Official Languages Committee on June 17th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Good morning and welcome to the 40^th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

On the orders of the day this morning, we have a motion that Mr. Chong would like to move during the public part of our meeting. We will then go in camera to discuss the report on the Canada-community collaboration accords.

Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It was recently reported that federal money given to the Province of Ontario for French language instruction in private schools is being eliminated from certain private schools. I want to bring this up in committee because this is an example of where the federal government has a role to play.

Since 1970, the federal government has used its spending power to encourage French language instruction in Ontario in its private schools, and that program has continued for over 30 years. However, the Province of Ontario recently announced that it will be eliminating this funding to a substantial number of private schools in Ontario.

There are a number of issues here. The first issue is one of unfairness. Presently there are about 230 private schools in Ontario that receive federal funding, administered by the province. The province has announced that it plans to restrict funding to only those schools that are secondary in nature and spend at least one-quarter of their classroom time teaching French. In other words, the province has announced that they're going to eliminate federal funding for primary schools, any schools that are religious in nature, and any schools that do not teach at least 25% of the curriculum in French.

I think the problem here is twofold. First, it's an issue of fairness. If you're going to fund certain private schools and certain religious schools, like Catholic schools, for French language instruction, then in Ontario, with such a diverse population, you should fund all religious schools and not pick and choose which religion you're going to favour.

The second issue is simply the preservation and promotion of the French language. I don't see how it is in anybody's interest to eliminate or reduce the amount of French language instruction or the support thereof in Ontario. If French language instruction is being provided because of federal grants to certain private schools, that should continue regardless of the affiliation of the school or whether it's a primary or secondary school.

I would argue that eliminating funding for primary schools versus secondary schools is the wrong way to go. As a matter of fact, we need to be encouraging children to take French at the primary level, because that's where they set their habits and their interest in the French language.

I bring this up because I think it's a very important issue. I'll give you one example of the type of school that will lose its funding. There is a school in Kitchener-Waterloo called the Kitchener-Waterloo Bilingual School. It has 350 students from kindergarten to grade eight. This school spends half its time teaching the curriculum in French. It will no longer be eligible for funding. I think this is an abomination.

We should support this motion because it's federal money, it's an issue of fairness, and this committee is responsible for an issue where the province is eliminating federal money from certain schools in the Province of Ontario.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

There's no problem with the motion itself. There are some speakers on the list.

We'll begin with Mr. Denis Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will of course agree with anything that ensures respect for bilingualism and the official languages. I would not do as my colleague Mr. Lemieux has done in his riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, where he has not taken a position on bilingual signage.

Without wanting to echo his jurisdictional arguments, I would like to ask Michael a question. If we are talking about federal funds for a one-time event, that is one thing, and we can get involved. If federal funds are given to the provincial Ministry of Education for it to manage those funds, like what is done pursuant to the framework agreement on social union, then that poses a problem. Indeed, we should not intervene in provincial matters. Provincial governments have their own powers, and we have to respect their jurisdiction.

I am willing to discuss this file, but I first would like to clear up the jurisdictional concerns. Does this refer to such basic training as English as a second language or French as a second language programs? There are such related programs, particularly in the immigration sector. In the case at hand, are funds being transferred from the Canadian government to the provincial Government of Ontario? The Ontario government might make mistakes, and we might disagree with some of its initiatives, but it has free rein over such matters, and it is up to the Government of Ontario to decide what it will do with those funds. We cannot interfere and ask a provincial government to account for its decisions.

I want to understand before making a decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I will stay clear of the list, and we can come back to Mr. Chong for some comments.

Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand the principle here. If federal funds are not used for their intended purpose, particularly for French second-language instruction or, in this case, French first-language instruction, then we have to know what is going on. I know that, at one point, the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française had done a study in that regard, a study entitled À LA COURTE PAILLE, which showed that in British Columbia, for example, federal funding had been allocated to neither French as a second language nor French as a first language instruction. No one knows what the money was used for exactly. This is a major problem, both in terms of education and French as a second language or French as a first language scholarships. We should indeed be concerned when funds are not used for the intended purpose.

That said, I have noted that Mr. Chong spoke about private schools. We could at least invite witnesses here to explain how the system works. Do we also want to consider public schools? Do we want to include school boards and therefore deal with public schools?

