Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 13 - Evidence
EDMONTON, Friday, October 24, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 9:02 a.m. to study education in the official language minority communities.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We resume our hearings of the Official Languages Committee on this Friday, October 24, 2003. Today we'll be hearing from the representatives of British Columbia. Thank you for coming and joining us.
Our first witness will be Mr. Marc Gignac, President of the Fédération des parents de la Colombie-Britannique. Then we'll hear from Ms. Sophie Lemieux, from the Syndicat des enseignantes et des enseignants de la Colombie-Britannique. Ms. Yseult Friolet will be our third witness.
Mr. Marc Gignac, Fédération des parents francophones de la Colombie-Britannique: Madam Chairman, first I would like to thank you for inviting the Fédération des parents to come and discuss with you questions that concern the very basis of its existence. It warms our hearts that we have allies in Ottawa supporting our efforts.
I'm not the president of the Fédération. The president, Mr. Stéphane Drolet, was unable to be here, as he was detained in Vancouver for work reasons. I'll play that role this morning.
To begin with, I would like to give you a brief overview of our francophone education system in British Columbia. I'll stick to the essentials as time is limited.
At the secondary level, the first program designed specifically for francophone students was offered in 1979. At first, it was offered in five districts comprising 250 students. Until 1996, the year when the Conseil scolaire francophone was introduced, the core French program, as it was called at the time, was managed by the various districts where it was offered.
Things changed with the advent of the Conseil, which gradually took charge of the schools and the francophone programs in existence across the province. From its inception, it began introducing the programs and services necessary in offering high-quality education, to the extent, of course, of the means it had at its disposal.
Today this education system serves some 3,000 students across the province. Students are spread over 40 different sites, including 17 homogeneous schools, 14 of them belonging to the Conseil scolaire francophone. For the other sites, the Board rents space in English-language schools.
The Fédération des parents has been taking action in the early childhood sector since 1992. For us, this is a key factor in developing the francophone education system. Intervention with the preschool age clientele must start at birth in other to francize them and put them on track for French school. This clientele represents the future of our community. If we can't meet their needs, we won't be able to increase numbers in our schools, which currently serve only a fraction of their potential clientele.
That's why we've worked in recent years to establish preschools in the various regions of the province. Today we have a system of 16 francophone preschools, most of them in or around francophone schools in the regions they serve. Some 300 children make use of those services.
To conclude this brief overview, here are some statistics concerning the potential clientele of our francophone schools. These statistics are taken from the paper entitled Là où le nombre le justifie [Where Numbers Warrant -Tr.], published by the CNPF. They're unfortunately based on 1996 census data. The 2001 figures should be available shortly.
In British Columbia, in accordance with paragraph 23(1)(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which concerns francophones, we have 5,540 children from 0 to 4 years of age, 31 per cent of whom know French; 77 per cent of that potential preschool age clientele come from exogamous families. We have 16,065 school-aged children 5 to 17 years of age, 39 of whom know French. Of that number, 72 per cent of the clientele come from exogamous families.
In view of these figures, you can see that the francophones schools serve only some 20 per cent of their potential clientele, 3,000 out of a total of 16,000 students. You can also see that a little more than 70 per cent of the potential clientele come from exogamous homes, that is to say homes where one of the two parents is not francophone.
With regard to major early childhood objectives, we aim first to promote access to early childhood and family services in French. We feel that a community has a duty to offer a minimum level of services in French, such as play groups, day care services, community health services and intake measures. The community's cultural and linguistic vitality depends in part on that.
We're also trying to institutionalize the system of francophone preschools to ensure stability and access to the necessary resources in order to provide high-quality programming. Here we're talking about material and financial resources, of course, but also human resources, because educators who are qualified to British Columbia standards are hard to find.
francophone preschools are very effective recruitment and francization tools. They make it possible to get children on track for francophone schools and to francize them enough so that they can enter kindergarten; hence their importance.
At the school level, our objective is to offer high-quality education that meets students' needs. Our education system is very young. The Conseil scolaire francophone has only been in existence for seven years. Despite its hard work, much remains to be done. We must expand libraries, promote access to specialized services for students, offer a diversified selection of courses at the secondary level, put in place a process of cultural integration in order to foster development of students' francophone cultural identity, and so on.
So we dream of well-equipped schools, with qualified staff working in a stimulating environment. Those schools serve a very large clientele of students who have been attracted by the schools' reputation for excellence. I remind you that this is still a dream. Those same students continue on to postsecondary education in French in British Columbia. They contribute to the development and vitality of the British Columbian Francophonie, as their schools have offered them an environment conducive to the development of their francophone cultural identity. That's what we aspire to.
Our schools must also become focal points for the various components or clienteles of the community. They must offer relevant annual programming that meets the needs of young children, families and the community in general. They must also make a significant contribution to the development and vitality of the communities they serve.
Ultimately what we're aiming for is equivalence in education, an equivalence that will enable francophone students to have the same opportunities for success as their counterparts in the anglophone schools.
Now let's talk about challenges. There are lots of them. Since time is limited, I'll focus more specifically on those concerning the subjects named in your invitation: student recruitment and retention, exogamous families and access to adequate financial resources.
Student recruitment and retention are quite a challenge. First, we have to reach the potential clientele, then convince them to register in our schools. Quality is thus necessary if we want to sell our product. That quality is based in part on the number of students registered in the schools, since funding is allocated in proportion to that number. Once students are registered at our schools, we must ensure that they stay there until the end of high school.
We currently see significant erosion of the clientele from the sixth grade on. This is due in large part to the fact that it is very hard for our schools to compete with the large anglophone secondary schools that offer a full range of services, courses and extra-curricula activities.
So we have to be creative and offer students a high-quality product which nevertheless reflects our reality and interests them.
As for exogamous families, exogamy is a fact that francophone communities have to deal with. Although currently considered as assimilation centres, exogamous families alone represent 70 per cent of the clientele at our schools. That's a lot. That's why we have to look into this and ensure that the threat this type of family now presents becomes a strength that contributes to the development of our schools.
We therefore have to make room for these families, make them aware of the purpose of our schools and accommodate them linguistically, all without jeopardizing the cultural and linguistic vitality of our schools.
