go anywhere, and that is a something we do not promote enough. I think we are a bit reluctant to do so perhaps because we live in a minority community and sometimes you should not say that too loudly. I think that the final product that comes out of our schools is very, very good and that our students perform very well everywhere
Ms. DesRoches: I feel no hesitation in saying this to the Director of Instruction of the Commission scolaire de langue française: we have a school board that works very hard for our students; we are really lucky; the parents are very pleased with the work the board does, but we have no infrastructure. When parents go to choose their school, they do not choose the school that affords the best cultural experience. That is not what parents look for. They look for high-quality education.
We have good teachers. The parents are satisfied, but there are no science labs for high school courses at the French school, which is located next door to the English school, which has just been renovated. There are not even any classrooms for the Grade 10 and 11 students. We have no technology resources. We have no rooms for industrial arts. When parents make decisions for their children, they want the best for their children, for their children’s future. If we do not have the same infrastructure and services as those offered at the English school next door, we do not stand a chance.
Culture and identity-building are what will make children identify as francophones and continue participating in the community after their secondary and perhaps post-secondary studies. They may not be what prompts parents to choose French school, but they are what will help us retain francophones in our community.
Senator Cormier: Thank you very much, madam.
The Chair: That is an excellent point.
Mr. Hurtubise: I have another point to clarify, and we are not going to fight about it because we like each other. I think we really must examine funding at the federal government level. Talking about infrastructure, we just completed an infrastructure project at Rollo Bay, as I told you. When we built the Carrefour de l’Île-Saint-Jean, the federal government provided nearly 90 per cent of the infrastructure funding. We built infrastructure at Rollo Bay, and we were lucky. When I looked at all the infrastructure projects across Canada and entered into the agreement with the federal government, we got 25 per cent. It had to be solely for the community aspect or for shared spaces, such as the gymnasium or the cafeteria. The entire school aspect is funded totally by the province, but the provinces at some point have limited financial capacity. Consequently, let us examine the funding, which has not been changed under the education agreement for 10 years. Let us look at infrastructure support because we were able to build the school in Rollo Bay, and, once it is finished, we will build the next one.
The Chair: Thank you, and you are absolutely right to talk about infrastructure quality. Our committee published its report on obstacles and access to French immersion programs for francophone schools in British Columbia. There are some major problems there too. Infrastructure quality is not equal to that of the majority. It is a real problem.
Then, on behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, I want to thank you sincerely for your presentations this morning. You have given us an excellent picture of the school situation here in Prince Edward Island. Thanks to all of you for your excellent work.
(The committee adjourned.)