Official Languages Committee on March 10th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

While the committee members are getting settled, I would like to welcome you to the eighth meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and in particular our first meeting on postsecondary institutions and their efforts in promoting bilingualism in Canada. This is the first study our committee has undertaken.

We will begin this morning by hearing two witnesses. The witness who is joining us now is Jean-Gilles Pelletier, the Director of the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada, or the CMEC.

Good morning, Mr. Pelletier.

We also have François Charbonneau, the Director General of the Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne. I have been told that he went to school with our analyst, Mr. Paré.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Charbonneau. We will start with you, if we may. As you know, you will be making a presentation and we will then move on to questions from the committee members.

[François Charbonneau, Director General, Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne]

Thank you for inviting me, particularly at this sombre moment: the Montreal Canadiens have just fired their trainer. So there are more pressing problems elsewhere.

Nonetheless I will try to answer your questions. I am going to make my presentation based on the document you have received. I hope that it will tell you what you want to hear this morning. It was not entirely clear to me what you want to examine, exactly, but we will be happy to answer all your questions and tell you what we can do, as an association and institution, to meet the needs of the Canadian public with respect to bilingualism and linguistic duality.

I am François Charbonneau, the Director General of the Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne. Our association consists of 13 institutions that deliver education entirely or partially in French in minority communities in Canada.

The network of universities in Francophone Canada has a presence in six provinces, with a total of 21,000 people studying in French. The students are not merely learning French as a second language; they are also taking mathematics and geography courses in French.

The mission of our association, which has existed since 1990 under various names, is to promote university education in Francophone communities. Obviously, the AIFC is pleased that the committee has decided to look into opportunities for learning a second language at Canadian universities and the contribution made by Francophone universities to the development of official language minority communities.

The two objectives must not be confused. They are separate and, in part, complementary. Obviously, learning a second official language is extremely important for the Canadian public as a whole, and for Canada. It is important from an individual perspective, in terms of career prospects, and so that Canada will have a bilingual population that can build bridges between communities.

That is in fact why, and I put great emphasis on this, Canadian Francophone universities have long made a strong contribution to helping Anglophones in Canada experience genuine immersion, by studying alongside Francophone students, often near where they live, while learning French in special programs, taking several classes a week. Some of their classes are given in French. As well, special programs are offered, such as intensive summer programs. These programs have been operating for a very long time.

Our institutions are doing more than their share to enable young English speakers to improve their knowledge of French, and the Francophone universities of Canada obviously intend to continue offering an environment where French can be learned in many parts of Canada. However, I would note that the primary purpose of the vast majority of our institutions is to serve Francophone communities by offering them an opportunity to acquire a university education in French.

Francophones in Canada have taken the importance of bilingualism seriously. The 2006 post-censal survey tells us that Francophones outside Quebec are by far the most bilingual segment of the Canadian population. But obviously that is not the issue. The main issue is to determine whether it is possible to live in French in Canada outside Quebec. To live in French, you have to be able to go to school, you have to have access to theatre and legal services in French, and so on. Obviously, that calls for a solid university network to train teachers, actors, lawyers, etc.

The universities offer courses in French that are absolutely essential to the vitality of Francophone communities in Canada, and on that point, the Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne produced a document last year that is available in both official languages, concerning the impact of our institutions on their regions. It is essential reading. I will submit it.

In spite of that undeniable positive impact, we must acknowledge that the universities are to some extent the orphan children of the institutional fabric of Francophone Canada. We have some concerns regarding the manner in which funds are currently being invested in postsecondary institutions to meet the objectives of linguistic duality, and in particular in the knowledge economy, because it could exacerbate the disparities between minority institutions and majority institutions.

I am therefore talking about the two investments, the investments in linguistic duality in postsecondary education. Your committee should be asking some questions about this. I will then come to the question of larger investments in the knowledge economy, in which recent governments have been very eager to invest.

The federal government's investments in recent years, the investments laid out in the action plan or announced in the roadmap, are obviously welcome. It is very difficult to quantify them, however. We have been asked to do that, but it is very difficult, in fact, to be frank. This summer, we tried to determine exactly how much money was going to postsecondary institutions for second-language learning, and also for teaching in French at the university level. It is very difficult, given the way that money is invested in the provinces under the federal/provincial/territorial education agreements. Essentially, the funds are incorporated into the provinces' budgets.

Except in the case of one-time, specific projects, where there is a special agreement between the federal government and a university, or in cases where there is only one Francophone postsecondary institution in a province, it is very difficult to know how much money comes from the province and how much comes from the federal government, and how much the total envelope of money goes to the postsecondary level. We tried to get the answer to that question, but it was very difficult.