Here is how things work: the federal government gives money to the province; the provincial Ministry of Education redistributes that amount according to how its school boards are structured; and school boards decide to provide a given school with more funding or cut funding for another school altogether. We end up by looking straight at how the province's system works. Indeed, the following question arises: what to do about the private and public sectors? Is Mr. Chong referring to both? We would have to meet with people who could explain how federal funding is distributed to the provinces, how the federal government can follow that money, and if there are ways to encourage provinces to respect their agreements. We agree on the fact that when we deal with provincial areas of jurisdiction, we are no longer dealing with our own.

The issue is worth raising. We could talk to the people whose job it is to ensure that federal funds are channeled to the province, to know how the funds are distributed and whether results are obtained. Are there accounting records proving that the money was sent? Are the provinces required to keep such records or not? You understand what I am talking about. We cannot simply be told that this is none of our business and that we are outside our jurisdiction.

There you have it, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.

Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you.

If they tell us to mind our own business, then that might be because this is not within our jurisdiction. The motion is clear:

That the Standing Committee on Official Languages invite the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario and various stakeholders to explain why federal money for French-language instruction is being eliminated from certain schools in Ontario.

I have received letters from people in southern Ontario. In them, principals and teachers indicate that they used to receive money from federal programs, but that that had been cut. They find that regrettable, because those programs allowed anglophones to learn French.

I think that this is a good motion. We will hear federal government officials explain how the funds are distributed. We will also hear from provincial representatives who will tell us why the funding that was granted to those schools was cut. We could also invite school principals, other officials or members of the commission. What reasons were given for eliminating that funding? This way, we could bring the problem into the open.

I am still receiving letters from people who say that it does not make sense. Canadians want a country where they can be served in both official languages. That is what schools were doing by teaching young people another language, and then, all of a sudden, the funding was cut.

The same problem occurred in Nova Scotia. Funds were allocated to Nova Scotia so that it could provide French-language educational services, but it appeared that the money was used for other purposes. A ruckus was raised in Ottawa, and then things came back to normal. The communities received the money that was owing to them. At least, that is what I think happened, given that we did not receive any further complaints.

For all those reasons, I think that the motion is headed in the right direction. We can assess it once we commence our study, and see whether it falls within our jurisdiction. We can perhaps help them out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

At this point in time, I think Mr. Chong would like to comment.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to first address Mr. Coderre's concerns about jurisdiction.

We give nearly $1 million a year to the Province of Ontario so they can use that money to promote French language instruction in private schools, specifically in private schools. Private schools in Ontario are defined as non-public, which is the secular system, and non-Catholic. Ontario funds two school systems completely. It funds a public system that is secular in nature, and it funds a Catholic system that is run by the Roman Catholic Church. All other schools, whether they be religious or secular, are considered private. This money is supposed to be for French instruction in private schools, that is to say, non-Catholic/non-public schools in Ontario.

The money is governed by a four-year agreement between the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario. What exactly the terms of those agreements are I don't know. They very well could be in violation of the agreements—they might not be, they might be—so that would be one of the questions we could ask. What are the terms of the agreement? Can the province do this?

Secondly, it's an example of the federal government in the past using its spending power to effect priorities in provincial areas of jurisdiction. Certainly that's the case. However, it still is federal money, so I think it's worth our looking at it.

I'll add a final answer to your question. This money has been given in a consistent manner since 1970 to private schools in Ontario. Suddenly, after 38 years of this program running, the province announces that it's cutting funding to a majority of those schools that have received that money for the last 30 to 40 years. This is causing a lot of concern, not only in terms of delivering French language instruction in those schools, but in terms of fairness. Where is the equity here? Where's the fairness here? Since this is federal money, and since I've always thought the federal government was the primary institution of state that protects citizens' rights through the charter and through other mechanisms, I think we have a responsibility to take a look at this.

In terms of what Monsieur Nadeau brought up about accountability, I think he raises a very good point. Apparently one of the concerns of the province was that they didn't have a mechanism to prove where the money was going in these private schools. I think that's a legitimate concern, but the solution is not to cut funding, the solution is to put accountability in place. That's the solution.

