Official Languages Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2013

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Is that part of your vision?

[Graham Fraser]

No, I'm not talking about my vision. I'm talking about what the law is. My vision, necessarily, is constrained by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Williamson, you have a briefer time, because we need to get to other members of the committee.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Sure. Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Fraser, it's good to see you again. You are always very informative, and no one can doubt your passion on this issue.

I'll commend you and your office for taking the approach you have and for resisting the temptation that my friend, Yvon Godin, suggested in terms of kicking up a storm in the courts. These are important questions we're looking at, but they're also questions that are best solved through democratically elected legislatures.

I do have a question, though, regarding one of the comments you made. I'm either looking for clarity or maybe even for you to just roll it back a little bit. On your line that understanding the two languages allows people to be “productive employees and citizens who can invest themselves fully in the civic life of their country”, I'll ask you to explain this. It suggests to me that in order to be fully Canadian or to fully participate as citizens, you have to speak both languages, and I don't think that's true.

I can point to numerous communities in my riding and communities across the country, French and English, where individuals and families can and do contribute greatly in a single language. I have made it a practice to talk about bilingualism and what that adds, but I don't believe that speaking a single language makes someone less Canadian or puts them in a position where they cannot contribute as bilingual individuals can.

[Graham Fraser]

In terms of my interventions before the courts, I have intervened before the courts 14 times. There are other cases when I will be intervening before the courts. We've established clear criteria for when we intervene before the courts, so I wouldn't want it to be left on the record that I've avoided using the judicial tools that I have at my disposal.

If I was suggesting that unilingual Canadians are less Canadian than others, that was certainly not my intention. I think that one of the nuances you always have to bring to the table about Canadian bilingualism is that we are two majority unilingual societies that live side by side, but for people who wish to engage at the national level and understand the country as a whole, it is hugely important.

That is why it has now become taken for granted in every political party that to aspire to political leadership bilingualism in the two official languages is essential to be able to understand the country as a whole. Similarly, there are certain important public positions. Parliament decided unanimously that agents of Parliament, who need to be able to communicate with parliamentarians in their language of choice, need to be bilingual.

That does not mean that people.... Just to take one minor example, the mayor of Lac-Mégantic has proven to be a highly esteemed woman who virtually deserves treatment as a national hero because of the way she has responded to the tragedy that happened in Lac-Mégantic. She is unilingual, to the best of my knowledge. This has not prevented her in any way from playing a critically important role in her community, and more broadly, from being a role model in Quebec for public figures.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

I appreciate your answer, sir.

With respect to the powers, I appreciate that you use them with discretion, and perhaps I should elaborate more. Taking the government to court because the level of bilingualism among anglophones is falling would be rash, I think. You don't need to answer that. It's a rhetorical question.

Over to you, Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Williamson.

We'll now have Mr. Nicholls and Mr. Benskin. They will be splitting their time.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Commissioner, I first want to talk about leadership. I find it rather surprising that the members on the government side need a history lesson from you, Commissioner, to understand the language situation in our country.

I believe I am one of the lucky ones, because my parents showed leadership when I was young. They decided to enrol me in a francophone school so that I could learn French. Even after having lived outside Quebec for 20 years, I can speak French. I can still do so even though I did not use my French for about 20 years. This is why I believe leadership leads to a positive attitude towards the second language. It is an integral part of leadership.

In your annual report for 2012-2013, you stated the following: "To achieve a true continuum of second-language learning, the federal government must demonstrate its leadership by developing an overall strategy on this issue." Could you comment on this statement? In your opinion, which key elements should be included in this overall strategy?

[Graham Fraser]

First, I do think that it is the responsibility of the government to develop a strategy. This strategy should include elements to promote this concept to universities, the private sector and public institutions to ensure that the presence, development and promotion of both official languages are key factors.

I attended the Canada Games in Sherbrooke this past summer. It was an example of the type of leadership that an institution could show, institution that had received funding from the federal government. Moreover, I believe the organizers of the Pan American Games are doing very significant work at this moment.

