Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 7 - Evidence - Meeting of September 14, 2010 (morning)
QUEBEC, Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 9:10 a.m. to study the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it. (Topic: The English-speaking communities in Quebec.)
Senator Maria Chaput (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am Senator Chaput from Manitoba, and I am the chair of this committee.
Several colleagues and members of the committee join me this morning for a second day of hearings in Quebec City. I invite them to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: Good morning, I am Senator Andrée Champagne. I live in the Montérégie region. I am the deputy chair of this committee. After all we heard about you yesterday, we are really anxious to hear your thoughts.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Good morning, Mr. La France. My name is Judith Seidman. I am from Montreal, and I look forward to hearing from you today. As Senator Champagne has already said, we had a little preview yesterday.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Good morning, Mr. La France. I am Senator Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis. January will mark the second anniversary of my appointment to the Senate. I was also a member of Parliament for Louis-Hébert. I am very happy to hear your testimony this morning.
Senator De Bané: My name is Pierre De Bané, member of the Senate. I was previously a member of the House of Commons. Every day, I remind myself of how lucky I am to live in a country whose two languages are among the most beautiful in the world and the only two languages spoken on all five continents. I am very happy to live in a country whose two languages, French and English, are most representative of western civilization.
[English]
Senator Fraser: Good morning. My name is Joan Fraser. I am a senator from Montreal. I have been in the Senate for 12 years now.
[Translation]
I worked as a journalist in Montreal for many years.
Senator Dawson: I am Dennis Dawson, a Quebec senator. Like some of my colleagues here, I was a member of the House of Commons before being appointed to the Senate. I worked in the academic community as the chairman of the Catholic School Commission of Quebec. So the academic community and Canada-Quebec relations in the field of education are and have always been of interest to me. As I said earlier, expectations are high.
The Chair: No pressure, Mr. La France. Thank you, honourable senators, for attending.
The committee thought it very important to meet with the Government of Quebec's representatives as part of our study on the English-speaking minority community in Quebec.
[English]
The committee has invited representatives of four provincial departments to appear and thanks the Ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport for accepting the invitation. The committee welcomes Mr. Leo La France, Assistant Deputy Minister, Services to the English-speaking community and Aboriginal affairs.
Mr. La France, the committee invites you to describe the services that your sector offers to English-speaking communities and the committee members will follow with questions.
[Translation]
Leo La France, Assistant Deputy Minister, Services to the English-speaking community and Aboriginal affairs, ministère de l'Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport: Madam Chair, I will make my brief presentation in French. Afterwards, I would be happy to answer your questions in French or in English.
As you say, pressure is high — something I did not expect this morning — but I can at least attempt, in five or ten minutes, to give you a brief description the services we provide within the ministry.
Two branches are involved in providing services to the English-speaking community and aboriginal affairs. First, there is the policy and projects branch, which is responsible for providing assistance and support to other ministry departments. In other words, it takes care of training materials and conducts evaluations. It is a small outfit, but its employees are professionals who work with their colleagues in other departments. They monitor the vocational training sector's programs provided by school boards and the technical programs provided by the province's CEGEPs.
In terms of other sectors, our relationship is more of a long-distance one because the English-speaking community is very well represented in the field of higher education. However, we do maintain some ties with the Canada-Quebec Agreement.
Our second branch is that of translation, which handles English-language production. Everything that can and must be translated, under the ministry's language policy — except for administrative documents — is translated for the English-speaking community. If there are documents or news releases that must be available for the general public, it is our organization's job to translate them.
As for aboriginal affairs, there are French- and English-speaking communities. We are responsible for providing services to both communities. There is a difference between treaty and non-treaty aboriginal schools. Some fall directly under the federal government's jurisdiction, and we try to help them, especially with graduation issues. But with others, including the Cree School Board and the Kativik School Board, we deal directly with them to provide educational services in English. Within the ministry, our priority is to ensure compliance with the Canada-Quebec Agreement.
Keep in mind that the Canada-Quebec Agreement is not about a single second language, but rather about both of them. We also provide support for preschool-primary service and high school service in order to help the French- speaking community that provides programs in English for school boards.
As for our working partners, we have set up certain structures. One of them is CELA, the English-language board, which was set up to advise the minister. It is representative of the English-speaking community — universities, CEGEPs, and so on — and advises the minister on various policies. Each year, it submits an annual report to the minister. During the year, if the minister decides to consult the English-speaking community, this board will review the ministry policies or provide advice. It is not on par with the Conseil supérieur, clearly, but it is nevertheless representative of the English-speaking community.
We also created the Leadership Committee for English Education in Quebec (LCEEQ). It brings together representatives from universities, CEGEPs, school boards, the private school system, school administrations, teachers unions and directors of complementary services unions. Its main purpose is to study school adjustment. It allows us to consult school board directors general and directors of educational services, who truly represent the English-speaking community. In Quebec, we are currently reviewing the evaluation process. However, this group did submit a brief to the ministry about the process and about the way things are going in the English-speaking community. I am very lucky to have a committee that is the barometer of the population we are working with.
I forgot to mention that parents can also be members of CELA.
I try to attend meetings with private school associations because we also serve that community. I meet with groups from the Québec Association of Independent Schools and the Association of Jewish Day Schools on a fairly regular basis. I meet with school board directors general regularly. I am also invited to meetings of directors of educational services and directors of complementary services when they are discussing topics of interest.
There is also a committee for adult education and for vocational training in the English-speaking community. On occasion, I accept their invitation to attend their meetings.
I have always attended meetings of the Quebec Federation of Home and School Associations, which holds several meetings each year. The Quebec English School Board Association is also very active, and I try to attend their meetings.
I think that we have a good relationship with the teachers unions we also meet with. While we do not always see eye to eye, we are at least honest and straightforward with each other.
The Canada-Quebec Agreement is very important to us. We have just finished negotiating the new agreement 9.13, an Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between le gouvernement du Québec and the Crees of Quebec, on which we regularly consulted all our partners. The document was approved not only by the federal government, but also by the ministère de l'Éducation, des loisirs et du sport and by the secretary for international and Canadian affairs.
In closing, I would like to talk about the issues that have been identified in the agreement and in our community, which has asked us to work with it on resolving the issues.
School textbooks have played an important role in our community in Quebec. This year, our ministry has succeeded in making the French and English material available simultaneously at the beginning of the school year. That was an ongoing issue for the province and for our community. There was always a delay because programs and language materials were originally produced in French and then had to be translated.
While teacher training is always provided for elementary and high school teachers, it is important that we ensure that the necessary adjustments are made and the documents are translated in a reasonable time frame so that our teachers will receive their material at the same time as their French-speaking counterparts. School adjustment and the integration of anglophone community members are very important issues. We feel that we have a lot to offer in that respect.
Regarding the new Quebec legislation on partnership agreements, my department is responsible for the agreements with school boards.
We try to be present in the regions because of the major differences between urban and rural communities, especially in the English-speaking community. Our presence in the regions is important. Last week, we attended a conference in Gaspé organized by the Eastern Shores School Board, and all the teachers from the coastal regions and Gaspé were invited. We had the opportunity to hear what our colleagues had to say.
In terms of learning evaluations, many changes took place on a provincial level. We must make sure that those changes are reflected in our community.
I mentioned earlier that vocational and technical training are important for our network. Our students must have the opportunity to learn in English, and English jobs must be available. It is up to our students to speak French well enough to apply for those positions, but it is important that they be able to learn in their mother tongue.
