Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 25 - Evidence - Meeting of May 28, 2018
OTTAWA, Monday, May 28, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:04 p.m. to continue its study of Canadians’ views on modernizing the Official Languages Act.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening, I am Senator René Cormier from New Brunswick, and I am pleased to chair the meeting today. I would ask one of the committee members to move the following motion:
That photographers be allowed in the committee room to take photographs in a way that minimizes any disruption to the proceedings.
Senator Moncion: I so move.
The Chair: Agreed?
Some Hon. Senators: Okay.
The Chair: The motion is adopted. Thank you.
[English]
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is continuing the second part of its study on the views of official language minority communities on the modernization of the Official Languages Act.
We are pleased to welcome the Quebec Community Groups Network, also known as QCGN, a not-for-profit organization comprising 56 English-language community groups from across Quebec. Its mission is to develop, support and enhance the vitality of English-speaking minority communities.
We welcome James Shea, President; Geoffrey Chambers, Vice-President; Eva Ludvig, Director; and Sylvia Martin-Laforge, Director General.
I invite the senators to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Jaffer: Welcome. My name is Mobina Jaffer, from British Columbia.
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec. Welcome.
Senator Smith: Larry Smith from Quebec.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba. Welcome.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario. Hello.
[English]
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being with us today.
[Translation]
James Shea, President, Quebec Community Groups Network: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for welcoming us, Mr. Chair.
[English]
Good afternoon, Senator Cormier, Senator Poirier and honourable members of the committee. My name is Jim Shea. I am a volunteer, the President of the Quebec Community Groups Network. We are a not-for-profit linking more than 56 English-language community organizations across Quebec. We serve Canada’s English linguistic minority communities, which are referred to collectively as “the English-speaking community of Quebec.” Joining me is QCGN Vice-President Geoffrey Chambers; board member Eva Ludvig, who served as the Commissioner of Official Languages, Quebec representative for 20 years; and our Director General, Sylvia Martin-Laforge.
As President of QCGN, this is my last show because I will be completing my term in two weeks. There is a succession plan in place.
I’m not from the Montreal area. I am from the Pontiac region. I am honoured that QCGN has selected me to be its president for the last two years.
Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of this committee, past and present, in advancing the linguistic rights of Canadians.
Your former work on modernizing the Official Languages Act, led by former Senator Tardif, inspired the current review of the official languages regulations. The current national discussion on modernizing the act, in a more general way, began here. We are grateful for the space you create for Canadians to come together at this table and talk in an open and respectful way about how we can collectively advance our common language rights and uphold our core national value of linguistic duality.
We would also like to take this opportunity to unequivocally offer our support and register our agreement with the principles and concepts advanced by the Fédération des Communautés Francophones et Acadienne du Canada in their brief to this committee. There is no daylight between our mutual objectives of improving how the Official Languages Act works and to advancing the linguistic rights of all Canadians.
We also join with the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Fédération des Communautés Francophones et Acadienne in expressing its disappointment with the Federal Court’s decision last week in the case of La Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique v. Canada.
The Federal Court has plainly found that Part VII obligations are not precise enough to be enforceable.
This guts the act of much of its legal force. While the QCGN will take time to fully analyze this decision, it looks as though this is proof positive a modernization of the act is needed now more than ever.
The Official Languages Act is a life line for English-speaking Quebec. The act is the only language rights legislation that protects the interests of English-speaking Quebecers as a community. The act sets out quasi-constitutional rights for English-speaking Quebecers, including the right to access federal services in English, the representation of English speakers in the federal public service, and those workers’ rights in English.
Further, the act provides the framework for much-needed financial support for the community’s institutions and networks.
I will pass the floor to my colleague Ms. Ludvig.
[Translation]
Eva Ludvig, Director, Quebec Community Groups Network: Hello, Mr. Chair, and thank you for welcoming us here this afternoon.
[English]
Good afternoon. I will be addressing more particularly the act itself and some of the areas which we have examined and where we have things to say.
When considering the modernization of the act, our thinking was guided by the following principles, which must be woven into the fabric of new legislation.
First, the equality of status of English and French. There can be no separate status, nor can the law be written to differentiate approaches for either language. Flexibility to meet the unique needs of individual official language minority communities and achieving substantive equality can be done through effective consultation.
Second, a new act should provide for robust, mandatory and properly resourced consultation at all levels, including a formal mechanism for consultation at the national level. This is a major concern of English-speaking Quebec, which is not equipped to equally participate in national level official languages discussions, nor is its presence adequately felt or seen here, despite the size of our community.
Our specific recommendation are contained in our brief. I will, however, highlight a few. In our view, Parts IV, V, VI and VII of the act are intimately connected, yet implemented separately without coherent accountability. How can an institution fulfill its Part IV language of work rights obligations if it does not employ sufficient numbers of minority language Canadians or allow federal civil servants the right to learn and work in their minority language? How are the official language minorities institutions and organizations visible to federal institutions, who are committed to taking positive measures to enhance vitality, if they exclude minority language Canadians from their regional workforce, which we find in Quebec?
A siloed approach to implementing Parts IV to VII of the act does not work.
We also draw the committee’s attention to the chronic underemployment of English-speaking Canadians in the federal civil service in Quebec outside the National Capital Region. From this perspective, several federal institutions are not meeting their obligations under this section of the act, which is vague and lack regulations to make it enforceable.
Clarity and accountability must be brought to Part VII of the act and the Minister of Canadian Heritage must be provided the authority to implement its commitments.
We also believe in strict transparency provisions for federal investments made under Part VII for all recipients, including provincial and territorial governments. Clear definitions of positive measures, enhancing the vitality of and assisting in the development of official language minority communities, as we see in the act and regulations, must be included.
We are also calling for an advanced, enhanced and focused role for the Commissioner of Official Languages. And, in this vein, the establishment of an administrative tribunal with the power to sanction transgressions of the act.
I now will pass it on to my colleague, Mr. Chambers.
[Translation]
Geoffrey Chambers, Vice-President, Quebec Community Groups Network: Hello. Thank you very much for welcoming us this afternoon, Mr. Chair.
[English]
Good afternoon. As Jim and Eva have said, the QCGN’s objectives in this discussion are not only to offer suggestions on how to make the act work more efficiently and effectively but to seize this opportunity to extend language rights of Canadians.
Our written brief contains the details. Let me outline three of our more central and ambitious goals.
Parts IV, V and VI of the act should be applicable to all federally regulated private enterprises. The only private businesses in Quebec not subject to the Charter of the French language are federally regulated businesses and undertakings such as chartered banks, telecommunications and transportation companies.
Proposals to extend the application of the Charter of the French language to these entities have been made. They are not only constitutionally incoherent and impossible but would have the effect of territorializing constitutional language rights which would pose an unacceptable threat to French and English linguistic minority communities.
Extending the Official Languages Act to federally regulated businesses and undertakings would not only fix mischief in the law that exists in Quebec today but would extend the language rights under the act to thousands of workers within federally-regulated businesses across the province. As such, it is a win for both French and English in Quebec and a win for French-speaking minority language communities across the country. It could be achieved with relatively little disruption and would be a major step in the direction of fairness.