As regards access to adequate financial resources, funding is a key factor in achieving our goals and objectives. The federal-provincial education funding agreements have been very useful in recent years. Together with special agreements for implementing schools management, they have enabled the Conseil scolaire francophone to establish a solid foundation for our education system.
Today, however, the special agreements on schools management have expired. The memorandum of understanding for funding education in the minority language is also being negotiated. It appears that the budget for implementing the education sector's official languages revitalization objectives, the $209 million, will now be the funding source for Canadian minority school board development projects.
There is currently a lot of confusion about these various funding programs, their allocation criteria and the bodies responsible for managing them. In British Columbia, the Conseil scolaire francophone has a lot of trouble planning its actions, as it does not really know how much funding will be allocated to it. And once it knows, we'll nearly be at the end of the school year.
That's why we think it would be wise for the federal government to study the possibility of creating a permanent funding program exclusively for francophone minority education. In the medium term, our School Board will need additional funds from the federal government to develop the education system. It would be an illusion to think that our provincial government will adequately meet its financial needs, particularly in these times of austerity and budget cuts in British Columbia.
This funding program would help ensure a degree of financial stability for the Board. It would also enable the various stakeholders to properly plan the education system's development and thus to be much more effective in their actions.
In another connection, the Canada-British Columbia agreement for French-language services has also had an impact on the issues concerning us, more particularly early childhood. It has made it possible to involve the departments concerned, more particularly the Ministry of Children and Family Development, in carrying out projects concerning francophone children. That was a first of us. The new guide for setting up a family day care is a good example of this.
Lastly, the federal-provincial agreements in the health sector have had no impact on early childhood issues. When it comes to funding projects involving francophone early childhood and family services, no money is available. The federal government should negotiate agreements in which a certain percentage of funds is set aside for the francophone minority. That's already being done for native people. Why not for francophones?
Ms. Sophie Lemieux, Vice-President, Syndicat des enseignantes et des enseignants de la Colombie-Britannique du programme francophone: Madam Chair, I'd like to thank you for inviting us here today. I represent the Syndicat des enseignantes et des enseignants de la Colombie-Britannique du programme francophone, and I'm also a teacher.
In my presentation, I developed points on early childhood, primary and secondary school and university. I focused more on teaching than on financial issues.
Various organizations in British Columbia are clearly showing increasing interest in early childhood. However, this does not mean that we've won the battle. The early childhood report of the Canadian Teachers' Federation states that all the Canadian provinces are open to the idea of creating a sound program. It's not easy to find all the necessary resources to ensure that this kind of challenge is properly met.
There are challenges at a number of levels, in finding adequate funding to create meeting places, full-time day care centres and play centres, and finding qualified francophone staff and people who will provide all the necessary energy.
The present situation is quite negative. In our province, there are few or no preschools, and the ones we have usually meet the needs of francophones and non-francophones. This therefore leads to a situation of immersion. This mix of programs is recognized as having the effect of impoverishing French because English is the language most often used.
In addition, preschool is offered on a part-time basis, which prevents parents who work outside the home from driving their children to school for only part of the day. I won't go into the details; you can read the report.
In British Columbia, the average monthly cost of full-time family day care is between $600 and $800. Not much is available in the way of non-family day care. Prices are not competitive and there are waiting lists.
One problem is that there are no French-language day care centres nearby. francophone schools are not neighbourhood schools. Bus service is provided for that reason. However, no such service is available at the preschool level.
Ideally, it would be better for a day care or babysitting service to be operated in francophone schools, but most of our schools don't have the necessary space. Once again, babysitting service at school does not necessarily meet the parents' needs because schools are too often far away from the family home or the parents' place of work.
The challenges we encounter regarding childhood are thus as follows: lack of financial resources; lack of qualified human resources; lack of space in schools; lack of proximity to day care; and lack of language knowledge.
It is fundamentally important that solutions be found to these problems. It is also necessary that parents understand how important it is to bathe their children in francophone culture and to give them the necessary language knowledge so that they can start school as francophones, not as rightsholders. Much has been written about the school's responsibility for maintaining language skills and a sense of belonging to a culture. However, it is also recognized that the community, family and teachers have a responsibility in maintaining francophone culture.
As for primary and secondary education, one of the challenges the Conseil scolaire francophone encounters is the recruitment of qualified teaching staff. Various factors contribute to the shortage, such as the high cost of living in the province, non-competitive salaries, difficulties encountered in the classroom and constant problems with new government policies.
Furthermore, universities in our province train very few francophone teachers. That is why virtually all our teaching staff come from outside the province, in particular from Quebec.
Over the past three years, more than 120 teachers have left the Conseil scolaire francophone. If you consider that the Board consists of slightly fewer than 200 teachers, you can understand why staff retention is a major concern.
Since its inception, the CSF has had to employ staff who are unlicensed in British Columbia. This is a particular problem when it comes to recruiting specialized teaching personnel — music specialists, librarians, remedial teachers, school board trustees and advisors. To fill these positions, the CSF offers untrained staff or, as mentioned, staff without degrees in education.
Elementary school teachers mainly encounter problems in the small communities where they often have to teach a number of grades ranging from grade two to seven.
The working conditions of high school teachers are particularly tough. They generally teach more than eight different courses, requiring preparation for each, and some classes contain more than one grade. When you look at the situation of their anglophone colleagues or immersion teachers, it's easy to understand that the situation is much simpler. anglophone teachers generally have only two or three courses to prepare for.
The Board has already considered the kindergarten question. Full-time kindergarten was introduced in an effort to help children starting school since most of them have no proficiency in French.
The kindergarten program is quite unusual in that it is based on intellectual awareness and games. It's a transition period, a special time for getting used to the social world, learning to speak properly and expressing feelings.
In addition, in the context of learning the language in a francophone minority environment, the Conseil scolaire francophone understands how important it is to invest fully from the first year of schooling. This appears to be fundamentally important assistance. However, full-time kindergarten requires that the CSF pay an additional amount since the provincial government only funds part-time kindergarten.
An effort clearly had to be made for new students because more than 7/8 of students starting kindergarten don't speak French; they don't have any knowledge of the language. This is an enormous challenge for teachers. Objectives have to be changed because children don't understand the basic concepts.