What is certain is that the 2003 action plan adopted the express objective of improving access to postsecondary education in French, that is, "expand the range of French-language programs in Francophone or bilingual colleges and universities". After the action plan was adopted, the universities that belong to the AUFC adopted their own action plan, of which I have a copy here, to see where it would be most useful to invest, and in particular to improve their programs and ensure that access to programs in French in Canada was available for local populations, obviously, but also for students coming from immersion streams. In some institutions, immersion students may account for a third of enrolments. But the institutions' action plan was not funded. The roadmap adopted this summer says virtually nothing about the postsecondary level, except for very specific fields. There are questions that need to be asked in this regard.

Moving on, we come to the funds invested in the knowledge economy. For several years, the federal government has chosen to invest in the knowledge economy by adopting numerous initiatives to help Canadian universities stay competition during a transitional period for Canada's economy. This doesn't have to be explained. The universities in Francophone Canada are very pleased that the government is choosing to invest in Canadian universities, and we agree with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, which is overjoyed with the investments recently announced.

However, the manner in which the funds are invested often creates a risk of exacerbating the gap between Francophone majority institutions and Anglophone majority institutions. I can give you one example, but I have an entire list. The Vanier scholarships that were recently announced are intended to reward excellence in research. There are 500 doctoral scholarships of $50,000 per year for students in Canada or abroad. This is excellent news, and in fact it makes me regret that I did my doctorate several ago rather than now. However, the distribution of the scholarships by the councils funded is based on the sum of the three-year rolling average used for the last Canada Research Chairs' calculations, that is, the funding that was received for the 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 fiscal years. I would point out that the number of Canada Research Chairs was also allocated based on the institutions' ability to obtain research funding from the main funding bodies. While Quebec Anglophones can count on one of the most prestigious university research institutions, universities in Francophone Canada are most often, and not always, but in a large majority of cases, small institutions that do not have doctoral programs or do not have a tradition of obtaining research funding. Those institutions are put at a disadvantage by the present system. The obvious consequence is that the large institutions become more attractive to students in the major centres where there is not always the opportunity to study in French.

To conclude, I will say that the efforts made by the Government of Canada may have slowed the brain drain to the United States, which was the objective in the early part of this century. However, they have the potential of starting an internal brain drain, a brain drain from the regions to the major centres, and also from the minority institutions to the majority institutions.

While I don't want to be fatalistic, I would note that the idea is not to question the principle of investing in the knowledge economy. The government must support excellence. It is to be expected that the institutions in major centres will come out ahead of institutions located in places that are less suited to cutting edge research. However, we must pay attention to the impact of those investments on Francophone communities, which may end up worse off.

For example, the government could create compensatory programs that would apply to minority language institutions, but also to small institutions in the regions, because this is also important for them. The objective of the programs would be to enable the institutions to expand the programs they offer and improve their research capacity, and provide opportunities for pooling resources, among other things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Charbonneau, I would like to know whether you have a lot more to go.

[François Charbonneau]

I am finished, I have come to my conclusion, which is heart-stopping, you will see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Perfect.

[François Charbonneau]

In conclusion, the universities in Francophone Canada have taken to heart the spirit of the Official Languages Act, which is celebrating its fortieth anniversary this year. They provide opportunities to learn French as a second language for people who want that. They will continue to open their doors to anyone who wants to discover the treasures of the French language.

The primary mission of those institutions is to serve the Francophone communities of Canada, and they sometimes need a had in fulfilling that mission. They did not get that hand in the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality, but it is never too late.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau. You will have an opportunity to go into your recommendations in more detail when members ask you questions.

We will continue now with our second guest this morning, Jean-Gilles Pelletier, from the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada.

[Jean-Gilles Pelletier, Director, Administration and Communications, Official-Languages Programs, Council of Ministers of Education, Canada]

Thank you.

My name is Jean-Gilles Pelletier, and I am the Director of Administration and Communications, Official-Languages Programs, with the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada.

I am pleased to be meeting with you again. I met a number of the committee members in Toronto a few years ago, when it was my pleasure to welcome you to the Centre francophone de Toronto, in my former capacity. In my current capacity, I am pleased to be making a presentation to you today in both official languages. Copies of my presentation have been circulated in English and French. My presentation itself will alternate between French and English.

You probably know that the Council of Ministers of Education, which is commonly called CMEC, was established in 1967, essentially to provide the ministers of education from all provinces, and now also from the territories, with an opportunity to work together and set common objectives, undertake joint initiatives and also speak with a single voice at the international level when they are representing Canada in education-related matters.

