Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 21 - Evidence - Meeting of February 15, 2018 (morning)
WINNIPEG, Thursday, February 15, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 8 a.m., to continue its study on Canadians’ views about modernizing the Official Languages Act.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is René Cormier. I am a senator from New Brunswick and I am pleased to be chairing today’s meeting. We are delighted to be here, in Winnipeg, in Saint-Boniface, to meet with community members and hear their concerns and aspirations in connection with the Official Languages Act.
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is continuing the second stage of its study on official language minority communities’ views on modernizing the Official Languages Act. We have with us this morning representatives of organizations active in the community, immigration, arts and health sectors. From the Société de la francophonie manitobaine, or SFM for short, we welcome Christian Monnin, President. The SFM is a not-for-profit organization that works to promote the full recognition and use of French in Manitoba, serving as the official voice of the province’s francophone population. We also welcome Bintou Sacko, Director of Accueil francophone, an organization that helps francophone newcomers settle in Manitoba.
Next, from the Centre culturel franco-manitobain, or CCFM, we have Ginette Lavack, Director General. The CCFM’s mission is to provide cultural and artistic activities in French, including performing arts and visual arts programs, as well as educational community-based programming. Lastly, from Santé en français, we welcome Francis LaBossière, President, and Annie Bédard, Executive Director. Santé en français advocates on behalf of the province’s francophones, promoting and ensuring access to French-language health care and social services.
Before turning the floor over to our witnesses, I will ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves, beginning with the deputy chair.
Senator Poirier: Good morning. I am Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Mégie: Good morning. I am Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Good morning. I am Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator McIntyre: I am Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
Senator Gagné: I am Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba. Welcome.
The Chair: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for being here today. Mr. Monnin, you may go ahead. The floor is yours.
Christian Monnin, President, Société de la francophonie manitobaine: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Christian Monnin, and I am the President of the Société de la francophonie manitobaine. I have a bachelor’s degree from the Saint-Boniface University and a law degree from the Moncton University. By the way, two of my three children were born at the Montfort hospital, so you could say I get around Canada’s francophone community. Speaking of the birth of my son, Zachary, at the Montfort hospital, I should point out that, as coincidence would have it, Senator Gagné’s son was there working as an intern.
As you are now well aware, I am the president of the Société de la francophonie manitobaine. I am joined today by Daniel Boucher, Director General.
As an advocate for Manitoba’s francophone community, the Société de la francophonie manitobaine is interested in promoting all areas of the community’s activities. Along with our community partners and stakeholders, we play a role on a number of fronts: developing our economy; training our francophone residents; building relationships between our rural and urban communities; highlighting cultural and artistic endeavours; promoting the French language; and promoting French-language services.
This initiative to modernize the Official Languages Act is important for a number of reasons. First, it is time to take action; the act has not had a comprehensive review since 1988, and, if memory serves me correctly, some changes were made further to the Doucet decision in 2006.
Manitoba’s francophone community has adapted to change. We have added close to 12 agencies and institutions to better meet our needs in a range of areas. We now have nearly 30,000 students in our French schools and immersion programs. Since 2010, we have welcomed 823 refugees, 569, of them in the last two years, and 1,154 immigrants.
I’m going to try hard not to read the brief we provided to the committee. Basically, then, I will outline the provincial legislative framework and demonstrate how it can enrich the committee’s discussions. I will also discuss the implementation of a modernized Official Languages Act, from the SFM’s standpoint, as well as how it might evolve. Next, I will address the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages before speaking to Part VII. Lastly, I will comment on the bilingualism of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I will now turn to our provincial legislative framework. While the Official Languages Act is the cornerstone of the federal government’s commitment, here, in Manitoba, we now have the new Francophone Community Enhancement and Support Act, which the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba passed unanimously on June 30, 2016.
We are very pleased with the new legislation and have tremendous confidence in its scope. I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the components and principles of this act that you might find interesting. The first is the definition of Manitoba’s francophone community, which is intended to be inclusive and modern:
“Manitoba’s Francophone community” means those persons in Manitoba whose mother tongue is French and those persons in Manitoba whose mother tongue is not French but who have a special affinity for the French language and who use it on a regular basis in their daily life.
This definition reflects today’s francophone community in Manitoba. We believe that the process of modernizing the Official Languages Act should take into account a modern and inclusive definition of Canada’s francophone community.
It is against this backdrop of a community in evolution that the retired Franco-Manitoban senator Maria Chaput introduced bills concerning significant demand as a means of determining the delivery of bilingual services, among other things. Our current Franco-Manitoban senator, Raymonde Gagné, introduced Bill S-209 regarding this same issue.
This issue needs to be clarified, and the SFM voiced its concerns by filing a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages and challenging, before the Federal Court, the constitutionality of the Official Languages Regulations as they relate to communications with and services to the public. Our case is on hold until September 2018, pending the consultation and review process undertaken by the Treasury Board Secretariat further to President Scott Brison’s announcement in November 2016.
The modernization of the Official Languages Act must take into account the issues raised in Bill S-209, the SFM’s court challenge and the Treasury Board’s consultations. The current consultation process will address such issues as significant demand, community vitality, catch-up measures, technology-enabled bilingual service delivery countrywide, as well as a broader and more inclusive definition of Canada’s francophone community, one that takes into account more than just the first official language spoken. We could easily envision a Government of Canada whose offices were all designated as bilingual, where all Canadians had access to technology-enabled in-person service no matter where they lived.
Now, I’d like to pick up on Manitoba’s Francophone Community Enhancement and Support Act, if I may. It addresses other elements that could inform the process to modernize the Official Languages Act. Manitoba’s legislation relies on four key principles: recognition of the francophone community’s continued contribution to the province; the active offer as the cornerstone for the delivery of quality French-language services; collaboration and dialogue between the province’s public bodies and the francophone community; and progress in the provision of French-language services to the community. The inclusion of these principles in a modernized Official Languages Act would establish an approach based on respect for the community, services to community members, openness and the desire for improvement.
The second thing I would like to talk about this morning is the implementation of a modernized act. I would humbly submit that each and every one of us at this table recognizes the ongoing co-operation between francophone and Acadian communities to identify solutions and concrete measures to improve and modernize the Official Languages Act. It is necessary to review not just the act’s overarching principles but also the framework governing its implementation. When all is said and done, the act must not only be fully respected, but also be implemented proactively if it is to benefit the communities in question. A reworking of the implementation mechanism is sometimes needed to ensure the legislation is fully respected.
Once the Official Languages Act has been modernized, we would like the government to put in place a governance structure that makes clear respecting official languages is a Canadian value and a government priority, one that must be overseen by a central agency. Although the Department of Canadian Heritage is, of course, a key partner in the development of our communities, we believe that horizontal responsibility for the act’s implementation should not rest solely on its shoulders. No government body has the authority or responsibility to oversee the implementation of the Official Languages Act across the entire federal apparatus. In our view, the Privy Council is the central agency best suited to coordinate all the implementation efforts under the act. A strong and modern Official Languages Act has the potential to give official languages new momentum and, so, should occupy a prominent place in the federal apparatus. By entrusting the responsibility for coordination to the Privy Council, the government would establish the prominent place of official languages. The Privy Council should have the role of guiding and coordinating the official languages efforts of the departments.
That role could include full coordination of the appointment process for the next Commissioner of Official Languages, in co-operation with a group of parliamentarians to ensure the independence of the process. That would also establish a direct link between the implementation of Parts IV, V and VI of the act and the Treasury Board.
Next, I will address the role of the commissioner. The Commissioner of Official Languages plays a key role in promoting official languages and supporting official language minority communities. However, it is our view that the oversight and accountability mechanisms in place are not designed to ensure full respect for the Official Languages Act. As part of the initiative to modernize the act, these principles should be reviewed and stronger practices should be implemented. The commissioner’s powers should extend beyond investigations, audits and, even, court intervention. A modernized act should give the commissioner the power to impose sanctions, including corrective actions and follow-up measures.
All too often, the commissioner’s recommendations are seemingly ignored because of weak or toothless accountability mechanisms. Furthermore, departments are vague in their reports, highlighting positive measures but failing to address deficiencies or challenges. Reporting is based on self-evaluations by federal institutions, and follow-up actions are not clearly laid out. The accountability and reporting mechanisms need amending to illustrate the importance of taking corrective actions when necessary and to give the commissioner the authority to impose sanctions when the Official Languages Act and its regulations are not respected.
I will now move on to Part VII of the act. The modernization initiative is an opportunity to review not only the principles and values underpinning the act, but also the role of the various stakeholders, both government and community institutions. Under a modernized act, Part VII should make clear that the recognized community governance bodies are the government’s partners in delivering on its commitment to enhance the vitality and support the development of minority language communities.
It is essential that a modernized act explicitly recognize community partners in the application of Part VII and set out consultation mechanisms that truly reflect communities’ needs and inform federal institutions of their duty to consult and take positive measures.
Lastly, as regards the bilingualism of the Supreme Court of Canada, it is imperative, in our view, that every justice be able to hear and understand Canadians in the official language of their choice.
In conclusion, I wish to thank the committee for the chance to express our views on the importance of modernizing the Official Languages Act. The government must seize this opportunity to move towards an act that, first and foremost, reflects who we are and what our vision of Canada’s francophone community is: vibrant, open, inclusive and ever-growing.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Monnin.
Next, we will hear from Bintou Sacko, from Accueil francophone. Welcome, Ms. Sacko. Please go ahead.
Bintou Sacko, Director, Accueil francophone, Société de la francophonie manitobaine: Good morning. I’d like to apologize for my tardiness this morning. I live in a part of the city where trains always seem to pass when you least expect it, like today.
Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Bintou Sacko, and I am the Director of Accueil francophone, an organization here, in Manitoba. I want to welcome you to Winnipeg and say how much I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you, in person, to share our views on modernizing the Official Languages Act, as it relates, of course, to the services we provide to francophone and allophone newcomers.
Accueil francophone is an organization that was set up by the Société de la francophonie manitobaine in December 2013 to provide reception, settlement and integration services to immigrants. We are funded by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC for short. Currently, we work with two types of newcomers: economic class immigrants and refugees.
Since its creation, Accueil francophone’s slogan has been the following: A path to successful settlement in Manitoba. In addition to providing our clients with information, we provide guidance and regular follow-up to ensure their successful integration in Manitoba. Accueil francophone delivers both direct and indirect services to newcomers and the community. On the one hand, Accueil francophone staff work directly with clients every day, as the organization’s name suggests. On the other hand, Accueil francophone serves clients indirectly, through its francophone immigration network, working closely with partners on immigration-related issues to advance files and set up projects that meet immigrants’ needs.
What approach has Accueil francophone always taken in developing its programming? The services Accueil francophone delivers are based on client needs. We put the focus on the client and then determined what they would need to integrate successfully into the community. Next, we thought about the partnerships we needed to build, considering how vital co-operation is within the community. With that in mind, we sought out partnerships that would fill specific gaps. We also put energy into education and awareness, having realized how important it is to educate not just the immigrant community, but also the host community, when it comes to settlement.
One of the key services we decided to offer was to greet immigrants upon their arrival at the airport. We establish this front-line contact with clients when they first arrive in Canada by greeting them at the airport and welcoming them to Manitoba. We give orientation sessions and help them through the settlement process by providing guidance and information on how to participate effectively in the community. Everything we do as part of our orientation and guidance efforts reflects a learning process, in itself.
Turning now to the partnerships we built to fill specific gaps, I can tell you that, through Manitoba’s francophone immigration network, we set up immigration committees. We also work closely with the federal government, which provides our funding, as well as with the provincial government. On the education and awareness front, we put together sessions on cross-cultural communication, immigration and integration. Our reach extends very far, particularly to agencies and institutions. We work with the Division scolaire franco-manitobaine and community organizations that support newcomers. We also deliver workshops, having developed 12 workshop series, which we give year-round.
Our two client groups have different needs. Economic class immigrants tend to require fewer services than refugees, given their fairly high level of education upon arrival. They have prepared themselves psychologically before coming, researching Canada and its culture. They know exactly where they are going to settle, thus choosing the province they will live in. In some cases, they immigrated to other countries before coming to Canada.
Conversely, refugees may have spent time in refugee camps and fallen behind in a number of areas, having been cut off from the rest of the world. Consequently, we have to focus on their psychological needs and address traumatic events they have experienced, whether those clients are parents or children. For instance, they may have experienced the murder of a family member, been the victim of a mass rape, contracted a communicable disease or, very often, endured fear. In some cases, they have little to no education, so coming to Canada is like dying and coming back to life for them. They have to learn everything, not the least of which is how to access health care, an incredibly complex process for them. That means working with them on an ongoing basis, providing constant support and guidance over a long period so they can truly integrate successfully into the community.
Now I will share with you the views of Accueil francophone. When I first saw the word modernization, in connection with the Official Languages Act, I assumed that the process would lead to an adaptation or updating of the act based on the prevailing conditions in the country. Then I wondered how such a process could be significant for an organization like ours. Clearly, it matters for a number of reasons related to Canada’s new trend towards immigration. This is especially true when it comes to fostering greater diversity in the economic, political, social and cultural spheres. This trend and these considerations were the impetus for organizations like Accueil francophone across the country.
Since 2010, Accueil francophone has welcomed some 2,350 newcomers to the community, and the population of refugees has risen significantly in the past three years, particularly Syrian and Yazidi refugees. Right now, we are the only francophone organization in the country to have a formal agreement with IRCC on the reception and settlement of conventional refugees. Although it is no small feat, we have risen to the challenge.
Our increased client load has certainly had an impact on the French-speaking community, paving the way for solid partnerships and discussions on how to tailor services to immigrants’ needs. It is important to promote ongoing education on the issues of interculturalism, communication and openness. By way of example, through our partnership with the Catholic Health Corporation of Manitoba, we have acquired three transitional housing units in the past six years. This means we are able to house clients temporarily while we help them find long-term housing in the community. In addition, we have developed specific areas of activity to better structure the orientation we provide to newcomers. The areas of activity focus on reception and settlement, housing and relocation of refugees, integration, community connections, and francophone immigration networks. All the areas are interconnected to support clients throughout the integration process.
For us, as francophones, immigration is primarily a social endeavour whose success hinges on the entire community. Over the past decade, Manitoba’s francophone community has changed significantly, going from a homogeneous population to a heterogeneous one.
French-speaking nationals from more than 30 countries are present in our universities, schools and daycare centres, and with nearly every francophone community organization providing service to them. The impact on schools has been especially great; as a result, to accommodate newcomers, some community organizations have had to make major adjustments to their daily operations and services. Furthermore, although the Syrian and Yazidi refugees we work with are not anglophone, they are being welcomed by the anglophone community, so we strive to put all the necessary services in place to keep them in the francophone community. That means we work a lot with interpreters and provide language training so that these immigrants will stay in the francophone community.
I tried to give you a sense of how the implementation of a modernized act could impact our organization, and now I’d like to talk about services. The principle underlying all the services Accueil francophone provides focuses on broadening the scope of the francophone space; a principle the SFM set out some time ago and made a priority. One of the draws for French-speaking economic immigrants is the French language, which binds the host community and francophone immigrants together, and the existence of French in communities across the country. French, one of Canada’s official languages, is the unifying element in the diversity that makes up Manitoba’s francophone community. Therefore, francophone immigration is a sign of community vitality and that same dynamic does not necessarily apply in the context of the anglophone community. Nevertheless, we frequently have to work with anglophone service providers and even refer our clients to them to ensure clients’ needs are met. This necessity opens the door to francophone assimilation.
It is our hope that the modernization initiative will include a proper assessment of the situation in francophone communities and recognize the disparity between the services available in each official language. Not only should a modernized act set out roles for the federal and provincial governments, but it should also take into account municipalities, which often serve as gateways to the community but fail to provide the same level of service in both languages. Municipalities, therefore, have a key role to play. That is an important point I wanted to make when it comes to implementing a modernized Official Languages Act.
