---

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Monday, February 12, 2018

The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met, in camera and in public, this day at 5 p.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 evening. My name is René Cormier, and I am a senator from New Brunswick. I am pleased to be chairing this evening’s meeting. The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is continuing with the second stage of its study on the views of official language minority communities with respect to modernizing the Official Languages Act.

We are pleased to have with us, from the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique, Marie-France Lapierre, Chair and Trustee for the Fraser Valley Region, and Marc-André Ouellette, Vice-President and Trustee for the Southern Vancouver Island Region. From the Conseil des écoles fransaskoises, we welcome Alpha Barry, Chair, and Hélène Grimard, Vice-Chair. Finally, from the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, we have Roger Paul, Executive Director, and Jean Lemay, Member of the Executive Committee.

Before I turn the floor over to our witnesses, I will ask the committee members to introduce themselves.

Senator Poirier: I am Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.

Senator Maltais: I am Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.

Senator Gagné: I am Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.

Senator Moncion: I am Lucie Moncion from Ontario.

Senator McIntyre: I am Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.

The Chair: Thank you for being here, ladies and gentlemen. Ms. Lapierre, the floor is yours.

Marie-France Lapierre, Chair and Trustee, Fraser Valley Region, Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique: Mr. Chair, I want to say how much we appreciate the opportunity to be here on behalf of the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique, or CSF for short. Familiar with the challenges faced by the CSF and other French-language school boards in francophone and Acadian minority communities, and aware of the flaws in the Official Languages Act, the committee has been asking the government for legislative amendments since 2005. Our presentation will be divided into three parts. First, Mr. Ouellette and I will touch on the problems associated with the disposal of federal land and the legislative solution proposed by the CSF. Next, he will discuss the federal government’s funding support for minority-language education and put forward the CSF’s solution. Lastly, I will speak to the enumeration of rights-holders under section 23 of the Charter as well as a legislative proposal to address the problem.

First of all, the CSF is calling for amendments to the act that would require federal institutions to consult minority-language school boards and commissions before disposing of real property.

Marc-André Ouellette, Vice-President and Trustee, Southern Vancouver Island Region, Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique: In its 2017 report, the Senate committee quite clearly identified the challenge faced by British Columbia’s francophone community with regard to the acquisition of property, that is, identifying land that is actually available for the construction of schools. The courts found that what stands in the way of the implementation of section 23 of the Charter is a lack of political will and not a shortage of sites, even in Vancouver. The federal government owns a large number of properties, many of which have been or will be deemed to be surplus to its needs. Nevertheless, the act does not impose any specific obligations regarding the disposal of land.

Ms. Lapierre: The CSF’s attempts to acquire a small part of three of those sites have been unsuccessful thus far. Two of the sites are in Vancouver and would serve the Rose-des-Vents elementary school, the Jericho site, owned by the Department of National Defence, and the RCMP site on Heather Street, in Fairmont. The CSF, the education ministry and this committee have worked hard to reverse the effects of the decision to dispose of the sites without consulting the CSF. Despite all our efforts, the CSF still has no site in Vancouver.

Mr. Ouellette: The third site is in Victoria, the Royal Roads site. It belongs to the Department of National Defence as well, but unfortunately, history seems to be repeating itself, as though the fiasco with the Jericho and Fairmont sites had never happened. In 2017, the federal government announced its intention to dispose of the Royal Roads property, a 500-acre site. The CSF never received an adequate response from the federal government regarding the site’s use, and yet, other parties have already signed collaboration agreements for the development of the site. The CSF is interested in acquiring just 5 to 10 acres of the 500 concerned. It shouldn’t be this complicated. I would refer you to paragraph 15 of our brief, which details our efforts in relation to the site. The situation is frustrating. Through its actions or, rather, inaction, a federal institution is undermining the development and vitality of French in British Columbia, and it’s perfectly acceptable under the act. This underscores how crucial it is to amend the act accordingly.

Ms. Lapierre: The federal directive governing the sale or transfer of surplus real property requires federal departments, agent Crown corporations, and provincial and municipal governments to be consulted. The directive does not require consultation in the case of school boards. The approach is not working. It is therefore necessary to consider an amendment to the Official Languages Act that would expressly require the federal government to consult school boards before disposing of or transferring one of its surplus real properties. Humbly, we have included a draft proposal for a new section of the act on page 7 of our brief.

Mr. Ouellette: Secondly, the CSF is asking the committee to recommend that the Official Languages Act be amended to provide a better framework for the federal government’s financial support for minority-language elementary and secondary education under the protocol for agreements. Pursuant to the protocol, the Department of Canadian Heritage has the right to approve complementary contributions for capital projects, in addition to the amounts provided for in the protocol. This complementary funding is intended for spaces that are over and above existing school standards in the province, such as extra gym space that would not be warranted by the number of students but would serve the French-speaking minority community.

This funding is crucial to the CSF and the community, some of whose schools have benefited from complementary contributions. Consequently, certain CSF schools have larger gyms, auditoriums and daycare centres, thanks to this federal support. As you know, minority community infrastructure dramatically affects the community’s capacity to attract and retain CSF students, and thus the CSF’s capacity to gradually reverse the effects of assimilation.

Furthermore, community infrastructure has a dramatic impact on a community’s sense of pride and the attachment students have to that community. As the committee so rightly recommended in 2017, a special agreement setting out federal funding for the CSF’s capital projects should be signed, in much the same way that special agreements were signed in 1997 and 2002. The committee recognized the pressing infrastructure requirements of the CSF and the need to address those requirements through special agreements, which proved successful in the past.

The CSF would therefore like to propose that the Official Languages Act be amended to set out and define the federal government’s role in minority-language education. To that end, we have humbly included a draft proposal for a new section of the act on page 9 of our brief.

Having seen the proposals put forward by our Saskatchewan counterparts with respect to federal funding, the CSF wholeheartedly endorses them.

Ms. Lapierre: Third, the CSF is calling on the committee to recommend that the Official Languages Act be amended to expressly require Statistics Canada to enumerate rights-holders, under section 23 of the Charter, through the short-form census questionnaire. The problem is straightforward: the CSF is not able to adequately determine its infrastructure needs, and plan accordingly, without access to relevant and reliable data on the potential number of students in its schools.

The CSF suffered the consequences of Statistics Canada’s inability to enumerate all students eligible to attend its schools, as evidenced by the court challenge we launched against the Government of British Columbia. The judge was unable to decide between the two experts on the statistics issue. She therefore chose to use 2011 census data to determine the potential demand for a French-language school. The 2011 census data covered only children with a parent whose first language learned was French. Clearly, the census figures fell well short of reflecting actual demand. For example, relying on the inaccurate 2011 data, the judge found that the potential demand for the school my children attend — École des Pionniers-de-Maillardville — warranted only 560 spots. The new school, however, will open its doors in March — after March break — to 640 students and have four portables.

That is a real-life example of what can happen when the census fails to enumerate two other categories of rights-holders: children with a parent who has received primary school instruction in Canada in French, and children with a parent whose child received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in French in Canada, further to the census.