This also causes problems in class since 1/7 of the number speak French. The situation causes frustration within the teaching body and for parents as well, who have made an effort to transmit the language to their children. Ultimately, the children will become anglicized, or the reverse. Parents often say that their children learn English when they start French school.
In theory, full-time kindergarten is only a kind of francization for francophone students. Kindergarten is an open door to anglicization. Children at other levels receive francization assistance, that is to say they receive time, either one-on-one or in small groups, with a specialist who teaches them the basic concepts of French in order to help them make up what they lack. In kindergarten, rather than receive one-on-one help, children attend school on a full-time basis.
As already noted, the various levels also receive francization support, but the older the children get, the less support there is. And yet children would greatly benefit from developing their level of language and their language knowledge while broadening their vocabulary and comprehension.
With regard to the student population, the figures show that many students enter kindergarten but leave after grade seven. Student retention at the secondary level is an enormous challenge for the Board. There are obviously a number of reasons for this loss. For these reasons, the CSF is trying to introduce various strategies. Some parents seem to believe that, once grade seven is completed, students have learned enough and should now be able to study in English so that they can become genuinely bilingual.
Then there's the problem of numbers. There are frequently very few students in the secondary group, and, as we know, friends are important in adolescence. Another reason working against student retention is the lack of course selection at the secondary level; the numbers do not encourage development of sports programs or a variety of courses. That moreover is the reason why the CSF is currently setting up a program called Passport to offer students interesting options.
One final reason among many others is logistics. Vancouver, for example, is considered a major centre for the CSF. However, its high school provides three programs: the regular English program, the immersion program and the French program. The fact that the Board does not own the school means a lot of restrictions for students and teachers. For example, the gymnasium is not necessarily available for all the groups, and they often have to go outside for their gym periods. The French program only shares some of the premises. This can certainly be a disadvantage for the program.
Teachers have to have a lot of imagination and creativity. It's not always easy to teach in a minority environment since the challenges are constantly increasing. Material, if available, is often obsolete or inappropriate to needs since it was generally made in Quebec. Content does not necessarily concern students and their situation. Lack of language knowledge is another significant challenge because academic objectives must constantly be reassessed. Within a single class, students are not at the same learning level.
In addition, the cost of living in British Columbia is very high, but wages are not. People often suffer from solitude and decide to go back to their families.
The Chairman: I congratulate you for the work you've done. We'll move on to questions later.
Ms. Yseult Friolet, Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique: Madam Chair, I would now like to give you an overall picture of our community and talk more specifically about postsecondary education.
Thank you for inviting us. I believe it's always important to talk about education, particularly in Western Canada and, more specifically, in British Columbia. Thank you for this initiative, and I hope you'll be able to help us advance minority education in Western Canada.
Education is a very important question for us. As you've heard, education includes issues ranging from early childhood services to questions concerning access to postsecondary education. My colleagues have given you an overview of our situation, and I'm going to talk a little more about our community and postsecondary education.
According to recent Statistics Canada figures, the francophone community is 63,000 strong. However, if you consider the bilingual people who expand our province's francophone space, 270 persons can speak French, and most of that number are in what's called Metropolitan Vancouver, which represents 7 per cent of the population of British Columbia.
In geographical terms, the francophones of British Columbia are not grouped together in any particular community. There are francophones in most of the major cities, although 50 per cent of our community lives in the metropolitan areas of Vancouver and Victoria, our province's two major centres.
This geographical dispersion entails a number of challenges, particularly in education. However, it should not be forgotten that francophones must nevertheless have access to educational and social and community services if we want to ensure that the language and culture are sustained.
However, we are lucky enough to have a community with unflagging determination. Consequently, in most cities today, francophones rally around the local association, community centre or school. Our community is proud of its roots and of its many accomplishments through which it tries to create an environment conducive to the vitality of the French language and culture in this part of the country, which is ultimately distant from the major francophone centres.
We were unable to go as far as Vancouver to tell you about the education situation. We were forced to stop at Edmonton, before the mountains, and that will somewhat explain the problem with our country.
Like many other communities, if not all of them, we are still here as a result of the profound conviction and personal commitment of thousands of francophones who are deeply concerned about the future of our language and culture.
The organization I represent, the Fédération des francophones, was founded in 1945. The Federation is recognized as the mouthpiece of the francophones of our province. It carries out its mandate with the support of its 35 member associations, which represent the francophones of the various regions and operate in various areas of human endeavour such as economic development, cultural development, youth, justice and, of course, education.
Our involvement in education dates back to the initial struggle for access to education in French. We were there in the 1950s when the francophones of Maillardville tried to gain access to the funding provided to public schools. Their demands were rejected.
We were there again in the late 1960s when the Ministry of Education was asked to establish a sector devoted to education in French. Once again, we were there as an applicant in support of the Fédération des parents francophones in its legal battle for recognition and enforcement of section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our province.
Today, we're involved through our involvement in the Comité des partenaires en éducation, which was established by the Conseil francophone.
More recently, the federation has focused its efforts on an issue of capital importance, the development of postsecondary education. And it is about that project and other developments in education that I would now like to speak to you.
I would remind you that, in the 1980s and 1990s, our Federation worked relentlessly for the introduction of a primary and secondary education system. What my colleagues told you earlier attests to that. Although the task is not yet completed, remarkable progress has been made. We now have a school board responsible for programs ranging from kindergarten to grade 12.
That important step has been taken. The francophone community wanted to ensure that the entire schools infrastructure was made available to our community.
For our community, as for many other countries, schools infrastructure must go beyond the kindergarten to secondary levels. It must also have a postsecondary education component. The reason for that approach is quite simple. It is acknowledged that language transfers are usually made in early adulthood.
To stop them and ensure that our community protects its linguistic vitality, we thought it essential to afford the francophone youth of British Columbia the opportunity to pursue their education in French at the postsecondary level. This initiative is all the more appropriate since our province has a large number of students registered in immersion programs.
We're also one of the few provinces, I believe, where that number is rising. It reached nearly 32,000 students registered in 2002-2003, and we expect the number to be roughly 33,000 for the current school year.
For us, the purpose of the initiative is twofold since it will enable students not only to pursue a postsecondary education in French, but will also make that possible without them having to leave British Columbia. So those are the two major reasons for ensuring access to postsecondary studies in French.
