Official Languages Committee on Sept. 29th, 2016

[Roger Paul]

A good example is the country's only official bilingual province, New Brunswick. We may expect that, in New Brunswick, which is an officially bilingual province, francophones would be part of the groups welcoming newcomers.

Let's take the example of the Syrians who recently arrived in Canada. We would like to integrate those new Canadians in our schools. However, there is no infrastructure in place that would enable New Brunswick francophones to participate in welcoming them.

We have sent letters to the Minister of Education. We have supported the three New Brunswick school boards in protesting the fact that only anglophones have access to newcomer welcome services at the airport. That service is funded by the province, but francophones are excluded. So integration is impossible in those conditions.

We have developed a video in Arabic to try to attract them our schools, but that was done with limited means.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Paul.

Mr. Samson, the floor is now yours.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will briefly talk about three issues.

The aspect my colleague, Ms. Boucher, brought up is very important. I would like to bring it back into our discussion. She said that provincial departments should ensure the promotion of francophone schools to immigrants to achieve true linguistic duality.

That's exactly where the problem lies. We could check in all the provinces—with perhaps New Brunswick as the lone exception—and see that it's not a priority. School board are not consulted even though they could cooperate on immigrant integration.

I would like you to provide a quick answer to my questions. Why is francophone immigration important to French schools?

[Roger Paul]

You know that, in our French-language schools, we talk about welcoming rights holders. You know the difference between a rights holder and a non-rights holder.

According to a renowned researcher, Rodrigue Landry, who is from New Brunswick, only one student out of two with rights holder parents chooses a French-language school for the same reasons that were just mentioned.

With all the competition among school boards when it comes to immigration, it would be important for newcomers to know that we have two official languages and that they can be educated in either of the two. However, they don't know that.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

In addition, of course, if few francophones join a community, that community gets assimilated.

I will close with one last issue.

Department of immigration representatives met with us on Tuesday. They told us they had a 4% target for immigrants choosing French. Currently, only 1.5% of them opt for French. A department team is in charge of this file, and we hope improvements will be made. I also hope that will be the case.

What strategies could you suggest for the department to make progress and achieve that target? We definitely want it to achieve the target.

[Roger Paul]

I wouldn't want to tell them what to do.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

I would like to do that.

[Roger Paul]

I am not in the same position as you. That said, my colleague who is the president, told me that there were programs, but that they were relatively unknown.

For example, would there be a way for francophones to have their fair share of settlement workers? We don't have that right now. The vast majority of those settlement workers are in anglophone school boards. It would be important to implement a strategy for that.

We are talking about the federal government and pointing the finger at everyone, but some departments may have somewhat more specific responsibilities in that area. When it comes to immigration, if we are serious and really want to see an increase in our provinces and territories—4% or 5%, depending on who you talk to—we need a strategy for promoting linguistic duality in education. That is the key consideration. I was talking about promotion for our school boards, but I am also talking about promotion for the community.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Are you done, Mr. Samson.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Choquette, it is now your turn.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have talked about the situation of Yukon, which has worked very hard to obtain the right to accommodate a number of clienteles, in addition to rights holders. The situation is problematic across Canada. People have talked about the Quebec situation, which is very different in this regard. They said we would need an asymmetrical approach—in this case, for official language minority communities—except in Quebec.

Could that approach enable immigrants and, as you said, francophiles, as well as people with francophone ancestors to join the communities?

Education is what leads people to decide to live and work in French. It would even have to start in early childhood. The Commissioner of Official Languages will actually present a report on early childhood soon.

Can you say a few words about a potential asymmetrical approach and about the importance of early childhood?

[Roger Paul]

As for asymmetry, we are talking about two realities—education and the francophonie. It is not news to you that the reality is not the same in Quebec as elsewhere in the country.