We must ensure that our communities receive all the communications from the ministry. There is an action plan called Agir autrement pour le milieu défavorisé. The role we play in the New Approaches, New Solutions intervention strategy enables us to work with our English-speaking school boards.
It is important that I stay in touch with our networks so that I can hear what the members have to say and so that I can take their message back to the ministry. That is my role. I can now answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. La France. The first question is from Senator Fortin-Duplessis.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you for being here this morning. You mentioned that you attended a meeting in the Gaspésie. Yesterday, via videoconference, we heard from witnesses living in the Gaspésie. One thing that really struck me is the high dropout rate among English-speaking students in that region owing to drugs, alcohol, and so on. Once those young people have dropped out, they are no longer interested in school and, eventually, they may need welfare to survive. Do you think there are more anglophone dropouts than francophone ones?
Mr. La France: By the way, I forgot to mention academic and community centers in my text. That is very important for answering your question.
At this time, academic and community centers only exist in the Commission scolaire de Montréal, mainly in the English-speaking community. Since the school must be part of the community, academic and community centers are adapted to the community. Social and community workers have access to the school, and that helps reduce the dropout rate.
Currently, the dropout rate is a priority for the minister of education. The minister's action plan lists 13 different ways to succeed, but if we look at the dropout rate by region, I would say that, right now, the dropout rate for students enrolled in English-language schools is lower than the one for students enrolled in French-language schools.
I would say that there are still many dropouts, and we need to find solutions to this problem. I hope that the action plan will yield results before 2020, since targets in the partnership agreements were set for that year. Each school board submitted, as part of its partnership agreement, its action plan for this year to reduce the dropout rate.
I would say that we are on the right track even though the dropout rate has remained steady for several years. That is why new initiatives must be implemented to help resolve the school dropout issue.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I asked this question because, according to the testimonies we heard, there are fewer dropouts in the Sept-Îles region and along the north shore than there are in the Gaspésie.
My question is a bit more delicate. Does the provincial government consider the English-speaking community as a separate entity, with specific needs, or does it treat it exactly as it does the French-speaking community, province wide?
Mr. La France: You are right, that is a delicate question.
Senator Dawson: We will not talk about Canada.
Mr. La France: Right. I have been with the ministry for four years, but I have been with a school board for 38 years. When I was director general of a school board, I never felt that the English-speaking community was treated differently. We had access to everything, from funding to all the programs implemented.
The only downside is in terms of the availability of educational supplies in English, since there is a language policy that must be complied with. On both sides, we are on the verge of solving that problem because the English-speaking community has been making lots of demands over the last several years. The problem was solved at the beginning of the last school year, and we can say that it is not an issue this year.
In short, based on my experience, I do not feel that one community is treated better than the other.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: We saw yesterday that the equipment at St. Lawrence College is not as sophisticated as the equipment francophone CEGEPs have at their disposal. We were also told that there is a shortage of buses, and that students have to travel for an hour and a half to get to class and another hour and a half to return home, for a total of three hours of commuting per day. I feel that those are inequalities.
Mr. La France: I see your point, and I believe that you would also find inequalities in some French-language school boards in the regions. I have witnessed that first hand. As for school transportation, the major difficulty is in the English-speaking community. There are nine anglophone school boards compared with 60 francophone school boards, so the long-distance traveling issue mainly arises in the English-speaking community.
When we consider that students must travel long distances, it leads us to believe that funding is not equal, but it is. The problem can be traced back to the areas school boards represent and to the number of small schools in the regions.
Some francophone school boards in the regions will also say that their students spend too much time on buses. All anglophone school boards, unless they are in urban communities, must cope with that problem. If we look at a school board with 80 students from kindergarten to Secondary V, we see the same problem occurring.
I agree with you that it is not acceptable for students to spend three hours a day on a bus. That is why we need to examine this issue.
The Chair: I have a question in addition to those asked by Senator Fortin-Duplessis. As you know, I am a francophone from Manitoba and I believe that, in terms of school division, our situation is very similar.
My question is delicate, but I will ask it anyways. You mentioned the word "equality". To me, the expression "equality between two communities" can simply mean that the two communities receive the same level of funding per student.
In the case of an official language minority community, when we talk about being equal with the majority community, we have to take it a step further and look at the specific needs. In the current situation of the English- speaking community in Quebec, does the word "equality" go beyond the concept of equal funding by taking into account the specific needs of each official language community?
If you are not comfortable answering the question, please feel free to say so.
Mr. La France: I am completely comfortable answering the question. Perhaps I used the wrong word. Perhaps we should say equity. Each school board receives funding and has responsibilities under the Education Act, among which is the responsibility of being equitable in the distribution of resources. In terms of equity, the same goes for Quebec's ministry of education under the budgetary regulations.
In terms of travel for training, measures are in place to serve the regions. It all depends on what our interpretation is. We talk about equity, but that does not mean that funding is equitable. Someone may think it is, but the people who receive the funding do not necessarily see it in the same way.
In my opinion, most importantly, we should talk about equity and transparency. The word "transparency" has its importance in the network where I work.
[English]
Senator Fraser: With respect to translation and textbooks, I think I heard you say that the problem had been solved; I hope that is true. How can it be that year after year, there were problems in English schools because the official texts required by the government were not available in English? The word would come down that the required text would be available in a year or 18 months. How could that be? What were the problems? What are the problems today?
Mr. La France: I have been in the English network my whole life and I can attest to the fact that the textbook problem is over 25 years old and possibly older. In my estimation, there are a number of reasons for the problem.
One of the reasons was that the programs were not specifically dictated across the province. The English sector had many immersion programs, but the problem was they could have the materials in French, but they did not have the materials when they were teaching in English. Many of our teachers did not want textbooks. That does not solve the problem.
Looking back at the last 10 years, the issue is clear. Due to the length of time to translate a textbook and the related costs of doing so, there was an expectation from the publishers that there had to be support available to proceed with that process. The programs and textbooks were written in French, so the expectation was, if we were expecting all students to write the same provincial exams, then we would have to ensure that the textbooks were similar, which is not to say the same.
It was difficult to solve that issue. Madame Courchesne made it a priority when she came into office, and from there we looked to solutions. We met with publishers, and we created a new committee in the English sector to look at the issue. We asked the teachers' union to be present, there were directors general of the school board and the private schools were present. School principals joined the committee. We wanted to study the issue, and that is when we started to solve the problems.
I cannot dispute the fact that it has been an issue for a number of years. However, during our study we came upon some reasons that we felt were unnecessary. We recognized the question of how to do the translation, given that the reform happened so quickly. When a French textbook became available in June, there was no way to have it translated for September, so we had to find alternative measures. Madame Courchesne also created a province wide steering committee that now has to look at the next generation of textbooks, and if they are not available simultaneously in French and English, they are not released.
We tried to explore a number of solutions, including having the books written in both French and English, and trying to compare them.
Our English-speaking market in Quebec is not that large, and we cannot use the same textbooks that are used across Canada. We have to have books written specifically for Quebec. That was an issue insofar as the costs related to the number of students, but this issue did not stop the minister from insisting that the students have the materials made available to them.
Senator Fraser: You say that the present policy, at long last, is that the materials should be made available simultaneously.
Mr. La France: That is what is being put forward. It has not been presented to the new minister, so I hope I am not sticking my neck out, but I think that was one thing that has been looked at, and there is a steering committee to look at that issue specifically. As long as the programs are not changed, we have the approved textbooks. The last of the textbooks in physics and chemistry were approved, in August, I believe.