Knowing that a promotional strategy exists can give people who play important roles the energy they need. All kinds of institutions can play a role.

I attended the Vanier Cup. Mr. Gourde mentioned the issue. Canadian Interuniversity Sport, or CIS, is under new leadership. Its permanent staff is truly engaged in promoting both official languages. They invested much energy to ensure that the Vanier Cup was an event that took place in both official languages. It showed the commitment on the part of the organization that provided this event.

I would also like to note that, when the leaders of an institution take linguistic duality seriously, we see the results. If the government were to commit to developing a strategy, we would see much more generalized results. It would no longer be a matter of individuals who happen to focus on this issue through their own initiative.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Dionne Labelle, you have the floor.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you.

During your presentation, you confirmed what a number of stakeholders said, which was that immersion programs work well and that many Canadians are enrolled in them.

I want to come back to the roadmap. It contains a $1 billion investment over five years. This includes funding for immersion, which is going very well, and also for the promotion of linguistic duality, which is not going as well. What can we do to ensure that all components under the roadmap work well?

Last week, francophones in Newfoundland and Labrador complained that they received no services in French. Today is the first day of the court proceeding brought by the Conseil Scolaire Francophone de la Colombie-Britannique against the provincial government to obtain 15 schools for francophone children in the province.

On the one hand, immersion is very successful. On the other, it does not appear that defending the rights of francophones all across Canada is going as well.

Is there a way to ensure that we are defending rights as well as we are supporting immersion?

[Graham Fraser]

I hope so. It is regrettable that minority schools and school boards still have to go before the courts and demand that their rights be respected by provincial governments.

You can see that in British Columbia. The court recently handed down a decision that I find unfortunate. I do not think it is the end of the world, but I would have preferred the court's minority opinion to its majority opinion. The decision required that the school board in this same trial have the evidence it provided translated. This seems to me to go against the principle of linguistic duality enshrined in the charter.

The same thing happened in the Northwest Territories. In response to the need to expand the schools, the government stated that if all of the children who were ineligible under section 23 of the charter were expelled, the schools would not have to be expanded.

This shows that there is resistance...

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Allow me to continue in this vein, Mr. Fraser. Immersion may be an important tool to revitalize bilingualism in Canada. However, providing and maintaining services in French for francophone minority communities is essential.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes, you are completely right. This is why we must draw a very clear distinction between immersion, which is a tool for language training for the majority, and the support we provide to minority schools, which play a completely different role in defending the community.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Dionne Labelle.

Thank you to Mr. Quell, Mr. Fraser and Mr. Giguère.

We will now suspend the meeting for two minutes to allow our next witnesses to set up.

Thank you, everyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We are resuming the seventh hearing of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

With us are Mr. Dicks, Director at the University of New Brunswick. We are also joined by Ms. Leclair and Ms. Commance-Shulko,

from the Edmonton Public School Board.

We want to thank you for joining us by video conference. We can see you and hear you loud and clear.

We'll now begin with an opening statement from the Edmonton Public School Board.

[Valérie Leclair, Program Coordinator for French Language Programs, Support for Staff and Students, Edmonton Public School Board]

Thank you, Chair, and honourable members.

I am pleased to speak on behalf of Edmonton Public Schools regarding this committee's study of official languages immersion schools.

During this time, I will share information about the context of French immersion within our school district, the key issues and challenges faced, and some of the recommendations and suggestions we have.

We are very proud that Edmonton Public Schools has a strong national and international reputation of very successful second language programs and innovative supports for these programs. Our school district has approximately 85,000 students. We offer the most diverse language programming in a school authority in Canada, with partial immersion programs in seven languages, a large and comprehensive French immersion program, and second language courses in 12 languages.

We offer a number of supports to our students who study a second language, and to our second language teachers, including: international credentialling opportunities; the establishment of the Institute for Innovation in Second Language Education, called IISLE; partnerships with local, national, and international governments and organizations; and comprehensive policies and regulations to support quality language programming. We are very proud and we feel very lucky, as these are just a few examples of the strong context within which our French immersion programs are thriving.

The Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Graham Fraser, has stated, “Edmonton has developed, bar none, the best immersion system in the country”. However, we are a district of continuous improvement. In 2001 our district conducted a comprehensive program review of our French programs and based on those results, initiated a French language renewal project and set many goals. Just over a decade later, we have attained many of those goals, doubling the number of students studying French, and increasing enrollment by over 69%.

The funding we have received in the last two cycles has facilitated many key initiatives to support French language program implementation and expansion, including: the establishment of a late French immersion program; new elementary school French immersion programs; two sites in which French immersion students receive extra supports in specialized classrooms; the establishment of an exemplary French resource centre; and a French international examination centre with over 3,500 students receiving international credentialling for their French proficiency, many with very high proficiency levels. We are particularly proud to report that we now have close to 41% of our students studying French.

One of the challenges we have faced related to French immersion programming directly relates to our vision that all children should have the opportunity to become bilingual, or perhaps plurilingual. Having this vision means many things. First, we must consciously welcome all students into our programs and support their success. Second, we must have programs widely available. Third, parents, communities, and educators must understand and value the French immersion program.

Historically, there was a general belief that only students who are academically strong should be in French immersion. However, research and experience have demonstrated that students with various special learning needs can be successful and sometimes flourish in the program, achieving many benefits from second language learning.

We also know that students, parents, administrators, and especially teachers need more support to feel able to effectively meet the range of learning needs in a French immersion classroom. In our district, we are working feverishly to develop and provide a range of support, including early literacy interventions in French, improved French immersion literacy training for teachers, and access to inclusive teaching strategies.

Our second challenge involves accessibility and availability of programs. Edmonton has a large urban sprawl, a growing population, and numerous program choices for parents. Providing all families with easy and local access to French immersion schools is challenging. Transportation costs and transportation time also pose significant problems.

Our third challenge is ensuring that parents and the community at large value learning the French language. French immersion programs require extensive time, energy, and cost. We continue to make progress, and the expansion of our enrollment is evidence of this.

We launched just last month a new video to promote French immersion programming and to provide parents with key information on its benefits.

Support on a larger scale, though, is needed. Targeted work is needed in this area, and the protocol provides a possible venue to carry this message.

I have just described three of our key challenges. Additional challenges include smooth articulation and transition of our students into post-secondary education, and availability of a healthy supply of qualified teachers and supply teachers.

You have also invited us today to provide recommendations on how the federal government could enhance its contribution to the teaching of the other official language. In general, the protocol and its content remains strong. However, in the spirit of continuous improvement, I wish to share some thoughts with you.

The development of longer-term protocols enables provinces and school authorities to maximize their focus and impact to enable school districts to plan and to strongly focus on implementation. The longer-term focus and stability of funding over time has had a strong impact on quality and results. Having said that, the delays or lag time between the end of one set of protocols and the beginning of implementation of a new set of protocols, especially during times of fiscal restraint, can have a devastating effect on the maintenance and/or implementation of initiatives. Any reductions in this lag time would be a significant improvement that would make a great deal of difference to school authorities.

In terms of specific content in the protocol, I would like to draw your attention to the outcome domain for “second language, primary and secondary, 3.2.2.1 student participation”. It identifies the outcome, recruitment, and retention of students in second language education programs up to secondary school graduation. As stated earlier, we believe all Canadian children should have the right of access to French immersion programming and should receive quality supports in those programs to support their success.

To that end, we recommend the statement be changed to read “recruitment and retention of a wide range of students with diverse learning skills, abilities, and needs, and second language education programs up to secondary school graduation.” Or we recommend adding a new outcome that expresses the need to expand access and supports for a wider range of students with a range of learning needs to learn the other official language. From our perspective this alteration would more strongly communicate the goal that all students be enabled to become bilingual.

Second, I would like to again draw your attention to the importance of placing an emphasis on the promotion of French language learning and French immersion programming. This must include communicating the wide range of benefits that second language learning provides. Parents today have many choices, and a concerted effort at the local and national levels is essential to reinforce these benefits. The outcome domains could be strengthened to focus actions in this area.