Such a flaw in the census is especially problematic in British Columbia given the trend towards exogamous marriage. Take me, for example. My husband is anglophone, and I am francophone, making us an exogamous family. Consequently, the language we speak at home is usually the one spoken by everyone or the one spoken by the family member who speaks only one language: English. That is the situation in my family. If I am given just one choice when asked which language we speak most often at home, I would have to say English. That does not mean, however, that I do not speak French. If my children had to choose just one language, as per the census, I am certain that they would, unfortunately, choose English since it is the language used in their home environment. The census would not enumerate my children even though they are rights-holders.

In order to obtain an accurate count, the census has to change. More than just complete and reliable data are needed; flexible data are necessary so that the CSF can meet its infrastructure requirements through adequate planning and adapt to a changing environment. It is not enough to know how many eligible students live in every municipality. We need to know where the students live in every catchment area. For example, it’s important to know how many students live in a region, and where exactly, in order to make changes to catchment areas. That was the situation in the Fraser Valley region, which I represent. High school students had to go to École Gabrielle-Roy, which meant three hours on a bus for some of them. Owing to the distance, students opted to enrol in English-language schools instead. Now that a new bridge has been built and students have the option to attend École des Pionniers, high school students are choosing to enrol in one of our schools.

Making those kinds of changes as effectively as possible hinges on having access to complete, reliable and flexible data on the potential demand for minority-language education in each region of a broader catchment area. Given Statistics Canada’s consistent inaction on this matter, it would seem that asking the department to change the census is no longer enough.

That is why, on page 15 of our brief, we have humbly included a draft proposal for a new section of the Official Languages Act. The CSF is grateful to the committee for its tireless work in support of the rights of British Columbia’s francophone community. This study and the ensuing recommendations will help current and future students thrive in our schools — they, who represent the future of linguistic duality in Canada.

Alpha Barry, Chair, Conseil des écoles fransaskoises: Honourable Senators, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of Saskatchewan’s French-language school board community, I want to convey our heartfelt greetings. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee on behalf of the Conseil des écoles fransaskoises, or CÉF for short. We are here today because of our profound desire to see the Official Languages Act modernized, particularly with respect to minority-language education. Familiar with the challenges faced by French-language school boards in minority francophone and Acadian communities, not to mention the failings of the act, your committee has worked to shine a light on them since 2005.

The time has come to modernize the act. Our school boards, which did not exist the last time the act was amended, emerged in response to our community’s constitutional rights. Today, our school boards are government entities, and they must be recognized and taken into account. The CÉF applauds the committee’s 2017 report on French-language education in British Columbia. That said, the committee’s work in the context of this study is much more significant. This is a golden opportunity for the committee to endeavour to make the federal government’s role in minority-language education independent of partisan politics.

I am delighted to be here to share with you the pressing needs of our school board communities. Let there be no doubt that our school boards require protection under a new and modernized act.

Our presentation will cover four points. First, I will provide an overview of Saskatchewan’s French-speaking community and the CÉF. Second, I will briefly describe the management framework governing federal financial support for minority-language education. Third, I will illustrate the framework’s key shortcomings with concrete examples. Last, but certainly not least, I will humbly propose a legislative amendment that would directly address and remedy those shortcomings.

Unfortunately, our presentation today looks a lot like the one we gave before the House of Commons committee in 2011. It would seem that nothing has changed.

Hélène Grimard, Vice-Chair, Conseil des écoles fransaskoises: The CÉF is the only French-language school board in the province with a triple mandate, covering education, culture and community. As a school board of the minority community, the CÉF has constitutional obligations under sections 23 and 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and related jurisprudence. The CÉF fulfills that responsibility by managing French-language schools on behalf of parent rights-holders in the interest of Saskatchewan’s entire francophone community. And we take that responsibility very seriously.

The CÉF operates five minority-language schools in urban areas and nine schools in rural areas. They face unique challenges that give rise to significant costs for the school board, without the benefit of economies of scale. What’s more, the Ministry of Education’s standardized funding formula was never tailored to the unique needs of the minority community. This means that our board is seriously underfunded, and all the facets of education our schools provide suffer as a result. Saskatchewan’s francophone community is up against formidable challenges, not the least of which is exogamy. Clearly, the CÉF’s underfunding means that its schools cannot possibly address those challenges or adequately meet the community’s needs.

Mr. Barry: Turning briefly to the management framework governing federal financial support for minority-language education, I would point out that the framework violates section 23 of the Charter, in our view.

Every five years, the Department of Canadian Heritage enters into a protocol for agreements with the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. The protocol sets the key parameters for collaboration between the two levels of government on minority-language education funding for both first-language and second-language learning. The department then negotiates bilateral agreements with every provincial and territorial education minister. The education minister must then adopt an action plan setting out the initiatives that will receive federal funding and the corresponding amounts.

For the committee’s benefit, the CÉF has highlighted four shortcomings in the management framework that could be remedied by amending the Official Languages Act. They are described in detail in our brief, but I will run through them quickly. First, the needs of Saskatchewan’s francophone community are determined by the province, in other words, the government. The protocol’s preamble contains a reference to section 23, which we’ve included on page 8 of our brief. Despite that, however, the preamble goes on to state that education is an area of provincial jurisdiction, thus disregarding the CÉF and its status as a government entity with a front-line role in minority-language education, from junior kindergarten to grade 12.

Second, the protocol does not require Saskatchewan’s education ministry to consult the CÉF. We were not at the table when the action plan for 2013-18 was being negotiated; nor were we adequately consulted. Given the chronic underfunding and in the absence of a funding formula tailored to our needs, the federal funding we receive merely makes up the shortfall, preventing the CÉF from following through on its plans. In terms of the next action plan, the Saskatchewan Ministry of Education has yet to consult the CÉF on its priorities and those of Saskatchewan’s francophone community.

Third, the protocol does not include any real accountability mechanisms. The action plan prepared by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Education very generally identifies initiatives it could implement over the five years and the corresponding amounts. It does not, however, indicate who will receive the funds or what share the federal government will contribute. I would refer you to Schedule 3, included in our brief. Furthermore, the protocol requires the Ministry of Education to produce an annual report containing a financial statement of actual expenditures and contributions related to its action plan. I would refer you to the table following paragraph 42, in the French version of our brief. The CÉF does not receive a copy of the report. It is posted online for a few years, but no annual report after 2015-16 is available. What’s more, the reports submitted by the Saskatchewan government to the Department of Canadian Heritage are available only in English.

Fourth, the protocol allows the funds allocated to French-language elementary and secondary education to be used to cover the essential costs of education and not the supplementary costs. As you can easily imagine, the underfunding of the Conseil des écoles fransaskoises produces numerous negative effects on the quality of education and the community’s development and vitality. The federal government’s funding for special measures is used for basic operations services, such as student transportation.

Ms. Grimard: All the shortcomings raised today come from the legislation’s lack of guidance on the federal government’s involvement in minority language education. The Conseil des écoles fransaskoises did not exist in 1988, the last time the act was amended. Let’s not make the mistake of passing a new piece of legislation that does not take into account the CÉF and French-language minority school boards. The solution to those shortcomings proposed by the CÉF is to add to the legislation a section to define and provide a framework for the federal government’s role in minority language education. A proposed first draft of that section is on page 15 of the brief. I will not read it to you.

The Conseil des écoles fransaskoises thanks you for the opportunity to share its concerns and solutions in the study on modernizing the act.

The Chair: Mr. Barry, Ms. Grimard, thank you. We will now go to Roger Paul and Jean Lemay, from the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones.