The focus of today's presentation, of course, is on post-secondary education, more specifically on minority language education and second language instruction at the post-secondary level.

As you all know, education in Canada is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, a fact that allows for a great diversity in the delivery of minority language education and second language instruction at the post-secondary level. This shall be, to some extent, the focus of my presentation.

At the same time, however, there are common challenges, concerns, and approaches that all ministers of education share in the areas of official languages, education, and post-secondary education. Through their joint declaration, Learn Canada 2020, the ministers have committed to a number of ambitious goals, namely, first, to increase the number of students pursuing post-secondary education by increasing the quality and accessibility of post-secondary education, and, second, promoting and implementing support programs for minority language education and second language instruction that are amongst the most comprehensive in the world. I'll be speaking briefly about these programs.

Furthermore, through their joint ratification of the Protocol for Agreements for Minority Language Education and Second Language Instruction, commonly called the protocol, signed through the CMEC with Canadian Heritage, all ministers of education have officially acknowledged the importance of supporting Canada's two official languages in education and of improving the quality of minority language education and second language instruction.

I am going to talk briefly about the Protocol for Agreement for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction.

In 1983, the Department of the Secretary of State, as it then was, and the provinces and territories, through CMEC, entered into the first Protocol for Agreements for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction. It was the first political document to establish pan-Canadian guidelines for federal-provincial/territorial cooperation in an area specifically under provincial/territorial jurisdiction. Through the Protocol, the federal government provided major contributions to help cover the costs incurred by the provinces and territories in the delivery of minority-language education and second-language instruction.

Since then, what is somewhat extraordinary—and this protocol is often referred to as one of the best-functioning agreements in Canada—is that the ministers and the federal government have signed four additional protocols. The last protocol offers approximately $258 million, $30 million of which is for national programs in the provinces and territories, per year. So these are substantial amounts going to the provinces under agreements signed, first and foremost, on a pan-Canadian basis, and then, secondly, on a bilateral basis, with the provinces.

Since mid-2008, CMEC and Canadian Heritage have been working together to address these changing circumstances, and the hope is that a new protocol will be ratified in the very near future. In fact, the protocol is in the works as we speak. I am pleased to tell you that If ratified, the new protocol will include a very specific outcomes framework that will define common outcome areas for each language objective, that is, minority-language education and second-language education, and offer examples of indicators for each area. This time, and this is a challenge that Mr. Charbonneau also mentioned earlier, there will be a specific area for post-secondary education, and the outcome areas in question will relate specifically to access to postsecondary education, that is, indicators that can be used to monitor progress in that regard somewhat, and support for teaching personnel and research.

So as complicated and difficult as it may sometimes be to identify exactly what is being done in the provinces, given that each jurisdiction has full control over secondary and postsecondary education, in this case, the effort is being made to assign indicators that can be used to monitor progress on outcomes.

I'll briefly give you some examples of what has taken place over the last few years. Again, these examples have been extracted from an interim report that has just recently been published, covering 2005 to 2007. The current protocol ends in 2009, and, as I indicated, we're just about to ratify the renewed protocol.

Under the general framework provided by the protocol, each province and territory negotiates with the federal government a separate bilateral agreement, which is more specific in meeting the unique priorities of their jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction also writes an action plan linked to its bilateral agreement. Although commonalities exist in areas of outcomes or objectives across the country, the bilateral agreements and action plans allow for pan-Canadian diversity and activities and initiatives, and in the funding that is allocated to those activities and initiatives.

I'll give you a few examples of what has been happening. I'll go from New Brunswick to British Columbia, for lack of time, but there are a number of different examples that appear in the report. New Brunswick has moved towards increasing the availability of teaching materials in French for adult literacy and for training and specialized trades; has increased the number of French language resources and reference and computer services in public libraries; has strengthened, through technology and distance education, the links between post-secondary institutions and local businesses and organizations; has continued to support French as a second language and French immersion instructor training programs offered at the University of New Brunswick; and so on.

I'm going to give you a few examples for British Columbia.

British Columbia committed itself to make ongoing efforts to support the Collège Éducacentre, which provides support for the families of its refugee and immigrant students, taking a holistic family-based approach to getting and keeping Francophone students in their up-grading, certificate and diploma programs.

So these initiatives and the initiatives of the other provinces and territories in official languages in education depend on the continued support of the federal government.