Part III of the act already provides a number of obligations for federal courts and tribunals regarding the administration of justice. These obligations should remain and should be enhanced in one important way. Judges of the Supreme Court should be able to understand the official language chosen by parties without the assistance of an interpreter. This may, as a practical matter, already for the most part be the case, but it should be established in clear terms in legislation.
Three, the Government of Quebec has taken the historic step of recognizing English-speaking Quebecers as a linguistic minority community, appointed a minister with relations with our community, established a secretariat with the ministère du Conseil exécutif and dedicated $24.5 million over the next few years to support our community.
Why? They have done this because they want to ensure the full integration of the English-speaking community in Quebec into the province’s economic, social and political life. More to the point, they want to stop young, talented and bilingual English-speaking Quebecers from leaving.
To do that, and in order to establish conditions that will militate in favour of that outcome, we want to ensure our young peoples see a future in Quebec of economic security. It’s our preoccupation, the English-speaking community, to be a piece of the puzzle with a fair chance of working in the federal civil service in Quebec. This is why the modernization of the Official Languages Act must include provisions that guarantee the proportional representation of English speakers in the federal civil service in Quebec.
Members of our community must be made to feel welcome, not only in their right to work in English, but to serve the population of Quebec, to learn and improve their language skills and be able to operate in their native language., while also being able to serve the majority of the population in French.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Shea: Mr. Chair, that completes our presentation. We have provided you with executive notes. Today we provided you with a document that is the full presentation. We are prepared to enter into discussions with you, Mr. Chair. We appreciate the opportunity you have afforded us.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We will start the question period.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Welcome. It is unfortunate that we were not able to travel to you, but we thank you very much for being here today.
You referred earlier to the decision in Fédération francophone de la Colombie-Britannique v. Employment and Social Development Canada. Federal Court judge Gascon essentially ruled that, pursuant to the agreement between the federal government and the province, the delivery of employment support services is under provincial jurisdiction and that British Columbia does not act on behalf of a federal institution.
How do you interpret this decision, specifically as regards the linguistic provisions or lack thereof in federal-provincial agreements? Could the decision impact all federal-provincial agreements pertaining to labour market development throughout Canada?
Mr. Chambers: We do not agree with the judge in that decision and would like to see an appeal in order to arrive at a different conclusion at a higher level.
[English]
There are aspects of the judgment that give us warning that the current relationship or the current legal basis for making claims of these rights is not developed in a clear way that creates direction for courts that are sufficiently unambiguous to develop a good result. It is within the power of the federal government to improve both the legislation and the regulation governing these matters so that courts in the future will not be put in the situation of having to interpret these difficult situations.
We don’t think necessarily it’s a good result. We think an appeal could lead to a better decision. We also think action on your part to clarify these matters could lead to a state of play where these risks didn’t exist in the courts.
Mr. Shea: I should point out it’s a recent judgment and QCGN will have to ask its people to review the entire judgment and have further commentary.
Senator Gagné: Again, with the B.C. decision, the judge states in the absence of regulations or indications to the contrary, pretty much any measure is a positive measure as long as it’s not a negative measure.
You did allude to that in your presentation. I would like you to help us reflect on this issue. Should it be broadened or better explained in the law? Does determining a positive measure, for example, require some prior consultation? What type of consultation do you need? I was also wondering, because the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada mentioned in their brief that by adding an obligation to take the results of these consultations into consideration and provide reasons for the ultimate decision would be really important. I would like to you comment on this, please.
Ms. Ludvig: We believe, first of all, to expand a little on what Mr. Chambers said, the term has to be better defined in the act and regulations. It’s one of the issues that lead to these things. Yes, it’s in our brief. We want, with that and other such terms, community vitality, what does it mean? When do we know that a community is vital? What are the indicators and so on and so forth? Yes, we believe very strongly in that.
Our brief also addresses the question of consultations. We believe more effective consultations need to be included in the act in terms of how we define what a consultation is because that can be interpreted in so many different ways.
Mr. Chambers: I’m going to say essentially the same thing. Consultation is the vital dimension of dialogue between government and the official language minorities. Without that exchange of views, we won’t get good policy. Without good policy, you will not be, as a government, in a position to legislate clearly and establish rights that can be enforced.
Senator Gagné: Do you think the government should provide reasons for the ultimate decision on any post-consultation? Because governments consult all the time. How do you know if you’ve been heard?
Mr. Chambers: Consultation is the first step. Consensus can arise from consultation if there is good dialogue. Based on consensus, legislation and regulation, that’s clear. Then implementation devices — and we have talked in our brief about those — that require those policies or laws to be applied to the benefit of the citizens. There are a series of elements in the process, all of which are in place now, but all of which can be improved and tuned to get a better result.
Senator Moncion: Mr. Shea, you mentioned in your statement you need representation from the federal government in English. Could you explain?
Mr. Shea: There are many areas. For example, to be specific, the parliamentary committee on official languages is a start where we have addressed that issue to the Prime Minister. We had asked there be a representative of the English-speaking community on the parliamentary committee for official languages.
I think you’re referring to the numbers of the public service outside of the National Capital Region, the opportunity for English speakers in Quebec. I don’t have the data in front of me. Perhaps, Eva, you have that information.
Mr. Chambers: I can do the basic stuff from memory.
Mr. Shea: It’s meager.
Mr. Chambers: Outside the National Capital Region, it is about 2 per cent, which is better than the Government of Québec, which is 0.8 per cent. There is something there. Our portion of the population is about 11 or 12 per cent. It’s clear under-representation, which means there is a clear shortage of participation.
There aren’t jobs for people who could be useful for the community. There isn’t, in the civil service, a policy-making or environmental awareness of the community, its interests and needs. It leads to a variety of failures. An example would be the prison guard population in Quebec is, I think, about 3500. There are about 150 English-speaking members of that employment group.
The prisoner population in Quebec actually represents pretty much the same language division as the whole country; 85 per cent of the prisoners are English-speaking service receivers. They are in a context where they are not able to get language service. That’s a problem that isn’t good for the parties receiving the service, society in general, and doesn’t create employment opportunities for our community.
As Jim said, from the top of the pyramid, representation in Parliament, all the way to the bottom of the pyramid, relatively junior jobs in the federal civil service, there are improvements that could be made that would be healthy for society and good for our community.
Senator Moncion: Where in legislation would we put that?
Mr. Chambers: I described a number of different problems; you wouldn’t put in them all in the same place. I don’t want to be vague about our answer, but we have, in our brief, taken many examples of how the Official Languages Act can contribute to the solution to that problem.
Senator Moncion: You were talking about silos with Part IV, V, VI and VII which are intimately linked. You gave us some examples but can you clarify some of these silos and how we can make the Official Languages Act better?
Ms. Ludvig: Part IV relates to language of work and Part VI relates to participation. That’s what we are talking about now. Part VII is the support of the minority language communities.
They all relate to what constitutes, as you heard from here, if you get a good job working in the federal government, you are able to provide a welcoming environment, you are able to understand the issues of the minority language community, you are better able to contribute to the vitality of the community. It’s artificially separated because one builds on the other.