Senator Fraser: The one thing we can be sure of is that this will not be the last time textbooks change in schools.
It seems to me that there are two ways is to look at this. One is to hold back the introduction of the French changes until materials are available for everyone, or go ahead with the French changes but allow the English schools to continue with the old system where, at least, they have the books until the new books are available. Do you know whether that second alternative was ever considered? It is going in a way to Senator Chaput's question about "equity" not being necessarily "uniformity." Do you see what I am driving at here?
Mr. La France: Yes, some of those possibilities did exist in the past. If there was a program that was coming in, there was always a two-year window, but that window was not enough given the translation, and that was part of the issue. The other one was that our English community did not want the delay. The English community, especially the elementary school community, espoused the reform and wanted to move on.
Part of what is in place, and the proposal, if it is approved, is that any new programs would not be implemented for two years. It would give time for the materials to become available in both languages and it would give an opportunity to pilot those programs. It would also give us an opportunity to train our teachers and make sure that when the programs arrive in the schools, whether they are French or English, all of the work is done to ensure they are in place.
We are looking at adapting some of the things that have happened in the past for the future and ensuring we make those adjustments.
[Translation]
Senator Fraser: Madam Chair, I have another question, but I will wait for the second round.
Senator Dawson: Mr. La France, you mentioned your past experience and I would like to know the board you belonged to.
Mr. La France: My experience is varied. I worked as a teacher and as the director of educational services. I was also the director general of the Lester B. Pearson School Board in West Island.
Senator Dawson: So, in practical terms, we can say that you have experienced the situation first hand before coming to the ministry?
Mr. La France: Yes, I would say that I have enough first-hand experience. And when we are talking about textbooks, I can tell you that I have experienced the situation from the inside.
Senator Dawson: We were joking earlier about the expectations, but yesterday, Ron Corriveau, Steven Burke and Jean Robert were full of praise for your sensitivity.
It is obvious that your past experience in an English-speaking environment makes you more sensitive to the issue. So I thank you because it is always difficult for the Quebec government's senior officials to appear before parliamentary committees, be it in the Senate or the House of Commons, and I must tell you that we greatly appreciate your presence. I would now like to read a passage from a witness who appeared yesterday.
[English]
The federal practice of devolving the delivery of services and programs to other stakeholders including the provincial government . . .
[Translation]
A representative from an organization said yesterday that, whenever the Canadian government decides to transfer the traditionally federal responsibilities to the provinces, the linguistic rights of the English-speaking minority in Quebec and of francophones in the other provinces disappear with the transfer of responsibilities.
In other words, if you were unemployed and you started a training program under federal jurisdiction as an anglophone, you would go to the employment centre and you have the right to get service in English. It is not a privilege, but rather a right.
One of the negative effects of the transfer of responsibilities to the provinces is that the anglophones in Quebec are losing this right. I am not saying that the Quebec government neglects them, but it uses its own discretion depending on the number and on geographic circumstances. That upsets the organizations a little. Do you have any comments on the challenge faced by anglophones in Quebec?
Mr. La France: When I was the director of a school board, there was talk about the school boards' first strategic plan on vocational training. There were agreements with the ministry to ensure that the province made programs available to the anglophone school boards.
It is possible to transfer student registrations from one school board to another given that the number of students is sometimes not high enough for a cohort. For example, the New Frontiers School Board lends the registrations to Eastern Shores to ensure that programs can be offered to anglophones.
One of the solutions provided was the Canada-Quebec infrastructure agreement. There was a problem with that because we must admit that the English-speaking community did not see vocational training as an option. English- speaking parents were saying that their children would be going to university.
The English Montreal and New Frontiers school boards were the first ones in the beginning and then, other school boards emerged. There was some catching up to do and the purpose of the first strategic plan between the Canada- Quebec agreement and the education ministry was to ensure the availability of programs in the English-speaking communities across the province.
When I joined the ministry, we started looking at other solutions because that economic period was not really favourable for investing in infrastructures. So we had to look at other options.
At the education ministry, there are what we call development officers who are hired by the francophone school boards because some of their national centres are responsible for offering the English program if there is a cohort.
We thought it was a good idea, if there was the possibility of a cohort, to have development officers available to look for students to make sure the cohort was formed. Those are sort of the dynamics we are aiming for. We are not really in a position to start building a lot of centres. The investments will not be as large as they used to be and we are trying to find other solutions to help our students to study in their language.
Senator Dawson: There was also a feeling of lack of transparency in the payment transfers between the Canadian government and the Quebec government. Is there a way to ensure that the English-speaking community receives its fair share of transfers? I am taking the example that Senator Fortin-Duplessis gave you earlier about the fact that not having a community room in a francophone CEGEP, like in the St. Lawrence CEGEP, would probably be unacceptable in any type of community, whether for 1,000 students or 4,000 students. Given that federal transfers are done through an envelope and a big cheque, is there a way to verify that the English-speaking community is getting its fair share?
My last question is on another topic. You mentioned the Conseil supérieur de l'éducation and the English-speaking working group. Would I be exaggerating if I said that the Conseil supérieur de l'éducation takes care of francophone education and excludes allophone, Aboriginal and anglophone education from its mandate?
Mr. La France: The mandate of the Conseil supérieur de l'éducation does include the English-speaking community and it is working on also having an Aboriginal component.
I did a presentation before the Conseil supérieur de l'éducation to raise their awareness on the Aboriginal issue. That turned out well since the chair of the Conseil supérieur is on the same floor as me in Montreal, so we often have the opportunity to talk.
I would say that the Conseil supérieur is very aware of the English-speaking community. The other group, meaning ELEC (the English Language Education Committee), was created precisely to address the issues of the English-speaking community and study its recommendations. I would not say that we have many representatives, but it certainly is representative.
On the financial level, I can answer for the Canada-Quebec agreement. I have to be accountable to the federal government by signing off on financial statements each year for the Canada-Quebec agreement on minority and second languages instruction.
I am not able to answer for the others because it is not really my responsibility.
Senator De Bané: Mr. La France, as to the dropout rate, you will surely remember Mr. Jacques Parizeau's statement, which created a big fuss. He said that the dropout rate in francophone schools was twice as high as that of anglophone schools. Does the current situation reflect well what he said a year ago?
Mr. La France: I do not think I want to get into the subject.
Senator De Bané: It was in the papers and he was particularly harsh towards the ministry, using the expression "the mess that is the ministry of education".
Mr. La France: I can tell you that, in terms of statistics on the anglophone and francophone communities, if we compare urban areas, right now the success rate is higher in the English-speaking community. I believe these statistics are public. But I would not go as far as saying that the dropout rate in the francophone community is twice as high as that of the anglophone community.
It is often said that we should not blow our own horn too much. The English-speaking community has work to do since still more than 20 per cent of our students drop out and we have to find a way to bring them back.
Senator De Bané: Mr. La France, how many employees does Quebec's ministry of education have and how many are under your direction as assistant deputy minister for services to the English-speaking community and Aboriginal affairs?
Mr. La France: I am not able to give you the numbers for the ministry, but I can tell you about the employees in the policy and project unit. We have a dozen professionals. We also have what we call development officers who assist in various vocational training programs that support literacy, school boards, including support for school boards in partnership agreements, and students with learning disabilities. These development officers work with the school administration to oversee the school organization.
