Official Languages Committee on March 10th, 2009

[Jean-Gilles Pelletier]

Absolutely. I don't want to take a position on that, but I can tell you that Quebec is currently an active partner in the renegotiation process. The results frameworks, the performance areas are developed in full agreement with the government of Quebec. I think that will essentially enable the government of Quebec to achieve its own strategic education objectives at the elementary, second and postsecondary levels. All the provinces and territories are parties to this renegotiation process, which should be very productive for both Quebec and the other provinces.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you very much.

[Jean-Gilles Pelletier]

You're welcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Ms. Bourgeois.

We'll now go to the fourth round. I'm going to go around to the political parties in order and see whether some want to speak. For the government, Mr. Lemieux told me he wanted to do so.

Mr. Lemieux.

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

There are clearly two somewhat different but complementary issues: official languages and postsecondary education, on the one hand, and bilingualism, on the other. It is important that postsecondary students be able to study in the official language of their choice. If they want to make progress and get good marks, it's preferable that they study in their mother tongue. On the other hand, we would like graduates to be more bilingual. Those are two different matters. A university or college can offer courses in French in Ontario, for example, but not promote bilingualism.

What I'd like to know is, from a CMEC perspective—and the ministers who come together from different provinces—are these two issues discussed, and how they relate, and the different solutions needed for different results? From a strategy perspective, are they actually discussed by provinces?

[Jean-Gilles Pelletier]

What I can tell you is that in the course of assessing what has happened in the past—and this speaks to the point that was made earlier—and in determining priorities for the future, the ministers of the jurisdictions are looking to reach and implement objectives in six domains at the elementary, secondary, and post-secondary levels with both linguistic objectives, i.e. minority language education and second language instruction.

So what we would hope to achieve are clear indicators in those two areas. So, for example, to respond to your question more specifically, we would expect post-secondary indicators that would reflect minority language post-secondary education and second language instruction at the post-secondary level. We would hope to raise the bar in these two areas.

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

Which takes priority? My assessment would be that education in the official language takes priority over bilingualism. Would that be a correct assessment?

[Jean-Gilles Pelletier]

Again, what I'm going to tell you is that to a large extent, that call is made by provinces and territories.

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

Yes, I'm just asking what the reality is.

[Jean-Gilles Pelletier]

The reality is.... I'll repeat what I mentioned earlier to Mr. Godin, in that at this point in time, what we've seen is that the percentage of minority language versus second language in the program that CMEC is involved with—again, it's a really small proportion of the overall investment in education—is about 60-40, that is, 60% for minority, 40% for second language.

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

Right, and when it comes down to second language education, I think part of the point Mr. Chong was making was that there is no obligation placed upon students to improve or to continue their bilingual efforts. It's more that if they so choose, they may go down that stream. I think what Mr. Chong and Mr. Godin were mentioning was that it might be beneficial to have some sort of an obligation. I'm not specifying what that obligation should be, but there should be an obligation placed upon students to have a level of bilingualism, which is in fact a skill set that makes them more employable, particularly in the public service, but I'm sure in all sectors across our economy as well.

[Jean-Gilles Pelletier]

It speaks a bit to the point you made earlier in regard to raising the bar for ability levels, both at the spoken and written levels for individuals who graduate, not only at the secondary level from immersion programs, but also those who may continue on and graduate from university. All I can tell you is that you make a very valid point, and there are pan-Canadian discussions as to how to raise that bar.

Now, between discussions and achievements, obviously there is what other members here on the committee have mentioned, namely, that there will be a progression. Things will just take place one step at a time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemieux. Listening to you, I remember that I took four compulsory courses in philosophy at the Cegep, but no second language courses.

That said, I'm going to go to the official opposition. Would you like to add other points? Is that fine?

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

I have perhaps two brief questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Rodriguez.

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

Is there enough money for research in French?

[François Charbonneau]

I'll answer briefly but differently. The Commissioner of Official Languages has clearly shown that there are special challenges for small institutions that want to request funding for research. When applications are filed in French, it's extremely difficult to establish committees of peers, and so on. Research is a very broad issue, but there are special challenges if you want to conduct research in French in Canada, absolutely.

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

Has the change in Part VII of the act, the passage of Bill S-3 at the time, had an impact for you?

[François Charbonneau]

We're talking about the improvement of 2006?

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

Pardon me?

[François Charbonneau]

We're talking about the improvement of 2006?

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

Yes, you can call it an improvement. In fact, we've also recently witnessed the first judgment by the Supreme Court stating that the government must consider the needs of the communities, but it must also ensure that services of equal quality are offered in both official languages, not merely say that services are offered in both languages, very good in English...

[François Charbonneau]

That's correct.

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

... and poor in French.

In general, it was a great moment for the committee when Bill S-3 was passed, when Part VII was amended, but I don't sense any change every day. No one talks about it.

Is there a difference for you? Do you feel something?

[François Charbonneau]

I could say that we feel some kind of change as a result of that. You couldn't talk about a before and after, then target specific programs that had been altered, absolutely not.