We recently went before the Supreme Court to try to resolve the issue of student enrolment. We really respect the fact that the reality is different in Quebec. We mustn't dumb things down by treating everyone the same. When it comes to school boards and access to infrastructure, I have given you a good number of examples where everyone was treated equally. But this is rather a matter of determining what Quebec's needs are and what the needs of francophones outside Quebec are. Those two are not diametrically opposed, but some approaches or community realities are different. So if you are asking me whether asymmetry is really the path to take, I would say that the answer is yes. We would even like that asymmetry to apply to what we are asking for.

Of all the school boards from across the country, we are alone in being protected in terms of education. Colleagues from the Quebec English School Boards Association told me that they have decided to approach the government about what they want to do.

Regarding government funding for our school boards, I think it is easier to come to an understanding with a single province. In the case of Quebec, Canadian Heritage is interacting specifically with that province and talking about its priorities in education with a single department of education. It's far from easy to interact with all the other provinces and territories, especially since their approaches are very different. That's where we advocate some sort of asymmetry.

We are not asking that Quebec be included in an all-party agreement covering education from kindergarten to year 12. We talked about the mother tongue from kindergarten to year 12 outside Quebec. It goes without saying that Quebec's approach will be different, and that's not a problem. The reality, however, is not different.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much.

We are continuing with Mr. Arseneault, who will be the last member to take the floor.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If I have any time left at the end of my question, I will share it with my colleague, Mr. Vandal.

I would like to discuss education, the roadmap and immigration. However, earlier, you mentioned the term “duality” three times.

I am from New Brunswick, where the concept of duality is not synonymous with bilingualism. Our province is officially bilingual, and the term “duality” means that there are two leaders—one francophone and one anglophone—in very specific sectors. That's what duality is at home. In fact, when we talk about duality, my natural tendency is to say, “Oh”. In New Brunswick, we have a francophone department of education and an anglophone one. There are never any disputes over fund transfers. Without going into details, I would say that the funding is allocated on a per capita basis.

My question may be of a legal nature.

We will read your brief later—perhaps some have done so already—but does it contain any legal arguments related to section 23 of the charter? We all know that education is a provincial responsibility. Federal transfers to the provinces must respect the obligations set out in the charter, in particular, section 23. Provinces are required to report on how they are distributing and managing that money. The money comes from the federal government, which is subject to the charter provisions. Has that argument been put forward already, legally speaking?

[Roger Paul]

No.

That is a very good question.

That argument is certainly made in our brief. As you surely know, before we submitted our brief, we consulted our lawyers, that is, the lawyers of the three federations, as well as the communities, parents, and all other interested parties. We are simply saying that if the federal government provides funding to support French-language school boards that are protected under section 23, it must demand results. This of course is very difficult. We know that it will take time to negotiate a new protocol. The federal government could even negotiate directly with the school board without going through the ministry of education. That is the case in some sectors, such as health, and justice for first nations and associations. There is nothing stopping it from doing that.

We are following the rules, but we would like to change them a bit to get a separate protocol. It is not that onerous. It makes sense that our rights are protected under section 23 of the charter. If we are included in the process from the outset, it would be possible to discuss appropriate accountability by the provinces. The communities, parents and school boards are not part of Canadian Heritage. We defend francophone rights across the country. Before signing a protocol, if we see there is no accountability or that funding is not allocated in accordance with the priorities identified, we could do something then, but it would be too late once the protocol is signed. We have to be at the table from the start.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much for your explanations, Mr. Paul.

Mr. Paul and Ms. Chartrand, thank you very much for your contribution to the committee's work. You presentations were very well done.

We will take a five-minute break.

Ms. Boucher, I think you have something to say.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a request and I think my colleagues will agree.

If we sent our questions that we did not have the time to ask Mr. Paul or Ms. Chartrand, could they send us their answers later on?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

That's an excellent idea. I think everyone is agreeable.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Can those answers also be published?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mr. Paul, if we send you a few questions, I suppose you could answer in writing?

[Roger Paul]

Yes, I will be very pleased to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Ms. Boucher has another request.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Please go ahead, Ms. Boucher.