Language of work rights means you can come into the public service with a level of knowledge of the other language. You would be able to have rights to improve your language if you get training or have opportunities to practise your other language and so on.
Each one is very much related to the other.
Senator Moncion: You spoke about the federally chartered enterprises, talking about the official languages at that level. We heard from young people in your communities and their first language is English-speaking. They were talking about the challenges they have with finding jobs in Quebec.
I’m interested because it’s the first time that I hear the concept of the federally chartered enterprises. There are links that could be made and how far can the official languages go in that area to help job seekers and make sure that enterprises —
Mr. Chambers: People looking for employment in Quebec will obviously have to be able to provide service, to operate in a context where the majority of the work takes place in French. That’s the context the Charter of the French language establishes for Quebec. That’s what we’re used to and expect. It’s not a bad thing to have devices that welcome English-speaking Quebecers into that workplace.
We find there is a kind of transitional problem between our school system, which provides a certain level of bilingualism. I think our capacity to speak French, that level has been rising and we have had success in improving those circumstances. It doesn’t rise to the level of comfort that makes access to the job market easy. We want to improve the bridging exercise.
How the provision we’re arguing for in regard to federally regulated companies will affect that is hard to say. It should create a situation in which there is a more open environment.
It also creates a situation in which not just the work circumstances but the operating circumstances of those companies is appropriate to the society in which it functions. Right now, a railway — with the exception of CN, which is subject to specific legislation to do with privatization — or an airline — with the exception of Air Canada, which is also subject to some specific legislation — or a bank — all of which have always been private — or a big telecommunications company can arbitrarily treat its employees in Quebec in a way not aligned with the way the economy functions. I don’t think for the most part they do. I don’t think for the most part they would be unhappy to be required to operate essentially the way they are currently operating. To have a set of rules to establish you can get your paycheque in the language you want to get it in or you can have capacity to communicate with your employer in your own language would be a healthy thing.
It would be a healthy thing outside of Quebec as well in regard to the context of francophones operating in the rest of the country.
It would create a more open job market and create a fairer set of rules in regard to job circumstances.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: I just want to clarify, when you speak about English-speaking, are you saying they’re unilingual, just speaking English? Just to understand.
Mr. Shea: Clearly we advocate for English speakers to be a bilingual society. While we do have English-speaking residents who have not mastered the other language, we are promoting a bilingual society and we are promoting English speakers to engage in the French language and be part of the fabric and maintaining the concept we do represent a minority English language community that has mastered the French language.
We add that piece to the workforce. Part of our challenge, of course, will be to encourage these young people to stay in our communities.
Mr. Chambers: The numbers, 86 per cent of the English-speaking population in Quebec is capable of functioning at a testable high level of French. The proportion rises to the high to mid 90s if you look at the population under 50 years old. We’re moving in the right direction.
It is the highest degree of bilingualism in any language group across the country and is generally trending up. It has been trending up for a period of time and continues to trend up.
We do have some bridging issues. We graduate young adults from high school with a testable high-quality capacity in French. Without necessarily some of the workforce skills; written French of certain kinds of quality, particularly technical dimensions. They have access to employment but not necessarily all the tools to win the competition and get the job. We’d like to find some devices to get them over that hump.
Ms. Ludvig: To elaborate, there is the question of having the skills but it’s also having the confidence — and this is a major issue — in their own language skills and the confidence in being able to get those jobs. That is a major issue, even for the ones who have gone through French schools and so on and so forth. It’s this confidence they will be — that the workforce is open to them and they can go as high as their ability allows. That is another issue that needs to be worked on.
Senator Jaffer: I don’t know if you know anything about me. I come from British Columbia and everything you have said, I have found it very interesting. I’m a politician from British Columbia and if the French-speaking community came and said what you’re saying, I would wonder what they’re saying because in British Columbia they are the minority and they don’t have the rights, even, that you’re asking for.
That doesn’t make it right. Please don’t take it that way. What I’m struggling with is this is a national bill. I sit on this committee out of choice, so obviously I believe in bilingualism. This is a national bill. How do we make sure it applies nationally?
I would like your opinions. What you say, I’m not quarrelling with anything you’re saying. Of course people should be. We are crafting a national bill. I’d like your help because I would like British Columbians to also speak French. It is not like I don’t want them to. But how do you craft a national bill? That’s my challenge.
Mr. Shea: We’re all going to want to answer that. Eva, do you want to go first and then Geoffrey?
Ms. Ludvig: I will. First of all, you’re right. The Official Languages Act — and we are talking about that. The rights we are talking about are under the Official Languages Act. The Official Languages Act is a national act. It applies as much to British Columbia as it does in Quebec.
When we are talking about specific challenges that face specific minorities in Quebec when it comes to having those rights respected. The rights are the same. They are the same in British Columbia, as they are in Quebec under the Official Languages Act.
We are talking about national things. We have particular things provincial which all minority language communities have to deal with their provincial government. I think we talked a little about this in terms of how we have — things have evolved on the provincial level. Our brief deals with the Official Languages Act which is a national act, applying to the minority in British Columbia and Alberta and New Brunswick and Quebec.
Mr. Chambers: There are some statistics I think are relevant here. Young bilingual francophone British Columbians and Ontarians and Manitobans and Albertans have a higher employment rate than their equivalent unilingual cohort because they bring to the job market something rare-ish.
Senator Jaffer: Absolutely
Mr. Chambers: I can add French to my law degree or I can add French to my whatever, go to the job market and somebody is going to like that.
It is not the dynamic in Quebec right now. We want to move towards a situation where this unquestionable asset that does help the possibility of a vibrant Quebec economy be valued, in a way. We just need a little bridge to get high school or even university level taking French and the confidence question that Eva mentioned to be recognized in the economy.
Senator Jaffer: What do you mean by a little bridge?
Mr. Chambers: Well, I can give you an example. Both the federal and provincial civil service has entrance test requirements in regard to language which apply across the board.
That sounds fair. Everyone should have to hit the same standard. Possibly you might look at a device which said people have a slightly lower standard but are within reach of the written competency level in French within, say, a year ought to be recruited and given the opportunity to do that.
Senator Jaffer: I thought that already exists. You’re in the federal service. You get training if you don’t have this level of French. That already exists.
Mr. Chambers: It may as a practical matter function in the rest of the country where there is an undersupply of francophones to fill those jobs.
Senator Jaffer: Not francophones, but anglophones in the federal service.
Ms. Ludvig: In theory, yes.
Senator Jaffer: No, in practice.
Ms. Ludvig: In practice, the bottom line is they are not hiring sufficient English-speaking public servants. They don’t have the tools for positive action, affirmative action, whatever we want to call it. It is not there. Therefore it’s much easier to hire someone. Once you are in the public service, yes, you have access to training, but it’s to get in there.
Senator Jaffer: I get that. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Language in Canada is covered by two charters: Quebec’s Charter of 1978 and the federal Charter of 1982. There is a question that often comes to mind. You have elementary schools and high schools, CEGEPSs and universities. What do your English schools do for young people to learn French while at school? What efforts do you make?