Jean Lemay, Member of the Executive Committee, National Federation of French-Language School Boards: I would like to begin by thanking the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages for inviting our federation to share its views on the modernization of the Official Languages Act, especially Part VII.

My name is Jean Lemay, and I am a member of the executive committee of the FNCSF, the National Federation of French-Language School Boards. Our federation represents the country’s 28 school boards in minority settings from Canada’s nine provinces and three territories. Those school boards are in charge of over 700 elementary and secondary schools attended by more than 164,000 students. Our network of elementary and secondary schools has been growing over the past few years, both in terms of schools and enrolments.

However, despite that boost, francophones in minority situations are still too numerous not to be able to have their children educated in French as a first language, despite section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As an example, more than 2,000 children in the country are on a waiting list for a spot in a francophone early childhood centre. Across all territories and provinces, francophones must have the option to study in French in a continuum going from preschool to post-secondary education and adult education.

Although French will remain the most commonly spoken mother tongue after English, with 7.8 million speakers, forecasts indicate that its demographic weight will decrease in 2036, both in Quebec and outside la belle province. So there is some urgency to support linguistic duality in order to give francophone and Acadian communities every opportunity to develop. To do so, stable financial support for community school infrastructure is crucial.

Last March, the federal government announced the injection of $8 million annually over 10 years into the building of educational infrastructure in a minority setting in order to highlight and promote linguistic duality in Canada. That amount, in addition to the funding set out in the official languages action plan, remains insufficient to take into account the pressing infrastructure needs of francophone school boards.

Many French-language schools want to develop an infrastructure with three components — education, community and early childhood. Schools need to enhance their community spaces to better serve the needs of francophone and Acadian communities and turn educational institutions into hubs of school, community and cultural lives.

As confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Rose-des-Vents, in 2015, the infrastructure of French-language schools should make it possible to provide education that is at least equivalent to that provided in the majority of neighbouring schools. Appropriate infrastructure is essential to ensuring the vitality and sustainability of our communities.

When parents are deterred from enrolling their children in a French-language school because of failing infrastructure — such as a lack of space, kindergartens, gyms or auditorium, poor physical condition of school buildings, or the fact that the school building is not well adapted to provide a quality school program by focussing on language and culture — the objective of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is jeopardized, as is the fundamental principle of the Official Languages Act to encourage the development of both official languages. So there is a lot of ground to be made up in a number of regions of the country when it comes to community school centres.

Although cultural diversity is a reality in the country’s minority francophone school boards, there are still challenges in terms of recruitment, welcoming, maintenance and guidance for newcomers. The need to better inform rights holders and French-speaking newcomers of the existence of the country’s minority French-language school network is very real.

The National Federation of French-Language School Boards has actually produced a series of videos entitled My School of Choice — available in French, English and Arabic — to help parents make an educated decision. Consular services should inform newcomers before they arrive in Canada of the potential opportunity to have their child educated in French outside Quebec.

The future of French-language schools rests on immigration. French-language school administrators are well aware of this and want newcomers to be included in a pluralist Francophonie.

If that’s okay, I would now like to yield the floor to my executive director, Roger Paul, who will tell you about concrete actions the federal government could take to promote linguistic duality and support the development of francophone and Acadian communities in minority settings through the education vector.

Roger Paul, Executive Director, National Federation of French-Language School Boards: Good evening everyone and thank you for having us.

I would like to tell you about four concrete actions the federal government can take to promote linguistic duality and support the development of francophone and Acadian communities in minority settings through the education vector, as Mr. Lemay mentioned.

First, I will talk about immigration; second, the census; third, the federal government’s surplus real property; and, finally, OLEP’s strategic agreement. Some of those topics have been covered by my colleagues, so I will not focus on them.

I would say that the National Federation of French-Language School Boards feels that the federal government must be able to encourage francophone immigration, modify the census form to better identify rights holders, create a balanced disposal strategy for the federal government’s surplus real property and, finally, encourage the implementation of a strategic agreement for education.

First of all, let us begin with immigration. The government must be able to encourage a better distribution of francophone immigrants to Canada in order to achieve the 5 per cent target endorsed by all 13 provinces and territories and establish a practical action plan with timelines. Let us not forget that Statistics Canada projects that almost one in two Canadians will be an immigrant within 15 years.

Regarding the next census, we believe that the government must amend the census questionnaire in time for the next census in 2021 in order to better identify rights holders who are entitled to attend French-language schools in minority communities. That will counter assimilation effectively. We support our colleagues from the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique. I will not repeat what they told you. That is a position we share with the 28 school boards across the country. Changing the form is essential to obtaining a complete and accurate count of the number of rights holders in order to establish an elementary and high school education system that truly meets the needs of Canada’s francophone communities. Many of our students come from exogamous families, as noted, and are therefore not counted.

I would like to share a personal anecdote with you in this regard. In my former life, I was the executive director of a school board with about 15,000 students. When the Ontario Ministry of Education asked me for proof that a new school needed to be built, in Vankleek Hill, Cornwall or Rockland for instance, I could not just say because I thought it was important. No. I had to provide census data to support my request. It was hard to move forward because millions of dollars were involved. I am not blaming the government for asking us for the data, but we do not have it. We could get it though if the census questionnaire were revised. That is why it is important. That is how governments work. We need data. If that data were available, minority language school boards, francophone parents, francophone communities and the provincial and territorial governments would be able to plan their programs more effectively. At some point, everyone wants a new school. Why should one be given priority over another? Why should the francophones be given priority over the anglophones? We have to be able to prove that there is a real need.

Finally, with regard to real property, the federal government has to come out in favour of a balanced disposal strategy. We are not on an equal footing here. When a piece of property valued at $20 million or $25 million becomes available, do you think the francophones can afford it? Perhaps we do not need the whole 400 acres. Maybe we only want 10 acres. Can something reasonable be offered to us?

You have heard a great deal about the strategic agreement for the OLEP. We wrested it from Canadian Heritage, with your help, and we are very proud of it. We presented it to your committee in 2005 and 2016, and your recommendations extended far beyond what we had agreed upon with Canadian Heritage. What we would have liked, which the Conseil scolaire des écoles fransaskoises presented to you, was a statutory framework that would put an end to the perennial struggles. With your help, we were able to reach a strategic agreement on the process. That was a good first step.

The National Federation of French-Language School Boards, the Commission nationale des parents francophones and the FCFA were able to conclude that agreement. Nonetheless, Canadian Heritage requires further consultation, reporting, and a clear definition of supplementary costs. The supplementary costs do not include paying teachers regularly, as certain ministries do. This has to be clarified and I think we have clarified it. The question now is whether the ministries of education across the country will honour that. That remains to be seen. If it is not honoured, we will have to come back and ask for your support again.

I could go on for a long time, but let us move on to the senators’ questions instead.

Senator Poirier: Thank you all for being here. One of you mentioned the roadmap for official languages of the past five years, which expires on March 31, 2018, and the new action plan that is in the works, as well as the government’s somewhat disappointing response to our report, Horizon 2018. People seem to think that Minister Joly’s action plan will solve every problem. Judging from why I have heard here, that is not really the case.

As I recall, Mr. Barry said that the same recommendations are repeated time after time, in every report, but no real answer is ever forthcoming. Some people also mentioned that they had not been consulted on the last action plan and roadmap, or on those that are being developed. I would like know if the other groups were consulted. Was the Fédération that represents the 28 school boards consulted in the development of the new action plan and roadmap?

