Evidence of meeting #109 for Official Languages in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was action.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

David Pajot  Associate Director, Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs, Simon Fraser University
Suzana Straus  Acting President, Fédération des parents francophones de Colombie-Britannique
Marie-France Lapierre  Chair, Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique
Marc-André Ouellette  Vice-Chair, Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique
Yann Lacoste  President, Conseil jeunesse francophone de la Colombie-Britannique
Jean-François Packwood  Executive Director, Conseil culturel et artistique francophone de la Colombie-Britannique
Marie-Andrée Asselin  Executive Director, Fédération des parents francophones de Colombie-Britannique
Jean Rioux  Saint-Jean, Lib.
Donald Cyr  Executive Director, Société de développement économique de la Colombie-Britannique
Glyn Lewis  Executive Director, Canadian Parents for French - British Columbia, & Yukon
Yvon Laberge  President, Educacentre College
Robert Rothon  Executive Director, Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique
Brian Conway  President and Medical Doctor, RésoSanté Colombie-Britannique

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

Let us start the session.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), we are continuing our study of the Action Plan for Official Languages, 2018-2023: Investing in Our Future.

Welcome, everyone. I am extremely pleased to be with you here in Vancouver. Yesterday, we made a stop in Whitehorse. Tomorrow, we continue our journey in Regina. Everything has gone very well. I am sure that you are going to be able to share with us your needs and your wishes. We are a bit like a conveyor belt of needs, between communities like yours and Ottawa.

Thank you for being here. I am extremely pleased that you could join us.

First of all this morning, we welcome Jean-François Packwood, from the Conseil culturel et artistique francophone de la Colombie-Britannique; Yann Lacoste, from the Conseil jeunesse francophone de la Colombie-Britannique; Marie-France Lapierre and Marc-André Ouellette, from the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique; Suzana Straus and Marie-Andrée Asselin, from the Fédération des parents francophones de la Colombie-Britannique; and finally, David Pajot, from the Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs at Simon Fraser University.

We will be hearing from a second group of witnesses after the break.

You have about five minutes each to tell us your views. Afterwards, we will go around the table to hear comments and questions from my colleagues.

Let us start with Mr. Pajot.

9:05 a.m.

David Pajot Associate Director, Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs, Simon Fraser University

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Vancouver.

I represent the Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs. This is an office that coordinates, promotes and develops courses in French at Simon Fraser University. I work mainly with two faculties, the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences and the Faculty of Education. For example, teacher training is an area that interests us a great deal.

The Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs is very pleased to see that the action plan has considered the needs of communities. We applaud that step forward.

In helping us to prepare our testimony, one of the questions we were asked was whether certain sectors not in the action plan deserve particular attention.

For post-secondary education in French, the situation is troubling, Funding for the official languages in education program is frozen. Basically, it seems to have been frozen since 2003.

Simon Fraser University is a member of the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne (ACUFC). Last April, we met in Moncton. We were able to work with the analysis of the action plan done by Ronald Bisson, who works as a consultant to the ACUFC. According to the table he showed us, funding for the program has been more or less frozen since 2003. He told us that federal investment in the official languages in education program comes to a total of $1.3 billion in Canadian dollars. That is a round figure per five-year cycle.

Since 1970, the official languages in education program has been a flagship program of the federal government in terms of official languages. The government’s demographic targets in the 2018-2023 action plan demand significant investments. The cost of living is increasing. We would like to know whether the government is taking this increase into account.

We also applaud the proposal to train future bilingual Canadians, which the action plan also contains. The plan proposes to promote a bilingual Canada, with a specific target of raising the bilingualism rate of English speakers outside Quebec from 6.8% to 9% by 2036.

But we ask this question: at which exact point in a school career do we consider a person to be bilingual? Is it in grade 8, grade 10, grade 12? Could we be more ambitious and also train people in French after their post-secondary studies?

In most Canadian provinces, we are facing a shortage of teachers. The same goes for the vast majority of federal government services provided in British Columbia. Our challenge is in recruiting bilingual staff. All those professionals have to be trained, and the priority would be to train them first at local level, in order to make it easier to retain them.