In fact, we'll be helping to consolidate the ties that young British Columbians have with the French language and culture, thus enabling them to consolidate and even improve their proficiency in the language, and, on the other hand, we can make it so that those who might consider leaving the province to get an education will choose to remain in British Columbia. In so doing, we hope they will take an active part in francophone community life in the years to come.
We've worked on two major initiatives in order to put the postsecondary level in place. The first is pursuant to a memorandum of understanding that the Federation signed with Simon Fraser University in 2002. Under that agreement, the university undertook to set up the Bureau des affaires francophones et francophiles. This responsibility centre will be the cornerstone of an initiative that will also include the creation of a bachelor's degree program in public administration and community development.
In addition, the Faculty of Education will increase the number of spaces in its French-language teacher training program and some of its other teaching programs by 50 per cent. Here we're talking about proficiency and development for teachers already employed.
Throughout the project's conception, we wanted to ensure that the vast majority of courses were offered in person in order to meet the wishes of students we consulted in 2002, who expressed a distinct preference for face-to-face teaching. A study that we conducted showed that 91 per cent of students want to receive their training from a teacher in a classroom rather than via videoconferencing. A lot is said about distance education. However, I believe that the human contact aspect is important, especially today.
Students 17 and 18 years of age told us that they would prefer personal contact. It's only later that students could take courses via videoconferencing or distance education. Contact with a teacher is very important.
The Government of British Columbia has submitted a funding request to the Department of Canadian Heritage. We're confident the department will respond positively to the provincial government's request. Based on the communications we've had with Canadian Heritage authorities, we are quite positive about financial participation by the federal government.
The project is so promising that the university has begun planning work in anticipation of the formal answer from government authorities. However, federal government financial assistance is essential to the introduction of this kind of initiative. In fact, it is very important to understand that the additional costs involved in offering French-language programs in a minority environment such as ours mean that the provincial government wouldn't go ahead if it weren't for the financial support from the federal government.
This was referred to earlier, and we repeat, it must be assured that the Official Languages in Education Program, OLEP, lasts. On that point, we were pleased to see the commitment stated in the Action Plan for Official Languages regarding the need to improve access to postsecondary education.
However, even if the federal government intervenes in the funding of French-language education, it must refrain from dictating a restrictive procedure to the communities and provincial governments that would leave little room for local priorities.
The situation of the francophone community from province to province is often quite different. For example, the model selected to ensure access to university in French in British Columbia is different from those in Ontario and New Brunswick. It's also essential that the Department of Canadian Heritage agree to recognize the funds already invested in French-language university education by provincial authorities as forming an integral part of the costs associated with the initiatives submitted to it under OLEP.
Allow me to explain. Canadian Heritage is in the habit of funding initiatives on an equal cost-shared basis, a principle to which we have no objection. However, as occurred in British Columbia's case, the Department of Canadian Heritage at times wants to consider only new costs relating to the provision of programs in French, disregarding financial efforts previously made by the province.
In our case, the provincial government has always invested in French-language postsecondary education programs without federal contributions. We're arguing that, when the provincial government approves the introduction of new programs, Canadian Heritage should recognize funds previously allocated to French-language programs since they form an integral part of the entire proposal currently submitted. If the federal government still wants to insist that every federal dollar be matched with every new provincial dollar, that will vastly limit this new initiative's introduction.
Other initiatives are currently under way in our province. The Éducacentre organization is working to introduce training at the junior college level. Éducacentre is an adult education organization which is developing a community college project.
That initiative is part of a regional framework project called Far West, including Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. The project is headed up by the Réseau des cégeps et des collèges francophones du Canada. In addition, Éducacentre will be making a course from Ottawa's Cité collégiale, a personal support services attendant course, available through the Consortium national de formation en santé.
These are two important initiatives for postsecondary education in our province. On the whole, for the initiatives involving minority French-language education, it is of the utmost importance that the federal government remain a faithful partner in our efforts to grow and develop. It is important to note here that I didn't say it must show us the way. We know where we have to go and how to get there because we have the maturity and the tools to take charge of our development.
The government must create the financial and legislative conditions enabling us to act in accordance with the priorities consistent with our level of development. The Government of British Columbia no longer opposes French-language education, as was the case in the not so distant past.
However, as is the case for many provincial governments, it has not yet made the commitment to fund, on its own, the costs involved in establishing and maintaining French-language school programs. While waiting for that day to come, the federal government has a duty to continue exercising leadership in the field.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Friolet. As always, you have the words to say what you want to say.
Now I would like to introduce my fellow committee members.
[English]
The Deputy Chair of the Committee on Official Languages is Dr. Keon. Senator Keon is from the Ottawa area.
[Translation]
Ms. Chaput is a senator from Manitoba; Senator Comeau is from Nova Scotia; our clerk, Mr. Tõnu Onu; and Ms. Marie-Ève Hudon from the Research Branch of the Library of Parliament.
Senator Comeau: My question is for Mr. Gignac concerning his observation on page 7 of his presentation:
There's a great deal of confusion over these various funding programs, funding criteria and the authorities responsible for managing funds.
Does this confusion stem from provincial or federal issues?
Mr. Gignac: Mainly from the federal government. Allow me to explain. Since 1992, the federal government has signed special agreements with the various provinces to introduce schools management. There are two agreements, the latter of which expired this year.
An amount of $209 million has been announced so that the education component of the Plan for Official Languages can be carried out. We've been told that that was additional funds. However, they forgot to tell us they hadn't renewed the special agreements on schools management. What they give us with one hand, they take away with the other. That's how we understood it. The federal government doesn't see it that way. However, I can guarantee you that the communities see it that way.
There's an enormous amount of confusion over this $209 million. We don't really know how that amount will be administered or how the funds will be allocated; we don't know who's responsible. In fact, we don't know much. There's confusion.
Senator Comeau: Aren't you in negotiations at this time to resolve certain questions regarding those funds?
Mr. Gignac: In fact, the fund was announced last spring. It's now in place and no one knows how it works.
At the same time, we're in negotiations for a new memorandum of understanding. The bilateral agreement operates with the status quo. What's disturbing is that the province recently indicated that the bilateral agreement on education would not be renewed. I find that prospect virtually impossible. Moreover I inquired about it in Ottawa.