We wish to also express our encouragement for the continuation of such programs as Explore, Exchanges Canada, SEVEC, summer work student exchange, etc. We feel these programs play critical roles in providing our students with opportunities for meaningful out-of-classroom learning.

We do have suggestions for new programs that could be the responsibility of the federal government. We believe the federal government should take leadership in encouraging and supporting the implementation of a common framework of reference for languages from kindergarten to post-secondary levels and beyond. We have worked with many languages for many years in the implementation of several frameworks, and by far the common European framework of reference, CEFR, has been the strongest for kindergarten to post-secondary education.

We have used the CEFR extensively in classrooms and with other languages with great success. We also believe it has played a key role in improving our teachers' second language teaching, our students' learning, and fundamentally has helped us to improve our student language proficiency levels.

National implementation of this framework would strengthen French programming across Canada in many ways including by increasing coherence and transparency around language proficiency expectations, by fostering understanding among school authorities, elected officials, parents, post-secondary institutions, and employers regarding what to expect from graduates of these programs at various levels, and by facilitating a smoother transition of students into post-secondary second language courses.

A further need that could be addressed by the federal program is through the establishment of separate funds to support emerging needs and innovative responses to these needs. We envision this to be a special initiative fund that would overtly encourage and prioritize interprovincial or pan-Canadian initiatives and/or initiatives that are innovative and responsive in nature.

We envision these initiatives would be managed directly through the federal government, and would not have to be restrained by the provincial requirements and protocols.

I understand there is latitude in the protocols that enables these kinds of initiatives. The references to this possibility in the present agreement appear to be heavily bureaucratic, and as a result, organizations with innovative or emerging projects may not engage in the process, as they anticipate being constrained through the required levels of agreement. There does not appear to be a process in place for the field, such as school jurisdictions, to identify and propose these types of emergent initiatives and needs.

In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that Edmonton Public Schools is passionate about languages and French immersion and about constantly trying to improve. We very much appreciate this opportunity to share our passion, our successes, our challenges, and our ideas.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Madame Leclair, for this excellent brief. We really appreciate the time and effort you put into its recommendations. It will be valuable for us in drafting our committee report.

We'll now go to Professor Dicks at the University of New Brunswick.

[Dr. Joseph Dicks, Director, Second Language Research Institute of Canada (L2RIC) at the University of New Brunswick, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am presenting this report from the perspective of a university professor who is involved, on a daily basis, in teaching and researching French immersion. However, this perspective is influenced by my past experience as an immersion teacher in the public system, as the parent of two children who were placed in immersion in three Canadian provinces, and as someone who learned French as a second language.

French immersion programs continue to be very successful both in Canada and abroad. I am currently writing an article with a colleague for an international review on the development of immersion in North America and along the Pacific Rim. This Canadian innovation in the world of second-language learning continues to be one of our country's most significant exports and has put us at the forefront of second-language teaching in the world. These are very impressive achievements. However, the objective of this report is to comment on the state of French immersion as it exists in Canada in 2013.

With respect to some lessons from the recent past, I'm going to begin by talking about what happened recently in New Brunswick and by drawing some lessons from that experience.

In July 2007 the New Brunswick Department of Education commissioned a review of French second language programming. The then minister of education, Kelly Lamrock, appointed two commissioners, James Croll and Patricia Lee, neither one an expert in the area of second language education.

On February 27, 2008, the commissioners released their report. To the disbelief of informed readers, that report presented a totally one-sided negative view of early French immersion in New Brunswick.

The views of second language experts and other key informants, such as the Commissioner of Official Languages, who spoke about the benefits of early French immersion as well as the problems that needed to be addressed, were not included in the report. Years of research on early French immersion demonstrating its effectiveness with regard to French proficiency and overall literacy were also ignored, yet the minister decided to implement all the major recommendations of the report, including the elimination of early French immersion.