Mr. Shea: If I understand your question correctly, you are talking about schools. Parents require their children to be bilingual, to learn French. There is also a group of anglophones who choose French schools in order to learn French. There are also French immersion and English schools for anglophones. All populations require students to master both official languages, French and English.
[English]
That’s a goal of our community. It’s a goal of the Quebec Community Groups Network to be an English-speaking minority, to be fluently bilingual and to recognize and appreciate the Charter of language rights in Quebec.
[Translation]
Ms. Ludvig: I do not know if you are aware, but the first immersion schools were created by English schools in the 1960s, in Saint-Lambert.
Senator Maltais: Sorry to interrupt, but the one in Cacouna dates back to 1958.
Ms. Ludvig: I apologize if I made a mistake, but that is a well-known initiative.
Senator Maltais: You are lucky. I had to pay for my children to learn English. Did you know that? English was not taught. Bill 101 initially prohibited the teaching of English at primary school, high school and CEGEP. Fortunately, the governments of today are more responsible. There are still a lot of francophone Quebecers who pay to send their children to English schools. It is a question of will. If you have the will, you can succeed. Without it, you stagnate. Our leader in the Senate is an anglophone who had an outstanding career in Quebec as a professional football player, public administrator, and in politics.
Mr. Shea: We agree. That is why we are here.
Senator Maltais: You said earlier that anglophone Quebecers have trouble getting into the federal public service.
Ms. Ludvig: In Quebec.
Mr. Shea: In Quebec, outside this region.
Senator Maltais: Okay. In your respective cities, has the situation improved or is it similar to what we see at the federal level?
Mr. Chambers: In the cities and in the provincial public service, the numbers are worse than at the federal level. The federal government must be recognized for its efforts, but 2 per cent of 11 per cent of the population is too little, in our opinion. The problem is not necessarily a result of realities in the federal government only, but you can work on that part of the problem.
Senator Maltais: I do not know if your figures are right. I have to rely on your figures. I come from Quebec’s North Shore. It is the most English-speaking region of Quebec, except for the Outaouais, which is right next to Ottawa. These regions were developed as a result of the forestry industry, in your case, and the mining industry in my case. Everything was in English. They are small communities, Kegaska, Blanc-Sablon, and so forth. There are also anglophone indigenous communities in the North. I do not know if they are part of your association.
Mr. Shea: So, you understand the challenge we face.
Senator Maltais: I understand it very well, but under federal law, a sufficient number is required. I ask all the courts and judges to tell me what “significant” means. Is it 1, 2, 100 or 1,000? No one wants to say. If that does not apply to francophones, I expect it would be the same for anglophones. The ideologies must be interrelated. In Quebec, we are the only location on the Lower North Shore with just one English school board. It is 100 per cent funded by the Quebec government, because the small communities are not well enough structured to provide a tax base. Many are not villages, legally speaking. I also understand people’s distress in the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, as they are being pushed further and further out to sea. That is truly the case for Gaspé. Robertsonville and New Carlisle are the last bastions. These regions are near Bonaventure and the gulf.
You said that Quebec anglophones have trouble getting into the federal public service. Look at the Ports of Montreal, Quebec, Trois-Rivières, Rimouski, Baie-Comeau, Sept-Îles, Port-Cartier and Havre-Saint-Pierre, and see how many anglophones are in those regions. I am an honorary colonel of a regiment. I can tell you how the army works in Quebec. You can check to see if the numbers are still as high as you say. I am extremely suspicious of statistics. Statistics Canada has a reputation for making mistakes.
Mr. Chambers, you said that 85 per cent of the prison population in Quebec is anglophone.
Mr. Chambers: I said that 86 per cent of anglophones in Quebec speak French.
Senator Maltais: Yes, but in the prisons?
Mr. Chambers: I do not have the figures with me, but I think the breakdown of anglophone and francophone offenders in federal prisons in Quebec is the same as in the rest of the country.
Senator Maltais: Your figures went over my head; I did not understand.
Let us talk about the public service. The public service is looking for more and more people with a certain level of bilingualism, especially in Quebec, but the federal public service is not closing the door to anglophones in Quebec. Look at the RCMP. Not all federally regulated organizations are subject to Bill 101, now Bill 178. That is thanks to the courts, because if it had been up to us at the time, they would be. The courts always ruled that federal laws take precedence over Bill 101. You know that.
Ms. Ludvig: We can provide some statistics to you. The problem is not that it is closed — you have to understand that —, but rather that anglophones are underrepresented in practice, whether that is because of recruitment methods or exams, I am not sure. I do not think there is an answer. There are various factors at play, but ultimately, anglophones are underrepresented.
Senator Maltais: Regulated companies, chartered banks, outside Montreal in particular, offer all their services in French. In Montreal, service is 50 per cent in English at bank branches. Why? Because they had no choice but to switch to French. Nonetheless, anglophones can work at the Royal Bank — very close to where I live, on Cambronne Street. I know some. I am not sure it is as closed as you say. I would like to see better statistics than that.
As to bilingualism, young people have moved on nowadays; they are no longer Quebecers or Canadians. They are international, and the international language is English. All young Quebecers today want to learn English. Perhaps that is true in your case as well.
The Chair: If you have any statistics that could shed light on this subject, we would be pleased to receive them.
[English]
Senator Mockler: First I would like to congratulate you for the presentation you made. There is a lot of food for thought.
I have a few questions. I will give you my experience. When I was in the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, I was responsible for official languages. We decided in 2004 to modernize the official languages. We asked the Quebec group to come and share their experience in Quebec.
I have a few questions that would relate to the role of the official languages commissioner.
Secondly, what percentage of your Quebec community is becoming assimilated or do you believe that going forward your community is in danger of assimilation?
Mr. Shea: The question of assimilation, I guess when you’re part of a society that embraces the learning of another language, we don’t consider it assimilation. At least I don’t consider it assimilation. I consider it as an expansion of the skill set I have. We would encourage the English-speaking community to embrace that. We don’t see it as assimilation.
However, the challenge we have is to maintain the community vitality of the English-speaking traditions. Senator Maltais talked about his region. He’s right on with respect to a lot of the regions. You recognize there are various challenges we have to meet that.
Assimilation is not a word we use. We use it as an opportunity and we encourage our communities to embrace the learning of French.
Mr. Chambers: I absolutely agree with you. The perception in the 1970s and 1980s was our community was in decline. There certainly was a big population shift, but subsequent statistics have demonstrated our community is pretty stable in terms of its numbers, stable and maybe even slightly growing. It depends on how you define it.
There are serious questions in regard to the vitality and even survival of our school system, which I think you will hear from the next witness. Access to an English-speaking school system is not aligned with the population in flow and out flow.
While the community is maintaining numbers, it’s not the same linear families of Scottish or Irish descent. The numbers remain stable but the in flow has no legal access to the English-speaking school system whereas the out flow had but is not using it.
The status quo in regards to the relationship between the English-speaking community and the majority population is a happy story. There are good dialogues developing between our community and the provincial government in regard to services. There is lots of work still to be done but because of the secretariat there is hope that work can be done. There are areas of exposure — and I think particularly primary and secondary education will be ones we would underline — where the rules will have to be looked at.