I have a dozen translators and two Aboriginal affairs professionals. That is my staff in a nutshell.
Senator De Bané: You gave me the breakdown of the various categories under your direction. So around how many people would you say there are in total?
Mr. La France: I would say around 30 people maximum.
Senator De Bané: How many employees does the ministry have? Are there 500, 1,000 or 1,500 people?
Mr. La France: My answer would be a guess because I have no idea. I never asked that question.
Senator De Bané: These are public figures that are listed in the blue books.
Mr. La France: I understand, but I do not know those numbers.
Senator De Bané: So your sector has about 30 people.
Have you studied the sectors that deal with official language minority communities in the education ministries of Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick?
If so, were you able to compare how Quebec and the other three provinces operate and note the differences? New Brunswick is, of course, a special case since it is a bilingual province in the Constitution and of its own will. So the province has two deputy ministers of education, one for the French-speaking network and the other for the English- speaking network.
It would be useful if you could comment on how others operate so that we can have a better idea of their way of dealing with their official language minority.
Mr. La France: I took part in signing the Canada-Quebec agreement protocol that was submitted to the ministers and deputy ministers for the final stage of the Canada-Quebec agreement, but I would not go as far as saying that I studied the systems in the provinces. We still had the opportunity to debate informally during the negotiation stage of the protocol. I have a number of colleagues across Canada and I had the opportunity to discuss with them, but we did not specifically talk about the education system. The issue at hand was essentially the promotion of official languages, as part of the Canada-Quebec agreement, to support the various communities we work with in Canada in the different provinces and territories.
Senator De Bané: I see. As to Quebec's ministry of education, we were told yesterday about the under-representation of Quebecers whose mother tongue is English and who are public servants. Is their presence felt in the education ministry or do you need a microscope to find them?
Mr. La France: We are obviously present in our sector because we work in an English-speaking environment, and all our employees must be able to work in English with the English-speaking community.
I cannot tell you about the employees in the other sectors of the ministry, but, in our sector, we can interact with the two communities we work with.
Senator De Bané: It is more than just being comfortable communicating in English with your clients; are there public servants in your sector whose mother tongue is English?
Mr. La France: There are two of us in my sector. I am the assistant deputy minister and the director of DPP and of Aboriginal affairs. And then there is Ms. Michaud, who is the director of DPLA and who is anglophone. In my case, my mother is anglophone and I did some of my studies in English.
Senator De Bané: As to the financial statements you sign off on for the Canadian government and following up on the agreements between the two levels of government, would there be a legal impediment to disclosing those financial statements of the Canadian government to the English-speaking community? I assume not. There is nothing confidential in them.
Mr. La France: No.
Senator De Bané: Some told us yesterday that they would really like to know how much they get and what they do with the money. Obviously, we are not at the higher levels of government. So could they get a copy of that if they asked for one?
Mr. La France: The financial resources branch would be able to provide that information. I would not get involved unless they were the ones providing the information.
With respect to projects, I have always been transparent since we indicate both the projects and the amounts granted for them. But we must remember that the services for the English-speaking communities are not the only ones that benefit from the Canada-Quebec agreement funds. We have to transfer funds to the advanced education ministry for vocational and technical training, and to the communications ministry. So it is not always obvious since there are transfers of funds.
However, since I am the one who signs off on the financial statements, I check what is being allocated to the other sectors and to the services for English-speaking communities or for English-language instruction in francophone school boards.
Senator De Bané: I will ask more questions in the second round.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much, Mr. La France. I notice that your title is Assistant Deputy Minister, Services to the English-speaking community and Aboriginal affairs. That is good. It is interesting because typically when we hear from anglophone minority language communities in Quebec, education always comes up as an area of real concern. Therefore, you can imagine the frustration, given that education is controlled provincially, but there are all these transfer agreements about which everybody here has been concerned and asking questions.
Consultation and transparency come to mind as important principles, and specifically, how you ensure both concerning the challenges in the area of political influence. I will leave that topic because members here today have discussed it.
I would like to tell you that witnesses in front of this committee have commented that in terms of service to the public the relationship between anglophones and the Quebec government tends to be on an individual rather than a collective basis. In other words, the provincial government seems not to view the English-speaking communities as a separate client group with special needs. Given your particular role, I would appreciate hearing your comments.
Mr. La France: We have internal discussions on the meaning of "service," and if you look at the titles of all the ADMs, mine is the only one that has the word "service" attached to it. That is because most of the decisions that will be made related to programs and so forth are from different units in the ministry.
I make every effort to do that. That is my best way to answer. I have tried to enumerate all the partners I work with and meet with, and I am present in Réseau; I have time to hear from them. I also meet with parents' groups. I try to bring the message back to the ministry. I have the opportunity at the deputy minister's table to transmit some of the concerns identified by the milieu that we work in.
We have tried to set up our leadership committee on English education so that some of what we are doing is transmitted back to our network so they do not feel they have to do it on an individual basis.
Have we been successful? Obviously not, but I think, depending on who you speak to, he or she will say that we have been present and we have made every effort to bring our concerns to the ministry, at least the partners I have named today.
Senator Seidman: I understand that you are saying that there is a consultation process from your level down into the community. My real concern is about political influence and as you move up the chain, what happens?
Mr. La France: I have a sense that the deputy minister listens to me. I meet with my deputy minister on a regular basis. I have occasion to meet regularly with the minister and express the concerns of our community.
That being said, certain political decisions will be out of my control. However, I believe my job is to bring the concerns of my community to higher authorities within the ministry and see what solutions we might find. I do fully believe we are moving in the right direction. I do believe some solutions have been put forward.
However, I will tell you I was director general of the school board, and people did not think I did anything for them there, either. It is a tough one, sometimes: who is being heard, where are they being heard and how does that message come out at the end?
I do not know if I am expressing myself properly, but throughout my career, I have had a sense that when you talk about service, you are trying to get to as many people as possible to tell them what you have done to get that communication out there, and, unfortunately, we are not getting it out there.
Senator Seidman: I appreciate what you are saying and I appreciate you must be working extremely hard at doing this. It is a thankless job in many respects because the community becomes impatient.
Might I ask you if there is something that you feel that we can do to facilitate or to help? Is there something you would like to ask of us, perhaps, to make things easier for you?
Mr. La France: You ask a very astute question that is very difficult to answer. I think you understand some of the dynamics that exist today and that have existed in the past. Within that context, we have to find ways to serve our community. I am not sure it would serve any purpose for me to make mention of anything like that publicly. I do not want to sound like Pollyanna, but I believe we are moving in the right direction. I believe the message is getting through.
When I worked in school boards, I felt that the people at the ministry were there to support me. I mean, most people, when they are in a job, if you meet with them you build your case and improve your dossier. I have not met or worked with anyone in the ministry who is mean-spirited. Maybe I need to start by saying that. That being said, there are differences between federal and provincial jurisdictions. It is an extremely touchy subject as has always been the case when we talk about education. When we talk about signatures of ententes, it is a balancing act between how we make sure we serve our community and how we make sure those federal funds go there without encroaching on provincial responsibility related to education. I would be ecstatic if you could help me with that balancing act.
Senator Seidman: All right, I will think about that for a bit and try to figure out exactly what you are saying.
Mr. La France: I do not know if I am clear without being clear.
Senator Seidman: We can see how politically sensitive this whole issue is, and understand why we have heard a lot of frustration in presentations concerning this issue.