Consequently, New Brunswick, Canada's only officially bilingual province, is now the only province without an early entry French immersion program. In fact, it does not have any French second language programming from kindergarten to grade 3.

This radical decision to eliminate the grade 1 early French immersion program was unnecessary and unwise. According to the New Brunswick provincial government's own assessment statistics, early French immersion is the only program that has a large majority of students consistently achieving intermediate-plus oral proficiency, 82% of them. In addition, 33% achieve advanced proficiency in oral French. By way of comparison, 44% of late French immersion students and only 4% of core French students achieve intermediate-plus proficiency.

There's no evidence that students in any other program reach intermediate proficiency by the end of high school.

I would recommend, therefore, that the federal government, while providing support for other entry points to immersion, focus upon early French immersion as the standard entry point for French immersion across Canada.

I'd like to talk now about French immersion as a universal program.

French immersion has been described by some as an elitist program that contributes to segregation. However, French immersion in New Brunswick, as in the rest of Canada, is an integrated part of the public school system. It is also a choice that, in principle, is open to all parents. It is difficult to see how the term “segregation” could apply in this context.

There is, however, an undeniable degree of streaming that occurs in schools that offer early French immersion. It would appear that public policies, as well as economic and social forces, affect streaming.

Children with special needs have problems related either to ability or to behaviour, or to both, since the two are often connected. It is also the case that more students who experience difficulty come from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Understanding these complex interrelationships and providing teachers with the resources to address them are crucial to students' success in any classroom or educational setting.

It is important to address the streaming issue in order to make early French immersion the inclusive program it should be. Parents of children who are more likely to find school academically challenging should see early French immersion as a real option for their children. Early French immersion offers the best chance for children of a wide range of academic abilities to become bilingual, because it focuses primarily on language development in the early years and does so in a very natural way, very much like the way students learn their first language.

As a corollary to recommendation one, then, I recommend that the federal government support early French immersion as the most inclusive program option and ensure that supports are in place for teachers and students so that learners of a broad range of abilities enter into and remain in early French immersion.

Is early immersion a successful program? We have seen that the level of oral competency of early immersion graduates was significantly higher than that of students from other programs. Moreover, a large number of scientific studies across Canada have confirmed the program's success.

Despite these positive results, there is a problem with students dropping out of the immersion program at the secondary school level. But that does not mean that these students do not want to keep studying in French. In many cases, the courses that students would like to take are not offered in French. This is particularly true for advanced math and science courses. If we want to see a higher percentage of graduates from our immersion programs and stronger second-language skills, we need to do more at the secondary level. Otherwise, all of our efforts at the elementary and middle-school levels may be in vain.

I therefore recommend that the federal government encourage the provinces to increase the resources available at the secondary school level to develop and offer a broader range of courses in French. Initiatives to train and recruit bilingual math and science teachers are a critical part of the equation.

Related to the previous topic is the issue of teacher education. As a professor in a faculty of education, this is of particular concern to me.

Our experience has consistently been that there are many students who wish to undertake studies in education to teach in immersion, but do not have the required language proficiency level. Many of these are graduates of French immersion and a number have also completed majors in French at Canadian universities. Clearly, in order to reach a level of language proficiency to teach French, one needs to do more. The issue of alternative French options at anglophone Canadian universities coupled with exchange or medium to longer stay programs in francophone milieux are critical to having a pool of linguistically qualified candidates who can then become pedagogically qualified.

I recommend therefore that the federal government enhance its support of exchange and medium- and long-term programs for prospective French teachers, and provide support to anglophone universities to provide alternative French learning opportunities for students.

I want now to turn to the future of immersion.

Immersion has grown tremendously since it began 45 years ago. It has had a considerable impact on second-language learning here in Canada and around the world. However, we can do more. There are two important questions. How can we best use students' existing knowledge in their first or second language to help them learn French in an immersion context? And how can students with learning difficulties succeed in reaching their potential in an immersion context?