That statement seriously disturbs me because it indicates major confusion. Ultimately, it's the students and the School Board that will pay. The bilateral agreement will definitely be renewed. We know that the purpose of that agreement is to fund various French-language education sectors, including immersion and core French.
The Board never knows in advance what portion of the funds it will receive under the agreement. It's very hard to plan when we don't know whether we're going to have funds from one year to the next. It's hard to plan projects over three years.
For a long time we've been wondering why the federal government would not agree to negotiate agreements exclusively for minority language education.
Senator Comeau: Because of section 23?
Mr. Gignac: Section 23 is very clear.
Senator Comeau: It makes no sense.
Mr. Gignac: We'll know the funding envelopes and we'll know why the funding exists. However, we have to know how to request it. If we knew the amounts they intend to distribute, we'd know what to expect for future years. So we need better planning, better program implementation and more efficiency.
The Chair: Is it because education is a provincial jurisdiction and your government doesn't seem to want to accept this special funding for a minority education budget?
Mr. Gignac: No. On the contrary, I should tell you that, since the Liberal government came to power, we've noticed that the government is more open to the needs of British Columbia's francophone minority. The change is really very noticeable. As far as I can remember, the provincial government has always been open to funding a certain portion of the additional costs relating to minority language education. The problem doesn't arise in that regard.
However, the provincial government is not prepared to fund all additional costs. It's very costly to implement schools management and an education system. You have to start from scratch. When we obtained schools management, we had no schools or books. We had nothing. Those items require quite significant investments which cannot be made overnight.
Ms. Friolet: I'd like to continue in the same vein. The postsecondary education project we've been working on for seven years is also in a confused state. There's no special project for postsecondary funding. The current project, which was submitted 18 months ago, requires that the education agreement be signed. The postsecondary project must wait until that problem is solved. If the problem is not resolved soon, Simon Fraser University may get tired of it because everything's been in place for nearly a year.
We're asking that the federal government resolve this situation. I don't understand why the problem is so complicated. OLEP is a program that has been in existence for a few years, not a program that has just been put in place.
Our provincial government is in favour of the program and is ready to work. Perhaps provincial officials find it a complicated matter to work with federal officials. Stances must be softened somewhere.
Senator Comeau: The witnesses from Manitoba emphasized that it would be in their interest to sit at the bargaining table. I don't believe they necessarily requested negotiators as such, but they asked to be part of the negotiations. It's a sensible proposal. Their request was granted. However, they were told: "We are the elected representatives and we're accountable to our provincial electorate."
I don't believe the question of having people at the bargaining table to try to determine the situation and determine what the obstacle is was considered. As they say in the private sector, there's nothing worse than uncertainty. You can't make a decision when there is uncertainty. I'm convinced the same is true in the education sector. When there's uncertainty, you can't attract qualified teachers; you can't do anything.
Have you asked to be at the bargaining table?
Mr. Gignac: Yes, we've been requesting it for a very long time. Moreover, we were there in the early 1990s. The New Democratic government was open to that. However, at the recent negotiations, five years ago, we weren't involved. Obviously, we believe it would be helpful for us to be at the bargaining table, if only to express the public's viewpoint. We're regularly in touch with our regions, and we know their needs.
When we experienced problems with implementation of schools management, many of those problems were solved the day the provincial government agreed to create a panel including the Ministry of Education, the Conseil scolaire francophone and the Fédération des parents. People were careful about what they said at the table, and we made very quick progress. It's entirely logical for us to be there and we would bring the benefit of our expertise to the table.
The Chairman: I'm surprised how long the memorandum of understanding between Simon Fraser University and the province and negotiations between the province and the federal government are taking. I thought the matter was more advanced than it is at this time.
Mr. Dion made a commitment at a meeting of the Action Plan Committee this past March. Ms. Copps more or less announced that the deal was done, which gave me the impression that the matter was resolved. Where's the obstacle?
Ms. Friolet: There may be a number of them. I believe there's a complete lack of leadership on Ms. Copps' part in this matter. It is up to the minister to manage these programs. We're unable to meet with her.
I have to add to my colleague's remarks regarding the development of postsecondary education: we, the community, developed it. We've conducted three studies on the subject over the past seven years. Consequently, I believe we know our stuff. Simon Fraser University deciding to sign an agreement with the Fédération is a step in the right direction.
I have nothing against the officials' work, on the contrary. However, at the very least, we should be involved in certain negotiations, if we're told that we're partners.
I can understand that an official from Ottawa doesn't know British Columbia and isn't familiar with the education system. However, he should nevertheless accept our viewpoint. We're here to explain to anyone from the centre how education is done at the postsecondary level and what the culture and traditions are. There are cultures and traditions specific to New Brunswick and Ontario. The same is true of British Columbia.
So it's important to come back to these consultations. How is it that we've been excluded? The provincial government provided me with all the information. We're considered partners at the provincial level. However, when it comes to a federal project, we're not given any information. That's my first point.
My second point is this: on this project, we would like to benefit from your influence. It's already the month of November and we've just lost a year. Grade 12 graduates from the Conseil scolaire's program won't have access to university in French in September because the university doesn't have the time to put everything in place now at the end of October.
We've advanced in certain areas. For example, work currently under way on the education sector has advanced. However, we've just lost an academic year for the other two bachelor's degree programs we want to put in place. So we're going to lose those students, which is deplorable.
The situation hasn't changed, Senator Losier-Cool, since your call this past July. I don't know what influence you have. Is it possible for you to put pressure on Ms. Copps, among others? We're told that everything's in place, but nothing happens.
The Chairman: The situation is urgent.
Ms. Friolet: The situation is urgent. Mr. Dion, with his plan, tells us he's ready to work. Is it the fact that Minister Copps isn't taking care of her business? I don't know. You know better than I how the machinery of government operates. If Ms. Copps says that things are under way, these are not new programs. So we have to go and see where things stand because we can see there's a certain paralysis.
I can only tell you about the situation in British Columbia. I don't know the situation in the other provinces. However, it would appear that Manitoba seems to be saying the same thing.