Mr. Lemay: I can answer that. I represent Ontario. We have 12 French-language school boards in Ontario and over 500,000 francophone students in our schools in Ontario. Right now, the Ministry of Education does not consult the school boards across the province. Certain funds are earmarked for francophones, but we are not consulted. That is why the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones would like to see that consultation right across the country. Every ministry of education needs to consult its francophone community.

We are all elected and elections are held every four years. We represent the parents of children who attend our school and the parents who do not have children in school, but who pay taxes to our school board. The message has to get out. When the ministry of education receives an amount for the official languages and announces that to the school boards, we would like to be consulted on where that money will go.

In Ontario, and right across Canada, the majority of anglophones have access to immersion programs. They take French classes at English-language schools. They are the majority and have greater political weight. They can make a request loud and clear for funding from the ministry of education. What about the francophone minority, francophone schools, francophone community centres and francophone daycare centres? How can we access that money when the provincial government does not listen to our needs?

Sometimes we try to find out how the money was spent. It goes into the general education budget and then we get figures that we cannot justify. It is not the same as in Ontario, but I think it is the same elsewhere.

Ms. Lapierre: Last year, we took part in consultations. The CSF was not invited. I attended because the British Columbia School Trustees Association had decided to invite the Conseil scolaire francophone. I took part in some of the consultations because I had been invited by a provincial organization and not the ministry of education. We asked questions about transparency, payments, and funding. For example, we said there has to be matching, although matching is already in the act for now. We asked questions because we were told to do matching, but we did not necessarily receive the funding from the provincial government. For example, over four years, we had to say that the province had given us $800,000 when in fact it had not given us that amount. We asked some questions in June at our meeting. We were told that we would get an answer at the next meeting, which was scheduled for December but cancelled. We were told the meeting would be in January. The documents have to be signed soon, so it is time for consultations. Today is February 12, and no date has yet been set for a meeting with ministry of education officials.

Mr. Paul: That is an excellent question. Were we consulted? We are talking about the 28 school boards across Canada. We were consulted by Canadian Heritage. In our view, the ministry of education in each province and territory is more important than Canadian Heritage. The funding goes to the province and it is then allocated by formulas. It is not the same everywhere. One cannot paint all the provinces and territories with the same brush. In some provinces, things are better, but in others, there is absolutely no consultation. At some point, the province decides to read the school board’s strategic plan and chooses what it wants; that is the extent of consultation. We still have to make some progress before we can say that we were consulted.

On the other hand, the strategic agreement that your standing committee supported us on clearly states that Canadian Heritage expects the ministries of education to consult the school boards, but that is not a requirement, merely a wish on the part of Canadian Heritage. Furthermore, Canadian Heritage says that if the province does not consult us, they will. Canadian Heritage, however, is not the most important body in our provinces and territories.

Senator Poirier: All the groups talked about the upcoming census in 2021, which could make a difference in the counting of francophones in Canada. On a scale from one to ten — with ten being the most important criterion — what is the most important factor for the success of francophone minority communities?

Ms. Lapierre: Without the numbers, we cannot plan. We cannot plan any programs. We do not know where to build schools. That is really one of the most important things. That is why we need the whole population to respond and not just a sample, because there are fluid zones. In my region alone, things change. If schools are built, the zone will change. That is why the act must reflect change and require the collection of data. If the act is not amended, we can easily be faulted for not having the numbers.

The father of my old boss is francophone, but by old boss does not speak French because there was no French school nearby. His children do not even have an ear for French. If we do not get all the answers to the census questions, if the act does not require us to ask all the questions that would serve to identify the three categories, it is a vicious circle. If we do not have the numbers, we will be assimilated. Then people will say that we have been assimilated.

Senator Poirier: I understand you completely. I am a French-speaking Acadian born in a region where there was no French school. I was educated in English. Now there is a French school.

My last question pertains to New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province that reviews its official languages act every 10 years. Do you think the federal government should review the Official Languages Act every 5, 7, 10 or 15 years?

Mr. Barry: That is an excellent question. Clearly, any solution is workable. Reviewing the act after a certain number of years would help modernize it and keep it current. When we talk about modernizing the act nowadays, it is a fundamental review. We can no longer simply rely on the good faith of provincial governments. We are a small minority. Effective representation is not afforded by legislation, Parliament or even cabinet. As a result, we are like a speck of dust. Our school board recommends that paragraph 43(1)(d), which is in the current act, be expanded into a section that clearly identifies school boards as an order of government, with mandatory consultation set out in the act, in order to give us some statutory power that would require governments to consult us.

The Chair: Thank you. Please be brief. The clock is ticking and a number of senators have questions.

Ms. Lapierre: I will try to be brief. When I got married, I made out a will. When I had children, we updated our will. It is the same thing with the act. The act dates back to 1988, which was before our school board was created. A review of the act is overdue. In my opinion, the act should also be reviewed regularly because other changes will be made in the meantime. Was I brief enough?

The Chair: Yes, thank you, Ms. Lapierre. Mr. Paul, would you like to say something?

Mr. Paul: My answer is even shorter: yes.

Mr. Lemay: Yes. Let me tell you what happens every time we plan to build a school in British Columbia and Ontario. In English, there is a saying that if you build it, they will come. That is what happens. We finally have enough money to open a school for 400 students. In the first year, before the school opens, we have to install four, five or six portables. The saying “build it and they will come” applies to francophones.

Senator Gagné: Thank you very much. Thank you for your excellent presentations and also for the recommendations you have provided. They are very well documented and will help us in our discussions.

I have been in the field of education for over 35 years. Listening to you, I swear we talked about the same things 30 years ago. That is disconcerting. I hope to be able to rally people around these issues so we can finally be heard.

You made recommendations about the disposal of property and infrastructure, the enumeration of rights holders, the allocation of funding, accountability, consultation of school boards, and the negotiation of protocols for agreement in education.

There are two processes in Canada. There are negotiations related to the action plan, which was called the roadmap, and all the negotiations related to the protocol for official languages in education. These are two separate processes. For education, we have to negotiate with the provinces to ensure that they address the school boards’ needs. Since education falls under provincial jurisdiction, the three parties have to agree on investments that will foster community development and vitality.

Let us now turn to the modernization of the Official Languages Act. For it to play a practical role in education, how can we provide for a continuum in education, from preschool to primary, high school and postsecondary? Do you think this concept could be included in Part VII? Or rather do you think the continuum in education should be addressed in a specific part? Should that part include regulations pertaining to the continuum in education? Those are things that other witnesses have recommended. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

Mr. Barry: The continuum in education is clearly a vector for our growth and vitality right now. You talked about regulations under the act. Regulations could certainly be amended by officials, whereas the act is amended in the House of Commons. We focus more on the act itself. We recommend including the requirement of giving school boards the opportunity to consider how the act could further the vitality of our communities. We are in a very good position to know how to go about meeting our current needs. We are also able to do it. We do not need public servants to tell us how to do it. I do not know if my colleagues agree. In my opinion, the act would be ideal.