Mr. La France: That is why I am trying to transmit to you that in my area of jurisdiction, I will try to make sure I am present to hear what people have to tell me, and I will try to transmit that message to people in the ministry, including the minister. However, there will still be political decisions that are out of my control.
Senator Seidman: I appreciate your candour and your frankness. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. La France, I think your presence here today is very significant and bolsters what you have said. Thank you again.
Senator Champagne: Listening to you, Mr. La France, I was reminded of what we heard about you yesterday. You told us about the things you had tried to accomplish since joining the ministry, and you have been successful because everyone who came here had nothing but praise for you, as far as your cooperation and open-mindedness are concerned. Obviously, we cannot overlook the issue of transparency. That is our first consideration.
People have told us that the federal government invests money at the post-secondary level, money that comes from official languages budgets, on training and so forth. But it is not always easy to know who, in fact, is benefiting, from both federal and provincial funding. We have a general idea.
No one who asks the government for money to fund a project likes being told that the budget has run out and there is no money left. That is obvious. What we seemed to be hearing yesterday — and this may just be the actress in me rebelling — is why would French-language school boards or institutions have a much easier time obtaining certain things from the ministry than English-speaking communities? Even though they say you are a good listener with a big heart, your hands may also be tied because you are bound by a budget. Do you ever feel like it is easier for French- speaking groups to obtain certain things than for English-speaking ones?
This may touch on the most shocking thing we heard yesterday about the St. Lawrence campus, which has 4,000 students and cannot have a small room that can be used for theatre or music.
Yesterday I joked that it would be easier to build a huge $400 million amphitheatre than the one you are trying to build; you put in a request for $12 million and were advised to cut the cost by nearly half or even two-thirds.
Do you get the sense you would have an easier time making the same request for a French-language group than for an English-language one?
Mr. La France: I have personal experience with this process, both as the director of a school board and at the ministry, and it does not matter whether you are French-speaking, English-speaking or aboriginal; anytime you ask for funding, it is included in a five-year plan. The ministry has a copy of that same plan, and the assistant deputy ministers are familiar with it. The plan covers infrastructure over five years, ten years and so forth. Every school board and CEGEP has to submit its projects. I can tell you that some years, the aboriginals received more than the francophones. And having seen it with my own eyes, I can tell you that it is quite an undertaking to determine which projects will be selected and approved.
I am trying to do the same thing with St. Lawrence College as Dawson College in Montreal, which was able to build an amphitheatre using both federal and provincial funding.
We have had discussions with Canadian Heritage regarding St. Lawrence College, and discussions have also begun with the ministry of post-secondary education, to see how this could be included in the five-year plan. But I have not observed any favouritism. It really comes from the ministry's five-year plan. You have to submit an application for your project and fill out the required forms, and then the ministry makes a decision.
I will not say that political influence does not come into play to a certain extent in some files; I am not that naive. But, for the most part, it is architects and engineers who carry out the ministry's study. They study the project and can ask the school board for any supporting documents that may be missing.
During my time as director general of the school board, I was aware of at least five English-language schools that were built over a period of ten years. So I can tell you that there has been infrastructure for the English-speaking community.
Senator Champagne: Is it possible to judge what the selection criteria will be for the five-year plan?
Mr. La France: Each directorate sets its own priorities. I cannot say whether the project you are referring to would be first on the ministry of post-secondary education's list or somewhere in the middle. I have no idea. But there is no question that the proposal would be studied and submitted. I can also say that federal government support would not hurt.
Senator Champagne: That means that if your application is denied under the five-year plan, there is always next time. As the saying goes, "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again".
Mr. La France: Furthermore, the St. Lawrence College project is precisely the kind of project that could receive approval under the Canada-Quebec agreement, because it involves support for the English-speaking community and for Quebec. That always enters into the discussion.
Senator Champagne: Good tip. Thank you.
The Chair: We will now begin our second round with Senator Fraser.
[English]
Senator Fraser: Mr. La France, I will ask you a series of factual questions. Anyone in Quebec knows that some of the questions will have political overtones, but I am just asking you for factual material. I am not asking you to venture into political opinions.
Who is eligible to go to English school in Quebec?
Mr. La France: Any student, Bill 103 withstanding at the present time.
Senator Fraser: And before Bill 103.
Mr. La France: Anyone in Quebec who has a parent who has done the majority of his or her English schooling in Canada.
Senator Fraser: Mother tongue is not a criterion.
Mr. La France: No. It was at one time. There was always an analysis of whether students came from an immersion background, and then we used to look at percentages. If they were in an Ontario school, even if it was an English school board, and they were in a French class for more than 50 per cent of the time, then they were not eligible. That is no longer the case. It is clearly an English school board, it is across Canada, and you would have to have done the majority of your English schooling.
Senator Fraser: Is it all English schooling or just primary grades?
Mr. La France: It is the primary grades.
Senator Fraser: I am getting at percentages but also trends. How many children are there in school in Quebec, and what proportion of those children are in English schools? Do you have that information?
Mr. La France: I do. We talked about a figure of 1 million students, and it used to be 10 per cent. It is probably closer to 13 per cent now; between 12 per cent and 13 per cent in English.
Senator Fraser: What happened?
Mr. La France: There are declining enrolments everywhere. It was 12 per cent or 13 per cent the last time I checked.
Senator Fraser: That is fairly recent information.
Mr. La France: It might be different again because this year when we look at the two larger English school boards on the Island of Montreal, the enrolment in one of them will drop by close to 500 to 600 students, and the other will drop by close to another 1,000.
Senator Fraser: Is that before Bill 103?
Mr. La France: I am talking about this year. We will not have those figures until September 30, but on the Island of Montreal, the two largest boards have been in a steady decline. In the English sector, only one school board has seen an increase in population, and that is the Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board. As for the other eight boards, it might be slightly higher this year at the Eastern Shores School Board, but you are talking about a school board of 1,100 students and a percentage increase is not a big one.
Senator Fraser: We know that with the aging population, all school populations have been diminishing, but over the past 20 years, is it fair to say that the number of children attending English school in Quebec has decreased more than the number of children attending French school in Quebec?
Mr. La France: We have seen a decline in the French sector as well.
Senator Fraser: I am looking at the proportion. Is the graph steeper for the English than it is for the French, or is it about the same?
Mr. La France: It is difficult to say because it depends on where you are looking. If you are looking at it in the regions for the French population, there are some places where there are huge drops, to the point where they are having a hard time keeping the last school in the village open because they do not have enough kids. You would have to conduct an analysis.
We will start to know a lot more about that, given the partnership agreements, because the school boards have identified specific fields. They need to look at school success and that type of thing.
The analysis will be interesting to see. Very few school boards, with the exception of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Commission scolaire de la Seigneurie-des-Mille-Iles are seeing increases in population.
I do not think you can escape from also looking at the types of programs being offered in the school boards. I think when we do an analysis, particularly on the Island of Montreal, we are going to more and more programs in French and French immersion because the anglophone school boards are losing many parents who are choosing to send their children to French schools. It is impossible to know how many there are because they have to have applied for their eligibility certificate for us to be able to have the statistics. All kinds of numbers are thrown out there, and I am not sure how reliable they are. Having experienced it, I think they are fairly reliable, and parents are making decisions based on wanting their children to remain in the province.
Senator Fraser: Sure, any parent understands that.
Could you send the committee a letter with the most recent school population figures?
Mr. La France: I will be glad to. My assistant is with me, so I am sure I will be reminded.