Senator Mockler: Did I hear right a few minutes ago in your presentation, Mr. Shea, you said you had met the Prime Minister or your group met the Prime Minister?
Mr. Shea: Yes. Our group, along with FCFA, at the launch of the official languages action plan provided us with an opportunity to meet with him, along with FCFA. At that time, one of the challenges we asked him was to consider the representation on the parliamentary committee.
He also recognized — I don’t want to speak for him, of course, because he can speak for himself. The reality is that from the English-speaking minority, we are new at the game of being a minority. We want to ensure our minority status is enshrined in the modernization of the Official Languages Act. Perhaps when the act was first written it may not have been written for us. We want to ensure the modernization includes us.
Senator Mockler: You prompted me to ask another question, but I’ll stick to why I’m here.
[Translation]
That has always been a great debate, whether in Acadie, in Quebec as a whole, or in the Canadian federation. Who is responsible for the implementation of the Official Languages Act? We have heard that many times here, Mr. Chair. Should it be Treasury Board, the Privy Council Office, Canadian Heritage or the Prime Minister’s Office, if we want to have an impact on all federal and provincial institutions?
[English]
Ms. Ludvig: We address this particular issue in our brief but we do not recommend a particular department or whatever.
We agree the responsibilities are spread out and when you have it spread out it’s very hard to find the person responsible.
Our feeling was what needs to be done is to have some sort of central agency responsible for the application of the Official Languages Act because the way it works right now the governance is our serious issue.
What we found in the past for a short time was the Clerk of the Privy Council was responsible. We found it gave results because of the authority. We also recognized in terms of operationalizing it, it is not appropriate to ask the clerk, who is responsible for all departments, that it needs to be an operational responsibility.
A central agency. It’s important there be one and that it be centred in one agency, whatever it is, and however it is done. We don’t know what the proper agency should be. We don’t say it should be one department or another. We do recognize the way it functions right now needs to be fixed.
The Chair: Thank you. If I may, I want to bring you back to the federally regulated industries, the inclusion of that. I do not support this idea, but want to better understand, to see how to implement it and see where your idea comes from.
I have two questions.
First, how would we go about including this in a law? Would industries be subject to the same obligations as the government or slightly different norms? Would they have obligation under all parts of the law or just some like Part IV or Part V?
Second, would the Commissioner of Official Languages have the authority to investigate these private companies operating in a federally regulated industry?
Mr. Chambers: The regime in Quebec, for all other companies, the Charte de la langue française, is subject to quite intrusive regulation.
I’m not sure we ideologically favour very heavy-handed oversight. I don’t think it’s inappropriate in regard to establishing the compliance with human rights — and this is a human right — for there to be regulatory oversight that can enforce the rules.
We think the rules should be applied across the board. We don’t think they are particularly onerous or likely to be expensive or resisted by those industries.
There is some study to be done. I would say we are not expert in regard to the possible different impacts on businesses of different scale.
It’s very clear the larger industries — the ones we have listed, banks and telecoms and so on — essentially understood their obligations both to their clients, the customer base, and to their employees and do a pretty good job and wouldn’t find the application of these requirements to be onerous.
There are possibly federally regulated companies on a smaller scale that might find some of the requirements to be costlier and more difficult to adjust to. Some study, which we haven’t been in a position to do in detail, probably would be appropriate prior to this being applied.
We wouldn’t expect it to be — I have to say, I’m speaking a little bit out of school here, because I am in my business in one of those industries; the rail industry on a smaller scale, at least smaller than the big railways. I don’t expect it would be very difficult to do.
I think essentially the workplace environment in Quebec has to function in a way that is responsive to clients and employees’ needs. It does respond to language requirements of those bodies.
I don’t think it would be that difficult. I do think some review of that question would be appropriate prior to regulation being put in place. We would like it to move forward in a fairly accelerated way because we don’t think there is much downside and we think there is a huge potential upside not only in Quebec but across the country.
The Chair: Have you discussed with stakeholders and what was the reaction?
Mr. Chambers: We have had a little bit of informal consultation. We didn’t want to put this recommendation into our brief without getting a sense of what the opinion was in the corporate world. We have received no pushback in Quebec.
Now, we haven’t talked to the same authorities across the country. We think our colleagues in the francophone minorities have done so. Ask them about how these same companies would react in British Columbia or in Nova Scotia. What we have heard is that this would be neither particularly expensive, difficult nor really that much different.
The Chair: Well, I want to thank you, Mr. Shea, Mr. Chambers, Ms. Ludvig and Ms. Martin-Laforge for your presentation. I want to extend our sincere thanks for your participation today. You have given us some great insight to inform our study.
We are pleased to welcome today organizations representing the Quebec English-speaking community in the sectors of education and health.
From the Quebec English School Boards Association, we welcome Jennifer Maccarone, President; and Ms. Marion Sandilands from Power Law. From the Community Health and Social Services Network, Jennifer Johnson, Executive Director; and Russel Kueber, Manager of Programs. They are appearing by video conference from Quebec City.
The Quebec English School Boards Association represents the nine English school boards in Quebec. It serves some 100,000 students in over 340 primary and secondary schools as well as adult education and vocational training centres. The Community Health and Social Services Network is a network of community resources and organizations which aims to ensure Quebec’s English speakers can access health and social services.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being with us today.
Jennifer Johnson, Executive Director, Community Health and Social Services Network: It’s a pleasure to be invited to present. Thank you for your introduction. I’m the Executive Director the Community Health and Social Services Network. My colleague Russel Kueber is the program manager.
Our primary objective is to promote access to English language, health and social services in the province of Quebec. We do that primarily through partnerships with 21 organizations across the province. We have a strong mandate to develop the knowledge base of the English-speaking community; we have quite an extensive database of the English community.
I’m going to speak today on a very specific element in your questions provided as things to think about. I’m going to speak particularly to the question: Should the act include a definition of positive measures? I believe our organization can provide you with some good feedback.
Yes, we think there should be a definition of what a positive measure is. In addition to thinking that we think it’s a good idea, we also have a good idea to give you with regard to an example that can be given for a positive measure.
Our organization has been working with Health Canada for the past 15 years to improve the vitality of English-speaking communities across the province of Quebec, and very successfully. Health Canada has developed a contribution agreement policy where they provide resources to the communities, directly through community organizations and through McGill University.
There are two beneficiaries in the province of Quebec for the funding from Health Canada. It is not an intergovernmental transfer of monies. It’s an actual contribution program.
It has a direct benefit on the vitality of communities across the province, and it has, over the past 15 years, brought over $150 million into the province to benefit the English-speaking community in Quebec. It has been seen by the Government of Quebec as an effective method to support the English-speaking population and to improve access to English language health and social services.
We have an agreement signed with the provincial government that allows the two beneficiaries to distribute these resources in the province of Quebec. These resources go to community organizations to improve access locally as well as go directly to health institutions across the province. We have a unique example of a community organization providing resources to health institutions to help them improve access to English language health and social services. It is a unique model that could be disseminated to other departments and areas of influence in the English-speaking community.