I won’t go on and on. I will now wrap up. Thank you, once again, for the opportunity to talk to you about Accueil francophone and its philosophy in relation to the modernization of the Official Languages Act. It is our hope that the government will use this opportunity to incorporate diversity and inclusion in a modernized act to ensure that Canada is indeed a bilingual country whose Official Languages Act places equal value on both official languages. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Sacko. I would like to let the witnesses in our first panel know that we have until 9:50 a.m. It is now 8:28 a.m., so we have enough time for your presentations and a decent discussion with the senators.
I will now turn the floor over to the Director General of the Centre culturel franco-manitobain, Ginette Lavack. You may go ahead, Ms. Lavack.
Ginette Lavack, Director General, Centre culturel franco-manitobain: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Winnipeg. We are very glad to have you here. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee at this public meeting to share my views on the modernization of the Official Languages Act and the implications for the cultural sector. My name is Ginette Lavack, and I am the Director General of the Centre culturel franco-manitobain, or CCFM for short. I am pleased to be here today. I have been with the CCFM since the fall of 2017. Before that, I spent seven years as the Executive Director of the Festival du Voyageur, the largest francophone winter festival in Western Canada. All that to say I have been active in the cultural sphere for a few years now, and I was delighted to hear that you would be stopping by the Festival du Voyageur. I hope you have a good time.
I’d like to give you some background on the CCFM, if I may. In 1972, the Province of Manitoba passed the Centre culturel franco-manitobain Act. The CCFM being an agent of the Crown, the province is responsible for appointing the members of the CCFM’s board of directors. The act has been amended a few times since 1972, but the current version, from 2009, sets out the following mandate for the CCFM:
(a) present, promote, foster and sponsor cultural and artistic activities in the French language for all Manitobans; and
(b) manage and develop for the purposes set out in clause (a), the buildings and property within the area where the corporation has jurisdiction under section 19.
Section 19 pertains to the corporation’s jurisdiction over building and property management.
The CCFM officially opened its doors to the public more than 40 years ago, in 1974, providing Manitoba’s francophone community with a cultural centre housing the province’s key cultural institutions at the time. They included Le 100 NONS, an organization that promotes Manitoba’s French-language music industry, Théâtre Cercle Molière and Ensemble folklorique de la Rivière-Rouge, each representing artistic disciplines that range from music and theatre to dance. Over the years, the CCFM has been home to other organizations as well, including Éditions du Blé, community radio station Envol 91 FM, Freeze Frame Manitoba and Conseil jeunesse provincial.
The CCFM has undergone a few transformations, with the Société historique de Saint-Boniface building its heritage centre, in 1998, adjacent to the CCFM, even sharing the same main entrance. More recently, the Théâtre Cercle Molière also established its new theatre, which opened in 2010, on our Crown site. Hence, the CCFM has become the manager of a truly multidisciplinary cultural centre at the heart of the community.
Numerous artists and organizations are contributing to francophone cultural vitality, not to mention the many places that promote culture and serve as gathering places. Their presence helps build a sense of belonging to the francophone community and social cohesion, while giving community members the ability to experience their culture on a regular basis. Furthermore, their presence benefits the entire community through tourism and economic spinoff.
According to the report on the state of Manitoba’s francophone community in 2015, entitled Voices United: Identity Paths, Challenges and Aspirations of Manitoba’s Francophonie — based on citizen cafés held throughout Manitoba in 2015 —, the francophone family experience, French-language education, and cultural and recreational activities in French are the three key vehicles that contribute to the vitality of Manitoba’s francophone community. In the same vein, the presence of francophone cultural organizations, including Théâtre Cercle Molière, the CCFM, Le 100 NONS, the Association culturelle franco-manitobaine and cultural committees, contributes to the very essence of our community’s vitality and gives people the opportunity to experience their francophone culture in a unifying, entertaining and supportive way.
I’d like to take this opportunity to build on what our national counterparts, from the Fédération canadienne culturelle française, expressed in their brief. They addressed the fact that the increasingly fragile nature of our artistic and cultural organizations is undermining their capacity to fully assume their role as the government’s key partner in implementing the spirit and letter of the Official Languages act, especially Part VII.
For years, these organizations have suffered ongoing cuts to their core funding, in favour of project-based funding, and their stability has been affected. This funding approach has hurt their ability to recruit, train and retain skilled staff, as well as contribute to enhancing their people’s skills and professionalizing the sector.
Nowadays, our cultural and artistic organizations are becoming increasingly versatile, having to fulfill broader mandates that range from distribution, production and promotion to cultural mediation and training. All of this they are doing with fewer resources. It is also important to note that the associated red tape is more complex and burdensome, undermining our ability to deliver quality artistic and cultural content in an accessible and effective way. This highlights the need to better define the positive measures federal institutions are required to take to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities.
To enhance the vitality of the communities, it is necessary to define those communities in order to identify the right approaches. We agree with our colleagues at the Société de la francophonie manitobaine that the modernization of the Official Languages Act should include a modern and inclusive definition of Canada’s francophone community.
The face of the francophone community in our province has changed drastically in recent years. Our cultural and artistic organizations serve incredibly diverse and wide-ranging audiences, including native French speakers, members of exogamous families, newcomers, francophiles and anglophones. It is therefore advisable to revisit how we define Canada’s francophone community, given that the current statistics fail to reflect all of the client groups we serve. If they did, our organizations would have more resources to invest in the creation and promotion of artistic and cultural products.
The diverse mosaic of identities that characterizes Manitoba should be recognized in the national and international arenas so as to contribute to the vitality of francophone communities. Dialogue and discussion, both between francophone communities and anglophone communities, leads to a meaningful exchange of knowledge and ideas that fuel all sectors, not just arts and culture, but also our communities. The Canadian government’s new cultural policy sets out a $125-million investment for a creative export strategy to help Canadian creators. Such creative exports could encourage the kind of dialogue and discussion I’m talking about. This is an area where a stronger community consultation mechanism would help the government devise an in-depth strategy and where the Official Languages Act could better support this new policy direction.
In conclusion, funding that ensures the long-term survival of arts and cultural organizations is essential despite the government changes that can jeopardize our communities. In order to promote our communities and our francophonie, we need a definition of what constitutes positive measures to be taken by federal institutions, a broader definition of the francophonie in Canada in order to properly identify the growing needs and diversity of our communities, as well as an export strategy developed with the communities and buttressed by the Official Languages Act.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to state our position on the importance of modernizing the Official Languages Act. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Lavack.
I will now turn it over to Ms. Annie Bédard, Executive Director, and Mr. Francis LaBossière, President, Santé en français. Please go ahead.
Francis LaBossière, President, Santé en français: Mr. Chair, Madam Deputy Chair, members of the committee, we are happy to welcome you to Winnipeg. Thank you for your invitation to share our concerns and vision with you as regards the future of the Official Languages Act.
My name is Francis LaBossière. I am the President of the Santé en français board of directors, and in my day job I am the Chief Human Resources Officer at the Riverview Health Centre, here in Winnipeg. I have also served in a number of other roles in the health sector. I am accompanied by Ms. Annie Bédard, Executive Director of Santé en français.
First of all, I would like to express our admiration for the dedication and the excellent work of former Senator Maria Chaput in her role on this committee. We are equally proud and confident that Manitoba and all Canadian francophone communities will continue to be well represented on your committee and in the Senate by another prominent member of Manitoba’s francophone community, the Honourable Senator Raymonde Gagné.
Improved access to health care services in French is a priority for our communities. It is also one of the great success stories of the Action Plan for Official Languages. The role your committee has played in making it a success is very significant, and we would like to acknowledge that fact.
While we have had successes, there are still lots of francophones here in Manitoba who have difficulty describing their health problems in English, and who do not follow or do not do a good job following their health care provider’s recommendations because they did not understand them properly. There are new parents who have to watch their babies be welcomed into the world in a language that is not their own, and elderly people who are isolated in environments where French, their mother tongue, is not used. There are people who are experiencing psychological distress and have trouble expressing themselves in English because they only know the words to describe their feelings in French. There are parents with children who have special needs who are reluctantly switching to English because there are no specialists who can offer them the services they need in French. And these are not made-up stories. This is the reality that francophones in Manitoba experience every day.
Annie Bédard, Executive Director, Santé en français: Yes, progress has been made. Or at least, begun, I should say. After mobilizing our communities and a variety of stakeholders, after establishing solid partnerships, we feel like things have stalled. We want to — we need to — take it to the next level, a level where we can meet the health care needs of our fellow citizens. But we cannot do it alone.
I would like to draw some parallels with the education system — the comparison is not perfect, but it is still a good illustration. In 2014-15, the federal government invested $168 million in minority-language education, meaning francophone schools, and around $10 million of that was in Manitoba. To improve health services in French, the total federal contribution in Manitoba in one year is around $1.4 million, which includes the Province of Manitoba through the Centre du Patrimoine, the Saint-Boniface University, and Santé en français. This amount is not that low because the federal government does not contribute financially to the health care system. As you know, the Canada health transfer was $1.35 billion for Manitoba in 2017-18, and this amount has no conditions involving the official languages, nor does it even mention them. We are told that health care is under provincial jurisdiction.
Similar to health care, education also falls under provincial jurisdiction. However, the federal government contributes to the progress being made in learning French in Canada, and this progress benefits all Canadians.
There is an opportunity to do the same thing for health care. For example, here in Manitoba, the Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes and Saint-Boniface health care centres and the Sainte-Anne clinic provide services to both anglophones and francophones, but francophones know that, when they walk through those doors, they will be served in French.
The federal contribution gave us the means to engage and mobilize various partners. With participation from our provincial government, regional health authorities, the Saint-Boniface University, health and social services facilities, dedicated professionals and a determined community, progress has been made. However the resources at our disposal are very limited in comparison to a health care system that accounts for 40 per cent of the province’s budget. And believe me, it is not only dollars and cents. Political and legislative leadership is equally, if not more important.
Today, despite the progress that has been made, we feel like we are stagnating. Worse still, if nothing is done, factors such as demographic change and the transformation of the health system will make us lose the ground we have gained. To tackle this challenge, what we need is stronger, renewed federal leadership, leadership that respects jurisdiction, yes, but also leadership that is clear, strong, and inspiring.
In is in this context that we see your committee’s work to modernize the Official Languages Act as a powerful way to get things moving again.
Mr. LaBossière: Here are a few points that, in our experience, could help modernize the Official Languages Act and make it a powerful tool for real progress in the area of linguistic duality, which would benefit all Canadians. For now, we will just list them. We can share a bit more about them in the discussion to follow or when we answer your questions.
1. It is critical that all people who can speak French are taken into account when determining what services will be offered in French in a certain region. It is equally important, however, that more than numbers be taken into account, and that the vitality of a community is considered as well.
2. A new act should ensure that the obligations it contains are also reflected in the federal-provincial-territorial agreements and programs that the Canadian government contributes to. All federal government bodies should be required to contribute in a tangible way to achieving its objectives.
3. The obligations in the Official Languages Act should be reflected in other legislation adopted by Parliament, such as the Canada Health Act.
Since we are not lawyers, we do not know whether this kind of guarantee could be included in the Official Languages Act or if it would be better to include it as a clarification in one of the five principles that underpin the act. We think those that are intended to guarantee universal access would be the most appropriate. Or another option would be to add a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act.
4. For all of government to get on board, the impetus must come from the nexus of power — the Privy Council Office. That is essential.
5. It is also important to include coordination mechanisms to provide for the collaboration and buy-in of various stakeholders, including the communities, as part of the strategy development and implementation process in order to achieve results.
6. Reporting and accountability mechanisms need to be strengthened, and the powers of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages need to be reinforced, both its investigative power and its power to impose fines on non-compliant organizations and to require them to correct their non-compliance.
To close, we would like to thank you for this invitation to share our thoughts with you. We hope that the work of your committee, whether by legislative or regulatory means or by political weight, will lead to a renewed federal commitment to improving health care services in French. We sincerely appreciate the important work you do. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will now move on to questions and discussion with the witnesses, starting with the committee’s deputy chair, Senator Poirier.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your presentations. Very interesting. I have a few questions to begin. I believe Santé en français and the Société de la francophonie manitobaine both talked about fines and sanctions in relation to the commissioner’s role, and the possibility of giving him that power. What are you thinking of in the way of a fine? What type of sanction might the commissioner have the power to impose? In your opinion, what mechanism could yield results?
Mr. Monnin: Thank you for the question. For fines and sanctions, it all depends on the organization involved, such as Air Canada, which we see from time to time, or the National Energy Board, which we have seen in the past. I think it depends on the situation. It depends on the organization, but a sanction or fine should be strong, first of all. If a company like Air Canada receives a fine of $250, it does not mean very much. I am not thinking of Air Canada specifically; that is just an example. So I would suggest a significant fine, something that would have a significant pecuniary impact on the organization.
The issue of sanctions needs to be fleshed out, but the first thing is the power to impose sanctions, the power to direct mandatory action. Nothing comes to mind right now, unfortunately, but the important thing is the power to impose sanctions, which the act does not provide at this time.
Ms. Bédard: I would also add that the commissioner has made a number of recommendations, as you know, but nothing changes. There are no concrete measures, so I think the sanctions must require specific corrective action, follow-up and accountability to ensure that the correction was made. I can mention the Public Health Agency as an example, which the commissioner has given some bad marks, very bad marks in fact, in the past. This agency offers very little in respect of the official languages across the country even though it is required to do so under Part VII. With regard to health promotion, which, as you know, is a crucial issue, there is so much to be done, but the funding from Health Canada alone, for instance, is not sufficient to make progress. The Public Health Agency takes very, very little action in response to the commissioner’s recommendations. As to sanctions, concrete action would have to be required, as I said, with very close reporting and follow-up. That is one example, but there might be many more if a committee looked into it.
Senator Poirier: Thank you. I raised it because it was mentioned by a number of witnesses at the start of our review of the Official Languages Act. I wanted to hear your opinion.
My second question is for the people from Santé en français. You talked a bit about the difficulty that francophones have accessing health services in French, the shortage of specialists, and their difficulties trying to understand English. Coming from Canada’s only officially bilingual province, New Brunswick, I am wondering whether those services and your ability to get them are related to recruiting personnel, specialists and doctors. That is probably a challenge for you, as it is for us at times, but could something be added to the act to help you in that regard, to make services available at all times? For example, if the doctor cannot speak French, perhaps someone could always be available to interpret to make sure the patient receives an answer to their questions or is able to express their concerns in their preferred language. Is that something you do here, in Manitoba?
Ms. Bédard: Of course. The Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, for example, provides simultaneous interpretation and translation services, but that is not a service, in our view. It is a last-resort strategy because in terms of communication, using interpretation is like having a three-way discussion. It is not a direct service and there are plenty of studies you can consult and that we could forward to you, if you wish, showing that direct services have a more positive impact on the person’s health than interpretation service does, which is a last resort. Having the personnel is crucial, of course, because it is people who offer the services, and that is a big issue in Manitoba and right across the country. The issue is finding people who can offer the services in French, and that is why we need to train more people at our francophone institutions, such as the Saint-Boniface University. As I said earlier, there are just 1.4 million students who come to Manitoba for university health programs. The province receives funding through Canadian Heritage, but we would like to pave the way and work with our partners since there is such a tremendous need. So it is a huge issue.
Senator Poirier: Okay, thank you. My last question is for the Société de la francophonie manitobaine. In February 2015, you brought a case before the Federal Court relating to public services in French and English. This case was suspended last fall to give Treasury Board the time to announce its planned changes. Please tell us your expectations or what changes the government could put forward.
Mr. Monnin: What are our expectations?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
Mr. Monnin: No. I cannot provide an answer right now. It is a matter before the court so I am not at liberty to discuss it, but we are awaiting feedback from the government and we will be able to provide an answer at that time. I am sorry.