Here are a few figures taken from the report and from our own reports. Between 2005 and 2009, under the existing Protocol, about $130 million in federal funding was allocated to postsecondary initiatives; approximately $97 million for minority-language postsecondary education and approximately $33 million for second-language education. Once again, this is money that was effectively transferred to the provinces in a field that is under their jurisdiction. The bilateral agreements with all the provinces and territories are in fact available on the website, so that everyone can consult them.

Now I want to talk briefly about national programs. To promote the learning of official languages in Canada, CMEC, in cooperation with the provinces and territories, administers two federally-funded bursary programs and two language-assistant programs also funded by the federal government, by Canadian Heritage, that provide our youth in Canada with opportunities for exchanges and summer study to enhance their language skills. These have become virtually historic programs. The second-language bursary program celebrated its 35th anniversary last year, and we are very proud of it.

In 2007-2008, the most recent year for which we have figures, the language bursary program enabled more than 8,000 young people and adults to attend sessions offered by over 40 language schools, mostly through colleges and universities, as a result of bursaries totalling $18 million. That year, the monitor program provided language assistants to more than 250 school boards across the country, representing more than $9.5 million in funding. These are significant amounts and they have an impact on postsecondary institutions.

In conclusion, it is a CMEC policy to keep education partners and the general public informed of CMEC activities and initiatives. The CMEC website has a great deal of information that is available to the general public. CMEC is grateful for the support it receives from the Government of Canada and is happy to provide this update on minority-language education and second-language instruction at the postsecondary level. We look forward to the continued support of the Government of Canada in the delivery of quality minority-language education and second-language instruction at the postsecondary level in every province and territory.

Forgive me if my conclusion is less resounding than my predecessor's. I will be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Pelletier. When I was a secondary school student, I had the good fortune of receiving a bursary to study at Glendon College. You can see the results today.

We will start the first round with Ms. Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You undoubtedly know that this committee used to meeting people like you. I am not officially a member of this committee, but I was a year or a year and a half ago, when we had to deal with a rather difficult situation. We understood the extent to which the rights of official language minority groups all across Canada were being undermined in terms of the Court Challenges Program. From this side of the table, it made us very critical of the government's agenda. We are looking to the future. That could be why we asked you to quantify all this, to the extent possible. Mr. Charbonneau, I understand your answer regarding the relationship between the federal government and the provincial governments.

My question is for Mr. Charbonneau and Mr. Pelletier. You have programs underway and you certainly intend to continue those programs and improve them if possible, first. Second, Mr. Pelletier, you have a protocol that the provinces and the federal government have to write and sign in the very near future. What are you hoping for? What are you asking the federal government for? Given what you understand or see from the federal government's response to other groups, how do you foresee the chances of continuing and improving your programs?

I would just like to add a little aside, even if it does take more of my time. In Bill C-10, we saw the extent to which things in the Conservative government's budget will slash programs and agreements among groups. I am talking in particular about the agreements the government has signed with the unions, for example the Public Service Alliance of Canada. How do you foresee your talks with the government going? Be as concrete as possible so that we on this side of the table can do something, if it is necessary, in a timely manner.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Go ahead, you have two whole minutes.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

That is my question.

[François Charbonneau]

That's fine. My answer is that the universities in francophone Canada have quantified their needs very precisely, for example with regard to technology. We have to understand that the universities in francophone Canada were not born yesterday. The Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface will be 200 years old in a decade or so. These institutions did not just appear in the landscape; they have existed for a long time. Programs are in place and missions are gradually changing.

That being said, the current issue in the knowledge economy is the ability to attract instructors into the regions, first. It must be noted that most of our institutions are in the regions. Second, we have to have the ability to communicate among ourselves. In fact, several years ago, investment in technology was quantified. There have probably been some changes.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

How do you see the federal government's response in this regard, Mr. Charbonneau? That is the question I am asking.

[François Charbonneau]

The universities in francophone Canada, first, are pleased with the investments in postsecondary education in general. It's a step in the right direction. That being said, we should perhaps be a little more sensitive to the impact of those systemic investments in programs aimed at excellence. And really, this all started quite some time ago. It favours the big institutions and attracts our students to the major centres. I am thinking about the Canada Research Chairs, the Vanier scholarships, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, Genome Canada, and so on. The ability to respond to the needs of the communities is lacking.

I will give you a very concrete example. In the Hearst region, a very significant francophone region in northern Ontario, 50% of graduates received their diploma from the Collège universitaire de Hearst—170 students. That figure sounds insignificant, but if the bottom falls out, 50% of the graduates in the region will be affected and the brain drain will speed up.