It’s an effort to ensure the English-speaking community also has an influence as to how resources are spent. We develop priorities with the English-speaking community representatives. We get the Quebec government to approve the priorities the community has set forward so it matches the priorities of the health ministry in Quebec. The funding from Health Canada supports those priorities identified by the community and supported by the Quebec government. There is an important relationship and respect between the provincial government, the community organizations, the beneficiaries and also the federal government.
Francophones outside of Quebec have also used this program description for their provincial programming across the country. Not only is it working for the English-speaking community in Quebec, it is also working for French-speaking communities outside of Quebec. It has demonstrated it is transmissible to both linguistic minorities across the country.
It is important to note it is not an intergovernmental transfer of resources. That has been an important element for us in the English-speaking community. It allows the community to maintain a sense of ownership and control as to how the resources are distributed within the community and across the province.
Russel Kueber, Manager of Programs, Community Health and Social Services Network: In terms of our definition of a positive measure, one of the elements that Jennifer mentioned, but to reinforce, is we believe, in addition to improving access to health and social services, we want to increase and support the capacity of community organizations. The minority English-speaking community organizations are direct recipients of the resources. In terms of, for example, my role, I offer strategic support and accompaniment to the development and support of these organizations.
We feel this direct support to the organizations, both financially and through knowledge-sharing and transfer amongst the organizations, helps build capacity but also reinforces and strengthens community vitality.
Ms. Johnson: Yes, we believe there should be definition of positive measures. We think there are examples that can be given. We put forward this model as being an idea for an example for a definition of positive measures.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentations. Now, Ms. Maccarone.
Jennifer Maccarone, President, Quebec English School Boards Association: Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting to appear . The Quebec English School Boards Association welcomes this opportunity to engage in discussion with you on the modernization of the Official Languages Act.
Since 1929, the Quebec English School Boards Association, QESBA, and its predecessors have served as a vehicle through which school boards, elected commissioners and parents have shared ideas and worked together to achieve our community’s common goal of ensuring quality educational services. The member school boards of QESBA serve some 100,000 students in 340 primary, secondary and adult and vocational education centres across Quebec.
Each board has its unique demographics, orientations and history. All of them share a made-in-English-Quebec sensibility to delivering public education services with equal regard for the needs and wants of all students, staff and communities.
Naturally, our focus today will be on public education. Education is not only the cornerstone of any society, it is the key element for the vitality and longevity of minority language communities. Schools and school boards play a very important role in community development. They are the focal point, the meeting place, and service provider for much of our minority language community. To our community, the education system is much more than a provider of pedagogy, it is a vehicle through which our future generations are developed.
It’s clear our community is struggling to maintain our institutions and even our critical mass. Our community registered roughly 171,000 students in 1972. Today, our records indicate approximately 99,000 students, including adult and vocational programs. This is more than a 40 per cent decline in a span of 40 years. This trend continues down. If we include only primary and secondary enrolment, our numbers are 80,000 and our primary and secondary enrolment is projected to decrease to 77,000 by 2023.
Our struggles make us stronger, not weaker. English school boards in Quebec make important contributions to education in Quebec and to bilingualism in Canada. First, our students are graduating from Quebec English public schools with the capacity to live and work in French. Our school system is a world pioneer in French second language education, and remember that French immersion was born in Quebec’s English public system.
Our school boards are very aware the viability of our community depends on our young people being able to stay and work in Quebec. As such, they have taken a wide variety of measures to ensure French second language and mother tongue programs are of a world-class standard.
Second, thanks to distance, low population density and limited resources, our English public school network has become an example for engagement and innovation. From 21st century learning techniques in support of distance education, to e-learning, shared programs and services, exchanges with our French school boards, and community and business partnerships, our schools are adapting to the changing needs and challenges they face.
Every day, thousands of parents and community volunteers lend a hand providing irreplaceable and invaluable support to school staff. Our boards have developed compassionate and forward-looking programs for the inclusion of students with special needs at a rate of 90 per cent. Our high school graduation rates at a combined 89 per cent success rate are well above the provincial average.
Our boards and community are very proud of what we have built together through some very difficult conditions.
As you plan to modernize the Official Languages Act, QESBA joins its voice with that of the Quebec Community Groups Network. We endorse the proposals put forth by the QCGN regarding the need for the act to require robust, mandatory and properly resourced consultation with minority language communities.
We strongly endorse the QCGN’s recommendation to place strict transparency mechanisms in the act to account for official language investments. As this committee knows, federal funding for official languages education is provided through a Protocol for Agreements for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction. However, the agreements under this protocol do not include adequate transparency mechanisms. There is no way to trace how federal money under these agreements is spent. We are concerned with the ongoing lack of transparency and reporting by the provincial government. We ask for, but are denied, specific information about how funds are distributed, who gets the funding, what projects they are used for, how much is core versus project funding, et cetera.
Furthermore, we know some 60 per cent of the $65 million transferred to Quebec is attributed to the central purse, and sent to the Ministry of Finance, who also does not disclose the disposition of these funds.
Worse still, our community has no standing to participate in negotiating or monitoring these agreements. We do not have a place at the table.
This committee has recommended improved transparency of these investments several times. However, successive governments have failed to heed this recommendation. A modernized act must make transparency a mandatory feature of these agreements. A modernized act needs to go one step further. The last time the act was revised was 1988. This was before the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Mahe v. Alberta, rendered in 1990. In that case, the Supreme Court recognized that rights holders under section 23 of the Charter have the right to exclusive management and control of those aspects of education that touch on language and culture. As such, it’s hardly surprising the part of the Official Languages Act that deals with federal funding for minority language education — namely, Part VII — does not incorporate any concept of management and control by the minority language community.
A modernized Official Languages Act needs to close that gap. It needs to lay out a framework that creates proper space for management, and control of education by the minority language community.
In this respect, we echo the calls of Conseil des écoles fransaskoises and the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique, who have asked this committee to modernize the act to include a new framework for the administration of federal funding and education that requires proper transparency and takes into account the minorities’ Charter right to manage and control.
We would also like to raise the question of the census. As you have already heard from others, including the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique and the Association canadienne-francaise de l’Alberta, the census can and should be an important source of information for minority-language school boards.
Outside Quebec, the census is the only source of data regarding the number and geographical distribution of the children of section 23 rights holders. The picture painted by the census is very incomplete. In Quebec, the situation is worse. The census does not count any section 23 rights holders in Quebec.
Let me explain. As you know, section 23 of the Charter sets out three categories of citizens who have the right to have their children educated in a minority language. The first category is parents whose first language learned and still understood is that of a linguistic minority in the province. This is the only category the census currently captures. However, as I’m sure you’re well aware, this category does not apply in Quebec. Thus the census currently does not collect any data whatsoever on section 23 rights holders in Quebec.
We need to be able to identify our pool of potential clientele. In the face of declining enrolment, this is critical for our survival. Accurate data would improve our long-term planning, our policy efforts with the provincial government and, of course, our efforts to recruit students into the system. All of these could be improved if we had accurate data on how many rights holders there are and exactly where they are.
