Official Languages Committee on May 28th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Welcome to the 83^rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Today is Tuesday, May 28, 2013. Pursuant to Standing Order 108, we are studying second official language immersion programs in Canada.

Before we begin,

I have two things to tell you.

First, we only have one witness for the Thursday meeting, and also one for our meeting next Tuesday. So I am going to cancel Thursday's meeting and call both witnesses for next Tuesday's meeting.

That's the first thing I wanted to tell you.

Secondly, we will have bells at 4:10 p.m. today. It's a 30-minute notice for the votes.

The first thing I wanted to ask members of the committee is, do you want to adjourn at the 30-minute bell or do you want to adjourn 10 minutes into that bell or 15 minutes into that bell? I need some guidance on that.

I'm sorry. I mean suspend—suspend 10 minutes into the bell, 30 minutes...?

Mr. Galipeau.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

As much as I hate to admit this, I'm not fully mobile and I need all my time to get there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

All right. We will suspend when the bells ring, but we'll hear an opening statement from Canadian Parents for French. We'll then suspend for 50 minutes. We'll come back at 4:30 to continue the meeting.

If you can't make it back in time for 4:30, that's okay. We'll work on a reduced quorum to receive witness testimony.

At 4:30 we'll hear from Canadian Heritage for their 10-minute opening statement, we'll continue with questions and comments for 50 minutes, and adjourn at 5:30. Okay? That's the plan of action for today.

In one last note, we have a tentative date set with Minister Kenney. They're going to confirm it with us. It's tentative. It is supposed to be June 13. It's tentative, but we've not yet received final confirmation. When we do, we will be sure to communicate with the committee.

We have one witness group in front of us now. From Canadian Parents for French, I want to welcome Madam Perkins and Monsieur Rothon. We'll begin with an opening statement.

[Lisa Marie Perkins, President, National Office, Canadian Parents for French]

Thank you again for the opportunity to present, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, and for the opportunity to use this video conference technology, which allows me to stay closer to home and work, but it also makes me more accessible to work as well. It helps me balance a little bit.

Canadian Parents for French is dedicated to the creation and promotion of French second language opportunities for youth in Canada. We've been doing so for many years.

We are pleased that we can both come before you again, one in person and one by videoconference.

Given the limited amount of time we have for our appearance, I will refer you to our brief for detailed information on the points raised in our presentation today.

Our brief to the committee provides an overview of French second language education in Canada and—

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Madam Perkins, if you can still hear us, could you pause your statement? We're having trouble receiving the video and audio.

Mr. Rothon, do you have the opening presentation?

[Robert Rothon, Executive Director, National Office, Canadian Parents for French]

Yes, I do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Would you be able to provide it to us?

[Robert Rothon]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

My apologies. The video link is not working for some reason.

Mr. Rothon, you have the floor.

[Robert Rothon]

Thank you.

As Ms. Perkins began to say, our brief to the committee provides an overview of French second language education in Canada and contextualizes long-standing CPF recommendations on how to improve current FSL programs, when children should be introduced to FSL programs, improving access to these programs, especially for immigrants and academically challenged children, the introduction of programs to assist post-secondary students, and official languages and education program agreements.

Today, we will expand on CPF's stance regarding the OLEP agreements and how we can make them even more beneficial to French second language learning in Canada. We'll cover two key areas: a), accountability and transparency, and b), an outcomes-based approach.

Regarding the first point, each province and territory negotiates a separate agreement, flowing from the master agreement negotiated by Canadian Heritage and CMEC. This can be positive in that it allows each provincial or territorial action plan to address the particular needs of its jurisdiction and education system. Yet in many instances it has proven challenging to obtain information on these agreements, to be part of the process that helps inform them, and to track the results of the expenditure of funds.

The principal challenge, in our minds, resides in understanding the path the money takes once it reaches the provinces and territories. Does it go to classrooms, to projects, to administration, to FSL-only activities, or into general revenue? This is important to know because money is invariably at the root of the constraints on FSL and FI program growth. Things such as no transportation, no teachers, no classrooms, and no special supports for students with special needs or learning challenges.... Even now, we do not know the true start-up costs of an early French immersion program. If you're a school district trying to determine if you want a program or not, this is a crucial question to be able to answer.

I see that Ms. Perkins is back with us. Shall we...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Ms. Perkins, can you hear us?

[Lisa Marie Perkins]

I sure can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Can you continue where Mr. Rothon has left off?

[Lisa Marie Perkins]

Where did he leave off?

Where did you get to, Mr. Rothon?

[Robert Rothon]

Madam President,

I just ended the first section, accountability and transparency. You can start on the outcomes-based approach.

[Lisa Marie Perkins]

Sure. We'll give this a go again. Good old technology.

Financial reporting alone, however accurate or complete, does not measure the complete success of FSL programs across Canada, and we'd like to encourage the adoption of an outcomes-based approach in the next round of our OLEP agreements, one using real and measurable targets. Again, our experience is that in the past our OLEP agreements have not leveraged federal funding as successfully as they might have, and we believe it is time for the federal government to provide greater leadership in setting meaningful targets.

For example, only one agreement, the one with Ontario, sets as a goal an increase in the number of students with learning disabilities. No agreement addresses the problems that immigrant children have in accessing French as a second language programs.

Canadian Parents for French asks that the next agreements encourage the development of policies that will provide students with learning difficulties and immigrant students fair access to French as a second language programs.

Also, while past agreements have sought to maintain or increase the number of students in FSL programs with kindergarten to grade 12 retention rates of roughly 36% for FI and 6% for core French, aggressive targets increasing student retention should be a feature of new agreements.

Canadian Parents for French recommends that all OLEP agreements should encourage policies that address the issue of retention of students in FSL programs.

Canada's official languages roadmap has created a vision for the future of the official languages and for bilingualism in Canada. We believe that the agreements are tools that can make that vision into a reality.

CPF recommends that all OLEP agreements establish measures to assess the effectiveness of FSL programs, and upon the closing of these agreements in 2017 a report be drawn up illustrating the successes of these programs and a list of best practices for our future agreements.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you for your presentation.

Go ahead, Mr. Dion.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Do we have a copy of what our witnesses have just read to us?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

No.

No, we don't. We have a brief they submitted and that's been distributed, but we do not have a copy of the opening statement.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

If you ask her to provide it to us, it would be helpful.

Not now but in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay.

Could I ask Ms. Perkins or Mr. Rothon to provide us with a copy of your remarks?

[Robert Rothon]

Certainly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay, thank you very much. We'll get that distributed.

Thank you, Mr. Dion.

We'll begin with a question from Monsieur Dionne Labelle.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you.

Welcome to our two witnesses, the one with us and the one on the screen.

Could you talk to me a little about how immigrants are integrated? In your report, which was presented to the Senate committee, I understand, you mention that immigrants are most willing to register their children in French as a second language courses, but that few of those courses are available across Canada.

Can you tell us about that situation?

[Lisa Marie Perkins]

In our Senate brief—I've touched on it in this presentation, and I know it's in our briefing documents—one of the challenges is the integration of immigrants. We know that as a country our population base is going to be receiving more and more immigrant families. It's important that they have access to language education, in both our official languages. In some provinces, such as British Columbia, in some school jurisdictions when a child is in ESL, they're automatically not eligible for FSL, for example.

The second challenge for immigrant families is that it's automatically assumed they would not be interested in French second language education. Research that we have commissioned by Callie Mady suggests exactly the opposite, that most immigrant families, when given the opportunity to know about French immersion or core French, would be quite happy to have the opportunity for their children to learn both official languages.

Do you have anything to add to that, Mr. Rothon?