Senator Poirier: Okay, thank you.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your presentations. First of all, I would like to say something about the Centre culturel franco-manitobain. The organizations from the culture sector that we have heard thus far, Ms. Lavack, maintain that the arts and culture should be regarded as a pillar in the development of francophone minority communities, just as health and education are. So I think you would agree with me that it is important to make the connection between language and culture and to acknowledge that in the Official Languages Act.
Ms. Lavack: Yes, I agree completely that it is our reality today. It enriches our communities. It is the vehicle for language and learning that allows us to live life fully. These activities are the very essence of culture, so it is certainly worth the effort to recognize them officially in the act.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you.
As for health, Mr. LaBossière, you mentioned that provisions about health in minority settings should be included in the Official Languages Act, did you not?
Mr. LaBossière: Yes.
Senator McIntyre: So keeping that in mind, and also keeping Mr. Monnin’s presentation in mind — I am referring to page 5 in your brief where you talk about the role of the commissioner. I really liked paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 in your brief and I must confess that I agree with you completely. However, I would go a little further, and my question goes to the three witnesses. What mechanisms are we missing that would make sure that the Official Languages Act is fully enforced? In my opinion, we should review the powers given to the Treasury Board, strengthen the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages, make it easier to go to court in cases of non-compliance with language requirements, sanction the institutions that do not comply with their language requirements, and possibly give powers to a central agency with the responsibility to oversee the implementation of the act in its entirety. So, Mr. Monnin, could you give us your opinion on that, followed by Mr. LaBossière and Ms. Lavack?
Mr. Monnin: Thank you for the question. I agree completely with what you are saying. I do not just accept the recommendations you have made, I support them fully. I am particularly supportive of one point you made, the second or perhaps the third point, which is to make legal recourse easier. This is somewhat related to Senator Poirier’s questions about fines and sanctions. Often complaints are submitted to the commissioner and they are answered in the form of suggestions as to the way to resolve the problem, but the suggestions are not followed. So I have the feeling that everyone around the table here knows that all the gains we have made, all the major steps we have taken, were unfortunately because of decisions made by the courts. It has taken years, generations, to get to this point, to be able to facilitate access to legal recourse in a timely manner. For me, that would be one of the most important things that we could accomplish.
At the same time, if we can avoid going to court, we can give more power to the commissioner, as has been discussed, more power to impose fines and sanctions, real sanctions that require an organization or a department to truly put things right and correct the problem. So, Senator McIntyre, I just want to emphasize clearly that I agree completely with the proposals you have added to paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of our brief and I congratulate you for doing so. Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: Great, because, up to now, I find that we have been dragging our feet in terms of the Official Languages Act. I have been on the Committee on Official Languages for five and a half years, and I am finding that we drag our feet a lot, a lot, and that we should definitely strengthen the powers given to the Commissioner of Official Languages, as well as other powers.
Briefly, Mr. LaBossière, is there anything you would like to add?
Mr. LaBossière: I agree completely with what you have said. In my long life, I have worked in health centres, some designated bilingual and some not designated bilingual. I can assure you that a commitment from the people in power is needed to make it clear that it is a commitment that everyone has to observe in order for us to be able to establish mechanisms for providing services. Often, the will may not be there at the outset, but, if the message is always communicated, it is important that it come from a centre of power. That is why we were talking about the Privy Council, because it has to come from the office where government power is concentrated.
For the many years in which the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages has been producing reports, there has been no such sense of the power, the clout, being at that level. We hear and read many of the same observations and the same recommendations, but there is no follow-up. So I feel that there have to be some teeth, there has to be some power. I agree completely with what you have said. We are dragging our feet, that is true, and so we have to move ahead with a very concrete plan, and we have to add some teeth to the legislation.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: Thank you very much for your presentations. I found them all interesting and I found them refreshing. We have spent a lot of time in the east of the country, so I find it refreshing to come west because you have put forward some very interesting comments and suggestions. In the work we do, we know that some things keep coming up but there are also new aspects, such as the ones you presented.
My questions fall into three different areas, if you will. Ms. Lavack, you have led me to reflect on the economic aspect of the Canadian cultural industry. It is extremely important because, as an industry, it generates revenue. The problem is that, while it may be an industry that generates revenue, it is basically not very well supported. That’s the case in Ontario, anyway. The arts, drama, music and all those kinds of things, were taught in school up to a number of years ago. I do not know if it is like that here. Now they are no longer taught in school. The education curriculum is now more focused on financial education, on mathematics and language. Now, if parents have children with artistic aspirations, they have to pay for those activities, so that their children can learn to draw or sing better, to better express themselves in music, and so on. All that work is like an industry in isolation, one that has to go it alone. Yes, a little money comes from the federal government, but it could be a part of the culture that could be as well-financed as education, for example. I would like to hear what you have to say about it.
Ms. Lavack: Thank you very much for the question. Yes, I share your view that culture should have the same importance as other areas such as health, education, and so on, because it brings so much to the life of our communities and our people.
These days, certainly, courses dealing with culture and art are in decline. They are not taught everywhere. Some schools do so because perhaps they are somewhat focused on that area. But, in general, the focus is on the sciences, mathematics, and so on, meaning that all the other activities are done outside school. The burden is passed to the parents to look after their kids’ cultural and artistic education, meaning that opportunities have to be created.
As I said in my remarks, with funding that is really focused on projects, we are not able to develop things in depth. Even for ourselves at the Centre culturel franco-manitobain, we offer dance classes, but we have no one to administer the program. My staff turns cartwheels to find instructors for the courses, to look after the kids’ registrations, to help with everything. But the project could have so much more potential. The organization called 100 NONS, which operates from our premises, is looking for staff. They have one and a half people working there, but they do not have the fully bilingual resources to provide quality service, a service that is going to bring something positive to the kids. So there is certainly room to improve the support that cultural organizations receive, but also in order to lighten the administrative burden so that we can concentrate on what we do best, which is promoting and creating those opportunities, rather than having to fill in a bunch of grant applications for small amounts. That takes away a lot of our capacity to do the good we would like to do in our communities.
Senator Moncion: I was looking at culture as an industry. I do not know whether the Canadian government looks at the whole area as an industry. I do not know, I am really not aware; our esteemed chair would probably have more information than I do on the matter.
Ms. Lavack: I would like to have more figures. But, yes, I know that the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française is starting to gather those figures to show the real impact and scale of this very important sector.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
My second question, or perhaps it is a comment, goes to Ms. Sacko. I really like the fact that you have divided immigrants into two categories, where you talk about immigrants who are economically independent because, when they arrived, they made choices, and so on; I’ve never made that difference. So I like the distinction you also made between the needs of refugees and the needs of other immigrants. That is the funding you receive because you are a company that represents the federal government, and it is the orientation you provide. Now, in giving out the funds you receive, how do you go about providing a multitude of services with the limited resources you are given?
Ms. Sacko: Thank you very much. That is exactly where I spoke about partnerships and collaboration, because the mandate of Accueil francophone is limited and we clearly do not have the capacity to provide all those services. For example, employment services are provided by other organizations, as are psychological support services. Unfortunately, those organizations are English-speaking, so, even when we send them French speakers, we have to use interpreters. In education, for example, the Saint-Boniface University is the only francophone one here in Manitoba. We unfortunately have clients who want to take professional training in technical fields like mechanics or carpentry, and so on. The university is not able to provide training of that kind and we are forced to have them take courses in English so that they can register with anglophone institutions. That is a pity. So, we have developed a lot of partnerships with other structures with services that can meet the needs of the clients whom we recommend to them.
Senator Moncion: What I gather from what you are saying is that you have access to elementary and high schools in French, and you have the university. You just do not have francophone community colleges.
Ms. Sacko: I can’t help looking at Raymonde.
Senator Gagné: Do you want me to answer?
Senator Moncion: Yes.
Senator Gagné: I would just say that the Saint-Boniface University runs all the university programs, as well as the collegiate programs.
Senator Moncion: Okay, does that mean in the trades that are a lot more specialized?
Senator Gagné: We have the authority to do so, but we do not always have the programs. The great majority of the programs are much more technical and professional and not focused on trade aspects.
Ms. Sacko: Exactly.
Senator Moncion: More academic, then.
Ms. Sacko: Right.
Senator Moncion: I will ask my third question in the second round, but I’d like to ask for a little clarification. Are the programs not offered because there are not enough registrations, or is it really a matter of a lack of financial resources?
Senator Gagné: It’s a mix of all that.
Senator Moncion: Okay.
Senator Gagné: You have to understand that, in Manitoba, when you launch new programs, you are always starting with small numbers.
Senator Moncion: Right.
Senator Gagné: It is inherently always a challenge to be able to convince governments to fund and support initiatives.
Senator Moncion: Yes, and, basically, if the ties are not created, with the educators and with the employers, even in areas like health, and so on, if those ties are not created, groups are working in isolation and you are constantly grabbing for whatever you can find around you. That is always the problem for a francophone minority in a majority anglophone setting. Okay, I will ask my other questions in the next round.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Moncion. Perhaps we really could have invited Senator Gagné as a witness to tell us about the realities and, above all, the shortcomings in education. So, Senator Gagné, the floor is yours.
Senator Gagné: I just want to mention that the President of the Saint-Boniface University will be with us later.
First, I would like to thank you for your excellent presentations. It is good to be home. I must tell you that I really admire the work that you are doing and, for that, you have my sincere thanks. My question goes to the president of the Société de la francophonie manitobaine.
Education in French is not only a fundamental right guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it is also the foundation of the francophone community in Manitoba and its development. Mr. Monnin, you mentioned in your presentation that the Official Languages Act is a cornerstone of the federal government’s commitment, but that, here in Manitoba, we can also now count on the legislative framework provided by the new Francophone Community Enhancement and Support Act that was unanimously adopted by Manitoba’s legislative assembly on June 30, 2016. A considerable amount of federal government funding is transferred to the province. If we consider the Protocol for Agreements for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction, we see that the agreement is managed by the Bureau de l’éducation française. One key position, that of assistant deputy minister, was abolished very recently, without consultation and despite the legislative frameworks in place, despite the very specific agreement protocols on minority-language education and second-language instruction. Also, in this agreement protocol, funds are dedicated to post-secondary education, and, in the school system, there would probably also be funds that could go to early childhood. I am not sure I have that information at my fingertips.
So, the decision to abolish that position concerns me personally as a resident of this province, but it also reveals how the language and education rights that Manitoba has acquired are becoming increasingly fragile. What change could we bring to the Official Languages Act that would allow us to curb or manage this risk of seeing the rights we have acquired wither away? That is the fundamental question.
Mr. Monnin: Not exactly. That being said, it comes back to giving teeth to an entity that can ensure that our rights are locked in, meaning that once they have been acquired, there is no going back. Having said that, the scenario you mentioned, Senator Gagné, is at the provincial level. So, as soon as we were made aware of it at the start — as you said, we were not consulted — it became of great concern to us as well. Despite provincial law, there is an advisory board that — to be clear — was not consulted. So, it’s a double-edged sword. We are here today to discuss the federal level, and I would like to see something to ensure that our rights are locked in.
For the provincial level, the SFM and its allies, including the Division scolaire franco-manitobaine, Manitoba’s French-language school boards, parents’ associations and the Manitoba Teachers’ Society, all mobilized immediately to establish an advisory board: a group of people assembled to work with the province. Everything is on the table, including the position of assistant deputy minister. From our perspective, the position of a French-speaking assistant deputy minister in the Bureau de l’éducation française is imperative, and, through the advisory board, we will do everything we can to ensure that this position will be re-established. However, I wear two hats. My first hat is that of the president of the SFM, an advocacy group. As you rightly pointed out, the Charter recognizes education as a fundamental right that is not only specifically enshrined in the Charter, but the Charter also has unwritten principles. I also referred to the Hôpital Montfort, and I talked about the Lalonde case and a law in Manitoba that would be similar to the French Language Services Act in Ontario. That was where my former colleague Ron Caza took the Hôpital Montfort case to the Ontario Court of Appeal — and won.
We are optimistic at the moment, and we believe that the working group will generate tangible, concrete, and satisfactory results, especially for the position of a French-speaking assistant deputy minister at the Bureau de l’éducation française. However, we must say, with great honesty and transparency, that there are other avenues to pursue, but, at the moment, we are optimistic. So, I do not know if I answered your question, senator, but to come back to the subject of federal intervention, we would need something to ensure that our rights are locked in, meaning that, when we have acquired something, we cannot lose it.
Senator Gagné: Thank you for adding that. I was about to ask for more details. In the context of federal-provincial agreements, I think that you alluded to this as well for health, and so on. Could this issue be specifically integrated into the act, while still including some specific indications related to what you have just told us?
Mr. Monnin: If I can join the debate, senator, you are well aware that Manitoba receives a great deal of funding from Ottawa for education. Therefore, I believe that the locking in of these rights should be recognized, that would allow funding to be dedicated to uphold and cement them. If the federal government is quite generous in its funding, and if it continues to be over time, it will indeed expect the funds to be used in a consistent manner, specifically for the Official Languages Act.
Senator Gagné: Still, several witnesses have mentioned the importance of transparency in seeing where the money is spent when they are transferred, because we know that the funds transferred to the provinces can stay in their coffers so that they are able to manage all of their programs — I’m talking about education here. Let’s say that, in the protocol, there are funds that the provinces hold onto in order to manage French-language education in Manitoba. Other funds will be transferred for education systems, for immersion, for the Franco-Manitoban school system and for the Saint-Boniface University. In this case, are you able to trace the funds? Everyone is looking at each other, so I imagine that the answer is not as clear as all that. It is not easy to follow the money, which makes accountability a problem.
Mr. Monnin: Allow me to emphasize that I have only been at SFM since October 2017. However, if I were to turn to Daniel Boucher, my executive director, who has been at SFM since maybe before I was born, he will say, quite simply, no. I do not believe that it is possible to trace these funds.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
Senator Mégie: Thank you for your presentations. My question is for Ms. Sacko. Given that French-speaking immigrants naturally choose Quebec, at what level is the decision made to direct the different types of French-speaking immigrants towards English-speaking provinces such as Manitoba?
Ms. Sacko: Thank you. Currently, the province of Manitoba is organizing an international promotional activity with organizations and the francophone community. This activity is called Destination Canada; we go to Europe to promote the province. There are various immigration programs federally, the federal program itself, and each province has its own provincial nominee program. So, when we participate in these promotional activities like Destination Canada, all the immigrants who want to come to Canada will go around the various provinces, and see what they like. When they apply, they must specifically choose the province in which they want to live. Therefore, having French-speaking communities, generally well represented in these activities, is a big plus for the majority of economic immigrants who come here. So, they have already chosen Manitoba as a final destination, and they come to Manitoba. Refugees, however, are covered by a convention. I think that the federal government makes the decisions concerning placement. Refugees do not know in advance which province they will be moving to, until the government tells them where they are required to land.
Senator Mégie: Alright. Thank you.
I have a secondary question. As you have just discussed with Senator Moncion, there are challenges related to certain jobs and professions that absolutely require people to turn to the anglophone community. In light of this, do you have any figures on the degree to which those French-speaking immigrants stay in their province? Do they stay for long, or do they leave? Do you have figures on this issue?
Ms. Sacko: For Accueil francophone, we have an integration program that we follow up on. Every three months, we do a follow-up of up to two years to be sure that the families that arrive in Manitoba, stay in Manitoba. I would say that 95 per cent of the families we welcome, whether they are economic immigrants or refugees, stay in Manitoba, because we do this follow-up. We know where they live, and we do regular check-ups to make sure everything is going well.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
The Chair: Before moving to the second round of questions, I would like to take the time to ask a few questions. First of all, I would like to congratulate you, the Franco-Manitoban community. I have read the strategic planning section of the general assembly with great interest. Mr. Monnin, I find that your organization is doing some quite exceptional work to rearticulate how the Francophonie in Manitoba comes together. I think that it is an eloquent example of how French-speaking communities outside Quebec can adapt to change. The process you are going through is clearly not an easy one, because there will always be resistance to change, but it is obvious that you are doing what it takes to move forward, as they say, and to make sure that the community continues to grow. So, I want to applaud this, and I also want to highlight the exceptional work done at the Centre culturel franco-manitobain. We had the opportunity to visit this facility yesterday. I also had the pleasure of noticing the extent to which the Cercle Molière, for example, is now working in coproduction with a Francophonie outside the country. So, we have the ability to openly work with francophones in Canada and abroad.