You asked me to give you a concrete example: $8 million is going to be invested in scholarships to study translation, for example. That's fine. Why not spend part of that money to set up translation programs where we have long been asking for them, such as in Hearst? The two things are not mutually exclusive. That would allow all Canadians access to them. In places where there is specific demand, we can expand the programs. I think that's what is essential.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Perfect. Thank you, Ms. Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Could I suggest to Mr. Pelletier, who has not had an opportunity to answer my question, that he do it later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

We will continue with Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Pelletier, Mr. Charbonneau.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when I was working at the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française, I had the pleasure of piloting a study on access to postsecondary education in French outside Quebec. One of the major factors that puts postsecondary level education at a disadvantage, in the case of both FL1 and FL2, that is, French as a first language, or language of use, and French as a second language, related to the use of the money that was at that time allocated out of the Department of the Secretary of State, now Canadian Heritage, to the provinces with francophone minorities. In some cases, the money did not go to the right place; in others, it was not used for immersion or for French as a second language. I am thinking of British Columbia, for example, where we could not identify any transfer to education.

I am going to ask Mr. Charbonneau to answer first, given that this relates directly to the institutions he represents. I would then like to hear Mr. Pelletier. These days, does 100% of the funds transferred to the provinces with francophone minorities go to the intended recipients, that is, the universities, whether it be Université Sainte-Anne, the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface, the Faculté Saint-Jean or another institution? Is there money that is not getting to them?

[François Charbonneau]

It would be extremely difficult for me to answer that question. We can do calculations and we assume good faith on the part of everyone involved. Agreements are signed, but the only way to know for sure is to check back with the institutions in the provinces where there is only one intended recipient. That is how we can check. I am not saying that the figures don't exist; it's just that these are the only figures we can get.

For example, in the case of the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface, we know that for one year the amount was about $2 million, but the figures are consolidated. We can't separate out the money used for first language learning from the money used for second language learning. In some cases, there may be overlap, for example, when a certain number of instructors are hired to teach French as a first language and also as a second language. Sometimes it makes sense to consolidate them.

In Ontario, there are seven or eight institutions. it is inconceivable that we could identify where the money is going. I do not have the skills required to answer more precisely.

[Jean-Gilles Pelletier]

I am going to try to answer the question. To some extent, and to the extent I am able, this might also answer Ms. Folco's question.

I think there have actually been problems in terms of accountability in the past, in the case of transfers of funds, and I am talking strictly about funds under the Protocol. We are not talking about transfers to the provinces in the context of general transfers, for social services and so on. That is not my field.

In terms of the Protocol, I understand that in the past, in fact, there may have been a need for improvement in terms of accountability, concerning transfers from the government to the intended recipients. I think we have made enormous progress in the last Protocol, and I hope that we will make significant progress in the next one, so that we and all the partners in this agreement are better able to understand and measure the progress made.

Will be we able to reach a level of exactitude that will allow us to identify the institutions or tell them what to do? No, that is clear from the basic principle In other words, the provincial governments obviously want to retain the ability to be masters in their own houses when it comes to postsecondary education. I am confident, however, in terms of accountability, that the next protocol will contain objectives, targets and performance indicators that will effectively target postsecondary education in the areas you mentioned, FL1 and FL2, that is, in relation to teaching the minority language and the second language.

I think this is a very important accomplishment. Listen, I don't want to be counting any chickens before they have hatched, but I think we are on track to signing an agreement that will in fact satisfy you in terms of how to monitor progress in future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Pelletier. We will continue with Mr. Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Pelletier, it is a pleasure to see you again.

[Jean-Gilles Pelletier]

Absolutely.

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

As you said, you are not in the same job now.

This country is officially bilingual. We are talking about second language education. It is all very well to say that we have to promote it, but that isn't happening, because we still have the same problem.

Would it not be possible for the universities to say that if someone chooses this program or that program, if the person wants to learn a particular profession, he or she will have to learn French, or English? I think the biggest problem relates to learning French. We are talking about the francophone minorities in Canada. When the time comes to fill a position, the problem is that Anglophones can't speak French. We argue about this constantly. It is a major problem, particularly in the public service. Personally, I introduced a bill calling for Supreme Court judges to be bilingual because the laws are written in French and English. They aren't written in English and translated into French. This is a serious problem. How could we help to solve this problem, at the postsecondary level?

I congratulate Mr. Chong in this regard, because he has always brought this subject to our committee. We are now examining it, and I want to congratulate him. He has always said that this had to be done in the schools, that it had to be done at the postsecondary level. If our institutions are to function properly, we have to start educating people so they can speak both of Canada's official languages.