The Chairman: I believe we've made a certain commitment in this regard. The project is well under way. The situation is urgent and somewhat in jeopardy.
Ms. Friolet: Absolutely.
The Chairman: We'll discuss in committee how we could at least move this project forward. Knowing the work you've done, I'm a bit surprised and a little saddened to see the results. We welcome your suggestions as to how we could continue bringing pressure to bear.
Ms. Friolet: Allow me to make the following suggestion. Prime Minister Chrétien asked Mr. Dion to work on official languages reform. That recommendation led to the development of the Dion Plan. That plan contains a number of initiatives. The implementation of that plan should be discussed with Prime Minister Chrétien. The theory is there, but it seems that actions are slow in coming.
The Chairman: Have you discussed the matter with federal MPs from British Columbia?
Ms. Friolet: I was in Ottawa on October 6, when Mr. Dion made his presentation. He had invited the representatives of all provinces and communities, which was a first. Annual meetings were subsequently to be held between community representatives and the informed departments. I took the opportunity to talk with Deputy Minister Larocque, because Ms. Copps was not there. I also spoke with Mr. Dion. I discussed my concerns with everyone there. Moreover, you were there, senator. I was told, "It's coming; it's coming." Six months later, I'm still being told the same thing.
The Chair: Perhaps it would be a good idea to raise these points in a news release. The gist of the hearings we're currently holding will be part of a report once we've completed our study and our trips. I hope that your project won't have terminated by then. We can't wait for the report to be published.
My next question is for Ms. Lemieux. What is the average age of your union's member teachers? Is it between 30 and 40?
Ms. Lemieux: I believe the average age is 40.
The Chair: Do your members also include young teachers?
Ms. Lemieux: We have a larger number of young people. We have teachers of all ages. However, I believe the average age is between 35 and 40.
The Chair: Does your union negotiate a pay scale or collective agreement other than that of the BCTF?
Ms. Lemieux: Certain clauses have local scope. So we can negotiate those clauses directly with the school board. We also have provincial clauses that also require us to go with the flow.
Senator Chaput: My first question is for Ms. Friolet. In your brief, you say that the federal government must refrain from dictating a procedure to the communities and provincial governments that would restrict their actions.
In this case, you undoubtedly mean that the federal government should consider the specific characteristics and differences of each province or region. I entirely agree with that statement. However, could you give us more concrete examples of what the federal government might have dictated at some point? Or is this merely a warning?
Ms. Friolet: Senator Chaput, you have a great deal of experience in your community and with federal programs affecting the communities.
In this case, we're talking about OLEP, but we could be talking about the Official Languages Program as a whole. We often try to obtain approval for projects that are acceptable in New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba, by imagining that those projects can be spread across the country. I believe this has been the trend for the 20 or 25 years that the Official Languages Act has been in existence.
Simon Fraser University, for example, could well become the only gateway to French-language education. The same phenomenon cannot be observed with regard to the creation of Université de Moncton, the Faculté Saint-Jean or the Collège de Saint-Boniface.
We had to achieve critical mass with immersion students. Once that was done, the gates to our provincial government and our community opened. Education is costly, but we remain realistic. It's not fair to claim that we'll one day have our university with its own clock tower. However, the university project must be developed within a recognized and credible whole.
As you can see, we're ready. The situation of our province, our experience and the circumstances we live in must be clearly understood.
To come back to my comment, and in response to Senator Comeau, I will say that it's important for us to be there. In my opinion, someone in Ottawa who hasn't lived in British Columbia can't understand the situation in British Columbia.
Senator Chaput: I entirely agree.
Ms. Friolet: Consequently, I'll come back to my first question. Let's have a real partnership. I've lived in this province for 25 years now, and I can tell you that politics is different in British Columbia. Our perspective is different as well. We have to turn toward the east. We have to try to help ourselves based on our own specific characteristics.
Senator Chaput: I see that the Canadian Heritage perspective on acknowledging the specific characteristics of each province has not really changed.
Ms. Friolet: Indeed.
Senator Chaput: You have to step up your efforts and push for recognition and acceptance based on your specific needs.
Ms. Friolet: I would even go further. I believe that the attitude is toughening. It was possible to negotiate 10 years ago. The present situation makes me somewhat fearful. For some months now, the response we've received has simply been "That's the way it is," and there's not really any openness.
For example, the federal government has established the National Committee on Health. I believe we can be pleased with the fantastic results of this initiative for francophone communities. What a great partnership we have between the Department of Health and the francophone community across the country! The same phenomenon is occurring with the National Committee on Human Resources in relation to human resources development. That committee has now been in existence since 1994 or 1995. A committee has also been established in the immigration sector in cooperation with Canadian Heritage and the community. Are you aware of that initiative?
Senator Chaput: No.
Ms. Friolet: For the past 18 months now, we've not really heard any more about that committee and it doesn't really hold any more meetings. Ms. Mariette Carrier-Fraser sits on the committee.
The Chair: That name is vaguely familiar.
Ms. Friolet: The committee has held two meetings in 18 months. Canadian Heritage has the mandate to manage programs that are central to the development of our community. Given the way Canadian Heritage is designed, I would prefer to work with a single department. The Official Languages Program is vital for education. However, I observe a certain hardening. A number of questions have gone unanswered.
Negotiations are supposed to begin soon because all the programs expire on March 31, and we've had no news. The situation scares us. We'll be in a status quo position for 2004-2005, which will slow down development. We can't stop our momentum.
I find this kind of vacuum in which no one is dealing with official languages very dangerous. The Dion Plan gave the impression that the official languages situation would be addressed. That initiative should not be set aside now that it's well under way. Canadian Heritage is an important department in this issue.
Senator Chaput: Thank you. My supplementary questions will have to wait for the second round.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Chaput. We'll come back to you in the second round.
[English]
Senator Keon: I thank you all very much for the clarity of your presentations.
This trip to the West has been very interesting for me. If one looks at the difficulties of the francophonie west of Ontario, there are two serious problem areas. One is in Saskatchewan and the other is in British Columbia. Although things are not perfect in Manitoba and Edmonton, I suppose they have the critical mass to organize and work with the federal government under our constitutional arrangements for education and so forth.
It is obvious that neither Saskatchewan nor British Columbia has that critical mass. Madame Lemieux's presentation pointed out very clearly your problem with teachers and so forth.