Senator Fraser: I have seen estimates that Bill 103 is expected to affect about 500 children a year. To the best of your knowledge, is that the kind of estimate that is being worked with?
Mr. La France: That estimate has been put forward.
Senator Fraser: Is that a true estimate or is it something the newspapers dreamed up?
Mr. La France: The school boards have put forward that estimate, yes.
Senator Fraser: Okay.
Mr. La France: We do not know the reliability at this point.
Senator Fraser: I would like to come back to the famous question about the St. Lawrence campus at Champlain, not just the theatre, but also the gym, which did not meet norms. Are there in fact norms somewhere in the ministry about what a CEGEP should have in terms of facilities? Do they apply? How do they apply? To the best of your knowledge, what happens when, for whatever historic reason, a CEGEP is not up to standard in some of its facilities? Are there special programs to bring those people up? If such programs exist, how do these end up affecting the English population? I think you understand what I am driving at.
Mr. La France: The one you are talking about is definitely the way that the documentation is being prepared for the ministry to look at what exists. It is also a CEGEP that is not in decline; it is a CEGEP that could not be predicted at that point. A very high francophone population has chosen to attend that college and the population has jumped up over recent years. That is part of what the director is putting together in his proposal to the ministry, saying these are some of the things that exist in the other CEGEPs, and the request Enseignement supérieur is making involves a comparison to the existing norms you talk about.
Senator Fraser: What I gather from what you are saying is that he is looking at other CEGEPs and saying, "Other people our size have this kind of facility; we should, too"?
Mr. La France: Correct, and those norms exist.
Senator Fraser: There are norms?
Mr. La France: Yes, they look at norms in the five-year plan. As I mentioned before, we have had discussions between my service and Heritage Canada as far as whether there are possibilities that could exist in the near future to support that project. I cannot say any more.
Senator Fraser: That is fine. I repeat, as the chair and other committees members have said, that we are grateful to you for being here today. It is not always the case that representatives of provincial ministries, particularly one as resolutely provincial as education, will appear before a federal parliamentary committee. We are very grateful to you.
Mr. La France: Hopefully, I will still be here after today.
Senator Fraser: It seems to me you are managing beautifully.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Fortin-Duplessis, do you have a supplementary question or another one?
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Another one.
The Chair: Then it is now over to Senator De Bané.
Senator De Bané: Mr. La France, if I understand correctly, of the 30 or so people in your directorate, 2 — yourself and someone else — are native English speakers. Is that correct?
Mr. La France: I meant civil servants.
Senator De Bané: Yes, fine.
Mr. La France: If we are talking about professionals, of 30 or so people, I would say that, with the exception of 3 or 4 people, the rest of the team is made up of native English speakers but is bilingual and able to work in French as well.
Senator De Bané: What is the difference between professionals and civil servants?
Mr. La France: It depends. I was referring to managers. There are two managers. As assistant deputy minister, I also manage two directorates, and I have a manager who is responsible for the English-language production directorate (DPLA). As for the other group, they are professionals whose work focuses on specific files they are assigned every year.
Senator De Bané: So the directorate that you are in charge of has two large divisions: a group of professionals and a group of civil servants?
Mr. La France: Yes.
Senator De Bané: That is right?
Mr. La France: Yes, that is right.
Senator De Bané: And are there 30 people altogether in both directorates?
Mr. La France: Yes.
Senator De Bané: Both directorates have 30 people altogether?
Mr. La France: Yes.
Senator De Bané: In the civil servant group, there are two people whose native language is English. What about the professional group?
Mr. La France: Of the rest of the team, there are probably five francophones, but who speak English fluently, and the others are anglophones. The language of the ministry is French, however, so my team has to work in French.
Senator De Bané: But of course. But you see we are the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. We recently heard from the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, who said that obviously the majority of the staff in his directorate was made up of francophones whose native language was French and that the challenge was to ensure that people worked in both languages.
I am certain that in Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick, most of the staff members in the directorates responsible for French-language schools are also native French speakers. Have I done any studies on it? No. But I would be willing to bet that is the case.
For 30 or so years now, it seems that Quebec has often said that it wanted to increase its workforce of native English speakers. I know that is obviously not your jurisdiction, but is there a way to encourage them to bring on more native English-speaking Quebecers?
That said, I want to address something you talked about. You outlined the bus transportation situation faced by young students. And you said it was just as much of a problem for francophone students as for anglophone ones.
Do you have an idea, Mr. La France, of the number of students in the province, regardless of language — francophone, anglophone — who have to ride the bus for three hours in order to go to school?
Mr. La France: Honestly, I could not say.
Senator De Bané: Who could tell me?
Mr. La France: You would probably have to write to each school board because they are the ones who would have those numbers. What school boards in remote areas are trying to do is combine student transportation services because it gives them access to more buses.
You must be referring to the Central Quebec school board. Mr. Corriveau probably has the largest area in the province to cover. The area is extensive, and he has to work with five school boards, if I am not mistaken. Discussions and exchanges are under way at the ministry to figure out what can be done to provide support.
Senator De Bané: I have one last question, Madam Chair. Thank you for the information you provided further to Senator Champagne's and Senator Fraser's remarks. If I understand correctly, it is up to St. Lawrence College to prepare a complete file regarding the auditorium and to send it to the appropriate ministry officials. The file would then be entered into the network, and a dialogue would be initiated between the college and ministry officials. That is the usual procedure. Is that correct?
Mr. La France: Absolutely. At the same time, discussions will take place with Canadian Heritage to determine whether they can give us some support. Any influence you have would be helpful.
Senator De Bané: Of course. Thank you very much for explaining the right avenue and the proper procedure in order to bring something in line with the administrative process. And if there is anything we can do in Ottawa, it is our job to do so.
Mr. La France: I can tell you that the process is under way with Canadian Heritage. The process with post- secondary education is also under way. We will see how things unfold, but the process will not take place separately. That is basically how things work within the ministry.
Senator De Bané: Mr. La France, your insight is extremely helpful to us. Thank you very much.
Mr. La France: It was my pleasure.
Senator Fraser: I find it quite interesting that there will be negotiations or discussions with Canadian Heritage. But if it were a French-language CEGEP, would you still need to look to Canadian Heritage for amphitheatre or gymnasium funding?
Mr. La France: No, and they do not have to look to Canadian Heritage either, but it can help. That is all I mean. The application will be included in the five-year plan, just like all the others. But if it is possible to come at it from another angle within the ministry, that is where the process is the same, but it is always helpful.
Senator Fraser: If we can help, we will. Thank you.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Deputy Minister, as far as education in Quebec is concerned, for both francophones and anglophones, which areas are most in need of training?
Mr. La France: Math/science. The need is probably most apparent in the area of mathematics/science. But in terms of universities, as well, we have had discussions with training institutions. In Quebec, the need is so great that we now have to hire teachers who teach other subjects or who come from elsewhere in order to meet our teaching needs in math/science. That is a top priority in this area.
Given how integrated students with learning difficulties are in classrooms, another priority would be the ability to provide all of our teachers with strategies for working with these students, in what we call "differentiated classrooms," giving teachers the tools they need to work with students at different levels.
I do not mind saying that all our students have special needs, and in that regard, we need to identify the students in a single class. Our teachers need to have at their disposal the strategies and methods for working in this kind of classroom, because it is truly the classroom of the future.