Training those professionals comes at a cost and requires investments. If the investments are frozen, it means difficulties in maintaining the programs currently in place in our universities in British Columbia, and perhaps elsewhere in Western Canada. There are also difficulties in developing programs, expanding the range of programs, and tailoring them to local situations.

We also have concerns about the two envelopes of $31,290,000. The first is to develop and support recruitment strategies for teachers in minority francophone schools. The second is to recruit immersion and French-as-a–second-language teachers. Do we have to hire teachers or train them? That is another question we have.

The Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs believes that the action plan needs to be more ambitious, especially in terms of post-secondary education.

Thank you.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

Thank you very much, Mr. Pajot.

We now turn to Ms. Asselin and Ms. Straus. I am not sure which one of you will give the presentation.

Ms. Straus, the floor is yours.

September 26th, 2018 / 9:10 a.m.

Suzana Straus Acting President, Fédération des parents francophones de Colombie-Britannique

Mr. Chair, distinguished members of Parliament, on behalf of the Fédération des parents francophones de Colombie-Britannique, thank you for coming to meet us to study the issues involved in implementing the Action Plan for Official Languages, 2018-2023: Investing in Our Future. It is a real pleasure for me to be here today in my very new role as acting president.

The federation is a key player in developing French-language education in the province. We contribute to community development in British Columbia in multiple ways.

Implementing the action plan directly affects all our areas of interest. First of all, we consider that, overall, the action plan reflects the cross-Canada consultations on official languages held by Canadian Heritage in 2016. We are particularly pleased with Canadian Heritage's supplementary budget envelope, the goal of which is to increase the core funding for community organizations. Starting this year, this has already meant a 20% increase in program funding for all the community organizations in our province. We look forward to learning how Canadian Heritage will be distributing the rest of the program funding from the second year to the fifth year of the action plan.

We hope that these additional funds will be distributed in a way that will lessen the funding disparities among organizations. We also hope that it will tackle troubling or emerging situations, including the issue of language transfer in our very young. In British Columbia, four out of five francophone children will be assimilated before kindergarten. This is of extreme concern for the parents we represent.

The action plan allocates additional investments in a sector that is particularly dear to our hearts. This is early childhood, where the need is great.

Although we are delighted with the $20 million in additional funding allocated both to professional education and training for early childhood educators and to help entrepreneurs, we still find it curious that the federal government has determined, with no prior notice and no consultation, that 33% of the funding will go to entrepreneurship and 66% to training. In a setting where the goal is to improve services for and by communities, and where needs and circumstances vary greatly from one province or territory to another, why not leave it up to the communities to decide which initiatives the funds should be used for, rather than setting limits or percentages on the strategies to be undertaken? The question has to be asked.

In British Columbia, for example, we clearly have to build community capacity first, after which we will be able to create new day care spaces. That is the conclusion we came to in the study we published last February entitled “Les centres de garde francophones pour la petite enfance en Colombie-Britannique”. This does not fit at all well with the funding allocated very specifically to entrepreneurship and training.

We believe that it is essential that the criteria and solutions proposed in the new early childhood funding framework be flexible and tailored to the particular needs of the communities.

The investment of $10 million over five years to the Public Health Agency of Canada to improve its health promotion program for young children is good news, in our view. The recent consultation with francophone communities allowed us to communicate to the agency our concern with certain aims of the program, and especially with the following points.

First of all, the action plan states that “the Agency will work with key stakeholders to ensure projects respond to the needs of the communities”. In many minority francophone communities in Canada, services in French are delivered by a single organization, which often makes the development of local partnerships impossible. The agency must therefore avoid imposing criteria and service delivery models that may suit the majority, but that do not correspond in any way to the reality of francophones in minority situations.

Second, we insisted that the agency model itself on the social innovation and social financing initiative undertaken by the Department of Employment and Social Development. We believe that the middle-of-the road approach, focused on services designed by and for francophones, lends itself more to flexible initiatives that meet the needs of francophone minority communities. The approach offers a sense of community synergy that, in the long term, leads to the implementation of permanent strategies.

We are delighted that the federal government plans to spend more than $95 million on community spaces in the next five years and that early childhood services are eligible for this infrastructure funding program.

However, many questions remain unanswered. Will early childhood programming be tied solely to school infrastructure projects? Will funding new projects for community day care services be allowed? Will the funding program be flexible enough to provide parents with services in their vicinity?