Ms. Lapierre: School boards are key players that must be represented in the legislation, because, in terms of consultation, we are the ones taking care of business. Clearly, there is a continuum to the extent that, if there are no early childhood services, a francophone identity will not be a factor. So, people arrive at daycare and the concept of identity is not yet formed. But if kids go to daycare and speak French, there is a francophone identity. I began to become involved with the school board when I was looking for a French-language daycare for my son, who was two at the time. I was recruited before he started daycare. It’s something that lasts, but it first has to be built.

Similarly, we lose a lot of kids in high school because no post-secondary education is provided in French. So students go to high school in English hoping to improve their English, so they can do better at university. Education clearly begins in the cradle and continues to the grave, because it really has to be worked at. That has to be represented in the legislation.

Senator Gagné, you testified in 2005, if I recall correctly.

Senator Gagné: You have a good memory.

Ms. Lapierre: We always come back to testify about the same things. I think that these aspects have to be included in the legislation to make change possible. If you rely on the government or on bureaucrats, nothing will happen. The legislation really has to be modernized.

Senator Gagné: I have a specific question for Mr. Paul. Does the act have to enshrine the roles and powers of school boards in educational matters?

Mr. Paul: Absolutely, our federation wants a management role to be enshrined.

To answer your first question, in the act, we need to see what is called “institutional completeness”. A lot of progress has been made at elementary and secondary levels. We are beginning to break through at post-secondary level. With the announcements this year, early childhood is promising as well, but we are far from getting our fair share.

At our board of directors meeting last week, we examined all the bilateral federal-provincial agreements on early childhood and we saw that those agreements really contain very little for francophones. If Part VII of the act referred to the needs of francophones in terms of “institutional completeness”, the agreements would have had provision for grants and the parameters governing them. That is not the case at present.

Senator Gagné: You mentioned Part VII. Do you believe that, instead of being included in Part VII, it should be in a separate section?

Mr. Paul: Yes, I wanted to mention that. It should be separate because, when we are talking about taking positive steps in education, it is extremely important to go beyond the simple wording and to establish directions. Legislation means that, when a new government comes along, it cannot do what it likes. Things are already enshrined. This is a golden opportunity to do so. Yes, it really must be done every five or 10 years. It must be done regularly. If it had been done in the past, there would have been progress in the conditions of francophone schools.

I disagree with the comment that no progress has been made. We have made a lot of progress. At one time, we did not have school boards. Now, we have a strategic and historic agreement, thanks to you and your committee. It's not far enough, but it is progress.

Mr. Ouellette: To answer Senator Gagné’s question, I feel that the word we are looking for, and the word is quite strong, is “enshrine” in the legislation. You talked about regulations. Regulations are not very useful if the government does not make them. The other thing is that I hope that you were not too satisfied with the response you received to your report. We were not. We found that the response was vague. One example of a regulation that may or may not work well, or not work at all, is the issue of the disposal of lands. You saw their answer: it provides the opportunity to issue a reminder. For us, reminders do not work either. That is not the way to get things done. You have to deal with matters directly. Our briefs contain three proposals, and Alpha’s brief contains one more. They are good places to start and that is what we have to focus on, because everyone has something to say about it. Thank you very much.

Senator McIntyre: Clearly, your organizations represent francophone school boards operating outside Quebec. They play a key role in the field of education. Thank you for your presentations. Three themes regularly come up in the public hearings the committee holds, and you mentioned them too: the memorandum of understanding, the next action plan, and accountability in education.

Accountability problems are a recurring theme. Here is my question. How do we have to modernize the Official Languages Act in order to solve those problems?

Mr. Barry: Thank you, Senator McIntyre. If you look at the plan for the legislation that we are recommending to you, you will see a proposal for an independent body to take care of that. We have used the word “department” without indicating specifically whether or not we are referring to Canadian Heritage. For those of us who will be involved with it, that is not really the point. It is really about having the force of law saying that there will be a body with the power to do it without being subject to influence from one side or the other. It might be an administrative tribunal, Canadian Heritage or the Treasury Board; I do not think it matters a lot for us. But we would like to be able to go to a body that is charged with making sure that the law is effectively enforced.

Ms. Lapierre: I will continue along the same lines as Alpha. I think we need a guard dog, one with teeth, to which we could turn when something has not been done properly, so that there are consequences and requirements to fulfill. That is why we are asking for changes to the act. I have been working at federal level for 23 years and I hope that no one is listening to what I am about to say. The directions I receive that are based on the act are followed more closely when there are regulations, administrative directives or guidelines. That is why we are fighting for them to be written into the act, precisely so there can be consequences and requirements.

Senator McIntyre: Let me move to my second question. As Roger Paul mentioned, your organizations won quite the victory with the strategic education agreement. Now you have to move to the next stage and I feel that the next stage is the memorandum of understanding in education that, let us hope, will be concluded between the federal government and the Council of Ministers of Education Canada (CMEC).

Do you feel that the memorandum of understanding will see the light of day? Do you think that the Government of Canada will be able to encourage the council to consider the strategic priorities identified in the agreement when the next memorandum of understanding in education is being negotiated?

Mr. Paul: That is a good question. It is a $10,000 question, that one.

Mr. Ouellette: A $10 million question.

Mr. Paul: Right. Thank you. Here is my answer for you. If the federal government and the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is heading up this matter, fail, that is basically that. If Canadian Heritage does not succeed in convincing the CMEC of the value of a memorandum of that kind, the government has failed. The memorandum of understanding is between Canadian Heritage, the Fédération des conseils scolaires francophones, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, and the Commission nationale des parents francophones. We need more focused consultations and a definition of what the additional costs mean. We have to stop spending money paying for on mandatory and recurring expenses.

Third, we need better accountability. Okay, are we expecting all ministries of education to sign the memorandum of understanding? That would be desirable; for us, that really would be a dream come true. Are we being realistic? Yes. But it is much more important to find out, to ask ourselves, what Canadian Heritage will do if the ministers of education end up not signing the agreement. What will Canadian Heritage do if, province by province, the school boards go up to their respective ministers of education and say: “here is a memorandum of understanding; this is what Canadian Heritage is asking you to do, so why are you not doing it?” Then what do we end up with? Well, it’s the same old story. It has already started.

There will be a lot of cases before the courts because Canadian Heritage has determined that things should work in a certain way. The province says no and they pass the ball back and forth. Canadian Heritage will say that education is in provincial and territorial jurisdiction. We will say to them: “it is your money, it is the people’s money”. When you give out money, you have to set up some accountability and some consultations so that it is clear how the money is to be spent. We have a strategic agreement and I cannot tell you how pleased we are with that. When they decide not to live up to it for one reason or another, we have a document signed by Canadian Heritage that basically sets out the rules of the game. Now, are they going to play by them? That will require negotiation and the next round is going to be very tough.

I am aware that we are appearing before you today, but we are giving you a flag to raise. We are going to need the help of the entire community for the next step and Mr. Trudeau has said that the understanding should be signed around April or May. Then the consultations should start. Which groups will he be consulting with? We must be careful; they will be between Canadian Heritage and the school boards. However, we are not interested in those; we are more interested in those between the ministries of education and our school boards. Those will be black and white, and Mr. Trudeau promised that. You were there when he answered a parent from British Columbia. It was last week or the week before, if memory serves. A francophone parent, from Nanaimo, I think, asked Mr. Trudeau what he was going to do. Our children go through elementary school, and that is fine, depending where they are. But when they get to high school, they can only do two courses out of eight in French. Mr. Trudeau replied in French, saying: “you will see in the next action plan, the next road map. The previous government did not increase those funds, but you will see.”