There are precedents, for example, in health, and I have a background in health, both health administration and teaching and health care delivery. There are precedents in health, which is under the same constitutional arrangement as education, whereby the Western provinces have come together and developed programs west of Ontario that provide the critical mass to allow them to have their educational and training programs and that kind of thing.
There is a difference, because when it comes to health care delivery, you can take the patients to Edmonton from Vancouver without much difficulty. You cannot take a five-year-old student from Vancouver to Edmonton every day for education.
However, it would seem to me that if you looked at the models in Manitoba and Edmonton, and tied into their resources, particularly for your staffing problems and so forth, perhaps you could make more progress than you are now.
The Constitution is not going to change, and governments being governments, they will only flow resources through the existing structural framework. Therefore, I think you have to work within that framework. You can get some direct aid from Sheila Copps and Stéphane Dion, but they will not build an educational system in British Columbia on handouts. It has to be built within the framework.
Correct me if I am wrong — you know a lot more about this than I do — but that is the impression I get from listening to you.
Ms. Friolet: When you talk about the critical mass in Alberta and Manitoba, you must be aware that B.C. has about the same population as Alberta.
Senator Keon: The francophone population.
Ms. Friolet: Yes. In the latest statistics, I think Alberta's was larger than ours, but our population is growing. There are fewer people in Manitoba and Saskatchewan than there are in Alberta or B.C.
I think the question of critical mass is important, but I would also suggest that in British Columbia, our community does not develop in a rural area. We develop in the third largest city in this country, Vancouver. When you look at let's say a group of 40,000 people in Vancouver, of course you will not find us. However, that is not the case for people in Winnipeg, for example.
This is one of the difficulties of our development. We are like the francophones who try to develop in Toronto, for example, because we are in a major city, and developing in a city is quite different.
First, it took us 25 years to get to that point, and it took from 1992 to 1995 to get a school board.
We need to be cherished as a community because we fought for so long. The problem is that the federal government has to be there to support us with its program. It also has to stop being confrontational with the province. When we see that our province is willing now to work with us, we do not want to have to fight the federal government too and say, "Okay, lean a little." This is one of the problems we are facing.
Other than that, I think we are vibrant because we have to "faire du rattrapage." I was talking about Simon Fraser University. We could not have a university before we had a school board. It was impossible. We got the school board in 1995. It took us seven years. We did the studies, and now it is 2002. We are ready to establish post-secondary education.
However, we do not have the federal government saying, "Wow, is it not a great thing and we will give the money." No, they are all dragging their feet. This is the problem in our community.
[Translation]
Mr. Gignac: Allow me to add to that. For some aspects of the system's development, it's in our interest to join forces with the Western provinces, more particularly with regard to developing curricula or resources tailored to the Western francophone communities. Efforts have been made to do just that for more than 10 years now. However, it's hard to change officials' attitudes or organizational culture. Education is a provincial jurisdiction. Coordinating our programs with those of the other Western provinces takes a lot of time. The process is slow, and this aspect of development has to be considered.
Ms. Lemieux: As a comparison, in Manitoba, a number of teachers and instructors at the Conseil scolaire francophone are currently taking master's degrees at the Collège universitaire Saint-Boniface.
We're a group of approximately 15 teachers. People from the college travel and use the board's premises to give master's courses in French.
With regard to recruiting, we see differences in Manitoba relative to British Columbia. In Manitoba, teachers are trained in French. The fact that there are a number of generations of francophones also makes a difference. British Columbia experiences a lot of teacher turnover.
Ms. Friolet: With the education program, if we can manage to train our teachers, we'll also manage to keep them. That's where we stand.
Ms. Lemieux: The question was raised this week during the general meeting of union representatives. The problem is with education and with the provincial statutes.
Despite your favourable remarks about the provincial government, our perspective is somewhat different. As teachers, we're faced with a very rigid Ministry of Education. We often compare it to that of Ontario, referring to the situation that has existed in that province for eight or 10 years. My impression is that we're going to see a new decline in the number of teachers. In Ontario, teachers left the province to go and teach elsewhere as a result of the situation. I believe that kind of movement could occur in British Columbia.
[English]
Senator Keon: There is a big difference between British Columbia and Ontario. In Ontario, we have the University of Ottawa, which is bilingual. You can get a French education there. We are also building another French university in Sudbury, which will offer engineering, medicine, everything.
There is a major difference between your resources here and those in Ontario. Ontario has its problems, I think, but they also have a lot of resources for French education.
[Translation]
The Chairman: As recently stated at the SELF conference, there is a national shortage of teachers. Teachers now have the choice to return to Quebec or to go to Central Canada. However, it is possible to retain them if working conditions permit.
Ms. Friolet, you won't begrudge it if I come back to the question of relations with Canadian Heritage. That's part of our discussions and it helps in a way to develop our friendship.
Is there a regional office of Canadian Heritage in British Columbia?
Ms. Friolet: Yes.
The Chairman: Does that office have responsibility for relations between British Columbian francophones and Canadian Heritage's Ottawa office? Can issues be addressed and handled at the British Columbia office, or do you have to turn to Canadian Heritage's Ottawa office?
Ms. Friolet: The British Columbia office has no responsibility for the education agreement. Questions must be put to officials in Ottawa. One official is responsible for Western Canada, and questions are handled in Ottawa because OLEP is not a regionalized program. Consequently, discussions take place between Ottawa officials and Ministry of Education or postsecondary officials.
The Chairman: So the employees of the British Columbia office don't discuss the issues with the Ottawa office?
Ms. Friolet: No. They no doubt keep each other up to date, but those kinds of relations are not part of their responsibilities. And negotiating the next Canada-community agreements isn't one of their responsibilities either. Those negotiations will be conducted directly with Ottawa. The British Columbia office is responsible for managing the program with the community once everything has been developed.
The Chairman: From what you say, in its manner of proceeding, Canadian Heritage's Ottawa office acts a little hard of hearing.
Ms. Friolet: I explained the procedure to you. We inevitably have to phone Ottawa because we know where the decisions are going to be made and we know the person we have to influence. It's the Ottawa people who handle the program.