These are the kinds of questions I think we can ask.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Okay.

Mr. Coderre, I think you wanted to add something.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I am familiar with the separate school system, but in light of the situation, an even more relevant question needs to be asked and here I am thinking of my colleagues from Quebec. When we reach any type of federal-provincial agreement, terms and conditions obviously have to be respected, but we have to ask ourselves whether money should be allocated to the Ministry of Education so that it in turn can be redistributed. This poses a serious jurisdictional problem.

Just imagine for a moment that I have reached an agreement regarding English as a second language with the Government of Quebec, and I want to ensure that the federal government is administering the money it pays out as part of this agreement in proper fashion. There would be an unbelievable mess. We are talking about money, but this is not just federal money: it is also taxpayers' money.

Furthermore, certain significant jurisdictional elements must be respected. We can go right back to the British North America Act to see that education comes under provincial jurisdiction. Even if, in the interest of good government, we have the power to spend, as we do already in several sectors, we need to be very careful that we do not, as part of the agreement, meddle in matters that come under provincial jurisdiction. It is not because we have spending power that we necessarily have an accountability relationship and that the Government of Quebec or Ontario has to, for example, be accountable to the Government of Canada.

Unless this question is answered in greater detail—and I think that the analyst could provide us with this answer—I am not sure that this motion is in order. First of all I would like to look at the parameters of the agreement. As I told you, I agree that we need to invest more and protect official languages. I can understand the fact that schools are sending letters. I have received some as well. However, we do have to deal with a jurisdictional reality. This is even in the framework of the social union. If the federal government gives money to provincial governments, they are not obliged to be accountable. Indeed, the federal government cannot get involved. I would like our analyst to examine this issue.

It would be premature to vote on this matter. Indeed, just imagine that this was about the Government of Quebec and not about the Government of Ontario. We know what the reaction would be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I would simply like to clarify, Mr. Coderre, that I ruled that the motion was in order when it was presented.

We will now give the floor to Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I think that we should support this motion. Over the past two years, I have seen us intervene in many sectors where we did not appear to have to do so for the purpose of protecting official language communities in minority situations. I must confess that I was surprised when I saw the motion. Indeed, Ontario has a long history when it comes to language problems. I think that everybody would acknowledge this. In addition, for some time now, other provinces have been following suit. There is, for example, New Brunswick, where anglophones have demanded French immersion programs in their schools. The Liberal government said no or, at least, was obstinate. There is another Liberal government in Ontario and there too, there is a problem.

As a central government, I think that it would be important to see whether people in official language minority situations are being respected. We are entitled to know whether or not the federal money earmarked to support francophone groups in Canada is going to the right place. I am speaking on my own behalf, but I believe that, as a Quebecker, I have a duty to support these groups. I may be aggravating those people with convictions that we should not get involved in provincial matters, which I do agree with, but I can assure you that, as a francophone, I find it deplorable that we still have to raise this issue today.

I thought that Ontario was a province that was a little bit more enlightened about the big linguistic problem that we have had throughout Canada, but recently I saw that the same situation prevails in New Brunswick. I therefore think that it is very important to deal with this issue as a committee, so that we can resolve the problem. Perhaps we could make some recommendations or suggestions that would be valid for Ontario, New Brunswick and Quebec.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

There are still two speakers on the list. Most committee members and all political parties have had a chance to express their views. Therefore, when committee members are ready, I will call the question.

Mr. Lemieux, the floor is yours.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to say I don't quite understand why Mr. Coderre might be opposed to the motion. I do understand the argument about les champs de compétence, the areas of responsibility. But I think what's important here is that there is federal money going to the Province of Ontario, and there's been a change in policy. I don't think many of us know, or any of us knows the details about this. I think the aim of this motion is to have people come in front of us to simply explain what was happening originally, what is happening now, why there's been a change, and what the impact on the schools has been, and to just gather information.

We do this for many other topics, for many other studies that we do. For example, CBC has champs de compétence as well. They made certain decisions. We asked them to come in front of our committee to explain why they made such decisions. What was the impact? What did we think the impact was? What was some of the feedback we had received? What did they think about that? It was to enter into dialogue with the key stakeholders on these issues.