We are waiting to see as well. When a prime minister makes a promise like that, we are hopeful, but we are not naïve. We are waiting to see what is going to happen.

To answer your question, I would say that it is not a memorandum of understanding that we need. Do you remember when we came to see you and you supported us in wanting to develop a tripartite agreement between CMEC, Canadian Heritage, and the school boards? We did not get that agreement, but, at least, we gave up some ground in order to get a strategic agreement and we hope that everyone will show good faith. We gave up ground, but we will be back. We will be back before your committee to continue the discussions on the Official Languages Act.

Senator McIntyre: Let us hope that there will be some political will.

Mr. Paul: We all hope so.

Ms. Lapierre: The reason why we are asking for an amendment to the act is precisely that we cannot put our faith in a political will that changes with the number of votes. We understand that francophones in minority situations do not come with a lot of votes. So we need the protection of the law so that our constitutional rights can be upheld.

I apologize for speaking for myself, but I do not want to trust myself to the good will of a politician currently in power and what he says. We know full well that promises change, whereas, if it is written into the law, it will be harder to ignore. That is why I would prefer it to be written into the law so that my children and my grandchildren will be protected.

Senator Maltais: You are trying to square the circle. On one side, you have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that provides you with specific rights. On the other side, you have the Constitution that makes it clear that you have no right to intervene, in the sense that section 96 defines the powers of the provinces.

I have to tell you this. There is no political will; not from the provinces, and not from the federal government, whether we like it or not. But we have to find a solution. About a year and a half ago, sitting in Mr. Barry’s place, were people from the Canada Lands Company. I can assure you that there was nothing funny about it. We were led to believe that there was a possibility for the Rose-des-Vents school. So they lied right to our faces. How can you trust people like that? They had not been to the Rose-des-Vents school, but I went, as you may remember. I saw the children in the daycare playing on the asphalt and the concrete. I said that the only rose I saw there was in the hearts of the children.

I am very disappointed that the political world is not of more help to you. Mr. Barry, you have talked about regulations and the legislative framework in terms of revising the act. The Senate can make all the recommendations it wants, but the laws are passed in the House of Commons. I am telling you the truth; I am not hiding behind screens or sunglasses. That is where you have to hammer away. Members of Parliament will talk to you in every kind of language; you have to bang them on the head, every day if necessary.

You have one tool on your side; it is Radio-Canada, which costs taxpayers an arm and a leg. Get them going, if you can. I can’t; they don’t listen to me anymore. In my opinion, they are doing a very bad job and they are still looking for a part of their money from Canadian Heritage, which is a huge department. Even with the best will in the world, and the best minister, French language and education comes behind Parks Canada, behind the Canada Council, behind CBC/Radio-Canada, and behind publishing. You are the last ones on the list, I am telling you. That is the reality.

When you spend scarcely $60 million for francophone schools outside Quebec and Quebec spends half a million for our anglophones, it is a real farce. If you need proof, look at the government leader here, a good anglophone.

Apart from the school boards, no one has any political will. You are up against a wall, and the only way to get over it is to go to the House of Commons. You can do all the action plans you like, submit all the amendments you like as part of the review of the Official Languages Act. The result will always be a big fat zero.

You have to talk to the official languages committee in the House of Commons and to each of your members of Parliament. If some do nothing, call them on it in order to give yourself some visibility, because election campaigns are coming up. In Ontario, things are pretty good, but in Saskatchewan, not so much. In British Columbia, they are going as fast as a tortoise in reverse.

I am telling you the truth as I see it, having gone across the country from Prince Edward Island to Vancouver Island. The same questions always come up, whatever the province. If we had witnesses from Prince Edward Island tomorrow, we would have the same list of questions, about immigration, the census form, real estate and strategic agreements. It is always the same.

We senators do not have the political weight to change a thing. We can support a position, but the power to change the law is in the other place. So you have to stir up that other chamber so that francophone ministers become involved in the western provinces. Those are my comments, basically.

Ms. Lapierre: I would like to react to Senator Maltais’ comments. I am originally from Quebec and I spent seven years in the Maritimes before going to British Columbia for six months. Clearly, we are here to get your support and the support of our members of Parliament. We are going to meet with the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages on February 28. So we are working on a number of fronts. The more we can encourage, help and educate people to understand our reality, the more support there will be and the more chance that things will change.

Senator Maltais: No question.

Ms. Lapierre: I am very pleased about that.

Mr. Ouellette: We are very proud of you. Let us not kid ourselves: your report made waves.

Mr. Paul: I can tell you that we have to work with the Senate and the House of Commons at the same time, and that is what we are doing. In the space of a year, I have appeared before your committee several times on behalf of the federation, and even more frequently before the House standing committee. I remember how difficult it was a few years ago. We were not in reverse, but we were moving forward at the speed of a tortoise. In 2006, you submitted a report about the OLEP, which we know did not get very far. However, we made use of that report 10 years later.

Now, in 2016, we know that laws are made by Parliament but, at the same time, we have to get support from all our allies. We were pleasantly surprised when we were able to get the strategic agreement, thanks to the standing committee. We know good people on the standing committee who have the interests of French-language education at heart. At the time, I did not see the extent of the consensus on French-language education in minority settings. The committee included recommendation 8 in its report. What an accomplishment to make a recommendation like that to Parliament! They did not want to give us the strategic agreement; but we got it thanks to you, and to them.

Another example is the census. They did not want to include additional questions in the next census. All of a sudden, Mr. Corbeil, the Chief Statistician at Statistics Canada, was asked why he could not do it. The answer was that the task would be too difficult and that it would distort the data. I listened to all the proceedings and I can tell you that they got Statistics Canada to create a committee. They did not want education to be part of the committee’s mandate. Why talk about education? This is just one topic among many.

Education is now part of its mandate. The committee has held its first meeting and things are promising. I would not be surprised to see, as requested by the chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, samples of additional questions by the end of March. We have not won, but I am hopeful that things will move forward. It is not useless to appear before you or the House of Commons standing committee. Of course, we must continue to work with our contacts, as well as with the ministers and members of Parliament.

Senator Maltais: I am not saying that it is useless to come here or to the House of Commons. You have our support 200 per cent. However, the real power of legislative change is in the House of Commons.

Mr. Paul: Absolutely. What we are presenting here, we will present again there.

Senator Moncion: We have attended a number of meetings. As my colleagues mentioned, the points that keep coming up are immigration, the census, the federal government’s surplus assets and early childhood. A few of you mentioned that, in modernizing the act, you are trying to enshrine the right to manage school boards. That’s an interesting idea. This is the first time I have heard of it. I am especially interested in the entrenchment aspect. Could you comment on how realistic such a request is as part of the modernization of the act?

Mr. Ouellette: If we don’t ask for the moon, we will never have the stars.

Mr. Barry: We do not want to be defeatist. We want to believe in it. Our language and culture are important to us. You have to focus on what you want and sometimes think outside the box. We very humbly propose this amendment, which would still give some power. When you get into the regulations and give certain privileges to an administrator, as soon as the administrator leaves, things change.

As Mr. Ouellette says, if we do not ask for it, we will get nothing. We believe this request is very realistic. We understand that you have some influence and the authority to make recommendations. We will work with you and the people in the other place as well. We believe in it and we will not give up.

