Official Languages Committee on May 28th, 2013

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

Okay.

A number of witnesses who have come to talk to us about the Roadmap for Linguistic Duality and the protocols have complained about the lack of clarity in the way money moves through the various programs. What can you do to improve that?

This year, at least a dozen witnesses have told us that the process is so unclear that they no longer have any idea where the money comes from and which programs it represents.

How can we get easier access to the information, both parliamentarians and the Canadian public?

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

One major way to do that could perhaps be to clarify duplications a little. It is true that some initiatives overlap, which complicates things.

However, the annual report on official languages that the department submits has clear annual figures that include everything in what I feel is a simple format. So we avoid comparing roadmap items to each other and having information overlap. The report shows the figures clearly and all in one place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Gourde.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for joining us. Their excellent presentation was quite wide-ranging and really interesting.

You mentioned the next protocol for agreement with the provinces. It seems to be going well. However, one particular topic interests me and that is post-secondary education, more specifically, college-level teaching in the trades.

In teaching a trade, are students able to choose the language in which they learn? For example, can Quebec francophones who are learning a trade do a part of their course in English? We know that, at times, they can go to other provinces to work in some areas. But if they do not have a command of the language, sooner or later, it will become an obstacle.

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

Actually, post-secondary education is one of the outcome domains established jointly with the provinces. In the coming months, each province will come to see us and we will then be able to discuss the protocol, set the stage for bilateral agreements and engage in dialogue with each of them. In addition, each province will show us what it intends to do in each of the outcome domains, including post-secondary education. That partly stems from the province's overall education plan, be it post-secondary, secondary or other type of education.

We are in talks with the provinces. We have determined that post-secondary education is an outcome domain of common interest, not just for the provinces and territories, but also for us, the federal government. However, the provinces will have to provide us with their objectives and proposals. We are talking with them, trying to encourage them along.

In reality, many things are already in place at the post-secondary level. In addition, several provinces have set their objectives in order to increase the provision of programs as much as possible.

[Hubert Lussier]

Mr. Gourde, I would like to add one comment.

As Mr. Gauthier said, there have been many concrete and specific initiatives, especially with Collège Boréal, in northern Ontario. This college has greatly expanded the provision of trades and trade training in French. The Cité collégiale did the same thing in eastern Ontario. In New Brunswick, the New Brunswick Community College in partnership with Quebec's CEGEPs is developing all sorts of new training programs for specific trades that are in demand in those regions.

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

You are confirming that the provinces take the leadership, but they are aware of the reality and challenges. Steps have been taken to improve the provision of and access to programs. I am very interested in that.

Another figure also caught my attention. We can see that 53% of current students have an opportunity to learn a second language. Is going over the 50% mark a new trend? Is it an improvement or a drop compared to previous statistics?

[Yvan Déry, Director, Policy and Research, Official Languages Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage]

The 53% rate is not new.

You heard what Mr. Jean-Pierre Corbeil said last week. He talked about the 53% and the 43% or 44%. The 53% includes the students from Quebec. Mr. Corbeil said that the 44% represents the people outside Quebec. That explains the difference.

We have been over the 50% mark for students who take French or English as a second language for some years now. We cannot really achieve 100%. We will never reach 100%, because we must understand that we are talking about students who happen to take French courses in a given year. However, in most provinces, that varies a lot, even in the provinces where French as a second language or English as a second language are mandatory, because that only lasts for a certain number of years during school.

For instance, in Ontario, second language training is mandatory from grade 4 to grade 8. Ontario students must take French as a second language courses. This means that 100% of English-speaking Ontarians will take French courses in school or vice versa for Franco-Ontarians. However, we will never get 100% of students in Ontario taking French courses in the same year. First and second graders are not taking the courses, and twelfth graders are not required to take them.