That being said, my question particularly concerns Part VII of the act, and maybe Part IV. A lot is asked of the federal government, and we often hear witnesses tell us that the Official Languages Act needs to make the various departments of the federal government work together and be accountable on the issue of the future of official-language communities. There is much collaboration between your various sectors in the communities. Many people talk about the need to be specific with the positive measures outlined in Part VII of the act, and they also talk about the vitality factors. So, in your opinion, concerning the precisions to the positive measures, should there be this notion that recognizes and values the collaborative and concerted efforts that are possible between the communities you represent? This is a general question that is addressed to all of you. In other words, if the legislation is able to strengthen this notion of valuing collaboration between the sectors of your community, do you see this as a positive step towards further strengthening the act? That is my first question.
Ms. Lavack: Thank you very much for the question. I can take a stab at it. I think that there is strength in numbers. In our communities and elsewhere, people are looking to form partnerships — other people to work with to support our products and our developments. So, I think it would be very beneficial to have something that specifies those positive measures, but also, as you say, that strengthens the partnerships we are looking to create to help each other and to help us help each other. At the moment, we are doing this, but, as we often say, with limited resources, so it is incredibly demanding work. We are working on long-term projects, but the results are incredible, and that really nourishes our communities. For us, yes, it would be very beneficial to better recognize the work we do to identify, seek out, and create these partnerships to help each other.
Ms. Bédard: I think that French-speaking communities, the different sectors, work together, and have been doing so forever. We oversee the development plan, the strategic plan of the French-speaking community. We are working together in various sectors. It is in the nature of our work, and, to be clear, yes, that would help. I would say that for health, it is part of operational model, so it is fundamental. We work with sectors in the Francophonie, but also within our sectors, with the English-speaking community, and with other partners across Canada. Since we do not offer direct services, we do not have the option to work in partnerships to bring people to the table, talk about issues, and determine what we can do together to move issues forward, because we do not offer direct services. So, it is fundamental, and perhaps stating and supporting the issue would bring us into the limelight and help us move forward in our work.
Ms. Sacko: I want to add one point: We really do work hard. We established the Réseau en immigration francophone for the very reason of strengthening this collaboration, because French-speaking immigrants who come to minority-situation communities are in minorities within minorities. It is obvious that the lack of collaboration and partnerships makes it very, very, difficult to sustain this project, so it is for this reason that we have a network set up to allow us to truly work collaboratively.
The Chair: Thank you.
Yesterday, we met with representatives from the Bilingual Service Centre, and we discussed community vitality factors. We know that Part IV of the act is being studied at the moment by a committee that is examining the regulations in Part IV. Do you believe that the services offered by bilingual service centres, for example, are factors in the vitality of the community? Do these services allow communities to develop? Sector-specific organizations like yours exist, but for bilingual service centres, we understand that services are offered by the federal, provincial and municipal governments at the same time, because these services are bundled together. Mr. Monnin, do you believe that these centres also become factors of community vitality?
Mr. Monnin: To answer your first question on collaboration, I find that, in principle, it is great. We view all initiatives that seek to encourage co-operation between communities as preferable to having them go their own way. That being said, I will play devil’s advocate for a moment: On the one hand, we could reach a deal, and, on the other, even if it is enshrined in the law, we could have problems. Maybe not with this government, but if another should come to power, it could tell us that there is not enough collaboration in our communities to support us. It could ask us to work together better before granting us its support. That is our concern. The only caveat I would add on this point is that specifics like these can be used against communities to point towards a lack of collaboration between the various sectors. That is the only caveat I would raise.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Monnin: For your second question on bilingual service centres and their ability to represent community vitality, my answer would be yes. They are community reference points that provide people with the answers to their questions, as well as a host of services and other support mechanisms. That is why I find them to be great. I do not know if everyone shares my opinion.
Ms. Sacko: I want to say yes, I do too, because we currently have bilingual service centres outside Winnipeg in small, French-speaking communities that, indeed, see these centres as reference points, as my director said, due to the fact that they house all three levels of government. It is much easier for the residents of these small communities to access services when they are together under the same roof. Clearly, I believe this to be a vitality factor.
Ms. Bédard: I would also say yes. But, to come back to the services, I think that the issue is to look for a broader definition, because numbers are an issue. We cannot talk about numbers in very small minority communities and vitality in the same breath. I think that vitality is the primary factor. So, we when talk about Part IV and services, I think that it is essential to consider the amount of services and how they are defined, which is narrow and out-of-date nowadays.
In terms of co-operation, I would invite you to look at the legislation and the government’s co-operation with its communities over a number of years. We have lost that co-operation, and in modernizing the act, the federal government’s co-operation should not take place only within and among the departments and with Ottawa, because the relationship with the communities is very important, and we have lost it over the years.
The Chair: Thank you very much. So we have about 10 minutes left.
Senator Poirier: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is the second component of our five-part study on modernizing the Official Languages Act. We are consulting all segments of the population to get their opinion, so the question is for all four groups of guests. Here’s my question: If you could provide us with the most important recommendation that you would like to see in our report on amending the act, what would you recommend to us? I know there are a number of recommendations, but I’m asking which is the most important for you. You can provide more than one if you want.
Ms. Bédard: We have already done a summary with six recommendations.
The Chair: So who would like to answer? I do not think Senator Poirier asked a trick question.
Senator Poirier: No, no, it’s not a trick question. Absolutely not.
The Chair: We are just trying to identify some priorities.
Senator Poirier: In terms of amending the legislation, first of all, in New Brunswick, the decision was not to wait another 50 years to revise it again. This question was put to a number of our witnesses who told us that it was important that we review it more often. So do we want to do so every five years, 10 years? What do you recommend? It may be a suggestion. It has been 50 years since it was reviewed. Going forward, we hope that it will not take another 50 years for it to be reviewed. For you, what is most important and what should be formulated as a recommendation in the legislation, at this stage, to meet your needs?
Mr. Monnin: For me, it would be paragraphs 18 to 23 of our brief, a central agency that would be better placed to coordinate the overall implementation of the Official Languages Act. This would be the starting point. If I have to choose one thing, it would be a central agency.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Monnin.
Ms. Lavack: I would say the explicit recognition of the cultural sector and its importance, as well as a definition of the concept of positive measures to be taken in promotional work.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. LaBossière? The pressure is on.
Mr. LaBossière: I think it would be a matter of legislating the obligation set out in the federal-provincial-territorial agreements and programs, as well as the obligations of major agencies, such as the health information research centres and all those agreements. There should be obligations, not just as a principle, but enshrined in the legislation, not to mention accountability. We cannot separate those two things. We need accountability with teeth.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is that good, Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: Yes. There is just one person who has not answered.
Ms. Sacko: I want to emphasize inclusion and the fact that there are a lot of changes that the legislation has to take into account. People who immigrate here must also be served in the language of their choice, such as French, without being forced to seek services in English.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: My question is about sanctions, the sanctioning powers that we want to give to the commissioner. I still have a concern about the sanctions and the few teeth in the legislation. We would like more teeth, we would like the commissioner to have the power to impose sanctions. My concern is about the legal or the public wrangling over the commissioner’s decision to impose a sanction, and the organization being sanctioned, and the fact that we could end up before the courts with all the ensuing “mud-slinging,” especially if it has to do with the French fact. I understand the importance of sanctions and all that, but my concern is still about the loss of credibility, if you will, of the francophone community claiming its rights in court. I would like to hear what you have to say on this issue, in each of your cases, because it affects you all, I believe.
Mr. Monnin: Thank you for the question, senator. I think we already have legal wrangling, except that it takes a lot of time, it takes an extraordinary amount of money and, as I said earlier, it is passed on from generation to generation, so we’re already there. Now, will an entity receive a sanction under the new legislation, to stay in the legal realm? Possibly. That said, let’s say that a court will consider and support that sanction, indicating to the entity that the sanction is mandatory and that it must comply with it. There will be a precedent. This is quite the hypothesis, on my part, but we’re already there. That said, it takes years for communities to have their rights upheld in court, to have their rights recognized. So there should be something speedier, more effective in solving problems for francophone communities and ensuring that entities or departments follow suit. Right now, these are just suggestions. We see it. We want something with teeth, otherwise we are there, we will pack our bags, and go to the courthouse, but it will take us 10, 15 years to get there.
Senator Moncion: I just quickly want to add a small clarification.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Moncion: Right now, the commissioner’s office does not have that power, and the legal wrangling is not related to the decisions that have been made or to the commissioner’s report. It is related to rights that have been violated at a different level, and it is usually the organization against the government, either a provincial or federal government. My clarification is about the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Mr. Monnin: That is duly noted. I understand your concern about the clarification, but quite simply, I come back to the issue or the fear of legal wrangling. That’s already happening, so we have to find a solution.
Ms. Lavack: I was just talking about this issue with my Spanish teacher, because I am taking Spanish classes right now. I am thinking that, if we could work more at the grassroots level when we talk about promoting linguistic duality, so that it becomes a value shared by all citizens and all Canadians, the organizations we work for, the institutions, will want to provide bilingual services. Perhaps some day — and this is the ideal — I just want to say that, some day, it would be really great to see people feeling the added value of speaking more than one language. We often see this in Europe. It is normal to speak five or six languages in a house. I know it’s a matter of geography as well, but if it could really become part of the social fabric of every Canadian citizen and if we could promote linguistic duality more effectively, perhaps it would become the norm and all organizations and people will want to serve Canadians in both official languages.
The Chair: Thank you.
So we have three minutes left. Did anyone want to comment because I would like to give Senator Gagné the last question? We will conclude this meeting with a question from Senator Gagné.
Senator Gagné: This question is for the president of the Société de la francophonie manitobaine. Some witnesses talked about the importance of thinking about developing regulations related to Part VII. Right now, only one part of the act, Part IV, has regulations attached to it. Given the history behind the restrictive part of the regulations associated with Part IV, do you welcome the proposal to develop regulations for Part VII, as far as positive measures are concerned?
Mr. Monnin: Thank you for the question. By acknowledging the fact that it is 9:49 a.m. and that we have until 9:50 a.m., yes, just to wrap up the discussion on the issue, I think yes, it would be a good thing to develop regulations that would clarify the scope of Part VII.
Senator Gagné: Thank you. Since the answer was short, can I ask another question?
The Chair: Go ahead.
Senator Gagné: Given the importance the government attaches to the action plan for official languages, is it possible and desirable to enshrine the action plan in the Official Languages Act?
The Chair: Who wants to answer succinctly?
Ms. Bédard: Incorporating the action plan for official languages into the act would give it a little more substance and clarity.
Senator Gagné: To clarify my question, should we simply indicate that an action plan is announced on a regular basis? Should that be incorporated into the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Monnin: Yes, it should be enshrined in the act.
Mr. LaBossière: I think the action plan should include measures to determine how its objectives can be achieved. It’s not just about having a plan. We must have measures.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Ms. Bédard, Mr. LaBossière, Ms. Lavack, Ms. Sacko and Mr. Monnin, thank you very much for your interventions. We may have the opportunity to mingle with you in other settings, informally, since we are here for a few days. So thank you.
Since the Radio-Canada television is here and is not able to record our discussions, we still allowed the cameraman to take some pictures during the introduction. So, I’m going to do the introduction I made earlier. He will be able to take a few pictures, if you don’t mind.
We are pleased to welcome Brigitte L’Heureux, Executive Director, from the Fédération des parents francophones du Manitoba. This federation offers programs, services, resources and training for families who want to help their children, from kindergarten to Grade 12, fully develop in French. We also welcome Alain Laberge, Director General, from the Division scolaire franco-manitobaine. The DSFM has 24 schools offering French first language programs from kindergarten to Grade 12. And finally, we welcome Gabor Csepregi, President of the Saint-Boniface University. The Saint-Boniface University offers university programs in French in addition to the technical, vocational and continuing training. Thank you.
I would ask that the Radio-Canada cameraman please leave the room so that we can begin our work. Thank you, sir.
So we will hear our witnesses and then continue with questions. We have until 11:20 a.m. to engage with you. We will begin with you, Ms. L’Heureux.
Brigitte L’Heureux, Executive Director, Fédération des parents francophones du Manitoba: Good morning, everyone. Honourable senators, members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, I would first like to thank you for inviting me to participate in this meeting today and to give testimony on behalf of the Fédération des parents du Manitoba.
Fédération des parents du Manitoba is an organization whose mandate is to promote education in French by providing programs, workshops, services and resources to this client base of young people aged between 0 and 12, preschool and school groups, early childhood professionals, French-language, family- and centre-based educational childcare services, the school committee, other parent groups, and parents. We also promote the importance of the parental role in the education and development of their children in their language and culture.
Considering the reality of today’s families and the large number of exogamous couples, our approaches are inclusive so that all parents, including English-speaking parents, are aware that they have a positive impact on their children’s language. I admit to you today that I am far from being an expert on the legislation, but I will try to testify from the perspective of the parent and of early childhood.
Here are some things I would like you to consider as you are working to modernize the act. In terms of early childhood education, we can see that the family dynamics have changed dramatically since 1969. The so-called traditional roles are no longer the same. Today’s women are actively involved in the labour market and want to secure a better future for themselves and their children. In addition, recent research clearly shows that the critical period for learning is 0 to 5 years. Because of those two realities, there is now a greater need for educational childcare services and support for parents to prepare them for their children’s education.
The preamble to the act talks about respecting the constitutional guarantees of minority language educational rights and to enhance opportunities for all to learn both English and French. The act, by and large, needs to take into account that this right to instruction or education must begin with early childhood education. Too many parents cannot secure a place in educational childcare in French. When we talk about community development, we have to start at the beginning, with early childhood.
As for the act and its power, overall, the act needs to expand the role of the federal government in promotion, service delivery and employability in both official languages.
Community organizations have been working hard for many years, even decades, to ensure high-quality education in French within vibrant communities. In Manitoba today, there are approximately 30,000 students in a French-language or immersion program. If this trend keeps up, we can first conclude that, in 12 years, there will be a minimum of 30,000 Manitobans who will be ready to work in bilingual positions.
The time has come to seize this opportunity to add significantly more requirements in this act. I see some reluctance to being firmer and more precise in the terminology of the legislation. There seem to be some measures designed to please, but no tangible action is mentioned. For example, in the purpose of the act states, and I quote: “support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities and generally advance the equality. . . within Canadian society.” I think the words “generally advance,” and later in Part VII of the act, the words “encourage” and “help” are not strong and proactive enough. This is why the implementation of the act does not seem to be up to the task. We need legislation that ensures and commits to enhancing the vitality of official languages. In terms of the active offer and regions designated bilingual, the active offer of federal services in French remains an important factor for parents. All too often, we use services in English because waiting to be served in French is neither practical nor quick, and sometimes not even possible. Any staff providing services directly to the public should, in our opinion, be able to do so in French and in English, and make an active offer. The act must reflect those real needs of the communities.
The federal offices that provide services and communications in both official languages are determined based on statistics, which are considered incomplete and do not reflect the current need. The rule must be more inclusive to take into account the new francophonie, which includes exogamous families, newcomers and francophiles.
In terms of the powers of Canadian Heritage, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Privy Council, at this time, Canadian Heritage has no power to encourage other federal institutions to implement Part VII of the Official Languages Act. First of all, we feel that oversight of the implementation of the act must take place at a higher level in the government hierarchy, such as the Privy Council. The same is true of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Its power needs to be strengthened to make it more effective.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that the federal government must first and foremost serve as an example to the entire country in official languages. With the increase in public support for bilingualism in the country, the time has come to raise the bar for government requirements as part of modernizing and implementing the act. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you , Ms. L’Heureux.