Mr. Lemay: As an example, the Government of Ontario has decided that negotiations with its teachers will be done through school boards. It decided that the name of the association would be in the act. As a result, during negotiations with the teachers of the respective French-language school boards, the francophone association is at the table. This provision is enshrined in the legislation. They have earmarked the budgets for this and have achieved incredible savings. The name of the association is enshrined in the provincial legislation in terms of the negotiations with teachers.

It is a trivial example, but it has been done for three or four years. We negotiate for the 12 French-language school boards, so there is parity. Our teachers have parity with anglophone teachers. They do the same job, but in French. The school boards delegate this power to the association. The government may change, but the legislation is firmly in place, and that is how school boards are successful in having provincial negotiations with no disparities from one region to another.

Senator Moncion: I understand the principle from the provincial point of view. I have difficulty understanding it from the federal point of view. That’s my question.

Mr. Lemay: I would like to give you another example. The federal government has signed provincial agreements for early childhood. In the case of Ontario, it is $435 million. The agreement is signed, sealed and delivered. It represents $145 million a year for the next three years. Does that amount have a francophone component? No.

School boards in Ontario must go back to the ministry to make the case that the survival of schools depends on the daycare centres that will be in those schools. It has been demonstrated many times; you have schools with 45 students, you open a daycare centre and, five years later, you have 185 students. That’s what parents want. At parents’ meetings, the first question I’m asked is when daycare will open in their school. The daycare centres win, not the school results or the graduation rate.

That said, if no francophone factor is taken into account by the federal government, be it early childhood or education in general, we will have to fight with our provincial government to ensure that this priority is addressed. We will have to take up arms again, go to the provincial government and say that we are fighting for education and that we should have a piece of the pie. However, how much can we get from the provincial government?

The federal government should require a report at the end of the year to find out where the money for official languages went, how much money was allocated, and for how many children. Some provinces are doing a good job. I can’t really complain about Ontario. It is not the case across the country, and I am dealing with the 28 boards.

Ms. Lapierre: We are proposing tools. We know that you support us, that you have the knowledge, and that you are there for us. We are trying to bring you tools.

Here is the reason why the federal government has to act. We receive funding from the federal government to help us. The money is not sent directly to us, but through the provincial government, and we do not know where the money is going. We do not have the funds that we are entitled to, we cannot say that such and such a sum, for example, was devoted to immersion. That is why we believe that the areas of immersion, minority language and second language should be separated. Once the funds are transferred to the provincial government, it is very difficult to track them.

Senator Moncion: We understand.

Ms. Lapierre: We can only rely on the goodwill of the provincial government. British Columbia, for example, is the only province without a francophone agreement.

Mr. Ouellette: For services in French.

Ms. Lapierre: That gap makes me a little nervous. At one point, we were talking to Canadian Heritage officials about a ratio of 40 to 60, 40 for the second language and 60 for the minority language. However, for us, it’s the opposite. More money goes to immersion than to our school board.

That is why it is important that it be enshrined into law. It’s not just a pipe dream. It should be clear to everyone that these additional or complementary funds are for minority languages.

Mr. Ouellette: You have really got me going.

Senator Moncion: That was the purpose of my question.

Mr. Ouellette: If that was the purpose of your question, it worked. You know, we must not get discouraged and we have to go for it. For us, it’s a matter of survival.

Senator Moncion: We understand.

Mr. Ouellette: I have been fighting at the community level for 40 years, and I have been a member of the school board since its inception 22 years ago. I cannot stop because, as Mr. Paul said, even though we have made progress, there is still a long way to go. I would like my grandchildren not to have to fight all the time. Even if we add only one element to the legislation, they will not have to fight for it, since it will be written into the law.

Senator Moncion: I am aware of that. The one thing I perhaps find hard to imagine is my question: Why would a federal piece of legislation want to grant powers to school boards that will then have greater powers than the provinces, when education falls under provincial jurisdiction? You are asking that school boards be legislated to come between the provincial government and the federal government. That’s why I’m asking you to explain how realistic this entrenchment is.

I understand why you want it, but it’s a question of being realistic, especially when you think of the federal government in relation to the provinces. I understand the importance of accountability very well, the fact that the funds set aside for you are being diverted elsewhere, the importance that all those elements be enshrined in law, how to count the members of our minorities, and how we become more inclusive. However, this is the first time I have heard arguments such as yours about how realistic this whole thing is within a federal piece of legislation.

Mr. Ouellette: Clearly, the federal government has the power to decide how much money it gives us. We are the stakeholders closest to the front lines. I am not saying that the provinces do not have knowledge, but in the case of the minority language, we have more. All we want is to have a say. For example, in British Columbia, if there were no federal funds, there would be no service for francophones, we would not exist. As Senator Maltais said, it’s “a big fat zero”. It’s clear.

It is imperative that we are given a voice and that the voice be heard. You have the power to spend amounts that, ultimately, should be given to us, but in so doing, you should be able to ask whether we have been consulted. You have the list, you know exactly what I’m talking about. You have this power. We are just asking you to make sure that the power is placed somewhere where it will have teeth, as Ms. Lapierre said earlier. Because right now, it’s scattered to the winds.

As you have seen, the government says that everything is fine, that it will all be in the roadmap. We really do not know what will happen. We talked at length about bureaucrats. That’s all over the place too. So we would eventually like to have some weight that anchors us somewhere. At least, we could say that we have one achievement. And we will continue to fight, we will not give up.

Senator Moncion: No, you must not stop. But what I want to know is where and what exactly? You just told me what it is. Now, where in the legislation can this slip in so that those rights are upheld from day one?

Mr. Ouellette: In my friend’s brief, it is quite specific.

Mr. Barry: We are talking about paragraph 43(1)(d) and being realistic, as you say. We exist because of the constitutional right we have as a minority. In constitutional law, I feel the guardian of the Constitution is the federal government. We assume that amounts of money from taxpayers are invested in minority communities in order to secure some vitality for linguistic duality. That is why we assume that, if the money is earmarked for promoting vitality, and if the minority takes some specific measures to spend that money — measures that are not enshrined in the provincial school legislation — the government must at least have the right to say: We do not decide what is good or bad for the minority, because this minority has language rights and it has a school board that acts as a government, and it also has a say in everything related to language and culture. That’s where the pill is harder to swallow.

Let me give you a very concrete example so that you can appreciate what I’m saying. We are told that 90 per cent of children leaving early childhood must be ready to begin the first year of primary school. You look at your numbers, you are a long way from the target set by the province. What tool is being used to evaluate this? It is a tool that sort of measures the overall development of the child, but does not take into account the language issue.

If, as a school board, we had the opportunity to say, “Well, we understand that you made the cake, but we’ll make the icing — the language aspect — with the money that comes from the federal government.” Give us the opportunity to say what our needs are; when we have the right to determine our needs, it adds value for everyone. If the government says we do not need the icing on the cake, that’s how it will be and how it will keep being. But, as a parent, how can I be sure that my child, who is leaving kindergarten and has to go into grade one, has the vocabulary necessary for his age, that he can express himself in the way he should in his first language, given the environment that encourages assimilation? There is the rub.

So I think being realistic is tied to our constitutional rights, obligations, roles and responsibilities. We just want to fulfill those roles and responsibilities, without always having to knock on the doors of the courts or having to have conversations, which are not always very friendly, with departmental officials.