This argument of champs de compétence has never stopped this committee before, certainly not from having productive discussions with key witnesses about a matter of key importance. I just wanted to explain. I think what I see here is that this motion allows the committee to gather very useful and important information regarding a subject that touches on second-language training in the province of Ontario using federal money. As Mr. Chong rightly pointed out, federal funding is supporting this. If there is a change in the policy, I myself would like to know what the change is exactly and why the change was made. I'd like them to explain that. Then I'd also like to know from the schools, particularly the smaller schools, what the impact is on them. I see this as giving us an opportunity as a committee to work together and to gather useful information.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.

I would like to add at this moment that the committee is free to study whatever topic it's willing to undertake. The committee has a recommendation. It has no power indeed in any jurisdiction, I would say. This is why I consider the motion fully acceptable.

Mr. Chong would like to add something.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to answer, through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Coderre's concerns with respect to jurisdiction. He mentioned that we wouldn't do this with the Province of Quebec. Well, we wouldn't because the Province of Quebec would never cut French language instruction in its public schooling system or in its support for religious school instruction. Quebec has always been quite sensitive about not just the preservation of the French language, but also the preservation of the English language in minority situations. So I think that's one difference.

The second difference is that Quebec doesn't discriminate against religious schools. It decided to fund religious schools, and it funds them consistently, and they're not making second-class citizens out of people who choose to send their kids to parochial schools.

The other thing I'd add, in answer to some of Mr. Coderre's concerns, is that the reason that we need to study this is because this agreement expires. This is an agreement signed by the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario. This agreement expires on March 31 of next year. This agreement expires next year, and I assume there will be a replacement agreement.

This is an opportunity for the committee to provide its input into that replacement agreement, that successor agreement, to say we've studied this issue and we think this clause should be added to this agreement or this clause should be modified or this clause should be eliminated from the agreement. The minister may choose to listen to us, she may choose to not listen to us, but at least we've had some input into this by saying it's the committee's opinion that this is how the new successor agreement should be modified.

It's timely to study this, it's appropriate to study this, and I think it's important to study this. There are a lot of people in southwestern Ontario--and these are not just people who are sending their kids to religious schools; these are people who are sending their kids to separate, secular, private schools.

For example, there is a bilingual school in Kitchener, Ontario, which is represented by his colleague Karen Redman. It's secular in nature and it's called the Kitchener-Waterloo Bilingual School. Half of the curriculum is in French, but they will be no longer eligible to receive French-language money from the Government of Canada, administered through the province. I think this is of direct concern to us because that means they may not be able to provide the kind of French-language instruction they have to date, and that means another chink in the armour against the preservation of the French language in the rest of Canada. So I think this is very important.

I think it's important also because these people truly feel like second-class citizens. It's our role as federal members of Parliament, as federal institutions, to protect citizens in this country, whether it's because of discrimination on a whole range of grounds.... I think this is a perfect role for us to play. We're not telling the province what to do.

We've called the Government of Canada as well; we've called representatives from the federal Department of Canadian Heritage to tell us what the terms and conditions are of this agreement. We've called representatives from the schools themselves, and from the Province of Ontario, so this is not focused specifically on the Province of Ontario. If you read the motion, it's calling on the two orders of government and the stakeholders involved to just give us information as to what is going on here.

This is funding that has been in place for over 30 years, and schools have come to rely on it, and suddenly it's being chopped. I think this is of concern to us and I think it will allow us to provide input into the successor agreement when this agreement expires next year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

We'll move on with Mr. Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, I find it passing strange that the parliamentary secretary, who is responsible for official languages, would lecture me this morning on the respect for official languages, when francophones in the riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, including the mayor, want to ensure that signs are posted in both English and French, in an equitable and respectful manner. Moreover, the parliamentary secretary responsible for official languages is the MP for that region, but he is unable to speak out...

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Coderre...

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

It is my right to speak to that issue, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I would like to speak, Mr. Coderre.

I would ask you to deal with issues that are relevant to the motion. Most committee members have expressed their views. There are still two names on the list, and I would invite you to focus your intervention. If committee members are ready to vote on the motion, we will do so now because we have other things to consider.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, he questioned me on official languages. It is my turn to speak and I can do so until 11 o'clock, if I want. I have already done so in the past.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.