Alain Laberge, Director General, Division scolaire franco-manitobaine: Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, it is a privilege to welcome you to Louis Riel country. The Division scolaire franco-manitobaine, or DSFM, sincerely thanks you for being here. I invite you, if you have time, to come and visit one of our schools. It would be our pleasure to take you on a tour.
The future of French in Manitoba depends on a strong DSFM. However, a strong DSFM providing quality education in French is not sufficient in itself to ensure the vitality of Manitoba’s French-language community. We must offer Franco-Manitobans — the young children in particular — other opportunities to speak and read in French, and also to see and hear the language outside their classrooms and schools. In a nutshell, the importance of creating francophone spaces entails ensuring that our francophone and francophile families can assert themselves socially and culturally, outside of schools.
Actually, the concept of francophone spaces is not new since it was introduced by one of my colleagues, François Benoit, Director General in Ontario, whose brief you will find in the appendix. The DSFM is conscious of its role, and its directive on the language of communication reflects this. In order for the DSFM to succeed in fulfilling its mandate, its students and families need opportunities to live openly in French, outside of schools. A modernized Official Languages Act that takes these needs into account would help the DSFM fulfill its mandate. In this address, on behalf of the DSFM, I will point out a number of shortcomings in the Official Languages Act that have a negative impact on its daily operation. The DSFM will also propose amendments to the Official Languages Act in connection with this committee’s study on the modernization of the act.
There are five elements I would like to point out, and a sixth one that is more ad lib.
The first one is the right to federal services in French. The use of “first official language spoken” as a criterion to establish the language obligations of governments is outdated, and no longer accounts for the reality of our communities in 2018 — in particular exogamous families and the diverse composition of our families. Yet this criterion has an impact on French-language education. The loss of services due to the application of a rigid, mathematical criterion is causing devitalization within our population in favour of rapid assimilation toward English. This phenomenon is serious, without even considering its impact on minority French-language education.
Why do I say this? Where there is a town, village or neighbourhood with no bilingual services, there is an erosion of culture, an anglicization. As my colleague mentioned, what do francophones do when they get tired of waiting for services in their language? They turn to English. They give up the fight, they throw up their hands, because although their language is important to them, eventually they become exhausted. Why fight and have to drive an hour to receive a service? Why insist on a service that is of lower quality than what is offered in English? And what do the children of these adults do? They see clearly that the French language is a secondary one, because it is not respected by governments.
In a world like that, we cannot be surprised that a segment of the English-speaking population has little interest in learning French. What’s the point? Everything happens in English anyway. The availability of services in French plays a fundamental role for the vitality of our communities; it is therefore very important, for example, that the federal government continue, and in fact increase, its financial support for French-language services through agreements like the Canada-Manitoba Agreement on French-Language Services.
Let’s come back to the criterion of “first official language spoken.” This criterion does not account for everyone who declares English as their first language but is able to express themselves in French. The offer of services in French gives those people a reason to learn our language; it creates a space within which they can express themselves in the language of the other, in our language. When a community loses a bilingual service or services, this sends a message to young people who want to learn French, or learn in French, that there’s not much point in doing so, since that language is becoming folklore. Not only must French be promoted, but a clear message must be sent that it truly remains one of this country’s two official languages. Withdrawing the offer of bilingual services and reducing the quality of the services offered will lead our communities straight down the path of assimilation. The French language must be associated not only with the culture, but also with the richness it brings to all Canadians.
It is true that education provides the means to change mentalities and broaden horizons. Communication and the provision of French-language services that are truly of equivalent quality are the most important, tangible elements of true official bilingualism.
Why should a francophone living in an area that is not served by the federal government in both official languages not have that right? Let’s not reinvent the wheel where there’s no need to do so. Two very simple, concrete changes could be made.
First, the result of the work done by Senators Chaput and Tardif that led to Bill S-209, now sponsored by Senator Gagné, should be incorporated into a new Official Languages Act. This will provide a better framework for the government’s obligations set out in Part IV of the Official Languages Act on communications with the public and the provision of services, and in Part XI of the act on consultations and proposed regulations.
Second, this committee should recommend enshrining in the Official Languages Act the requirement that services offered in both official languages be equivalent in a real sense. This principle is not new; it was already recognized by the Supreme Court in 2009 in DesRochers. In our opinion, we must go beyond the “Hello!/Bonjour!” that is necessary but that falls far short of guaranteeing true equality.
Second is the disposal of federal lands. The sale and transfer of properties deemed surplus by the Government of Canada is too often left to the discretion of civil servants who either are not familiar with the obligation to adopt positive measures under the Official Languages Act or decide, unknowingly or otherwise, to apply it only when they see fit. Francophones already have great difficulty in obtaining properties that meet their growing needs. Francophones have an incredible growing need when it comes to education. Ms. L’Heureux spoke about it earlier. We need land in order to have schools. If we cannot at least benefit from the implementation of that federal law by the federal government, it is difficult to keep on fighting against assimilation.
I would like to mention as an example something that the DSFM experienced a few months ago. The DSFM learned by pure luck while doing research online — unfortunately too late — that the government had, using the services of a real estate agent from the private sector, put one of its sites in Winnipeg up for sale, on Lagimodière Boulevard, without consulting the DSFM. The DSFM sent a letter in December 2017 to this committee about that site and the federal government’s inaction. It is in Appendix D. In short, the sale of the building was announced to the public on the website of Public Services and Procurement Canada and on the website of a real estate agency in English only. In November 2017, the DSFM sent a letter to Public Services and Procurement Canada expressing its interest in the site. In February 2018, the DSFM received an answer from the government saying that the disposal process had complied with the Directive on the Sale or Transfer of Surplus Real Property, which does not require that French-language school boards be consulted and that its department cares about the obligations under the Official Languages Act, which you have in Appendix E.
Is this not evidence of the need to amend the Official Languages Act to give it more teeth? Why not have it include, quite simply, an obligation on the part of federal institutions to consult school boards before selling its properties? We could talk about all my colleagues in the branch across Canada who have land needs.
Third, the Official Languages Act must be adapted to the realities of the 21st century. When modernizing the Official Languages Act, I would ask you to take into account the technologies that exist today. They are powerful and provide greater flexibility. The Canadian government must take into account the new demographic reality of the country. Canada has changed since the last reform. What we do note is that we have children in immersion, French-speaking children who will have children in immersion, who will have French-speaking children, who will ensure that this francophone community grows larger and larger. It has even been said that French will be the most spoken language in the world by 2050.
We talk about a bilingual Canada, but we don’t see francophone tourists travelling outside Quebec. Why? Because of the lack of or the very few services in French, and this frightens people.
Fourth is the multilateral framework for French-as-a-second-language learning. You may say I am dreaming, but I like to dream of growing old, and I think it is important that we can dream for our children. Learning in French is vital. That is what we do at the school board, but learning of French is also very important. French second-language education should be compulsory from kindergarten through Grade 12 in order to increase the number of French speakers, and thus create a space in which we can exist in French. To achieve this objective, an article should be added to the Official Languages Act requiring the federal government to adopt a roadmap or action plan on official languages. It is through a roadmap or action plan that the federal government provides financial support for official languages. Such an amendment would provide much-needed certainty for francophone and Acadian communities with regard to official languages funding. This new section could also require the federal government to adopt a national strategy on French first-language and second-language education.
The last thing we would like to raise is the implementation of the Official Languages Act. I think it is important to repeat that it is essential that the Official Languages Act be modernized. We would like to thank you for your efforts in that respect. This tour must be quite exhausting. It will be important for the government to abide by all aspects of the modernized act. The written words must become reality and result in concrete actions. It doesn’t matter what form the watchdog takes, whether it is an official languages tribunal or a Commissioner of Official Languages with more robust powers, or more pronounced bilateral work, what is important is that people have an effective remedy to redress violations of their language rights.
I would like to conclude with a few additional ideas that we have looked into at the school division. They include ensuring that all signs across the country are bilingual, ensuring that provincial and territorial governments are subject to the same obligations of bilingualism, and requiring practical functional bilingualism in all new positions in the public service. This last initiative wouldn’t be implemented overnight, but this requirement could be accompanied by a grandfather clause for a duration of x years — an educational cycle, for instance, the time it would take for our students in immersion in kindergarten to finish in 15 years — and would become mandatory for all positions after the expiry of the grandfather clause. We are in education. I am in education. We believe in education. We believe in educating people. As much as possible, let’s adopt an educational approach. We often talk about a watchdog, but I would much more advocate an educational approach so that we can share together. If a genuine bilingualism is promoted and the next generation is given the opportunity to be educated effectively in both languages, a bilingualism requirement in the workplace will not be seen as favouritism toward francophones, but as a reflection of the fact that Canada is a unified people proud of both its languages.
Education is the ideal tool for pulling two solitudes together, for bringing people to understand one another. The strength of the Official Languages Act can play an educational role. Let me give you an everyday example. People didn’t wear seatbelts fifty years ago. Laws were brought in that made people grumble. Thirty years ago, when I was in the classroom, my teacher smoked. It’s something we don’t see anymore. Cigarettes weren’t outlawed; people weren’t condemned. A law was created for the well-being of our children. The same is true for bilingualism. While many anglophones were originally against the idea of official bilingualism, surveys in 2018 show that most Canadians now accept bilingualism. We must therefore be ambitious, and we hope the committee will be ambitious with the modernization of this act. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Laberge.
Now the floor goes to the president of the Saint-Boniface University, Gabor Csepregi.
Gabor Csepregi, President, Saint-Boniface University: Mr. Chair and honourable senators, thank you for inviting me to appear before your committee. I am very honoured. You are doing extremely important work. I realize that you have many people to hear today, so I will try to be brief and clear.
I would like to start by telling you about a personal experience. When I came here to Canada a long time ago, my strongest desire was to learn French and English well. I also received this instruction from my father. He told me, “The world has already heard this story.” My father told me that if I was ever thinking about returning to Hungary, not to go back without the excellent knowledge of French and English. When I was in Hungary, for us, Canada was a bilingual country. People viewed it as a bilingual country, and I am convinced that much can be done to highlight the bilingual character. So, I would like to raise four points that touch on the notions of history, culture, university studies and education.
First, I would like to talk about history. If we insist on bilingualism, we must recognize and respect the historical trajectory of the country. Eliminating bilingualism would really cut ties with the past and with history, and vice versa. If we want to forget the past and erase the past, it is also rightly questioning bilingualism. So, a language is not just a means of communication, a way to build relationships, have a job and get services, but also an ability to go back into history, become aware of the history and get fresh ideas, if you so desire, in studying history. So, if there is something missing in the preamble, I would make a recommendation to take it or leave it: it’s a reminder of certain historical events. Why have French and English become Canada’s official languages? Perhaps we could refer to that in a paragraph.
Second, I would like to talk about culture. A language is also a cultural richness, an indispensable vehicle of culture. To the question — and of course, my colleague here has answered quite broadly — of whether federal institutions sufficiently recognize the importance of valuing Canada’s two official languages, I would answer no. Of course, we can talk for a long time about why services in French are lacking. If we look at the culture, there is really a lack of attention paid to this aspect of our lives and to this important dimension of the human being. What is culture? Culture is a set of institutions, conventions, usage, practices and creations specific to a community and defined by a particular language. Culture is also a collection of knowledge, customs, ritual values and festivals preserved by a community’s memory. You see, when I talk about these elements of culture, language passes through all these elements. Language is an essential component of these elements. So, of course, you have to talk about the official language, French. We must talk about work, service, but the word “culture” does not appear in the document. I was looking for the word “culture.” It does not appear once. Neither does the word “history” nor the word “historical.” The word “culture” must be found in the document, perhaps a rather succinct definition, but this word must be used because culture is intimately linked to language, and language can’t be dissociated from culture. If we talk about the Franco-Manitoban culture, for example, it is still alive and will be thanks to this language, won’t it? One strengthens the other. So, if we talk about the development of minority communities, these communities must live through the successful delivery of services, but also, and above all, through culture. Reference should be made in this document to culture, and it should emphasize the strengthening of particular cultures, especially in minority situations.
Third, I would like to talk about university and education. I am the president of the Saint-Boniface University. As you know, this university has always defended language and culture. In addition, this year, we are celebrating the two hundredth anniversary of French education in Manitoba and, goodness knows, the Saint-Boniface University, the Saint-Boniface College, and the Saint-Boniface University College have played an extremely important role in this effort to preserve the language and promote the culture. We must consider a university, be it bilingual, anglophone or francophone, as a guardian of language and culture, hence the importance of promoting universities. When we talk about university, of course, we talk about education, but one of the university’s important tasks is to educate the educators, because, indeed, at the Saint-Boniface University, we have an excellent faculty of education and they are educators, educators who will promote the language. So, the document must insist on the way, the concrete ways, to help faculties of education to properly train the educators of tomorrow. Provide concrete financial assistance. I totally agree with my colleague Ms. L’Heureux that we have to be much more concrete in the way we propose verbs, yes. That’s absolutely right, isn’t it? I think that the verbs used in the current legislation are quite weak and vague.
Several times in the document, we talk about instruction, not education. There is confusion here. I think we have to find the word “education.” Certainly, education is extremely important, developing certain skills, obtaining qualifications or diplomas that allow students to earn a living. Instruction is extremely important. At the level of language, music and elsewhere. Education is more comprehensive because it embraces all aspects of the person. I suggest that the word “education” be put in the document several times. Also, there is confusion in the document. When investigation is mentioned, the word “instruction” is used, but when directives are discussed, instruction is quite appropriate. I think that’s okay. So, in your questionnaire, you use the word “education.”
Perhaps there could be a few words about the role of the commissioner. In fact, the commissioner should play a positive role, make recommendations, and provide advice and support. I would like to emphasize the importance of the commissioner in educational environments. The commissioner must be present, and must visit universities and other secondary education and early childhood institutions. Let me give you an example. Bilingualism is rightly emphasized at meetings of university representatives at Universities Canada. Senator Gagné is quite familiar with these meetings. Communications are in both languages, but in fact, during meetings, everything happens in English. So it’s really the role of the commissioner to insist on bilingualism, isn’t it, during exchanges or at meetings where people speak in both languages so that presentations, conferences, are also done in both languages. This is how the commissioner could make recommendations, could encourage the various associations so that both languages are respected, as well as practised.
Finally, I have met many bilingual people during my career. They became bilingual not just because they were able to get a job, not just because it was an obligation for them, but because there was a basic desire to learn both languages and speak in both languages. Some write in both languages and speak both languages. Perhaps the document should also insist on the love of the language, how to cultivate the language, not just that the language must be an obligation. A piece of legislation can be considered a restrictive power. Right, that’s its role, but it can also be seen as a force that directs people and inspires the public to want to act in harmony with the spirit of the law. That’s what I wanted to tell you. Thank you very much for your attention.
The Chair: I would like to thank all of the witnesses very much for your testimony.
We will start this conversation with Senator Poirier, the deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your presentations. Can anyone tell me the percentage of Manitoba’s francophone population?
Mr. Csepregi: The francophone population is 3.5 or 3.6 per cent. However, it is also important to consider people who speak both languages, some of whom also consider themselves French-speaking. Francophiles also consider themselves francophones, so I couldn’t tell you the exact number of people who speak both languages, but it’s much more than 3.6 or 4 per cent.
Senator Poirier: Mr. Laberge, you mentioned it in your brief, so we will take the example of the federal government, which must continue to increase financial support. Is the support you receive based on the percentage of the population that is considered francophone? Is it based on that?
Mr. Laberge: If we are talking about education in French, it isn’t just the school division that is backing away. We aren’t the only ones receiving funding — there are immersion programs too — so I can’t really speak to you about immersion. For the francophone part, yes, it’s based on the number of students we have.
Senator Poirier: The reason I am asking is because we have heard from other witnesses in the past few weeks, many of whom told us that the reality of people, bilingual people who speak French and the reality of the number of people designated as bilingual does not always correspond exactly to Statistics Canada data, given the way the questions are asked of the population.