We have been working with our francophone counterparts outside Quebec to change the census so it counts all rights holders across the country. Your committee could help.
A modernized Official Languages Act should enable and encourage or, better yet, require Statistics Canada to include census questions that count all categories of rights holders under section 23 of the Charter. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will start our question period.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Thank you for your presentations and for being here this evening. As to the witnesses who told us about agreements between Health Canada and your organizations, I simply want to say that this model is also mentioned as an example by francophone communities outside Quebec as an effective way of implementing Part VII, through positive measures. It is easier to follow the transfers, that is, the money that goes to organizations that participate in developing priorities and action plans. Having participated extensively in developing the health sector as the president of Université de Saint-Boniface at the time and as co-chair of the Consortium national de formation en santé, I know full well that this is an effective model and I encourage you to continue in that vein.
You mentioned challenges related to the framework and accountability. Do you have specific suggestions as to establishing a framework for linguistic obligations pursuant to federal-provincial or territorial agreements on education, and on health as well, that would make it possible to follow the funds once they have been transferred to the province? Let us begin with education, and then health.
Ms. Maccarone: The powers of Canadian Heritage are restricted to consultation. I would say that is a good place to make a change powers. As an education network, we regularly consult Canadian Heritage to hold them to account for the lack of transparency in funding of the education network. The department itself says that its hands are tied. They cannot do anything at the provincial level because education is under provincial jurisdiction. In my opinion, the federal government should require transparency as part of the provisions for the transfer of public funds. That way, when minority communities ask for transparency, the government would be able to answer their requests in specific terms. When public funds are involved, I think that should be easy.
The other problem we have is that the money is transferred to a number of provincial areas. Is it Canadian Heritage, the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Department of Finance or the Ministry of Education? It would be helpful, as the QCGN just said, if there were an entity that included the network in order to offer that transparency.
Senator Gagné: What about the linguistic clauses in federal-provincial agreements? Should the transfer agreements have much more specific clauses?
Ms. Maccarone: Yes.
[English]
Accountability clauses within the protocols and all the agreements would be very welcome. They would have to be mandatory. It is not enough to say, “We require this,” because my understanding is there are many items relative to the protocol agreements — specifically Part VII, for example — that exist but are not enforced. I would suggest that they must be mandatory and that a transparent record of information be exchanged and then accessible.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Would you like to comment on the accountability framework, Ms. Johnson?
[English]
Ms. Johnson: I think in terms of health and social services, we have been successful with regard to transparency and how the resources are requested. I think you could look at health as a good example.
There are probably some good people to speak to within Health Canada who could give you insight as to how they have structured the health programming, the health and social services programming. I would put forward a suggestion to speak directly to Sally Scott at the office that manages the portfolio and get her input.
Senator Moncion: There are a lot of similarities between the needs of anglophones in Quebec and francophones across Canada. Being in minority environments, we’re talking about accountability, being consulted, being stakeholders and being at the table when negotiations are going on. You talk about the statistics and you talk about the positive measures.
How involved are you with your Canadian counterparts on this? Are you alone in Quebec dealing with things in Quebec? It’s the same with the health community group. Are you alone in this or do you have exchanges with your counterparts across Canada?
Ms. Maccarone: That’s an excellent question. No, we’re not alone. I would say the Quebec English School Board Association feels very much a part of the francophone minority education groups outside of the province. We liaise regularly with them as members of the Canadian School Board Association. This is an opportunity for us to network. We also participate in meetings regularly with the FCNCSF. We attend their annual general assemblies.
When it comes to political measures we know have a significant impact in our minority community in the province of Quebec, we rally together as a family. An excellent example of this is the defeat of Bill 86 in Quebec which would have enacted significant changes to the governance system in education. It was in large part because of a community effort not just in Quebec but outside of Quebec. Those changes would have had a significant impact on those minority communities. We do often work in collaboration.
Ms. Johnson: We also have a very good relationship with our counterpart in the rest of Canada, the Société Santé en français. We do, much like the education sector, participate in each other’s meetings. We have regular conversations on particular issues important to both of our organizations. I would say we have a good relationship.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
My other question is about the funds. In the health group, you were talking about $150 million provided over time for McGill University and I think another group. You’re saying these projects are very good for you. Could you explain how the university interacts with you?
Ms. Johnson: Yes. There are two plain beneficiaries for this funding envelope. We have McGill University, which gets money for education and language training, and you have the CHSSN that has resources for networking and working with our public partners to support their efforts to improve access.
The McGill University resources are given primarily to the health institutions across the province to do language training for health professionals. There are also smaller amounts dedicated to bursary programs for students studying in health and social services, retention programming and even the promotion of some research.
In the community sector, our envelope is divided between network development, knowledge development of the community, data, et cetera, and also our support to our health institutions to improve services.
That $150 million over 15 years has had a significant impact on the English-speaking community in Quebec. It really has, I would say, even gone beyond the health sector. It has influenced other sectors because a strong community organization that has been successful in health all of a sudden is starting to have success in economic development and starting to have success in zero to five programming, et cetera. It has had a ripple effect in communities across the province.
The health institutions, actually, with the language training support they’re getting from McGill and the resources they’re getting from us and having local community organizations which can speak for themselves and collaborate with the public partners, for the first time in generations they feel like they have some capacity to improve the access to their local services for their communities.
It really has been an important shift in communities in the last 15 years about their understanding of the realities of the English-speaking community, their capacity to change and adapt services to better serve these communities and that sense of vitality, of whom the community is, is much better defined.
Senator Moncion: That’s the program you were speaking about emulating because it’s a success story and it is something that is growing?
Ms. Johnson: I think there are transferable elements in the model we’ve developed in health and social services. You can’t take what we did and plug it into another program without adapting it. I think there are some important transferable elements such as ensuring there are contribution programs where the communities are recipients and in control of the resources. Those communities have an important influence in terms of developing the priorities. That there is a good relationship developed between the provincial organizations working in this area and the community organizations going to be working in these areas.
I think these are all principles that can be applied in many, many different sectors.
Senator Moncion: For the Quebec English School Boards Association, you were saying the provincial government receives, I think, $65 million a year and you don’t see the money or you don’t seem to know where the money goes?
Ms. Maccarone: That’s correct. We’ve asked multiple times so that we could have an idea.
Some of the funds go to our director general’s table for distribution within the nine English school boards and they determine educational priorities. We know, for example, there is approximately $35 million that should be designated for infrastructure funds. There is no clarity. There are no details. We have not had access to those funds. I have had meetings with the premier of Quebec and asked him specifically if they were able to provide us transparency on those funds and they are not even able to give us the details.
There are concerns, for example, if we say each student in the province is funded to the tune of between $8,000 and $10,000, let’s say it is $10,000 per student. We know in minority communities when you’re a smaller school you do require additional funds.
We mentioned the Gaspé region earlier. It’s a school board territory of over 4,000 kilometres — that’s the size of Spain — for 1,200 students. Some of our students need to take airplanes, boats, to get to school. There are one-room school houses where there are 40 students from kindergarten all the way up to Grade 11. Understandably their needs will be greater, but the funding, that $10,000 per student is not increased in their needs. There is concern that, perhaps due to the lack of transparency, every student is treated equally in the province of Quebec.