A lot is expected of our teachers. They are expected to do much more than just teach nowadays. They have to be sociologists and psychologists. In some cases, such as in the northern region, teachers also have to be able to provide language support. There is a province-wide need for speech therapy. When you consider aboriginal communities where the native language is neither French nor English and the fact that people are not trained to support those communities, the focus needs to be on students in kindergarten, Grade 1 and Grade 2. If we can catch them very early on, there is hope. Those are the teachers who need tools.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, in terms of math/science, the need is practically province-wide.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: In your view, is it necessary to conduct studies or marketing campaigns on the training needs?
Mr. La France: I am not sure I understand your question.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: In order to encourage students to go into subjects that would be the most important in the future, in Quebec, do you think that studies or marketing campaigns are needed to raise that awareness among students?
Mr. La France: You have hit the nail on the head. We also need campaigns to convince young men to go into teaching, especially primary education. It is hard to find male teachers for our primary schools. I can tell you that when I have the opportunity, I meet with university students, myself. It is important to do that kind of promotion. But we will always have trouble in that area, as long as we do not promote and value our teachers in the public eye. That is one of my priorities. Everyone has gone to school, everyone has an opinion, and I think we need to put a higher value on the profession of teaching.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: That may be the reason why the dropout rate among male students is so high. If they had male teachers, I think the rate might be lower, because they would at least have a male figure with whom they could identify.
Mr. La France: I am one of those people who believe there needs to be a balance; we need both. And that balance among school staff is important, especially at the primary level. More and more, that balance is non-existent.
Senator Champagne: Mr. La France, you said you had needs, for instance, in speech therapy. You said you had a shortage of math and science teachers. One subject that always interests me is written language, be it English or French. It is true that it may be harder to learn written French. At your level, do you focus at all on that type of problem? We are realizing that students are graduating from French-language CEGEPs, and even universities, without the ability to write. I am wondering whether there is a similar problem in English. Is this a known and widespread problem, or can the situation be corrected?
Mr. La France: I can tell you that the nine school boards have signed partnership agreements with the ministry. Five categories were identified, one of which was improved student success, in other words, bringing the success rate up to an average of 80 per cent by the year 2020. That means that all the school boards will improve their success rates.
One of the priorities is language education and language quality. English-language school boards have said that, for them, it is not just the native language; they have decided to identify both languages. But when it comes to French- language school boards, French is the priority in their partnership agreements. The English-language school boards have identified French and English, saying that attention needs to be paid to language quality in terms of both. Since they are English-language school boards, we are talking about the mother tongue. I can tell you that yes, that is a priority.
I can go through the other points quickly. In terms of job training, we want to have more students less than 20 years of age enrolled in job training programs. We also want to work on providing support to students with learning difficulties. Lastly, we are focussing on the wellness-oriented school program, with a view to implementing school- based violence prevention programs. In certain regions and certain sectors, this is becoming an increasing problem, in terms of school violence.
The wellness-oriented school program involves anything related to non-violence, such as providing children with healthy meals when they would not otherwise have that opportunity. This program also involves a physical fitness component, ensuring that schools also meet that need.
Those are the five categories. I listed them, and it is not one, two, three, four and five, but basically all five. School boards must produce proposals and statistics showing improvement in each of the five categories.
Senator Champagne: Do you have schools outside the greater Montreal area with a focus on sports or music? Does that exist outside the Montreal area?
Mr. La France: Yes, we have sport study and art-study programs; we also have new programs that are being implemented. In terms of art-study and sport-study programs, yes, they are in place.
Senator Champagne: The Montrealer thanks you for enlightening her.
Senator Dawson: Earlier, I mentioned the adverse effect of transferring federal responsibilities — labour and immigration — to the province. We also talked about Mr. Corriveau and the transportation problem within his school board. Yes, they probably have one of the largest school boards, but that is the outcome of a decision that had a negative impact. It was the Catholic school board of Quebec, the Découvreurs school board, that were responsible for student transportation at the time, in so-called "Catholic" school boards.
As soon as the governments had an agreement and Parliament had agreed to amend the Constitution to create an English-language school board, these people had a transportation problem on their hands. I do not think the governments' intentions were bad. But the immediate outcome was that students who had previously received adequate regional transportation, that is, an hour-long bus ride to school — which is still a long time — be it St. Patrick High School or an elementary school, ended up having to spend an hour and a half on the bus because they no longer belonged to region XYZ; they belonged to one school board. That was not what students wanted, and their parents, even less so.
I think it is important to see whether the ministry can understand that there is a cost involved. The cost was added to these people's transportation budget, because it was not the intention of the Quebec government, and certainly not of the federal government, to put them at a disadvantage. I am not sure whether you would like to comment on the negative impact this had on transportation.
Mr. La France: I am not familiar with the problem, so I could not provide an intelligent response. But what I can do is speak with Mr. Corriveau to see about meeting with ministry officials to examine the problem. That is not something that is under my jurisdiction, but I can make sure that the matter is discussed.
The Chair: Mr. La France, if there is any information on the matter that you are able or would like to share with the committee, could you please submit it to our clerk?
Mr. La France: Of course.
[English]
Senator Seidman: I would like to ask a follow-up question to clarify something regarding the transfer payments. Some of the senators asked very specifically how that looks in a sort of descriptive fashion in the name of transparency. I am not sure I am clear on what you said, so I might just review it a bit.
In a very specific way, when you have a budget, everything is delineated line by line: You know where the money is going. When the transfer payments are made, is there just one big pot or are things well delineated? Could you describe what that looks like?
Mr. La France: Yes, we negotiated the protocol related to this entente. I cannot really speak for the other transfer payments because it is not my area of responsibility. I wish I could tell you more, but I can tell you how it works for the language agreement. On that one, the protocol determines dollars. We negotiate a protocol, then we bring it to the ministers and the federal government gives us our window, tells us the size of our budget, and we come to an agreement as to how we will distribute that budget between the provinces and territories. It is negotiated over four years. We sit down with the provinces and territories. We come to an agreement. Each one of the representatives brings it back to their home province or territory. There is agreement on the mass and how that mass will be divided.
When that is finished, every province and every jurisdiction has to negotiate their bilateral agreements, and in negotiating the bilateral agreements, that is when we talk about where their transfer payments are made. There is an amount that goes in Quebec specifically to the Ministry of Finance because of the cost of education in the English sector, which is probably in excess of $700 million or $800 million. That is part of what goes to support that.
From there, an amount is given to my sector based on consultations that we have held with the milieu, and then an amount of money goes to enseignement primaire et sécondaire for adaptations for programs and any types of adaptation they have to do for the anglophone sector. I will transfer some of the money to Enseignement supérieur and some to projects that are specific to the English sector. They are approved on a project-by-project basis. I have to send the financial statements to the federal government annually; then they will sign off and we only receive the funding after we have indicated how we are going to spend it.
Senator Seidman: That is extremely helpful. Does the global amount go to finance?
Mr. La France: No, an amount looks at infrastructure and support costs for the anglophone sector. The other part comes to me and following consultations inside and outside the ministry, we identify some of the priorities they feel we need to work on for the English sector. I identify projects we will fund, and I will send money to communications to ensure that publications are made for the English sector, where the linguistic policy allows.
Enseignement supérieur looks at support for St. Lawrence College. For the requirements for that type of project, we go back to the federal government for complementary funds on an annual basis to see which new projects or what proposals we are putting on the table.