Mr. Laberge: Absolutely.
Senator Poirier: So I know that there are many people who would like the forms to be changed, and I think there may be some work being done in this area, to get the true portrait of the francophone population, not only in Manitoba but across Canada. So, do you think that if the form was changed, your percentage of 3.5 or 3.6 per cent of francophones, which does not include francophiles, would change significantly in the region?
Mr. Laberge: Definitely. If I may, we are talking about section 23 of the Charter, of course, which currently recognizes clause 1, but not clauses 2 and 3. By chance, statistics had been compiled by a law firm to check whether we were leaning towards clauses 2 and 3. We would go from 5,600 students — this might be about 12,000 potential beneficiaries — to over 24,000. So, more than double don’t have access to our schools because the census doesn’t identify those people for whom French is often a language of communication. These are people who come from an African country and have neither English nor French as a first language, but they have always used French to communicate from one country with another, from one village with another. These people speak French, but the census does not take it into account. We have people for whom Arabic may be a first language, but who work in French day-to-day. When they fill out the form, they check English. So, actually, having a few more questions in the short form, if I may — because the long form goes to 25 per cent, and the short form is sent to more people — would be very useful for all school divisions in Canada, mine in particular.
Senator Poirier: Can you tell me, for schools that offer French immersion, if anglophones who want to enroll in French immersion can do so up to Grade 12? From Grade 1 to Grade 12? I understand if you don’t know the answer.
Mr. Laberge: It depends on the school division. The problem when you get out of greater Winnipeg is finding teachers to teach immersion. There is often a staffing problem. It forces the school division to have its students in one school, and some parents will give up because they think the school is much too far away. In other areas, parents will find that the shortage of teachers, which is Canada-wide right now, is even greater among francophones in minority communities. So, if you don’t have teachers trained to teach French and all the other subjects as well, parents will prefer the English system because they feel like they are in a two-tier system. So, immersion programs also often lose students by force of necessity or simply because they don’t have the capacity to accommodate them in their schools.
Senator Poirier: Are any efforts being made, perhaps not to lobby, but to encourage people who take French immersion to continue their studies in French and live in French when they go to university? Are they able to? Can students enrolled in French immersion enroll in a French-language university when they finish high school, and are they encouraged to continue to live in French as much as in English?
Mr. Laberge: Absolutely.
Senator Poirier: What percentage of young people enrolled in French immersion attend university?
Mr. Csepregi: I would say that it’s currently 30 or 31 per cent. These are students coming from immersion schools, but this year the number is even higher. This year, it’s 40 per cent. If I’m talking about new students, that’s 40 per cent. They are strongly encouraged. We also promote our university in immersion schools. Recruitment is actually done, and they are admitted. If they meet the admission requirements, they are admitted. There are still interviews, for example, especially in the faculty of education. It’s important to ensure that their language skills are up to standard, and they must write exams to get into the faculty of education. If they’ve done the first three years at the Saint-Boniface University, the exam is not a problem.
However, there are studies. Because you know, to get into education, you have to complete a general bachelor’s degree, which is a three-year program of study. If they went to the University of Manitoba or the University of Winnipeg, and then come to us for two years in French, some of them have difficulty, so we don’t admit them. It is important for educators leaving university to have excellent language skills, because they are the ones who will teach young people and awaken their interest in French. They will actually teach French, so they need to be well equipped to teach in immersion schools and DSFM schools.
Senator Poirier: Thank you. Do you do a lot of recruiting outside Manitoba to attract people to the Saint-Boniface University?
Mr. Csepregi: We are trying to do more recruiting, but if we could get more grants from the government, we could hire two or three more people and spend more time recruiting. Listen, the University of Ottawa recruits in DSFM schools. It’s difficult for us to travel to other provinces because we don’t have the resources. We have two people who work in our recruiting office. So you see how important it is to support universities so that we can do more recruitment. We recruit, yes, but we also recruit outside the country.
Senator Poirier: My last question isn’t a trick question, but if I asked you to, what recommendation would you make to the committee as part of the current context of modernizing the Official Languages Act? What would your recommendation be?
Mr. Csepregi: It would be to place much more importance on educational institutions. The act doesn’t mention them at all. For instance, paragraph 43(1)(g) states that Canadian Heritage must:
. . . encourage and assist organizations and institutions to project the bilingual character of Canada in their activities in Canada or elsewhere;
The entire section makes no mention of universities, secondary schools or even daycares. They need to be mentioned. These institutions need to be named. It’s really these institutions that are the guarantors, the guardians and promoters of the language. Yet they aren’t even mentioned in the act.
Mr. Laberge: I think it should include criteria for establishing language obligations. I feel that it’s a loss for francophones outside Quebec, and by simply adjusting the census, we could get numbers that are much closer to the reality in 2018 of the number of francophones and francophiles who would be eligible to attend French-language schools.
Ms. L’Heureux: I will add to what Mr. Csepregi mentioned. Education is important, and early childhood education is very important. Education in French is a right, but we are not entitled to French-language child care. So that causes us a lot of problems. If we are not able to offer children from an early age an education in French, we have really lost our language. Many parents do not have access to these child care services. I think 17 per cent of them in Manitoba have access to French-language child care.
The other thing is that the terminology used in the law must be more aggressive or have more teeth. The terminology is weak. I think it has to be a little tougher. Thank you.
Senator Gagné: Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today. I just wanted to say that I am always inspired by your comments, and I want to thank you for your leadership and contribution to the development and vitality of Manitoba’s francophone communities. It’s greatly appreciated.
I asked the same question of the president of the Société de la francophonie manitobaine when he came to testify earlier. The chair mentioned, of course, that the Official Languages Act is the cornerstone of the federal government’s commitment, but here in Manitoba, we are now counting on the legislative framework of the new Francophone Community Enhancement and Support Act, which was adopted on June 30, 2016.
We all know that education in French is not only a fundamental right but is guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is also the cornerstone of Manitoba’s Francophone community and its development. By way of explanation of why the word “instruction” is found in the Official Languages Act, it is because section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives us the right to education. It is therefore a term found in the Charter. However, I find the perspective you brought forward, Mr. Csepregi, very interesting regarding the importance of education and to include the notion of education in the act.
We also know that education is a provincial responsibility and that a significant portion of the funding is transferred by the federal government under the Protocol for Agreements for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction. The funds are managed by the Bureau de l’éducation française, which has a fairly broad mandate, from early childhood to schools, elementary and secondary schools, and then post-secondary education. We also know that there is a key assistant deputy minister position that was recently abolished without consultation. Despite these legislative frameworks in place, certain decisions have been made that are worrying and that betray a weakening of the rights acquired by the province.
So to come back to the Official Languages Act, here is my question, which you alluded to it in your answer to Senator Poirier’s question, but I will phrase it differently. What concrete role should the Official Languages Act play in education, taking into account the fact that education is a provincial responsibility and considering the context of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? What obligation can the act impose on the federal government in education? Anyway, I will begin with this question, and I may have others based on the answers.
Mr. Laberge: That is an excellent question. Thank you very much, Senator Gagné, for mentioning that this is a provincial responsibility, but that we receive federal funding. A very problematic element is knowing where the federal funding is going and what it is used for. For us, it is very important for this act to acquire something of a watchdog role to ensure that francophones and francophiles can receive the money they are due.
You mentioned the assistant deputy minister. This unilateral decision is sort of what happens when funds are transferred under the roadmap, from the federal government to the provincial government. So are we consulted? We are sometimes, and that’s like the tip of the iceberg. Everything seems very nice above the water, but there is a lot of ice underneath, and people don’t really know about it. So that’s the first element.
The second element, of course, when it comes to criteria for setting linguistic obligations, is that the provinces are often reluctant to establish new schools. I will give you a very concrete example. Here, in Winnipeg, we have two developing neighbourhoods — Sage Creek and Transcona — where the school division has no schools, but Statistics Canada is saying that there are more than 180 francophones in Transcona and over 200 of them in Sage Creek. But the government is not taking those figures into account because only subsection 23(1) of the charter is used. If that right to federal services in French could really be applied, it would help us tremendously.
Mr. Csepregi: I may want to propose two elements. First, when considering Part VII, I wonder why the promotion of French is restricted to a single department and why other departments — such as health or immigration — or all departments don’t have an obligation to promote French. It is well known that the Saint-Boniface University receives grants for its health programs, and we are indirectly related to Health Canada. So shouldn’t Health Canada also have an obligation to promote both French, of course, and English? I think that insertion should be put forward.
Second, the legislation could set out — and I’m not sure how — that partnerships between the federal government and provincial governments should be more encouraged. I am thinking of two projects here. The first project that is currently being carried out is an infrastructure project at the Saint-Boniface University, and those infrastructure projects are carried out not only at the university, but at many other universities thanks to federal/provincial co-operation. The second project is the one we put forward to build a kindergarten, and we are still waiting for a response. We want to have a kindergarten at the Saint-Boniface University, a centre of excellence for early childhood. So, once again, we submitted a request to Canadian Heritage and are waiting for a positive response.
Of course, the province must also contribute. So there must be more co-operation, and the act should in a way encourage provincial and federal authorities to make very concrete proposals of projects to support education at all levels. I think this is one way to stress the fact that education is indeed a provincial responsibility, but that, at the same time, the federal government must provide very concrete support. We could also be talking about — but this is more over the long term — co-operation in research. Research is obviously supported at the federal level through various funding agencies, but the provinces provide very little ongoing support for research, especially in social sciences. So we should once again stress establishing a better agreement and better co-operation between the two authorities when it comes to research. I don’t know whether that answers your question.
Senator Gagné: Thank you. Yes, given the importance of the education continuum, a number of witnesses have told us that the continuum was at the core of a community’s development and vitality. Considering the importance of the education continuum, and of accountability in fund transfers, as you mentioned, do you think a specific part of the legislation should focus on education? So, in addition to Part VII, there would be a Part VIII that would cover specifically education.
Mr. Laberge: That would be very important. I think you mentioned, senator, that education is the foundation of our society. Education in French in a minority setting is even more important. That continuum must survive and there must be better connections, so that we can have a part on education and accountability. It would be a dream for me to also have elements related to research, as it was mentioned earlier, to be able to go further.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
Mr. Csepregi: Yes, I think that is an excellent suggestion. It’s too bad it did not come from us, but from the senator.
Senator Gagné: I asked the question.
Mr. Csepregi: I think it is entirely appropriate. I feel that a part should focus on that. We are increasingly understanding that education not only ensures a community’s vitality, but that it has a tremendous effect on crime, health and family cohesion. I mentioned that it impacts culture as a whole and the stability of institutions we are familiar with. So education is the foundation of everything and, if I may say so, since the abolition of the assistant deputy minister position was mentioned, the major flaw in the steps the government has taken to reduce the budget deficit is precisely unilateral cutting without a real concern for figuring out whether cuts should not be made in some sectors. Education must be considered differently from other sectors where a cut may be justified. I am not in a position to judge that. My colleagues and I are trying to present arguments to government representatives to the effect that, in education and in French education, cuts are not justified and must not be put forward.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you. We are very happy to have you with us today to answer our many questions. I have a question for Mr. Laberge about school infrastructure, but before I put it to him, I would like to make two quick remarks.
You brought up the absence of mechanisms to ensure that the Official Languages Act is fully implemented — mechanisms such as a review of the powers granted to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and those granted to the Treasury Board, in addition to a strengthening of the Commissioner of Official Languages’ powers, and so on. I must say that I completely agree with that observation. I actually mentioned that to the first panel of witnesses.
My second question is about the education continuum. As we all know, the idea of ensuring a continuum of education in French is not new. In the first part of our study, young people told us about the importance of including clear references in the act concerning early childhood and post-secondary education, which are part of the education continuum. I would like to make a quick comment here about the Minister of Canadian Heritage remaining silent on the commitments to make in terms of early childhood and post-secondary education, even though she has the power to make those commitments under section 43, Part VII of the act. That said, I am happy to see that your organizations are coming back with this idea of integrating the various components of the education continuum into the act. So congratulations, and I really liked your presentations on that!
I don’t intend to repeat everything that has been said so far, so I will come back to Mr. Laberge. Mr. Laberge, you raised the issue of school infrastructure in your brief. I understand that the Division scolaire franco-manitobaine is facing challenges similar to those experienced in British Columbia in terms of access to school infrastructure, and I would like you to tell us more about that.
Mr. Laberge: Interestingly enough, I spent 13 years with the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique, so I am very familiar with the challenges they may have faced in terms of infrastructure. I had the opportunity to go through that fight with them. The same fight is taking place here. In other words, if I go back 15 years, it was impossible for francophones to get access to land. You know what the situation in Vancouver is like with land costing a fortune. Most of the land belonged to the Vancouver Board of Education, which did not want to let go of it. In Winnipeg, the situation is very similar. The city is growing, as is the population, and English school boards have control. For example, if there is a new council — so a new development structure — there must mechanically be a school on a specific territory. That is what the developer will be told. And who is called? The English school board is called to have an English and immersion school built. And what’s left for us? What is left for us is to see whether we can use or buy any existing buildings. That’s because land is increasing rare.
In the Sage Creek area I talked to you about earlier, we randomly came upon a building. It doesn’t matter to me whether the school division is informed first or the Société franco-manitobaine is, but francophones must be told about that first because it would help for Aboriginals and francophones level the playing field somewhat. We can visit the building and tell the department of education that we saw it and what the costs will be, based on our analyses, of acquiring that building to turn it into a school, so as to address the lack of francophone schools in the region. I live in the Sage Creek region and I see buses passing by on their way to my daughter’s school. It’s one hour of travelling. My daughter is a 37-second walk away from the immersion school that was just built. In her head, the children who attend that school are weekend friends. So her network is split in two. If we were at least the first ones informed, we could determine whether we needed those buildings or not, but we would at least have an opportunity to decide. So that is a vital issue for us.
Senator McIntyre: I will end on this note. Our Senate committee went to British Columbia last year, if I remember correctly, and we heard horror stories about the disposal of federal land. That said, I am seeing the same thing happening here in Manitoba. I am totally shocked that the federal government is behaving in this way, and I would hope that you will continue to lobby the departments in charge to remedy the situation. It’s completely unacceptable. Thank you, Mr. Laberge.
Senator Moncion: Senator McIntyre has encroached on my territory, but I will go further with questions about buildings because it is really worrisome to see that our federal public servants don’t have the instinct to consult you. I will go further. What kind of steps could you take to use the act? I think there is a piece of legislation on the sale of the federal government’s buildings. So what could you do to ensure that this piece of legislation would contain provisions providing that, before opening the sale up to the general public, public servants have to check or at least inform the provinces, the federal government, the school boards, and so on? How could you integrate that aspect into a piece of legislation in order to prevent federal public servants from passing you over? What could you do in that respect?
Mr. Laberge: The act already gives us that right. It is there, but it is not applied, so is the procedure known? We have had some opportunities to speak to public servants who told us that they did not even know they had to do that. So a piece of legislation does exist. Buildings should be offered to Aboriginals and francophones first, but when the file comes to a public servant’s desk about such and such a building being sold, on Boulevard Lagimodière, the building will be auctioned off. It is sold to the highest bidder and no one knows about it. So the legislation should set out the procedure, a fundamental rule or course of action stipulating that every public servant must know that, when a building is updated, the procedure should be similar to what it is at the Association of Manitoba Land Surveyors, or AMLS. However, instead of being sent to the AMLS, the information would be sent to the province’s francophone school divisions, at the very least. I will not say “in Canada” because I don’t intend to buy a building in Ontario, but it would be a matter of francophone groups being informed when a building is available in every province at the very least. It would be reported to either us or the Société franco-manitobaine, which often acts as something of an umbrella authority for francophones here. I don’t like to use the term “slap on the wrist” because I am in education, and we are rarely taught to slap wrists, but that population and those public servants must be educated, as I note that the majority of public servants are unaware of this procedure. Those I have spoken to on the telephone were even confused and told me that they had no idea. So someone somewhere has failed to pass on the message.