We believe that the infrastructure program must be able to be sufficiently flexible to provide parents with a range of services that are tailored to their needs and their geographical reality.

Although the current government seems to be listening to official language communities, the fact remains that the impermanent nature of the federal structure in its support for education in the minority language and for early childhood services in French, and the lack of concrete obligations in those areas, is keeping minority francophone communities in a perpetual state of uncertainty.

The Fédération des parents francophones de Colombie-Britannique therefore asks you to recommend that the government modernize the Official Language Act to guarantee specific and long-lasting protections in these areas.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for listening to me. I will be happy to answer your questions.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

Thank you very much, Ms. Straus.

We will now hear from Marie-France Lapierre or Marc-André Ouelette, from the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique. I am not sure which one of you is giving the presentation

9:15 a.m.

Marie-France Lapierre Chair, Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique

We both are.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

Okay. Please go ahead.

9:15 a.m.

Chair, Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique

Marie-France Lapierre

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the committee.

My sincere thanks for this opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique, the CSF.

9:15 a.m.

Marc-André Ouellette Vice-Chair, Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique

The Action Plan for Official Languages, 2018-2023: Investing in Our Future, announces major investments in education and early childhood services in the minority language. The CSF is grateful for the federal government's efforts in this regard. We are delighted to note that the government has heard the concerns that your committee raised about the importance of early childhood and the need to support it.

Thanks to your work in 2012 and 2016, as well as the work done by the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages in 2005 and 2017, some structural problems that need permanent solutions have been identified. We are grateful for the work that has been done in that area.

We continue to take the position that the problems we are experiencing cannot be solved by an nth action plan or another protocol. Although the government has promised to make changes, we point out today that the action plan has a fundamental shortcoming: it proposes no permanent solution with regard to education and early childhood.

We have said it before and we say it again today: the difficulties that the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique faces are structural. We need permanent solutions.

The investments announced are a step in the right direction and are necessary without question. However, upholding the rights of British Columbia's French-language community is not solely a matter of distributing money, especially if the financial support is not effectively targeted. Genuine respect for the rights of the francophone community will involve the modernization of the Official Languages Act. That is why we would like to take advantage of your study on the action plan to ask you to recommend some amendments to the Official Languages Act.

9:20 a.m.

Chair, Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique

Marie-France Lapierre

In summary, here are the three main shortcomings of the action plan, together with the amendments that we are respectfully submitting to you. You will find the details of our proposals in the brief.

First, the action plan provides no concrete solution to the problem of access to real property. It simply repeats that the issue is complex; in our opinion, that is not so. We are asking that the act be modified to require that federal institutions consult minority language school boards before disposing of real property assets.

Second, the action plan recommends using federal fund transfer mechanisms, and these pose problems. In order to solve the problem of a lack of accountability, transparency and consultation mechanisms, we propose that the act be modified to establish federal government financial support for education and early childhood programs.

Third, the action plan does not indicate that the federal government will require Statistics Canada to enumerate all rights holders under section 23 of the Charter. We propose that the act be modified to require Statistics Canada to do so, as you have previously requested.

In a word, we are grateful for the investments that have been announced, but we are convinced that the problems we experience will continue if real changes to the act are not made.

We thank you very sincerely for your attention. We welcome any questions you may have.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

Thank you very much.

The floor now goes to Yann Lacoste, from the Conseil jeunesse francophone de la Colombie-Britannique.

9:20 a.m.

Yann Lacoste President, Conseil jeunesse francophone de la Colombie-Britannique

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

With your permission, I will use my telephone. My printer decided to take a break this morning, so I have no paper version.

I am extremely grateful to the committee for coming to listen to us. It is always a pleasure for us to have these discussions with you. The discussions are important for our organizations and our community, and that is all very positive.

I am the president of the Conseil jeunesse francophone de la Colombie Britannique, an organization run by and for the young with the objective of providing opportunities to the province’s young francophones, wherever they are and at whatever level.

In terms of the action plan, the investments in and strengthening of minority communities are extremely positive for us. An effective and fully supported linguistic duality engages and strengthens communities. I personally have acquired an interest in community involvement by discovering an aspect of the francophone community. I know that I am not the only one to have had the experience.