Mr. Lemay: There is another example that we did not discuss in our presentations. We were wondering why some provincial governments — such as Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, that have moved forward and abolished English-language school boards — have not abolished the French-language school boards. Because we are protected by a federal constitution that guarantees governance by and for francophones. We already have a foot in the door.

Prince Edward Island abolished all of its English-language school boards. There is only one French-language school board left in Prince Edward Island for that reason. If the federal government helps us to keep our French-language school boards alive in this way, it can certainly support us for the rest, and transfer funds to help our provincial governments keep these French-language school boards alive. This is important.

In Ontario, it has been 20 years since our school boards were created. We have the highest scores in provincial tests, and the highest graduation rates. We made sure that our provincial government could not abolish us, because we were the best. We are pulling the province upwards.

People from Finland and Belgium came to visit us to understand how we obtained such good results in Ontario. It is because we are able to get a grip on our governance, given that the provincial governments cannot abolish us. Nova Scotia talked about it last week. It is already happening in Prince Edward Island. Newfoundland and Labrador are also talking about it. We must obtain this protection from the federal government while also securing guaranteed funding. This is important.

Senator Maltais: A little earlier, Mr. Lemay, you let the cat out of the bag. If my understanding is correct, investments by Heritage Canada are used predominantly to support immersion classes over French classes in all three provinces you represent.

I would like to come back to accountability. Two years ago, the President of the Treasury Board appeared before us. You know that Heritage Canada gets its funding from the Treasury Board. At the time, Mr. Brison told us that they absolutely needed to find a solution to increase accountability within Heritage Canada. I wished the minister good luck. One year later, he appeared again before us, and told us that he hadn’t found a solution for the issue of accountability. There is none, because the provinces are protected by the Constitution. Everyone knows that there is no huge appetite for reopening the Constitution. I don’t want to rain on your parade, but there are important points to work on, and I believe that you can do it.

I have another suggestion for you. I am an honorary colonel in the Canadian Army, and so is my colleague. Valcartier is one of the largest military bases in Canada, and they have soldiers from across Canada. In Quebec, French is the only official language, but we have distorted the law for soldiers: They have the right to send their children to either French or English schools, at their discretion. Our provincial taxes pay for it. However, for Quebec soldiers in Borden, Calgary or Edmonton, it is a whole different story. People call us about this. They’re looking to send their children to French schools. Good luck. What is asked of us, as Quebecers, is not offered to us elsewhere in Canada. This is why I suggest that you promote your francophone schools if you are lucky enough to be located next to a military base. I think that that would be a good way to make you next to indispensable in Canada. It is certainly worth thinking about.

Mr. Ouellette: The Esquimalt military base in Victoria is located right beside our school. In fact, more than 30 per cent of our students come from families with ties to the Canadian Navy. Your idea works. It works so well that as soon as a new school is set to open, it reaches full capacity in no time.

Our school has existed for 10 years now, and it is currently overflowing. It was built for 500 students, but has almost 700 today. We are now forced to rent schools — some of which are almost in ruins — owned by other school boards. This is not necessarily the case for our school in Victoria, but you are absolutely right. When they know we are there, francophones come in droves.

The census will give us the real numbers. We have close to 3,000 potential students, but we only reach about 700 or 800 of them. This is what we go through every day.

Mr. Paul: We have a website called Éducation en langue française Canada, elf.ca. We talked with National Defence two years ago to ask them to display our link on their website, which they did. However, the challenge is to make people understand the difference between French-language schools and French immersion schools.

Each year, I attend Destination Canada, in Paris and Belgium, to promote French-language schools to parents who are ready to move to Canada. French and Belgian people do not know that we have French-language schools. In fact, their top priority is that their children learn English, as it is for Armed Forces members. They are quite stunned when we tell them that their children will become bilingual faster if they put them in French schools instead of immersion schools. It is one of the best kept secrets.

We need help to pass this message around. It is a challenge.

Ms. Lapierre: I would like to add that section 23 is applicable to both the provincial and federal governments. It is obvious that we must work at all levels.

Mr. Lemay: I would like to add that all French-language schools in Ontario issue bilingual certificates to students at the end of grade 12. English schools do not like us for this reason. Our grade-12 students have access to all universities, both French and English, in the United States, Canada, and all over the world. Even here in Ottawa, the students who graduate high school — whether they studied here or not, and whether they have English or French backgrounds — have access to universities, namely the University of Ottawa and Carleton University, and to colleges, such as Algonquin College. We are training perfectly bilingual people. At the moment, 92 per cent of our students graduate.

Senator Moncion: Are anglophones required to take French classes in order to finish their grade 12? When I was in high school in Ontario, I could not get my high school diploma if I had not passed my four English classes in grades 9, 10, 11 and 12. Do the same rules apply for anglophones who must pass their French classes every year to get their diplomas?

Mr. Lemay: No.

Senator Moncion: We had to pass our classes. So, it is somewhat unfair for francophones to have to go through this process. Yes, we are perfectly bilingual, but we are requiring things of francophones that are not required of anglophones.

Mr. Lemay: Yes. There are only English classes in high school. It is the same program as for the anglophones. There are no differences. This is the reality. This is how students get their diplomas in Ontario schools.

Senator Moncion: It is unfair, because francophones who have difficulties in English will not graduate after grade 12 if they have not passed their four English classes.

Mr. Lemay: You get what I am saying.

Senator Gagné: I have one last question. Given that section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees minority language educational rights, should there be a part of the law that specifically addresses education and accountability for transfers, and should we define what roles and what powers school boards have in education? It seems to me that I heard two messages. It would be done this way, instead of integrating it in Part VII.

Mr. Paul: You are asking if we should build on section 23?

Senator Gagné: I am.

Mr. Paul: It would be a good place to position and enshrine it. I think that one is just as easy to do as the other. However, we would have to reopen the Constitution to do so for section 23.

Senator Gagné: No, sorry. I misspoke. Given that the Charter guarantees the right to education, would it not be better to have a new part dedicated to education instead of integrating these elements into Part VII?

Mr. Paul: In the Official Languages Act?

Senator Gagné: Yes.

Mr Paul: Definitely. Would it be pie in the sky to enshrine management rights for school boards in the Official Languages Act? I do not think so, because it is the normal and natural next step for section 23 of the Constitution. If we had written section 23 five years ago and not twenty, we would have done so ipso facto. We won the right to manage our school boards by appealing to the Supreme Court. When we talk about management rights, several provincial governments will go beyond management rights, and give us the right to manage student admissions, for example, as Mr. Lemay mentioned. Admission rights belong to the provinces, but they can delegate them to school boards, which is something that a number of provinces do.

If this part on rights and responsibilities could be enshrined in the Official Languages Act, it would help us a lot. It is not pie in the sky, because section 23 already practically does it.

The Chair: Thank you everyone for your presentations. It is true, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, that you have echoed issues that we have heard before. However, through your careful remarks and thoughtful briefs, you have provided concrete strategies that will help us make recommendations to modernize the Official Languages Act. I applaud your optimism and your determination. This will inspire us to continue this essential work that consists in working together with Canadians to modernize the Act. You have my sincerest thanks.

On that note, we will move in camera. Thank you very much.

(The committee continued in camera.)