Senator Moncion: I’m sorry, but this is totally absurd!
Mr. Laberge: I completely agree with you.
Senator Moncion: This would give you the right to sue the government.
Mr. Laberge: Exactly.
Senator Moncion: Those public servants are not complying with the legislation, and that would enable you to get money to build your school.
Mr. Laberge: I can take you back to the horror stories I experienced in British Columbia. I remember the horrors; it was worse than horrors. It was theft, quite simply, by the federal government and the private sector. The private sector knew that we did not have access to federal lands. So the price of local municipal land soared because they knew full well that the francophones needed that sector to build a school, that the RCMP building on Cambie was no longer available. A school, for $18 million. We cannot afford that. So yes, it is appalling. People have to take responsibility for that, I humbly submit. I am not saying that people do it on purpose, but I think there are some people who do it on purpose.
Senator Moncion: My second question is for — but I do not want to mispronounce your family name, sir.
Mr. Csepregi: That happens sometimes. Not because she is here, but the person who pronounces my name the best is Senator Gagné. Impeccable, really, I mean it!
Senator Moncion: You mentioned something earlier and I think it pertains to all of you. We speak French, but there is a strong interest in learning another language. First of all, how many languages do you speak?
Mr. Csepregi: Well, I get by in both official languages, Hungarian is my first language, and I can get by in German as well because I studied philosophy, so it was essential. When I am in Mexico, I have two Coronas, and my Spanish is good.
Senator Moncion: That brings me to the desire to learn another language. What can we do to make people want to learn a second language? Let me tell you a bit about my experience as a Franco-Ontarian, because I come from a family that spoke French only. When I started grade school, I had to start learning English starting in Grade 2, and I hated it. I had absolutely no interest and my mother did not encourage me to speak English either. Later on, at high school in Ontario, in order to graduate and get our diploma, we also had to pass English in Grades 9 through 12. It does not make sense because the anglophones do not have that requirement. The fact that it was required never made me want to learn English. I learned it though, of course. I was in Ontario and I could manage in both official languages. What interests me is the desire to learn another language. How can we develop that crucial desire in a system that requires us to learn another language, whether it is French or English, if we are forced to do it? How can that be done?
Mr. Csepregi: It is often a question of chance, chance encounters, but I would like to highlight certain experiences. I think it is difficult for a family to instill that desire because the last thing that children want to do at the age of 12 is listen to their parents. They are not interested in what their parents have to say. Later on, they become much wiser, I think you would agree. I think it is up to educators. Jacqueline de Romilly, an educator in France, wrote some very good books. She also developed a love of literature and refined her knowledge of the French language. It is really up to educators, educators who have a passion for the language and who can really make their students understand that learning French is not just about getting a job. It is also fundamentally enriching on a human level to have a good knowledge of French and of various creations in the French language.
I wanted to add two more things. A taste for cultivating one’s mind has to develop, just as the taste of wine does. People have to cultivate that love of the French language throughout their lives, and as to the continuum in education, of course, there is the family, daycare, high schools, university, but in this part about education, we must also stress continuing education, that is, learning after the years spent at university or college. I think the act must also include the educational environment students are in. What do I mean by that? Theatre, television, newspapers. We have journalists from La Liberté here. In order for La Liberté to continue to be supported and to put out very good articles that appeal to students, we must create an educational society, in a sense, I think, where language is recognized not only as an important tool for communication, but also as a source of enrichment. That is the idea.
Once again, it is the educator’s passion and spark that can instill a desire to learn a language, as well as being fortunate to have a few models. I started liking French after reading Une saison dans la vie d’Emmanuel, quite an exceptional novel, and I also liked Un simple soldat, by Marcel Dubé. So literature can also instill a love for the language.
Mr. Laberge: If I may say so, we have asked our students about this and they often said they see French as a language of work. Perhaps it is like that for you in Ontario. So French has not been taught as a language for having fun, laughing or crying, as Gabor said. We certainly like our work, but we are happy when the bell rings on Friday so we can go home and have fun. So the language has to be something that is fun and lively.
When you go to Mexico — we were talking about Mexico earlier —, you quickly learn the words. You want to learn them. First “cerveza” and then “baño,” because after a few “cervezas” you say “baño, por favor.” That is what I mean.
Senator Moncion: I would go even further. Young people have talked to us about the importance of bilingualism, something we have not discussed that much this morning. For the young anglophones we have met, however, that is an aspect of the language that is extremely important to them. It seems that young people today do not want to identify as closely with the francophone or anglophone community. They seem to want to identify with bilingualism. There are issues with the quality of spoken French, however, and that is another comment we heard from the young people who said their French is often not good enough. They get corrected and that bothers them. So there is also some exclusivity associated with the language, as well as the whole bilingualism aspect. Finally, in all the comments you made this morning, you also touched on the importance of the words chosen to strengthen the Official Languages Act. Thank you for those comments and we will see where it takes us. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Before I give the floor to Senator Mégie, I have a question about what inspires people to learn a second language. We went to Prince Edward Island, where young immersion students told us that, basically, people do not fall in love with a grammar rule. People fall in love with an activity, a language, because it opens them up to authentic experiences and cultural experiences.
Mr. Csepregi, you said earlier that 40 per cent of your students come from the immersion program. Do you see a cultural difference between those students and the francophone students? In other words, have the young people from immersion schools made a strong enough link between language and culture? At all the elementary schools we visited in Prince Edward Island, we were told that there are weaknesses in that regard.
Mr. Csepregi: It is hard to say, but the students I have met are all in nursing and the arts. Some who are in the sciences want to go into medicine. I have talked to a number of students and they really do want to speak well. They want to speak well and use the language correctly. For my part, I do not see a difference between them. Perhaps they are not as familiar with Franco-Manitoban history, I see some weakness in that regard, but they do have respect for the language. Perhaps not love for the language, but great respect, from what I have seen. They would like to be in an environment where they can really practise both languages. I have not noticed a big difference between them. Even Franco-Manitobans speak English among themselves sometimes, and we do not correct them. We are very happy to have them with us, but sometimes it is not that easy to tell the difference between a Franco-Manitoban and an immersion student, because an immersion student speaks French as well as the others. They both speak very well. So I do not see a difference, here in Manitoba, at least.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.
Senator Mégie: I just wanted to discuss something with you quickly. After Senator Poirier’s questions, I was looking at the language statistics page for Manitoba, and you said that, among the possible suggestions, the criteria should be changed. The criteria seem to be confusing for everyone. I noticed that, between 2006 and 2016, the percentage dropped, on all the criteria. It is as though everything is dropping off: French as a mother tongue, as the language spoken at home, as the first official language spoken. What does that mean for the people? There is also the rate of French-English bilingualism. Are you concerned by the decline in all these areas? Do you think this is the result of a bias created by the criteria or does it indicate what is really happening?
Mr. Laberge: Am I concerned? Yes. We are concerned because many people will rely on these statistics without ever really taking the time to analyze them properly. You talked about the way the question is worded. I would say that a parent who wants to enroll their child in the French-language school board will look at section 23. Nine times out of ten, they do not necessarily understand the wording and do not know if they are at the right place. So it is similar when people fill out a survey. I had the opportunity to work on the questionnaire with a number of management colleagues. Even we said that immersion schools are not the same across Canada, that they differ from province to province. So from the parent’s point of view — and this is something we also see often — the first language learned is not necessarily French or English, but the person will put English anyway because it is their language of work, or for some other reason.
So are the statistics conclusive? In our opinion, no. Is it alarming? Yes, because in any case if someone somewhere has not filled out the survey properly or the question was not asked properly, or perhaps our numbers are dropping of… but I am inclined to think the opposite, because we see high demand for immersion in all the provinces.
Senator Mégie: The point of my question was that, when Ms. L’Heureux was talking about early childhood and high school, I understood that enrolment drops off between high school and university. There is a dip. I wondered whether that is due to the drop in the percentage, or if it is related to funding, as you mentioned earlier.
Mr. Laberge: I can talk about high schools and Mr. Csepregi can answer with regard to universities. A survey was conducted three years ago, I think. Grade 12 students were asked why they were not all necessarily going to the Saint-Boniface University because, to quote Mr. Csepregi, it is the only choice. Unfortunately, with regard to funding, and Mr. Csepregi could say more about this, the problem is that our students do not have access to all the faculties at the Saint-Boniface University, because it does not have the funding to offer all the programs. I am sure that if the Saint-Boniface University offered all the programs, our students would not necessarily leave.
There is also a lack of understanding. Many of our students do not understand that they can study at the Saint-Boniface University for two years, that all their courses will be recognized and that, two years later, they can go elsewhere. They are afraid of not being able to transfer so they go to Ottawa right away. The wealthiest universities, such as Ottawa, Sherbrooke, McGill and British Columbia, have also been making a very, very strong push. They come to our schools and offer the francophone students scholarships of $10,000 or $15,000. They compete with each other, so the students have the choice. Many of our students have told us — and this is something we have to work on — that it always seems like the same little group between Grade 12 and what I call the first year of university. In the village of Saint-Jean-Baptiste, for instance, if there were five students in Grade 12, the same five students would be together the following year. Some will say, “good, the same three girls, the same two guys, I know them”, without realizing that there are many international and immersion students. So that is something else we have to work on.
Mr. Csepregi: A number of students might be looking for a girlfriend later on, which is normal. They might be somewhere else and then in many cases come back from the University of Manitoba or the University of Winnipeg, looking for a friendlier environment. So the slogan I use — as Alain put it so well — is that the Saint-Boniface University is not the first choice for francophones, it is the only choice. There you go.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will conclude the meeting on that positive note. Thank you to our three witnesses.
[English]
We are now pleased to welcome, from Canadian Parents for French - Manitoba, Ms. Rena Prefontaine, President; Ms. Krystyna Baranowski, Vice-President; and Ms. Catherine Davies, Executive Director.
Canadian Parents for French is a national volunteer network that recognizes the value of learning French and actively promotes opportunities for young Canadians to learn and use French as a second language.
Welcome. The floor is yours.
[Translation]
Krystyna Baranowski, Vice President, Canadian Parents for French - Manitoba: Hello, senators. The members of Canadian Parents for French — Manitoba thank you for this invitation.
[English]
Canadian Parents for French - Manitoba, or CPF Manitoba, is part of a nationwide, research-informed, volunteer organization that champions the opportunity to learn and use French for all those who call Canada home. We support and provide services to Manitoba’s 82,000 French second language students. French second language, or FSL, refers to core French — French in English schools — and French immersion.
We provide FSL students with a variety of French socio-cultural learning opportunities and we are a leader in the promotion of FSL learning. Our “French: An Opportunity of a Lifetime” project encourages students to continue their FSL studies through high school and beyond, and our FSL Certificates of Merit recognize their FSL achievements at the high school level.
Our most well-known and successful initiative is French for Life, which encourages FSL enrolment. Its facets include interactive presentations for students, information sessions for parents and educators, public visual advertising campaigns, and a website. French for Life’s success is reflected in increased French immersion enrolment in Manitoba, which is now at an all-time high of 25,000 students and growing.
French for Life also presented to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages in April 2015, as it supports a recommendation of the Aiming Higher report:
That Canadian Heritage . . . increase, its investments in official-language promotion and learning, taking into account . . . the active promotion of bilingualism; increased official language proficiency; innovative practices; and funding.”
The CPF network had hoped that French for Life, as a fully developed and proven FSL promotional initiative, would be taken nation-wide. However, CPF applications to Canadian Heritage for funding for this purpose have been unsuccessful. This is discouraging, as we believe that a modernized Official Languages Act will only be accepted and implemented if the populace is proactively educated and informed about the history, relevance and benefits of official language bilingualism in Canada.
How can the federal government enhance its support for linguistic duality?
The federal government has the duty and the power to provide financial support so that, in Canada, all students have the opportunity to learn both French and English and to access the language programs which meet their needs and aspirations; that, in an official language minority context such as in Manitoba, all children may access core French — French in English Schools — or French immersion, with core French mandatory from K to 12, with suitably qualified teachers; and that all students have access to effective English- and French-language programs taught by qualified, competent teachers from kindergarten to post-secondary levels.
The federal government should encourage and support exciting and appealing pan-Canadian public promotional campaigns that give relevance to the history of Canada’s official languages and their importance in current Canadian culture; that encourage the learning of English and French across Canada and highlight the benefits of learning both of Canada’s official languages; that foster an acceptance and appreciation of both languages and build on the strengths and advantages of bilingual and multilingual competencies in our globalized economy; and that inspire youth to carry the official languages torch and make them proud to pass on this torch to future generations.
So what steps can be taken to improve enforcement of the act?
Promotion of official bilingualism is the key to influencing enforcement or “buy-in” at all levels of society, in all levels of government, in workplaces, in educational establishments and in cultural arenas.
Educational leaders should be made accountable for setting educational policies; providing stable funding; ensuring a sufficient supply of trained, competent official language teachers; reporting on achievement of students and official language programs in a timely, transparent manner; and facilitating parental and community stakeholder engagement in open, inclusive decision making.
The backbone of any effective language learning program stems from the strength and leadership of its teachers. Universities and local governments within the province of Manitoba should consult with other provinces and strongly consider: the use and acceptance of the DELF — Diplôme d’études de langue française — grounded in the CECR, or Common European Reference, as a common assessment tool for language proficiency which is recognized worldwide; an option of sheltered courses for our officially bilingual students attending non-francophone universities, such as is available at the University of Ottawa; dedicated streams for FSL graduates entering education to become core or immersion teachers at their choice of university; bursaries for education students intending to teach FSL in Manitoba; and heavily subsidized professional development to keep current FSL teachers up to date in theory and teaching materials, and to encourage best practice.
With regard to research needs, there is a need for sharing, at the local, provincial and national level, of reports, updates and successful projects in FSL. Further research is needed on the potential of strong, enriched core French programs and how to counteract the shrinking of core French classes. And by “shrinking,” I mean the numbers in enrolment in core French.
Post-secondary research tracking of French immersion and core French students is needed. What happens to their French? How is French used in their daily lives after high school?
Active inclusion of EAL — English as an Additional Language — learners is necessary to widen their acceptance into French. Best strategies and results could be studied in order to reassure parents and to equip teachers with the latest information on inclusion in French.
Within Manitoba, the Ministry of Education and our faculties of education, with support and funding, could initiate research-based studies in pedagogical innovation to ensure student motivation and retention in both core French and French immersion from elementary to post-secondary levels.
How can we ensure that English and French are respected as Canada’s official languages in a changing sociolinguistic and demographic environment?
We must recognize and embrace the momentum of the changing demographics in Canada. A clear message must be sent that in a bilingual Canada, French and English are an integral part of daily life and national identity. At the same time, Canada is inclusive and respectful of other languages, including Indigenous languages.
Is the act in its current form still an effective tool for ensuring substantive equality of both official languages in Canadian society?
If the act is to be an effective tool — for reference, consultation and enforcement purposes — for the general population, workplaces and governments, it needs to be updated, simplified and democratized. This would consist of creating a clear, concise, understandable version of the act. There could, for example, be two versions: a legal version and a democratized version.
Further, the act could take advantage of new technologies to provide clickable executive summaries or fact sheets pertaining to key points or definitions. The website could provide FAQ sections, text-to-voice information and examples with discussion of past rulings and enforcements of the act. A series of vignettes of the type created by Canadian Heritage regarding our history and culture — I don’t know if you remember these, but I do — could be created to dramatize important legal cases and the rights of all Canadians to access both French and English. These vignettes would be “mediatized” and could appear on television, on YouTube, and on government websites, as well as be made available to schools together with appropriate learning kits.
Should the federal government include a periodic review of the Official Languages Act in its provisions? The act should be reviewed every 10 to 15 years for relevance and accessibility.
[Translation]
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Baranowski, for your presentation, precise proposition and concrete examples.