What we have had funded in the past through complementary funds have been things like the auditorium at Dawson College and the community learning centres that exist. We have 22 community learning centres now across the province. Those are some examples of complementary funding.
Senator Seidman: Is there a global amount targeted for anglo minority language communities?
Mr. La France: Yes.
Senator Seidman: A global amount comes from the transfer payments.
Mr. La France: Yes. I do not want to make a mistake, but we will probably identify 120 specific projects. It could be a publicity campaign for supporting English education; it could be in support. All the English school boards had to sign partnership agreements to look at supporting that. It could be additional support needed for the CLCs, for the community learning centres, for whatever, and we will look at that. There could be professionals in my sector. A couple of projects deal with exchanges between francophone and anglophone schools. There is a list of specific projects and there are general projects that ensure that textbooks are translated.
The Chair: I have an additional question to that of Senator Seidman regarding the projects that you accept through the agreement. If the agreement is signed for four years, do you accept projects that will go on for more than one year, or do they have to come back every year for funding.
Mr. La France: Generally, I would say yes. The only problem with the present entente is that it was signed on March 30 of this year. On that one, I was a little leery to agree to four-year projects when I did not know whether the agreement would be signed.
We worked for one year and we are now in the process of looking at some of the projects that we will continue over four years. Normally, we would look at the four-year process and decide whether the projects that we want to do will continue over four years.
One project comes to mind. I wanted to mention it because it is part of our mission. In the spring, we run symposia with all the teachers of the math and science programs. Toward the end of June, we bring together all the anglophone math and science teachers who wish to attend. We look at programs, available materials, and so on. This project is spread over three years. They are not necessarily always spread over four years, but we are looking at trying to make those types of decisions.
The difficult thing is that in identifying those programs, we are trying to identify programs that reach the majority of people. When you talk of a four-year entente, I can show you how many applications and requests I receive. We need to try to look at supporting the structures that we have for the English sector. That is how we make our decisions on our projects, namely, on how much of it will support them. When I meet with the directors general, I ask them, "Are all nine of you buying into this? If you are not, then maybe we need to look at something else."
Those are some of the ways that I have been trying to do it, because we need to avoid the piecemeal projects. That is a one-shot deal and does not offer support.
The Chair: Do you consider the impact of the project on the community?
Mr. La France: Absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Fraser: We are not going to keep you here for the rest of your life, although it may feel that way.
Would you tell us more about the community learning centres? I believe you mentioned the English Montreal School Board and one other school board in your initial presentation. You mentioned those school boards and the other boards that came in later. I think they may be important in terms of understanding community development.
Mr. La France: We have 22 community learning centres in all 10 school boards. I said 10, but there are only nine English school boards. The Littoral School Board has 13 schools and nine of them are anglophone. On that one, we support the Littoral School Board in terms of community learning centres.
When we set up community learning centres, it was set up through Noel Burke, my predecessor. It was set up as a project that would allow each school board and each school to look at how it would render services and how it would work with the existing community resources. Initially, it was to look at using the school after hours. Two things happened in the funding that we sent them. First, they were to have video conferencing equipment so that they could video conference between community learning centres. That allowed accessibility for teacher training or for whatever. Those centres then became available in some communities and in some distant communities where the CLSC said that it was a benefit and that they could use this system now to teach parents about health care and things like that.
We did not make this a one-size-fits-all project. We said, "We will give you money to hire a coordinator. You will have a video conferencing centre and we will have a central team that will go around the province and will look at putting in place your community learning centre and getting everything in writing. There is a document — and, it is a brick; it is a three-ring binder — that looks at community learning centres and how they apply differently from one community to the other. It could be using the school after hours. It could be having a vaccination program for infants. It could be La Leche League. It could be anything. We did not say that it had to be limited to this. We said, "You can use the community learning centre." We then put a coordinator in place to coordinate the activity with the school.
Without you being able to see one of them, I must tell you that not one of them is the same; all 22 are different.
Senator Fraser: That would be the point, namely that they are in the community.
Mr. La France: They are community based. It is to involve the community and to bring the community into the school. The anglophone community in Quebec has always had that attitude, namely that community is important.
Senator Fraser: And schools.
Mr. La France: It is linked to the schools. The biggest concern for us is giving distances. We have difficulty talking about community schools in the English sector now, and the CLCs try to kind of bring that aspect out.
Senator Fraser: Is this an expensive project? It does not sound very expensive.
Mr. La France: The initial outlay is probably $100,000 for each community centre. Thereafter, it is the annual cost of having the coordinator in place. For the rest, it is the school board that must buy into it. We have put in place decreasing funding over five years so that they become self-sufficient. Initially, it was only three years and then the funding was to stop. When we analyzed that, three years was not enough time for them to be able to do that so we have extended it to five years. In the sixth year, there is decreasing funding; in the seventh year, it decreases again. I am getting requests now to go to the next phase. I have requests to open 15 new centres. At this point I do not have the funding, but that is something that we are exploring.
Senator Fraser: This is a program that is working, then?
Mr. La France: It is working — not in 100 per cent of the cases, but pretty close to it. This has been a success story for us.
The Chair: That is good. The committee will be visiting a community learning centre on Thursday in Saint-Robert.
Mr. La France: Our coordinator will probably be at that session. If there is someone who can tell you about community learning centres, she was there from day one. She has shepherded this with a main de maître from the beginning.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Can you share with us some success stories in the education sector? We will finish on that positive statement.
Mr. La France: How much time do you have?
I think the CLCs are definitely a success story in our sector. I think the availability of textbooks and classrooms is a success story. Our parents are buying into the need for vocational education and I think it is something that our school boards have worked very hard on.
I think "reform" has been a bit of a bad word in the province over the years. However, as far as the English sector is concerned, particularly at the elementary school level, it has been a success story.
When we look at how we are working with students, the reform looks at differentiation of instruction and at offering more opportunities to our students. I think that is a success story. It remains to be seen how it will be seen publicly, but I think there are some real opportunities here.
One of the biggest success stories, in my view — and I would hope that people who come to see it would reflect that — is that we are a small enough community that we have opportunities to sit down and talk to each other. When you look at being able to talk to nine school boards in one room, at one time, to look at what they are thinking, for me it is a success story because I can tell a minister what the network that I represent is thinking. They may not like what I have to say, but in most cases the opportunity is there to do so. In my view, that is important. There is a fundamental value in being able to do that.
I think the success rate of our students in the English sector is something that I must mention because it is there. We have a long way to go — I should not say "a long way"; 20 per cent is better than what happens in some other sectors. However, it is something that we must look at. Our focus must return to math and science and the brain drain in this province. We need to look at that.
Many of our students coming out of our schools are bilingual. I think that says a lot.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: I would like to make a brief comment and, at the same time, ask a question. We hope that in two years' time, when he comes back to see us, the St. Lawrence College auditorium will be a success story.
The Chair: On that note, Mr. La France, I would like to express our appreciation. You spent a few hours with the committee, and you were able to answer the questions put to you by my colleagues with a great deal of tact and forthrightness. We are very grateful. You have been very helpful in clearing up some of our questions.
On behalf of all the committee members, I would like to thank you and wish you all the best when you return to work this afternoon. Thank you very much, Mr. La France.
Mr. La France: Thank you. It was my pleasure.
[English]
The Chair: For those who did not have the chance to visit Morrin Centre yesterday, Mr. Jacobs has offered to give a short tour after this meeting.
We are now free until one o'clock this afternoon.
(The committee adjourned until 1:10 p.m.)