In short, a 53% rate is meaningful. It is a large percentage, but if we were to calculate the number of students who have an opportunity to learn the other language or to at least get introduced to the other language in school, we are closer to 100% than 53%. We don't have the exact percentage, but we know that French as a second language is mandatory in all the provinces to the east of Manitoba. It is optional in western Canada, but it is still used extensively. All the school boards offer French as a second language courses and, where courses are offered in more than one language, French is chosen by the majority as a second language. The 53% is therefore a meaningful rate, but the real number is even higher if we include all the students who, at some point during their schooling, choose French as a second language.

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

Your comment is interesting because, basically, the fact that young people have the opportunity to learn a second language confirms the leadership initiative taken by the provinces that are working on this. However, in the future, it will still be the students' personal choice. These are students who were lucky to be introduced to another language and to continue learning it to hone their skills.

What tools could we give them so that, once they are 14, 15 or 16, they can get through another stage in their learning?

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

As we mentioned a few moments ago, post-secondary education is definitely an opportunity that the provinces and territories are working on to try to provide a wide range of programs and services. The challenge might be greater when people leave school and enter the workplace or choose their jobs.

The government does not have any specific initiatives to see what is being done with those segments of the population. Intervention is closely linked to education, whether it be secondary or post-secondary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

[Hubert Lussier]

I would like to quickly talk about another aspect.

In the case of French-immersion students, major efforts have been made—our colleague from Canadian Parents for French can no doubt talk about them—to try to keep students in immersion until they graduate from high school. That is part of the major efforts being made to ensure that the quality of education and the quality of programs are adequate to keep the students until they are finished school.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Merci.

Monsieur Dion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Rothon, Mr. Lussier, Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Déry.

On page 4, we see the following two numbers: $148 million for minority-language education and $86 million annually for second-language learning.

Can you guarantee that the two envelopes are watertight and that the provinces cannot transfer money from one envelope to the other without people really knowing what is going on?

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

Every year, we ask the provinces for financial reports. First, they need to provide forecast reports for the coming year and, second, they need to provide actual reports at the end of the year demonstrating that the amounts have been spent according to the conditions of the agreements signed with them.

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

That does not seem to be a specific answer. The conditions of the agreements can be very vague.

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

They provide for...

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

Do they guarantee that, when we give $86 million for second-language training across the country and $148 million for minority-language education, that is in fact what happens?

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

That is the case according to the reports we receive from the provinces.

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

Are you sure that it is true for all the provinces?

[Jean-Pierre Gauthier]

Yes.

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

What happens with the reports that they are supposed to prepare? Is there a report on the reports? There are a great deal of reports. Is there a report on the reports that parliamentarians can look at? Your annual report is very vague and does not allow me to do that work. So I need something else. The list of reports that you and the provinces must prepare is a long one. I would imagine that someone looks at them and prepares a report.

[Yvan Déry]

There is a general report prepared by the Council of Ministers of Education Canada. It deals exclusively with the current program and outlines the achievements, progress and the main measures put forward. That report follows the same schedule as us. The report is now published for the first two...

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

Yes, but I am not sure that that is what I want.

I am familiar with that type of report. Usually, everything is rosy and we feel that all is well. I would like to see a report that tracks the money.

I should perhaps let Mr. Rothon have the floor.

You have heard them. They are very confident that things are clear and so on. But your presentation was significantly less optimistic. How can we reconcile the two perspectives?

[Robert Rothon]

It all depends on the reporting system that each province or territory has.

I can use British Columbia as an example. We must not forget that, under the current agreement, school boards receive 82% to 85% of the funding set out in the agreement. The funds are sent to the school boards, which must prepare a report and submit it to the Ministry of Education. As a best practice, the Ministry posts it on its website for the public to see. That is very good.

We could improve the form itself because it is quite vague. It is not as detailed and elaborate as we might like it to be. Can we really track every dollar or at least have a very good idea? Based on my experience in the field, it depends on the requirements made by the provincial Ministry of Education for its own school boards. I suspect that Ottawa could still ask or encourage the provinces to ask for the accounting.