We’ll start the question period with Senator Poirier.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for being here. We have met different times with Canadian Parents for French. I know we met them when we were in Prince Edward Island. I really appreciate all the hard work you do to promote the importance being able to learn both official languages.
My question follows a comment that you made, and correct me if I’m stating this incorrectly. You mentioned that the number of students in French immersion is 25,000 and growing. You also said that core French or French immersion should be available from K to 12 and that it should be enforced or it should be part of the act if at all possible.
I think it was in Prince Edward Island that we met with a group who told us how the French they learned in the core French program was limited. Most of them who did follow the core French program could not speak French enough to have a conversation back and forth with a francophone person, that it was more about learning how to say words such as “window,” “floor,” “car.”
Knowing that, I sometimes question how much help we are actually giving a student who really wants to become bilingual by offering just core French. Should we not be putting more effort into upping the availability and number of seats in the schools, and if not through the schools, even with adults who want to learn the second language? We could at least start at an earlier age through French immersion. I’d like to hear your thoughts on that.
Ms. Baranowski: I think one of the problems with core French in Manitoba is that it is up to the divisions to decide whether they offer core French or not. Most of them do, and they offer it now from Grades 4 to 7, maybe 4 to 8. So students don’t start until Grade 4.
I don’t believe this was ever mandated, but we did have specialists for teaching core French. You could take training at university to become a core French teacher. There were courses available.
This has now become a “generalist” situation so that when you apply to teach the middle years, Grades 5 to 8, they ask, “Can you do some French?” “Maybe.” “All right, you’re hired.” So you don’t have dedicated specialists teaching core French. That’s one of the problems or weaknesses of the program.
Canadian Parents for French can agree or not, but from my position as a university professor in the Faculty of Education, I personally would like to see the K to 12 program offered in core French with teachers who have been trained and can speak French. They don’t have to be perfect, but they have to have the desire to speak French. Their arms can’t be twisted.
I would like to see enriched programs of a core French variety and possible ways — I don’t know if this will ever happen — of streaming them into the immersion program at entry points, say in Grade 4 or Grade 7, for late immersion, if they’re strong enough in core French. Core French could give them the motivation to continue and move on into French immersion, which is really where they will spend the time necessary to acquire the French.
As to your point about students who are able to say “window” and “door,” there are some wonderful clips on the Manitoba government website showcasing what core French students can do in Grade 8; they can carry on a conversation. It’s halting. But it showcases what they can do at the high school level. You listen to them and think that with a little more help and maybe an exchange or some travel time in Quebec or overseas, this is actually very strong work coming from these students. And this was a francophone interviewing them. That’s probably the worst situation that an anglophone could imagine, a perfect speaker of French. Whether or not their title is “francophone,” the boundaries are up and the fear is there. So these students do exist and they’ve come out of core French.
Senator Poirier: Did you have anything you wanted to add?
Rena Prefontaine, President, Canadian Parents for French - Manitoba: No, I agree.
Senator Poirier: It’s interesting. The level of core French being taught is probably different in each province because each province governs its own education system, and I can understand that. I was just curious.
I have another question. I talked about this with another panel earlier this morning. We talked about the statistical forms used to determine the percentage of people who should be able to be considered francophones, francophiles. A lot of what we’re hearing from different groups is that the picture is not the same as the statistics show because of the way the questions on the form are written.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on that. Do you feel that it would make a difference in Manitoba if the form question was different? Would it increase the percentage of people and maybe help increase the finances and the level of education we could offer to the people who want it?
Ms. Prefontaine: Yes, I definitely think for sure, if the questions are worded differently.
I’m an anglophone. I took all my schooling in complete French, because at the time I entered kindergarten there was no immersion program. So you were either French or you were English.
To go back a little bit, when I entered kindergarten, it was the first time that they actually allowed English-speaking children into the French program. Six of us started kindergarten that year, and when we graduated Grade 12 there were five of us left from anglophone families. So we were a success.
Do I identify myself as a francophone? No. I definitely identify myself as a francophile. However, I’m still an anglophone. So when I’m filling out the census forms, I find it — and we’ve had the discussion and I’ve had the discussion with my colleagues across the country that as francophiles maybe we need to start exercising our right to demand services in French. I think sometimes once we’ve left high school, or whatever the case is, unless you’re working and living in French, it’s difficult to maintain your level of French from when you graduated. The challenge becomes, “I’m more comfortable doing my banking in English; I know the terms in English because I’ve lived that now and I’ve been away from the French for so long.”
I don’t know if there are more questions that need to be asked. I get that it’s difficult on a national survey because there are so many different, unique situations out there. But, yes, I think it would probably give the census more legitimacy if there was a broader spectrum of questions regarding how you identify yourself.
Senator Poirier: I also noticed that you mentioned in your opening comments about the importance of not waiting another 50 years to look at the law and that it should be revised. I totally agree with that and I think a lot of people do. We’ve heard it from many different witnesses who have come before us. I know in New Brunswick we have done it; we set a time limit such that it has to be looked at every so many years. I think that’s something that needs to be done because bilingualism in Canada is definitely not the same today as it was 50 years ago. I feel personally it’s important that the law moves with us as we move forward and become a more bilingual country. I want to thank you for your comments on that.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: A question was raised with our other witnesses. What inspires a child to learn a language? I know all parents want the best for their child, as you said. They want their child to be able to get a job, be part of the community and part of linguistic duality. What is the spark that makes a parent want their child to like the French language? We also heard from young people who said that their parents had forced them to learn French at school. Some really liked it, while others said that, if they were given the chance to switch at some point, they would switch. How does your group, how do the parents in your group approach this? How could they instill a love for French in their children to keep them immersed in French for a longer time?
Ms. Baranowski: We will both answer. I would say first that we have to reassure and inform the parents. We have orientation sessions, for instance, before the start of kindergarten immersion. We answer all their questions then. Many parents recognize the need to speak French, because it opens the door to other languages. Are people citizens of the world nowadays? I think so. So that is a way of selling French, along with the many languages that are similar to French, languages derived from Latin and even English, understanding language, being open to people and getting along well with one’s neighbours. There are a lot of parents who support these principles. I have trainees in the schools. I talk to the parents. So I think this is an important aspect.
You talked about a spark, and I think that might actually be the teacher. That personal contact, that assurance provided by a well-trained teacher who loves the language, who loves the students, who is willing to do anything for the students, who plans excursions and exchanges and invites French-speaking guests. I think that would be the ideal, the model teacher. So if there is a good teacher, the school welcomes them and we always maintain contact with the parents. One of my trainees is now an immersion teacher and she has her own website that parents can look at it at any time. There are pictures and the site is secure so only the parents and children have access to it. They see outstanding classroom activities for the Grade 2 French immersion class. She is very proud of her site, which is very, very effective. She has the parents’ support, is very happy, and so are the students, and that is obvious.
Ms. Prefontaine: From the students’ point of view, I think they want to continue on in French because of the programs that are offered. In Manitoba, we created the Jeune artiste du Manitoba program, a singing competition similar to “Canadian Idol,” but for students of French. It was a big success for us. As we said, there is also the French for Life program. So there are a lot of activities and things the students can do. There are cultural outings at our schools and I think the more we can give students beyond actual instruction, the more motivated they will be to pursue their education in French, and not just because their parents insist on it.
[English]
Catherine Davies, Executive Director, Canadian Parents for French - Manitoba: Can I just add to that?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Davies: We’re currently working on an initiative: “I’m teaching in French.” It’s going to be a promotional initiative to actually encourage young people to consider teaching as a viable and worthwhile career, teaching the French language or teaching in the French language.
Only last week we interviewed some students at the University of Saint-Boniface. They were, I believe, first- or second-year education students. We asked what made them want to teach French. I would say that 99 per cent of the answers were all connected to a particular teacher that had inspired them at some point. It was just incredible to see all these comments, “Well, it was Madam or Monsieur such and such; they were the inspiration, the spark.”
Senator Moncion: Rena and Catherine, I was at the breakfast that you organized on the Hill, and I thought that the work you do to promote is very important.
How you are seen by the French and the English school boards? Are you part of the English school board, the French school board, or are you autonomous institutions?
Ms. Prefontaine: I will respond to that on behalf of us.
We definitely work a lot more closely with the English school board because that is where the French immersion students are represented, through the regular school boards. But we do have a connection as well with the DSFM, the francophone school division. We’ve been asked to partner with a lot of different francophone organizations.
We’re in a unique position where we are very fortunate that we do represent so many students, so it is important for us to be at the table when there are discussions about a lot of the issues within Manitoba.
CPF in Manitoba is extremely fortunate to have partnerships with all of the different organizations. We’ve been invited this year to sit on different boards and committees with them, so it’s been a great year for us. We are very proud of our relationships with our partner organizations within the province. I know other provinces don’t necessarily have that access because they’re less francophone or less bilingual than Manitoba. So in Manitoba we are very lucky that we do work closely with all of them.
Senator Moncion: But in some provinces immersion schools are seen as competitors to the French schools. What is happening is that more English students are accepted in the French environment, and gradually these schools are having problems keeping French as the language that is used by their children. So there’s a matter of competition there. But thank you for your answer.
What I really like is your suggestion to bring more collaboration within the Official Languages Act.
My other question is this: How do you maintain your language skills once you leave high school? I worked in French for 38 years of my life. To keep up with English, I read. I would read books and sometimes speak English out loud as I was reading a few sentences.
What tools do you give the children once they leave high school and they’re in an English environment? What tools do you provide them or tricks to keep up with the French language so that when they do need it, they can reuse it and it’s going to be easier for them? Do you provide tools?
Ms. Prefontaine: I’ll let Krystyna reply to the educational part.
When you’re leaving high school, are you given tools? My experience was I didn’t use French for about 10 or 15 years after I graduated. The first time I really used it in a case of employment was when I interviewed with Air Canada. Well, that was terrifying for me. But it comes back.
Since my involvement with CPF, I have been asked to participate on French committees and boards of directors. One of the things I found is that I started reading again in French. Whether it’s the French newspaper here in Manitoba, or the Winnipeg Free Press once a week, a French article, I read that. It may not be something I’m interested in, but it’s just to get to know French again.
My stepfather was completely anglophone. At 86 years old, my stepdad took a learning French course through continuing education. He never used it, but he didn’t care. He had always wanted to learn French, and finally at 86 he was able to do it.
Again, I’ll let Krystyna answer from the school’s perspective, but I think if French is really important to you or if it’s something you’re going to use, there are ways to bring your French back up. I know there are programs I can take. I find my spoken French is not too bad. It comes back. My written French is atrocious now, so I rely on Google Translate or the like. That’s something I’m going to continue to work on because of my involvement with Canadian Parents for French and also with our other francophone organizations.
Ms. Baranowski: For me, to keep my French after leaving high school — I had not done French immersion. It wasn’t available. I had core French, but I had some very good teachers. If I were going overseas — we have family in Europe, on the Polish side, and on my mom’s side, English. I would go to France just to be surrounded by French, just to do it.
I’ve told my future teachers, “Spend some money out of your pockets; divisions can’t afford everything. Go to where you will only be surrounded by French, and speak French. Cultivate French friends here. You can do it. You can do it on campus; you can attend activities.”
USB has Les chiens de soleil, so we’ll arrange to go to the theatre and to support USB, to be familiar with it and go inside. Use the French teaching resources if you’re becoming a teacher, but somehow bring French into your life. I have said that it can be boyfriends; they’re important. It can be travel and it can be making that extra effort.
We’re actually very rich French-wise in Manitoba. There are all kinds of organizations; there are things that can interest you. If you want to go rock climbing in French, you can do it. You have to do your homework.
And I think you have to make this point: Perhaps students should be given a leaving kit when they leave Grade 12, and if they leave before they should be given the leaving kit, and just talked to because this certainly is for personal enrichment.
Mr. Gabor Csepregi mentioned it when he was talking about motivation to continue with French. You have to feel this love for the language and the pleasure in it. There’s no pleasure if you’re going to be “martelé” and punished and made to speak French in the corridors.
There’s a PhD student, and I’m on her committee. She’s doing a learning landscape in École à double voie, a French immersion school in the DSFM. She’s looking at all the rules and regulations, what’s posted up on the walls.
You cannot force-feed students with French. You have to make them love it. I think something like a going-away kit: “This is what’s open to you and these are the bursaries and the possibilities while you’re still student age.”
A number of students have gone on Explore. Thank goodness for Explore, because the students come back with confidence and abilities. These things could be available for students when they leave.
Perhaps the schools and divisions could pull in parents and say, “We have a French night coming up.” One of my former students out in Portage la Prairie set up a French evening for parents. They worked on the French and worked on food. Then they said, “I want you to go home now and have dinner in French with your children.” This is about food and life and enjoying it, and it’s real. That’s maybe how you promote it.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
The Chair: We’re at the end of this session, but I will allow Senator McIntyre and Senator Gagné to ask their questions.
Senator McIntyre: I have two short questions.
Canadian Parents for French is a national network of volunteers who feel that the French language is an integral part of Canada, and rightfully so because Canada has two official languages, French and English. Hopefully we’ll never lose sight of that objective, of that vision. I’d like to hear from you on the element of volunteerism. It’s fantastic that you’re all volunteers.
I’ll ask the second part of the question now: What kind of relationship are you entertaining with the other chapters across Canada? My understanding is that there are some 170 chapters across the country. Do you often talk to them? Do you have exchanges with them?
Ms. Prefontaine: On the volunteering aspect in our schools here in Manitoba, volunteering is part of their high school requirements. I think that teaches them from a very young age. I think why we get involved, personally, is to give something back to my community. I’ve had many opportunities and career opportunities having known a second language. So for me, it’s important to be able to help get that message out.
As far as your second part of the question, working with my colleagues across the country, because I am the President of Canadian Parents for French, we actually meet on a regular basis via teleconferences with the other presidents and vice-presidents across the country. We meet at our annual general meeting once a year in person. But we also share with our chapters in our own province. There is an opportunity after our provincial AGM for the chapters to share what has worked in their community and what hasn’t worked, their struggles, whether it is busing or whatever the case may be for each community. They have that opportunity to really share with each other and learn and grow.
The volunteerism within CPF is fantastic. I find we have a lot of very dedicated volunteers.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you.
Senator Gagné: I’d like to thank CPF Manitoba for your leadership, your contributions, your efforts and your ongoing advocacy. You make a difference. You do really make a difference in Manitoba, and you make a difference when it comes to promoting opportunities for young Manitobans to learn in French.
Also, I’d like to thank you for maintaining ties with the francophone organizations. I think it’s very beneficial for the organizations and I hope it’s also beneficial for your organization. So thank you for that.
I had a couple questions, but I know time is running out so I’m going to stick to one question. How could the Official Languages Act better help you achieve your objective as an organization and help young people whose first language is not French fully express their identity or their identification with the two official languages?
Ms. Baranowski: I have one quick idea. When the Manitoba Ministry of Education brought out the new program for French immersion and new curriculum, it had this huge egg-shaped design and then it said, “J’affiche ma francophonie.” This is for immersion kids. So this is saying, “My identity has changed.” It’s an evolution; it’s constantly changing. Some days you’re going to be more French than others, depending if you’re travelling or spending time in school or whatever. It’s a growth pattern. So you’re no longer a francophile; you’re starting to become a francophone. You identify with the francophone community. You know what’s going on there. It’s part of your life. So perhaps it’s this question of identity for these anglophone students.
Senator Gagné: Thank you, Krystyna. That was the question I wanted to ask at the beginning, the definition of “francophone” for a francophile or for an anglophone and if the federal government should adopt a more inclusive definition of who is a francophone.
Ms. Baranowski: I definitely think so. I think there’s a pejorative slide in “francophile,” and it’s not taken seriously: “Oh, you like it; you dabble.” But if you say “francophone,” or if they had another term to really show this is a person working towards his or her bilingual identity with French and English —
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation and contribution. We’re so happy to be here today and to hear your comments.
(The committee adjourned.)