Providing funds directly to the communities will have a major effect and can only lead to positive things. As you know, freezing funds for core programming in recent decades has forced a number of organizations to become dissipated. It goes without saying that this enhancement will re-energize them in a major way. Overall, the message is very positive for us. It is a sign that you have listened to us and heard us, and we are very grateful to you.

However, in our opinion, some avenues of research, some points, deserve further attention.

One of those points has to do with the funding of recurring projects, as opposed to core program funding. At the moment, some organizations, such as the one I represent, have annual recurring projects that have existed since the beginning. For example, we are on our 27th Jeux francophones de la Colombie-Britannique and our 21st edition of the Parlement jeunesse francophone de la Colombie-Britannique. These projects are not part of our programming, but, for other organizations, projects of this kind are funded from their core funding envelope.

We spend considerable time and effort to meet these demands over and over again, with the result that we have less time to prepare or implement new projects. It also means that the 20% increase in our programming is lower, when compared with other organizations that include these projects in their programming.

We feel that there is room for some evaluation of the reality of recurring projects, as opposed to core programming. The effects could be to unlock funds for new projects and to engage the community even more.

Now for our second major point.

Youth organizations like ours have two mandates, one in the community and the other in education. There are positive measures for the community mandate, but, as we understand it, there will be no increase in grants for the official languages in education program, or OLEP. That is regrettable because it penalizes us, and a lot of other organizations.

At the moment, we are a major partner in education, but, like the majority of youth organizations across the country, we see very little benefit from direct contributions to education. We fully understand that those funds go first to other organizations like school boards.

We see indirect benefits thanks to our fine partnerships, but having a double mandate with a single funding stream makes our development less certain and specifically slows any initiatives in the field of education.

If there is no increase in OLEP funding in the next five years, we will be spending five more years without access to funding because we are told that the envelope is empty or that it has been fully used. This is a problem that I often discuss with my counterparts in other provinces. It is of major importance for the advancement of the youth of the country.

In this regard, we want to know when the agreement between the federal government and the provinces will be signed. We would like to have more information on that.

The last point deals with a problem that was raised even before the action plan was developed. It was also mentioned earlier. It seems that the provinces do not always justify their use of education funding to the federal government. We simply raise the question of the provinces’ accountability for education funding.

This action plan invigorates us and is very positive for us, but we feel that it could go a little further. We look forward to continuing to work with you.

Thank you.

9:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

Thank you very much, Mr. Lacoste.

The floor now goes to Jean-François Packwood, from the Conseil culturel et artistique francophone de la Colombie-Britannique.

9:25 a.m.

Jean-François Packwood Executive Director, Conseil culturel et artistique francophone de la Colombie-Britannique

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting us and for listening to our presentations.

As mentioned, I work at the Conseil culturel et artistique francophone de la Colombie-Britannique. Our organization is the provincial voice for arts and culture. We promote the development of francophone arts and culture here in the province. Arts and culture span the country and are an engine of vitality. We saw an example of this at the beginning of the session. The CD you were presented with is a fine example of the scope of our arts and culture.

At the outset, I must say that our organization, as well as the sector in its entirety, is particularly pleased to see arts and culture clearly established in the Action Plan for Official Languages, 2018-2023: Investing in Our Future. To be completely honest, I will say that we have been waiting for this for a number of years. Our organization also pointed this out in a media release we issued when the action plan was announced last March.

Arts and culture are dealt with in the section entitled “Investing in Culture”, which is part of Pillar I, entitled "Strengthening Our Communities”. For us, this shows a recognition of the sector and of the work being done across the network, for example with the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, which is our national voice. Overall, we are happy with the enhancements in the action plan.

We are also happy with the consultation process with the provinces and territories in determining the priorities for additional funding in the action plan. We consider that this provides the government and the communities with a real opening to work together and to commit to establishing priorities.

However, we still have questions as to the implementation of the action plan and the awareness of it on the part of other departments. For example, we wonder whether incentives have been, or will be, established to encourage not only the implementation of the action plan but also other departments to adopt its recommendations.