It could be that that $10,000 includes $9,000 and then $1,000 from federal funding. We’re unable to have the clarity to determine whether this is actually the reality in our community instead of them receiving the $10,000 plus the $1,000 to meet their very diverse and clear needs.
Senator Moncion: Again, there are a lot of similarities in what you’re saying and what we see in other provinces where francophones are concerned. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Welcome, ladies and gentleman. I will begin with the Quebec English School Boards Association because I am familiar with you.
Ms. Maccarone: Oh, really? That is good to hear.
Senator Maltais: From 1976 to 1978, I was the deputy chair of the Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec and we worked with the director general from Montreal at the time.
Ms. Maccarone: I hope it was a good relationship.
Senator Maltais: Very good. The proof of that is that, on the North Shore, we have an English school board that is part of the Association des commissions scolaires de la Côte-Nord, which includes all the small municipalities from Mingan to Saint-Augustin. There are 11 completely anglophone communities. It works very well.
You have a Deputy Minister of Education for anglophone affairs, do you not?
Ms. Maccarone: Recently appointed.
Senator Maltais: Indeed. I think you have very productive discussions between the two communities as regards the school boards. It is not war, as it in New Brunswick where francophone students cannot take the same bus as anglophone students. That kind of war ended in 1759. There are many productive discussions. Especially for young people who are preparing to continue on to college or university, that is indispensable.
You talked about the declining birth rate and the dwindling number of anglophones. The percentage is the same for francophones. Families are smaller than they were 50 years ago. It is sad, but that is reality. We have to deal with it. I imagine it is not easy for you. You have large schools. Subsidies are provided for maintenance on a square foot basis. If you occupy just half the space, you would get just half the subsidy, but you are legally required to maintain the whole school. So you have the same problem as the francophones in that regard.
As to the specific agreements, we know from the outset that education is under provincial jurisdiction. There are agreements with Canadian Heritage. You have some now and you will have more in the future. The problem is that the agreements are not recurrent, so you cannot rely on them in the long term to prepare a five-year plan, for example. If you want to renovate your gymnasium over five years and spend one million dollars per year, for instance, you cannot do it because the funding is not recurrent. You are at the mercy of the minister and their budgets. That kind of dependence is not normal. The funding should be recurrent when there are long-term agreements; factual agreements are fine, but they should be long term.
As to accountability, the President of the Treasury Board of Canada, Scott Brison, has appeared before the committee twice. In his first year in that position, I asked him if he could ensure accountability for the money that Canadian Heritage provides the provinces. He said that was no problem, and I wished him good luck. He came back two years later and said it was impossible. I knew that, because lump sums of money are transferred to the provinces, and the provinces distribute them in their jurisdiction. For health and education, it is the provinces that divide up the funding and not the federal government.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is often criticized for not providing the amount of money planned. That is not necessarily the case. The federal government provided it through block transfers, and it is up to the provinces to distribute it. In situations such as the one in British Columbia, the problem is that the province does not give any funding to the French school board. The same is true of other provinces, which I will not name.
If it were stipulated in the Constitution, the funding would go to education, and there would be no problem. The money is provided in a lump sum, however, in the form of equalization payments, and the provinces allocate the funding. So you can forget about accountability. In Quebec, it is possible if you have a specific agreement with the Quebec government. If the planned budget were $100,000 and you received $40,000 of it, you would have the right to find out what happened to the remaining $60,000 under the Access to Information Act and the Public Protector Act.
Now I would like to know how many francophone students you have.
Ms. Maccarone: That is a very good question. We do not have exact figures, but about 25 to 30 per cent of our students are francophones.
Senator Maltais: You also have anglophone students from other provinces.
Ms. Maccarone: Yes, but the numbers are very low.
Senator Maltais: In Quebec, the Valcartier military base welcomes a lot of members of the armed forces from right across Canada, and they are often anglophones. The English school board provides education from kindergarten to college, since there is still an English CEGEP.
Ms. Maccarone: They are rights holders.
Senator Maltais: Is that right? Thank you very much.
It is the same thing for the health sector. You can have specific agreements one year, but then they end because it is all covered by federal transfers. You have an anglophone Deputy Minister of Health in Quebec City, I believe, or a director general, if I am not mistaken. The problem is that the specific agreements you have concluded with McGill are not renewed every year. You cannot expect any accountability either because the province is responsible for the votes transferred for health. The provinces are guarded about how they distribute their overall budget.
I want to congratulate you on the $150 million in funding. That is interesting.
In what area do you offer services?
[English]
Ms. Johnson: First, I want to identify that we signed five-year contribution agreements. A new contribution agreement is not every year. We have had, since 2003, three different contribution agreements. That helps in terms of making long-term plans and developing partnerships and relationships. Having that level of stability is very important.
In terms of our territories, we have networks in every single region across the province of Quebec except Saguenay, where we’re working on developing an organization in the Saguenay. That is the one territory right now where we do not have a network. There are several subregions that don’t have a network representing them in the area of health and social services. We’re trying to address those networks with, we hope, new and additional resources that Health Canada is providing in this new round of funding.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Do you go into anglophone indigenous communities? I am thinking specifically of the Innu and the Atikamekw. Do you go into those areas or do you stay along the St. Lawrence?
[English]
Ms. Johnson: Several of our networks have good relationships with the First Nations communities that speak English. For example, in the Gaspé, they work with the Mi’kmaq communities in the Gaspé. On the North Shore, they are working with the Naskapi Community and in the Monteregie, there is a relationship with the Mohawk community. I wouldn’t say we serve them but I think we develop good relationships and try to make sure we have a good dialogue.
They have their own committees that represent —
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: As to the communities in northern Quebec, I do not mean the Naskapi, because they are close to the river. I am referring to the residents of Schefferville, James Bay and Hudson Bay. Do you offer services to that Innu community?
[English]
Ms. Johnson: Each of our networks would be offering services locally. If there were someone who spoke English and they were First Nations and wanted to participate in the services, absolutely. They’re not services designed for the First Nations communities but if they want to participate they absolutely can.
[Translation]
The Chair: I will give Senator Gagné the floor, but first I would like something clarified about federal transfers. There is in fact a federal-provincial agreement on education that provides funding specifically for education. You benefit from that agreement, do you not?
Ms. Maccarone: Yes.
The Chair: Okay, thank you for clarifying that.
Senator Gagné: In the end, I would like to clarify something. Since 1983, there has been a protocol for agreements on minority-language education and second-language instruction. It is a multilateral agreement.
Senator Maltais: Is it for higher education only?
Senator Gagné: No.
Senator Maltais: For the elementary level?
Senator Gagné: Under this protocol, the Council of Ministers of Education negotiates the multilateral agreement. A formula is established and then the bilateral agreements are signed. I simply wanted to clarify that. I have no further questions.
The Chair: On that note, ladies and gentleman, thank you very much for your presentations. They will certainly be helpful to us in drafting our report.
(The committee adjourned.)