Official Languages Committee on March 10th, 2009

[Jean-Gilles Pelletier]

I'm going to draw a distinction with regard to what I said earlier. The federal government has committed to maintaining its funding under the Roadmap. As it concerns us, we're talking about $258 million a year over the next four years.

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

We're talking about a drop of water in the Bay of Chaleur.

[Jean-Gilles Pelletier]

That's correct. That's what I meant, essentially.

When we talk about money, we're talking about a major commitment, but the total amounts allocated to instruction and education in Canada are not gigantic. To a certain point, it's commensurate with the federal government's jurisdiction in education.

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

That's what you're referring to, Mr. Charbonneau, the drop of water in the Bay of Chaleur.

[François Charbonneau]

To date, I can't put a figure on what will go to postsecondary education from those amounts. The Roadmap states nothing specific regarding the amounts intended for the objectives, that is mother tongue education and second-language instruction.

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

The federal government has a responsibility with respect to official languages. Here I'm talking about Part VII of the Official Languages Act. Funding is allocated to the communities for the promotion of official languages. Mr. Pelletier says that the situation has improved, relative to other years, but it's as though we don't know where the money went. I remember that was the case in Nova Scotia and that the issue was a serious one. We wondered whether the funding had gone to the schools or elsewhere. Funding is granted, and the provinces do what they want with it. They can't do that. There is Part VII of the Official Languages Act. So we have to stop hitting the ball back and forth. New Brunswick is supposedly recognized as bilingual. Other provinces may perhaps want to defend themselves and say that they have jurisdiction in everything. If the federal government has money to offer to assist the communities, we must send it to the right place. I won't be going to defend the government of New Brunswick if it doesn't do so.

You say this has improved, but what does that mean? The matter isn't resolved. Funding is transferred to the provinces and it's as though we let them do what they want with it. Part VII of the Official Languages Act is clear: the federal government allocates funding. However, when it allocates funding to a province, it should ensure that it knows where that money goes.

Do you agree?

[François Charbonneau]

I do 100%.

Obviously, once those amounts are—

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

I'm talking about Part VII.

[François Charbonneau]

Of course, but it's the same thing. Part VII could also apply to all funding invested in the knowledge economy. In that case, Part VII disappears, in a way.

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

Telling the provinces what courses they should offer or how to go about it is out of the question, but if funding goes to education, I want to invoke Part VII. It refers to the promotion that the federal government must do. This aspect is part of a federal act, and funding is earmarked for that. It's been said that things are improving, but we don't know where the funding is going. This is a provincial jurisdiction.

[Jean-Gilles Pelletier]

I can tell you that, in the case of the last MOU, federal investments, from Canadian Heritage, corresponded to approximately 60% in the minority language area and 40% in the second language area across the country. I'm telling you this very clearly: the federal government is saying the same thing as you right now. It wants to see vibrant and vital official language communities. That's why the federal government is continuing—and this is fantastic—to invest in an area of provincial jurisdiction.

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

But it isn't enough.

[Jean-Gilles Pelletier]

We appreciate that the federal government, in the very difficult economic circumstances we are experiencing, made a commitment in June of last year to maintain its funding at the same levels as in 2007 and 2008. That's a very significant commitment in the current context.

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

On the other hand, if it isn't done in the schools, the public service will have to take charge of it. The Canadian act provides that service must be given in both official languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

We're now beginning the third round.

Ms. Zarac, you have the floor.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning once again. Thank you for being here today. As a new committee member, I learned a great deal from your presentations, and I thank you for that.

I have a question for Mr. Pelletier on national programs. The promotion of bilingualism is one thing, but I know that, to improve skills in one language, you have to have an opportunity to speak it. You said that these programs are very popular and that there could be further investment in them. Is the purpose of these programs only to promote exchange between anglophones and francophones, or do they also give people who live in a minority setting the opportunity to practise their language?

[Jean-Gilles Pelletier]

The purpose of the Destination Clic program is precisely to enable minority francophones to further develop their language skills.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

That's excellent. Thank you very much.

[Jean-Gilles Pelletier]

You're welcome.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

My second question is for Mr. Charbonneau. In talking about investment in the knowledge economy, you mentioned that francophone institutions were at a disadvantage. You spoke about that briefly. I would like you to talk more about the impact of that situation on francophone institutions, and to know what recommendations you would make to the committee to offset that impact.

[François Charbonneau]

When the federal government decides to invest in the knowledge economy... We know that investments will be made in infrastructure. Of the funding allocated to the Canada Research Chairs Program and to the Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships, very little is invested in francophone institutions because most of them don't have doctoral programs. They definitely will not receive any funding. In concrete terms, what are the consequences? The institution continues to exist, but it's the institution of the majority next door that will expand increasingly because it will be able to attract more promising researchers and so on.

The objective is really not to withdraw the funding we want to invest, but rather to see how, through compensatory programs, we can do simple things like invest in research and support the researchers at university institutions who, historically, must teach.

We do very little research. However, the teaching body is being renewed. Thirty years ago, it was normal for a professor in the region to engage solely in teaching. Today, young doctorate holders want to continue doing research. They need assistance and go to institutions where they'll give six new courses over three years, for example. An investigation conducted by the Commissioner of Official Languages two years ago on granting agencies provides figures on this. Unfortunately, the recommendations it contained were not followed. It was very specific: eight recommendations were designed to assist minority anglophones and francophones. Bishop's University could resemble what can happen for the minority francophone communities, where assistance can also be provided, in research in particular. There are other examples like these.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have two minutes left.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

The government's budget includes a program for researchers. Does that complicate matters?

[François Charbonneau]

You're referring to—