Official Languages Committee on March 15th, 2012

[Graham Fraser]

It's very important. That file has been going on for nearly 10 years now. It involves the independence of the officers of Parliament and the importance of having a parliamentary mechanism through which parliamentarians can examine funding requests from officers of Parliament. A mechanism independent of the Treasury Board is necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

That's fine, thank you.

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back to part of what Mr. Godin and Mr. Bélanger said about the cash transfers to the provinces for education under the roadmap.

As you said, that's supported; that's for certain. In my opinion, the roadmap should supplement the services already provided by the various departments at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. In certain cases, the municipalities are also putting money into the promotion of linguistic duality.

When money is sent to the provinces to provide certain services, a letter outlining priorities is also sent. We do not necessarily receive another letter explaining how the money was used, why certain activities were selected and how they relate to priorities. You seem to be saying you haven't seen any such letters. Historically, I believe we have never seen any either.

Would it be possible that services have not become complementary? Have certain provinces withdrawn from the basic services they were to offer, using federal government money to provide the same services that they would have offered in any case? Is it possible that what the roadmap could also have given to those communities and schools, by encouraging initiatives that would have been desirable, was forgotten?

[Graham Fraser]

That's exactly the kind of question we consider when we look at the amounts that are sent from Ottawa and the reports we receive from groups in the field.

I should say a word about the very important role played by Canadian Parents for French, whose members very closely monitor how the school boards, schools and provincial departments spend the money they receive from the federal government. They find it very difficult to follow this movement.

The very nature of education systems in Canada is such that school boards have a certain autonomy—at least in some provinces—which makes the accountability process more difficult.

Has the money sent for a specific purpose really been spent for that purpose? Those that have members in the field observing the actual effects in the schools and classrooms themselves find it difficult to clearly follow these spending movements.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

In a manner consistent with this principle of autonomy, I believe the roadmap should still offer supplementary funding for initiatives already in place. Of course, if the roadmap replaces the money that would have been available nevertheless, I believe that's simply a waste. We would be cancelling the effect that could have.

What supplementary initiatives should we prefer in a manner consistent with the autonomy of the provinces, to be sure that money serves the right causes?

[Graham Fraser]

I'm going to give you a fairly general answer.

I've noticed that, in cases where there was a high degree of cooperation between the federal government and the provinces, that facilitated matters, in immigration, among other areas, which is a shared jurisdiction. There is the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, where problems common to those ministers can be discussed. However, I am unaware of the nature of the cooperation between Canadian Heritage and the ministers of education. I have met with ministers of education for whom second-language learning was a priority. On the other hand, it is less important for others.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Mr. Bélanger, you have the floor.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I would like to encourage Mr. Boughen to visit a few more communities in Saskatchewan—if he'll listen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Bélanger, could you direct your remarks through the chair?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

That's fair enough.

Mr. Chair, if you would encourage Mr. Boughen—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

—to visit a few more communities in Saskatchewan, such as Bellevue or Hoey or Domremy or Zenon Park or even Prince Albert, he would find fairly large francophone communities. In Prince Albert, he might even find a school or two, and un centre scolaire communautaire, un centre culturel.

I just thought I'd throw that in there.

I'm going to act a little like Mr. Gourde, who wants to use the commissioner to support his motion that we devote a year or two perhaps to preparing for the 2017 festivities. He's going to introduce it to us at some point.

There has always been a good partnership between the committee and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Commissioner, if the committee adopted a motion asking you to investigate the appropriate use of funding paid to the provinces for education, would that be of use to you for the purpose of your work?

[Graham Fraser]

As you say, there has always been a good partnership. As an agent of Parliament, I am accountable to that institution. According to my interpretation, that obligation also prevails in relation to this committee. I believe we have always had a very constructive relationship. I handle requests by parliamentarians and complaints that members submit to the office with a great deal of respect. They are always treated on a priority basis and with a great deal of care.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Would you be trying to say yes?

[Graham Fraser]

I'm trying to avoid immediately committing my office.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I sensed that you wanted to say yes. Am I mistaken?

[Graham Fraser]

I always handle the committee's requests with the greatest respect. Would it be an audit, a study? That would be a very interesting topic of discussion for us.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Perhaps I'll give it another try and submit a resolution to the committee. I haven't had a great deal of success to date. We should ask the Saskatchewan people to come and talk to us about education, an issue of considerable concern to me.

As regards the roadmap, I wonder whether we shouldn't simply stop the study. I'm going to read you a statement that a government minister made and that was cited in the St. John's Telegram today. I quote Bernard Valcourt:

For more than 20 years, I have observed incredible progress in every province, the most recent, in my opinion, being that the number of francophiles in our country is constantly increasing. The next Roadmap for Official Languages must make it possible to continue this evolution of the French language in our country, despite difficult economic circumstances and a budget that unfortunately will be shrinking.

The minister has just announced that there will be another roadmap but that it will have less funding than we currently have. In view of all that, I wonder whether it's really worth the trouble to continue the business we started last fall and that will drag on endlessly because we have another 30 witnesses or so to hear from.

That was my comment to give you some food for thought on this question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Since the committee has asked to continue its work on this study; we will therefore continue.

Mr. Bélanger, do you have a question?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Yes, it will be brief.

I would like to go back to my very first question. You didn't get a chance to comment on it. I was talking about the 30% decline in the number of young anglophones learning French. Is that a concern for you. Do you intend to take a closer look at that? Will that not distort the entire roadmap?

[Graham Fraser]

I believe there is a learning phenomenon that we must take not of: there is a kind of split. Across the country, we are seeing an increase in the number of immersion students, even though they represent only a small percentage of all students. At the same time, we are observing a decline in core French courses. This is causing a significant gap at the end of high school between immersion graduates, who are among the most bilingual graduates we have ever seen in Canada, and the vast majority of students who aren't bilingual at all.

I very much appreciate immersion programs. However, there are some unforseen harmful effects. They drain off the best teachers from the core French courses. There is the feeling that core French is for poor students. In short, there are some serious problems in the second-language learning system, even though there is an improvement in the results of a small minority.

We often see that guidance counsellors suggest that students drop French because, in their opinion, the universities only look at marks. I know some young people who are reluctant to take French courses because they're afraid that universities will neglect the fact that they've taken a tougher path, which explains why they have lower marks. They are also reluctant to take part in a linguistic exchange in Quebec or France because that can alter their marks. Universities and high schools have this kind of obsession with numerical marks but do not take a more comprehensive view of students' experience. I believe that's harmful for second-language learning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, on the last page of your brief, you say that the "spending cuts in 1995 had a major impact on the development of the official language communities." Unless I'm mistaken, that had to be under Jean Chrétien's Liberal government, my colleague's party.

What were the consequences of those cuts in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000? Where did that really hurt the official language minority communities?

[Graham Fraser]

The most striking example was the closing of the Royal Military College Saint-Jean. That was done in a spirit of fairness because Royal Roads Military College had been closed. So it was thought that the same thing should be done with the Royal Military College Saint-Jean.

The long-term effect was harmful to Canadian Forces recruitment, the linguistic capacity of the Canadian Forces and language learning by officers. It caused serious difficulties for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces in the ensuing years and until the present.

That's the most striking example, when you consider the unexpected results following a cut. That's the example I always cite when I say that, when you make cuts, you have to be very careful to analyze potential consequences.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

I'm going to give my colleague the rest of my speaking time because she said she wanted to ask you a brief question.