Consequently, you can understand that the regional office is there as a purely administrative organization. As mentioned, that office can inform and debrief. However, relations are not part of its responsibilities. Moreover, it was admitted to me that a number of regional officials find the situation very frustrating because they don't have much to do in the matter. But those people are still on site. It would be normal to get their comments to see what happens in the education issue, in the postsecondary issue or the education agreements renewal issue.
Senator Chaput: With your permission, I would like to continue in the same vein, then put a question to Ms. Lemieux and Mr. Gignac.
You described the situation very well. We've heard the message elsewhere too. You shouldn't be afraid to present the situation to us as it stands. The Senate is there to protect minorities. That's our mandate.
Ms. Friolet: We're going to need you.
Senator Chaput: It's not well known, but we're here to help you.
Ms. Friolet: Thank you very much, Madam.
Senator Chaput: In British Columbia, as in a number of other provinces, you've done your job. You have your parents federation, your school boards and your schools. You're contemplating junior college programs with Saskatchewan and Alberta, and you're attempting to work with the Fraser Institute for postsecondary training. In other words, you're doing what's necessary to continue developing your community, and no one can say you're not.
I'd simply like to congratulate you. You explained the situation clearly, and I was able to see how the system operates. I've only been in the Senate for nine months, but I know that the Official Languages Committee can do certain things to help you. The Chair will definitely coordinate our efforts at a future meeting. In the meantime, there's nothing preventing us from making a few calls to get things going. I wanted to tell you that, Ms. Friolet.
Ms. Friolet: Thank you.
Senator Chaput: Now I have a few more specific questions. Mr. Gignac, you referred to a cultural integration process in the schools. I'd like to know how you think that process would be put in place. You have French-language schools. You also have to francize the children so that they can be educated in French. You also have exogamy, as is the case in Manitoba.
How do you see this cultural integration process taking place in the schools? Perhaps the question is in the gestation phase?
Mr. Gignac: No, the question is beyond the conceptual stage and has been under discussion for some time now.
A number of things have been done, and much remains to be done. Provincial partners have been grouped together, that is teaching staff and schools management. We're trying to draft a framework policy for the process and its implementation in the schools. Cultural integration applies at two levels. First, teachers in the classroom will use teaching strategies designed to foster development of the students' identity and facilitate an awareness of their roots. Classroom work represents 75 per cent of cultural integration, and the remaining 25 per cent is done outside the classroom in a cultural environment that we can create. For example, we can talk about community radio stations. We can invite various entities from the community to take part in the school. We can organize various activities, provide programming, introduce francophone life into the school. This is what will enable French-language schools to carry out the mission.
There are currently programs in which French is taught. However, this doesn't address the cultural aspect. That aspect is far from being realized. To encompass it all, we're seriously thinking about community schools.
Senator Chaput: You don't have community schools in British Columbia?
Mr. Gignac: We don't have community schools yet. We tried to set up community school centres a number of times. However, we realized that it was very hard to find funds even just to put up a building. Consequently, we're turning more to the community school concept. This is a similar type of management, but we don't need a large $12-million building.
Senator Chaput: Ms. Lemieux, you referred to the Passport program. Can you explain a little what that program entails?
Ms. Lemieux: I won't be able to go into too much detail because I haven't worked on the program. The Passport program is being developed.
Without wanting to contradict Mr. Gignac's remarks, I would nevertheless say that cultural integration is already being achieved in part in classrooms. Of course, it isn't part of daily life, and much remains to be done in the area.
Mr. Gignac would no doubt be in a better position to explain the Passport program to you.
Mr. Gignac: The francophone Passport program is a very simple concept. High school students accumulate points by taking part in various activities in French. They may include, for example, the Jeux francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, the Jeux francophones de l'Ouest, Youth Parliament, an outdoor camp in French at one of our schools in Powell River, or volunteer work with francophone associations.
Based on points accumulated, grade 11 and 12 students can go on a French exchange to one of the Western provinces, Manitoba or even Quebec. In grade 12, students who have accumulated enough points can go on an exchange to Europe, to France or another francophone country.
The wonderful thing about this project is that it encourages the francophone associations by stimulating them to create places to welcome these students so that opportunities exist to accumulate points. So the program will promote and develop closer ties between the various community associations and the school — and we can see that this is happening right now.
As for the future, there's no limit for this kind of project. I think it's an intelligent project. It's a project suited to our reality which has an enormous amount of potential.
Senator Chaput: Where did you get, or will you get, the funding for this kind of project? Is it funding from the Quebec government or under agreements?
Mr. Gignac: A funding request was made under the Action Plan for Official Languages funding. That request was not granted. However, the project is considered extremely important for the school board. So we were able to find the necessary funds to at least begin implementing it this year. This is only a draft, but we're going ahead with it.
Ms. Friolet: Development of this project has become a bit stuck. As a special project, just like the postsecondary project, it's awaiting signatures and decisions, which is unfortunate because the project will help keep our students in high school. It's a very good initiative.
So you understand the urgent need to act. Imagine all the work that's gone into developing this project: the community involvement to retain students, the teachers' involvement. Once again, this is a way to solve the problems, but in a British Columbian way. These projects can produce results. This excellent initiative was well received by everyone in British Columbia. It's a very viable solution.
Senator Chaput: How much would it cost to pursue this project? Are we talking about $500,000?
Mr. Gignac: If my memory serves me, the project represents half a million dollars a year.
Senator Chaput: About half a million dollars a year.
Mr. Gignac: I'd like to add that the prospect of this project has already been favourably received in the Western provinces. So it could spread and create ties between Western provinces. So the project has a lot of potential.
The Chairman: All that remains is for me to thank you. Senator Chaput said it eloquently, and I know she is sincere. I've visited the francophone communities of British Columbia on a number of occasions. You've really established something. I encourage you to continue your efforts and I congratulate you for them.
In our meeting yesterday, one of the speakers told us about minority culture and francophone culture. We've really seen a different culture. The project you refer to is an exact reflection of that speaker's comments.
As Senators Keon and Comeau said, keep pushing us and keep us informed. We'll try to play our role as representatives as best we can, particularly on behalf of the minorities. Thank you for appearing before this committee and good luck. We won't forget you once we're back in Ottawa.
The committee adjourned.