Right now, three of my doctoral students here at the University of New Brunswick are exploring these questions in French immersion classrooms. These students represent the future and will play a critical role in providing our programs to an increasingly diversified clientele. They are receiving financial support from the federal government through the granting programs of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and Canadian Heritage, through the Official Languages in Education Program. They would not be able to pursue their research and their careers without that support.

So I recommend that the federal government maintain and even increase its support for research into second-language teaching and, in particular, its support for graduate students and new researchers.

In conclusion, French immersion, in particular early French immersion, is both a national and international success story. There is, however, still a lot of work to do to make this program accessible to a wider audience here at home. Currently, we see wide discrepancies in enrolments, with 36%, 23%, and 21% of students enrolled in immersion in Quebec, New Brunswick, and P.E.I., but only about 8% to 10% in other provinces and territories. The enrolment trend is upward, and that is positive, but we need to do better. We need to remove the barriers. There is no need for lotteries to decide who gets in, and the lack of support for struggling learners should not be creating a system where only some can stay in.

We can do better, and to create a more truly bilingual society, we must do better.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Dicks.

We'll have about 35 minutes of questions and comments from members, beginning with Monsieur Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to welcome Mr. Joseph Dicks, as well as Ms. Valérie Leclair and her colleague Ms. Marie Commance-Shulko, from the Edmonton Public School Board.

I will be addressing my questions to Mr. Dicks, and my colleagues will have questions for the school board representatives from Alberta.

In New Brunswick, students used to come into immersion in grade 1. Then, as you will recall, the provincial government delayed the entry point until grade 5. That decision led to protests in New Brunswick. Parents were unanimous in demanding that immersion start in grade 1. The government at the time made some changes and set the entry point at grade 3. That happened in 2007.

Why is it important to have early immersion starting in grade 1? I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages for a long time. We have had the opportunity to question professors from the University of Ottawa, the University of Toronto, the University of British Columbia and elsewhere. They have always said that the earlier children begin, the more chance they have to succeed.

Do you agree with that statement? What do you think about the position of the New Brunswick government?

[Dr. Joseph Dicks]

I agree, as far as the vast majority of students are concerned. Some students, who may be more talented or more intelligent, can succeed even in late immersion programs, such as those starting at grade 6. I think that it is good to have choices, where possible, with various entry points. But eliminating the kindergarten or grade 1 entry point is definitely not a good idea.

When the decision is delayed and the parents have to decide about immersion when their child is in grade 3, the first question is always whether the child is doing well in English and other subjects. If there are any problems at all on that front, they have a tendency to think that the child should not go into an immersion program.

One school principal that I just spoke to told me that this reality was having a very negative impact in his school. The strongest students were enrolling in immersion and the weakest ones were staying in the English program. If the intention was to resolve the problem of streaming or inequality between the programs, it did not work. I think that the situation is worse now.

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

You also said that the decision to eliminate the early immersion program in New Brunswick was made on the basis of recommendations in the report prepared by Jim Croll and Patricia Lee. But you mentioned that those recommendations result from the data being interpreted incorrectly.

What are those interpretation errors?

What recommendations were made in the report by Jim Croll and Patricia Lee, and why are they so different from your own recommendations?

[Dr. Joseph Dicks]

I cannot really answer your second question. Not only were their conclusions different from mine, but they were different from those of the vast majority of experts in second-language learning. The problems with the data mainly involved statistics being improperly interpreted. For example, they calculated the dropout rates from immersion programs from one year to the next, but their calculations were wrong.

Moreover, they completely ignored some of the research in preparing their report. I have written much more detailed documents on this subject. I can send them to you if you are interested.

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

You say that in the other provinces, immersion programs start at an earlier age. As you have mentioned, New Brunswick is the only province in Canada that is officially bilingual, but it is the only one without early immersion.

Is the problem that people are not talking to one another at some level, or is it that someone with blinkers on made this decision on a cost basis?

Canadian Parents for French, for an example, came to our committee and said they didn't want that. They had 350 people rallying in front of the legislature in New Brunswick saying, “Don't take that away from us.”

If It's a monetary problem, what would you recommend, that it happen? Or what is the real problem?