The action plan expresses a desire to encourage an intersectoral approach as a way of implementing the initiatives it describes. We wonder, for example, how organizations responsible for official language, and more specifically Canadian Heritage, will be able to encourage other departments to collaborate in implementing its various measures.

As we have already indicated, we acknowledge the investment announced in the action plan and the increase in program funding. For us, and, I believe, for the entire arts and culture sector, and for the community, this is a major step forward.

However, we believe that it is important to mention that this investment is playing catch-up. No additional investments have been made for many years, in fact. That leads us to say that indexing should be considered as a priority. If that principle is not observed in the coming years, we are afraid that we will still be underfunded. For our sector, and for the community as a whole, indexing the funds is a priority in the coming years.

In closing, I would say that we are aware of the fact that the action plan is mostly about official languages and Canadian Heritage programs. We are pleased with the investments, such as the community cultural action fund. That said, we must point out the importance of other programs that are not in the ambit of the department responsible for official languages, such as the Canada arts presentation fund. This program is a pillar for communities and for our members involved in the performing arts. That means festivals and community and cultural centres. The finds allocated to this program have not increased for practically as long as those allocated to the community life component of the official languages program. This program, with the official languages, really enhances the vitality of our communities. We believe that it is important to give it particular attention in the years to come, certainly, but sooner rather than later, because there is a great need for arts and culture to flow freely throughout our country.

Thank you for listening.

9:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis

Thank you very much, Mr. Packwood.

Now we continue by going around the table.

Mr. Clarke, the floor is yours.

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone. We are delighted to be here in Vancouver, and to be meeting with the OLMCs in the area.

Beyond the specific nature of each of the groups and understanding your concerns, our objective is to find out your three absolute priorities in terms of modernizing the Official Languages Act. In addition, you have already spoken about the action plan, but I would like to hear you talk about it some more.

Let's start with Mr. Pajot.

9:30 a.m.

Associate Director, Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs, Simon Fraser University

David Pajot

I will yield the floor to the representatives of the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique.

I do not want to talk on behalf of the Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs. Well, maybe just a little. The vast majority of our students, 90% in fact, come from an immersion program. Speakers of French in British Columbia are very diversified. For our students, French is often their third language.

It is increasingly difficult to tell the difference between a francophone and a francophile. So I feel that the Official Languages Act has to move in that direction. We have to reassess what the concepts of francophone and francophile mean. Am I francophone myself? It is a question I ask myself too. I speak three languages every day. I grew up speaking Breton. When I talk to students at the university, they think I am francophone, because I am from France. But identity ebbs and flows.

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

The clock is ticking. You have stated your first priority. What would the second one be?

9:30 a.m.

Associate Director, Office of Francophone and Francophile Affairs, Simon Fraser University

David Pajot

Personally, I only see the one.

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Thank you very much.

Let us continue with you, Ms. Asselin.

9:30 a.m.

Marie-Andrée Asselin Executive Director, Fédération des parents francophones de Colombie-Britannique

We can certainly state three priorities.

Our first priority would be that each agreement between the feds and the provinces should contain a clause about the francophone communities that really meets their needs.

Second, before those clauses are written, the francophone communities should first be consulted. For example, the multilateral framework on early learning and child care contains a language clause for francophone communities and that is great. However, what the clause specifies does not match the needs of the communities in the province. If we had been consulted in advance, we would have been able to suggest some good ideas that would have given the clause some teeth.

Our third priority, in terms of modernizing the Official Languages Act, deals with statistics. We would like to have clear statistics so that we can determine the number of francophones and rights holders. That would help us to obtain more services, to build schools of a decent size and to provide families with early childhood services.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Very good. Thank you.

Mr. Ouellette, Ms. Lapierre, what are your priorities?

9:35 a.m.

Chair, Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique

Marie-France Lapierre

For us, it would be the disposal of federal lands.

9:35 a.m.

Conservative

Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

That is a big problem in Vancouver, isn't it?

9:35 a.m.

Chair, Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique

Marie-France Lapierre

It is a very big problem, not just in Vancouver, but throughout the province.

We have difficulty finding space and facilities in a lot of locations. We do not really have an involvement or a presence at municipal level. We need to find places to build schools. You need to know that we have seen an increase in our school population, which has gone from 1,600 people when we started to about 6,000 people now.