Yes.
Language training at Laval University, oddly enough, began in 1937 with French-language training for Americans. There was the Junior Year Abroad program which was quite trendy at the time. Quickly we steered away from the traditional model criticized by students today and which is no longer being used at Laval University, at least in general, and which was the strictly literature and linguistics model.
As of the 1940s the university developed a host of new and modern methods eventually leading to the use of the communicative method. Today they apply to e-learning courses, to new and not-so-new IT methods and to communications.
In the late 1980s, the university felt compelled to develop a policy on training in an era of globalization. Obviously, Laval University being a francophone university in a francophone environment, it felt it had to develop very advanced training in English, due to market requirements. In Quebec City, as you know, the second language is English. The university had to rise up to the challenge of ensuring its students were as bilingual as possible.
However, being a francophone university, Laval's challenge was to get students to learn English. So, through the Language School, it put ESL and FSL training on parallel tracks.
Contrary to what may have been said, the challenge for us is to see how we can really improve English-language skills among our student population.
At the same time, we continue to welcome students from all over the world to come and learn French. Over the last few years we have noticed some changes, mainly with respect to Canadians. Canadian students only come to Laval in the summertime, through the Explore program. It is the only government assistance we receive for bilingualism.
Moreover, with respect to Explore, we have noted this year that there has been a drop in the number of scholarships, unfortunately. Sometimes we do not manage to reach our quota. In fact in the summertime, our students, and I think this is a generalized trend in Canada, prefer to or need to work. And spending five weeks doing nothing but learning the other language or visiting another province is a problem for them.
All provinces now have Explore and there are still thousands of students travelling through this program, which must certainly improve interprovincial communications. Perhaps it would be advisable to find other ways to encourage students to practise, learn and improve their knowledge of a second language.
At the university we are developing, among other things, e-learning courses within microprograms. Now, we believe that we could probably get students to acquire three skills, certainly at a distance, such as oral comprehension, writing comprehension and writing practice.
With respect to oral practice, perhaps they could take short immersion programs. As we have seen, many students cannot travel, they cannot or they do not want to. Regardless, they are not prepared to travel, not even for the five weeks duration of the Explore program.
We are therefore looking into developing shorter training courses, either during reading weeks, or two-week courses. They could certainly help improve students' knowledge and keep it up to date.
To do this there will need to be far clearer agreements between universities on recognition of credits. We deal with some fairly traditional universities that are unwilling to recognize credits acquired by students for courses other than literature courses. That is the traditional approach much criticized by students, but there is nothing that we can do about. At times we have to improperly classify our students, otherwise the credits we award them are not recognized by other universities.
I agree with Mr. Brennick: there is probably a dearth of standards in Canada today. We all discuss bilingualism, and perhaps it is clear for everyone what is meant by bilingualism in each institution. However, I am not so sure there is a pragmatic and applicable definition of the term.
To me, pragmatic and applicable would involve obtaining a given score on a given test, for instance. I do not want to oversimplify things, but the question we ask is whether young people know what is expected of them when we refer to bilingualism. What are they expected to do? Speak, understand, and say a few words, read?
We believe that the federal government could greatly contribute to a solution by helping universities to come up with a pragmatic accessible and coordinated definition of the required degree of bilingualism, perhaps by field of expertise or for given positions. We have looked for a definition. If one does exist we have not seen it.
Universities all have goodwill and they are all convinced that what they do is of the utmost top calibre, that they do better work than all the other universities. Perhaps we all need somebody to help us conclude that our best is equivalent to that of others, and help us come to some agreement on the way to proceed. I think the government is in a position to do that.
Our university is quite pleased to address some of the issues raised and to say that we regularly offer training courses each summer for FSL teachers.
However, as I have stated, aside from the Explore Scholarships, Canadian students are no longer coming to Laval University to learn French. Over the course of the year we have three, four or perhaps five Canadian students. Are they going to France? Obviously, when there were year-long scholarships, we used to get 300, 400 or 500 students over the fall and winter sessions. There is no longer any support, so Canadian students no longer really come to Quebec City to learn French.
I think I have shared the gist of my notes with you. Obviously, we believe the government could support teacher training courses and could perhaps implement a program of short-term summer courses for students wanting to maintain their level of bilingualism.
I thank you.