Official Languages Committee on May 7th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Petit.

Thank you, Ms. Kassi.

Mr. Godin.

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

Mr. Labrie, you said you were surprised to learn that the federal public service will very soon need about 12,000 persons, perhaps more.

In my region, a federal building was constructed some 30 years ago in Bathurst. All the people in the region who are hired there are at retirement age now or are starting to think about it.

Earlier you said we can't make learning a second language mandatory, but, in the administration, if you know in advance that jobs will be available, the government can take the lead and declare that they will be bilingual jobs. When people take a course at university, they have to earn a number of credits; there are requirements. If there were mandatory credits for learning a second language, and the government said it needed bilingual people, that might be an encouragement.

Ms. Kassi said earlier that textbooks for administration studies are in English in Quebec. If someone hasn't learned English and has to read a book in English in order to take a French program, that person won't have the choice. Sometimes something is needed to force people to submit.

You say it shouldn't be mandatory, but, on the other hand, how do you learn if everything is left to the choice of the individual, if you don't do any promotion, if you do nothing, if you say we have virtually no need of bilingualism? I'd like to hear what you have to say about future jobs and I would also like to know what message you are sending us.

Earlier you talked about primary instruction, but could you tell us what we would need to train a bilingual person in Canada? Where do you start, where do you stop, what must be put in place without simply leaving it up to people's choice? When you accept free choice, you get the results we have today. Bilingualism is declining, services are absent, even though we are in a recognized bilingual country and it's the law of the land.

[Normand Labrie]

I think that the mandatory language learning aspect can be used quite easily in an academic environment, at the primary and secondary levels, although results aren't always guaranteed either, simply because it's mandatory.

At university, study programs are often highly specialized, and require all kinds of knowledge in all kinds of fields, whether it be engineering, health sciences or law. Every discipline has its own approach to the field, but also perhaps to the role of language in that field. It's hard to consider imposing language knowledge when there really isn't any apparent or obvious reason for doing so.

The other approach would be to inform students that, if they earn an MBA and also speak French, that will open a lot more doors for them. I think that would encourage more students to learn it, and to learn it well too, because they'll have a goal in mind. It won't just be mandatory, but they'll say to themselves that, if they succeed, they may get a good job. I think that would be much more effective.

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

You talked about law studies, for example. Someone can be a lawyer and only speak English, but a francophone lawyer who doesn't speak English won't go far.

I'm sponsoring a bill, and I'm going to speak briefly. I think that Supreme Court justices should be bilingual. If that were an obligation, don't you think that would encourage university law students to learn the second language? If one day they want to become judges in the Supreme Court, they'll have to know both languages.

[Normand Labrie]

The university trains law students to practise in various contexts, including in the Canadian federal context. However, some students are from China, for example, and want to return to their country to practise international law. That might be interesting for them, but it's not necessarily relevant and applicable to their professional goal.

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

But it would be different for Canadian law.

[Normand Labrie]

I'm convinced that students who study law and who want to specialize in Canadian law will be interested in language, at least so they can read judgments in the other language.

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

To learn the language, there's the primary level and all the rest. From some comments by people from Ontario, the money allocated to French schools is starting to—

[Normand Labrie]

French-language schools are having a lot of success. Based on the literacy tests, which are now standardized, the schools' performance is very good and the students at French-language schools are very often bilingual almost by necessity, given the majority anglophone situation. When they leave French schools, students are necessarily bilingual and have a good knowledge of the language. The level has vastly improved in the past 10 years or so, as the literacy test results show.

As for French second-language instruction in the English-language schools, immersion and core French are working well. French is mandatory up to grade 9 and optional thereafter. A number of students drop French after grade 9, as soon as it's no longer mandatory, because they have other interests.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

That brings to an end our business this morning and the hearing of our witnesses.

Mr. Nadeau wants to introduce a motion concerning committee business.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

All right.

Mr. Labrie and Ms. Kassi, thank you for being here.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the clerk could read the motion because we've made a few clarification amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

The motion reads as follows:

That relevant evidence given in Committee by Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, the Hon. James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage, and Michelle d'Auray, Chief Human Resources Officer at Treasury Board Secretariat, since February 2009 on other topics, be considered as part of its study on the federal government's support for post-secondary institutions and their efforts in promoting bilingualism in Canada.

The purpose of the motion is to expand the list of witnesses.

Do you have any questions or comments?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

The purpose of the motion is simply to ensure that the analyst duly takes account, in the report we will be producing once we have heard the evidence, of the remarks by witnesses whom we have heard since February concerning the post-secondary institutions and those made by the Chairman during Mr. Moore's appearance. That's the spirit of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.

Mr. Lemieux.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's a good motion and we're going to support it. If any comments can contribute to our study, we have to ensure they appear in our report.

I've learned that Glendon College, which is part of York University, has introduced a course for anglophone students to prepare them to work in the public service, which is applicable to our study topic. It would be a good idea to invite college officials here to talk to us about their program.

We'll definitely vote on the motion, but if the committee agrees, I would like us to reserve an hour to meet with Glendon College officials before finalizing our report.

I move:

That the Committee invite York University's Glendon Campus to appear for its study on post-secondary institutions and the promotion of bilingualism in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I'm told we have a two-hour slot left on May 26. But first of all, if everyone is in agreement, we will put Mr. Nadeau's motion to a vote.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Now we should consider Mr. Lemieux's motion, which is to invite an additional witness.

Mr. Godin?

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

Mr. Chairman, I don't really have an objection, but I thought we had finished hearing witnesses and were starting the report stage. This will delay everything. We've devoted the entire spring to the issue of the federal government's support for the efforts of the postsecondary institutions. We've considered no other issue. If time slots are available, we should consider inviting people from National Defence to appear. Some questions have not been covered this spring.

I don't know whether Mr. Lemieux agrees, but that institution could send us a list to inform us of the services it offers. There are definitely a host of institutions in Canada that provide services and courses. We can't stop inquiring about all those services. It isn't necessary that these people appear before the committee to tell us what courses they offer. If they send us that information, we can take note of it.

The purpose of the study is to ensure that people learn a second official language at these institutions, and so on. We've devoted a lot of time to the subject. Mr. Chong had been requesting this air time for two or three years, and we gave it to him. He is no doubt happy.

Whatever the case may be, we had previously decided that was enough. Otherwise, are we going to start a new list of witnesses? I don't know whether the institution could provide us with information on its services.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I've checked with our analyst: it's possible to ask York University, Glendon College and other institutions to send us a brief. These people wouldn't have to appear, but their brief would enhance our report.

The decision is really up to committee members.

Mr. Rodriguez would like to speak.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Yes, this will be brief.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Please, let's try to make brief speeches. We're going to suspend for a few minutes to do the hook-up so we can hear the next witness.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

That's exactly what I was going to say. I don't want to lack respect for Mr. Owen. His testimony is scheduled for 10:30. We have to adjust the system so that he's on line. He also has to finish at 11:00. We can resume this discussion at another time, taking into account the fact that the study is unfortunately over. We can even discuss it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

There's one final speaker on my list.

Mr. Lemieux.