Official Languages Committee on June 3rd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 37 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f), the committee is meeting on the study of the Federal Support for French-language or Bilingual Post-secondary Institutions in a Minority Situation.

Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting.

A reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the Chair. Should any technical challenges arise, please advise the Chair or the clerk.

I would like to remind all participants and attendees that you cannot take photos or screen captures.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses for this study.

In the first hour, we have Stéphanie Chouinard, Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science of the Royal Military College of Canada and in the Department of Political Studies at Queen's University, who is appearing as an individual.

Frédéric Lacroix, essayist, will also appear as an individual.

From Laurentian University, we have Robert Haché, President and Vice-Chancellor, who is accompanied by Marie-Josée Berger, Provost and Vice-President, Academic.

The witnesses have five minutes for their opening statements. As you know, Ms. Chouinard, I will be using cards to let you know that you have one minute left or that your speaking time is up.

Ms. Chouinard, the floor is yours for the next five minutes.

[Stéphanie Chouinard, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada and Department of Political Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the committee for having me, and greetings to Vice-Chairs Blaney and Beaulieu.

Thank you for inviting us to discuss access to postsecondary education in one's language, which is of the utmost importance for the vitality of the official language minority communities and especially for the Canadian francophonie.

In 1982, recognizing the fundamental role that schools played in the continued sustainability of the minority communities, the Canadian government saw fit to add to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms a right of access for stakeholders to education in the official language of one's choice, from kindergarten to grade 12^x, or secondary 5 in Quebec. In 2021, it is now obvious that our society has changed and that those rights are now inadequate to meet the needs of our communities.

In particular, the qualifications expected in the labour market have changed over the past 40 years, and employers now expect their employees to have a higher level of education than previously. Workers now need higher-level diplomas and degrees in order to stay in the middle class. Consequently, more Canadians now attend postsecondary institutions than at the time the Charter was adopted.

In 1981, 37% of the Canadian population 15 years of age and over had a postsecondary diploma or degree. Today the figure has nearly doubled to 65%. As a result of this trend, which shows no sign of abating, minority language communities are now asking their respective provinces to create or, in certain instances, to protect postsecondary institutions where instruction is given in their language.

In other words, the needs of the official language minority communities now exceed the scope of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is also true of early childhood, which I will also be discussing with you today, as well as postsecondary education. To use the sociological terminology, the objective of communities today is to achieve institutional completeness in education, which would quarantee the members of those communities a complete education in their language regardless of the path they may choose to enter the labour market.

What happens when postsecondary education is not available close to home? By "close to home", I mean a distance of approximately 80 kilometers from the family home. A few studies conducted by the now-defunct Office of the French Language Services Commissioner of Ontario suggest some potential answers to this question. On the one hand, we see increasing numbers of minority school students gradually leaving their education system for majority schools starting in grade 8 ^x. The reason for that is simple: those students feel a need to succeed in English in the next phase of their education and therefore opt for instruction in that language to avoid losing out. The lack of access to postsecondary education in the minority language in a given region thus has an impact on the education system.

This decision also has a significant impact on community vitality because early adulthood is the time in life when an individual's identity becomes established. Young people who leave their community institutions during this phase will identify less closely with their community once they become adults. Individuals who pursue their secondary studies in the majority language are more likely to work in that language and to find themselves forming exogamous families, which, as we know, are major contributors to intergenerational language transfer. In short, we have long known that education is the lifeline of our communities.

That being said, our definition of education must now extend beyond what the Constitution prescribes as a response to the needs of our communities. However, postsecondary institutions are so fragile precisely because they are not protected by the Constitution, as we have very clearly seen in recent years. This may be due to inadequate investment over many years, as was the case with the Campus Saint-Jean and, less dramatically, the Université de Moncton and Université Sainte-Anne, or to the fact that French-language programs have been cut in order to save institutions, as was the case at Laurentian University.

Postsecondary education in the Canadian francophonie is currently in crisis, and the collapse of an institution such as Laurentian University clearly reveals the weakness of bilingual institutions, which strive to think and act in the minority community's interest. We realized years ago, in the case of primary and secondary schools, that the minority almost always suffers the consequences of the bilingual education model. It's time for us to take an independent approach— which we have previously established, practised and refined—from kindergarten to grade 12^x. There's no doubt in my mind that the federal government has a role to play in this regard, one that it was already performing in part.

We must make sure that targeted, structural investment by the federal government isn't offset by a shirking of responsibility by the provinces. That's the central issue for us today.

I will stop there.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Ms. Chouinard.

I yield the floor to Mr. Lacroix for the next five minutes.

Mr. Lacroix, we are listening.

[Frédéric Lacroix]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. I'm very pleased to be following Ms. Chouinard because I make extensive use of the concept of institutional completeness in my analysis.

I have written a book entitled, Pourquoi la loi 101 est un échec, published by Boréal, in which I analyze the situation of anglophone and francophone public and parapublic institutional networks in Quebec.

I use the concept of institutional completeness to conduct that analysis. I think the concept is a very important prism through which to analyze fairness in the funding of anglophone and francophone minority institutions, and even majority institutions, thus in Quebec as well.

This concept of institutional completeness originated in the work of Fransaskois Canadian sociologist Raymond Breton in an article he published in 1964. Mr. Breton showed that the level of institutional completeness— that is, the range of institutions available to an ethnic or linguistic group—had a direct impact on that group's ability to sustain itself in its location over time, in other words, on its linguistic vitality.

In Quebec, as is the case everywhere else in Canada, two official language groups inhabit the same territory and each has its own institutional network. The group with the more extensive and stronger institutional network will attract members of the weaker group to its network. As a result, the weaker group will suffer from its institutional incompleteness.

This concept was used in court for the first time in the Montfort Hospital case in Ontario. Ms. Chouinard conducted a survey on the legal use of the notion. I included it in my brief and therefore won't go back over it.

In my book, I apply this notion to Quebec francophones, who are considered a majority group under the Official Languages Act.

In my view, the main problem with the Official Languages Act is the artificial double-majority concept. The act establishes that there is an anglophone majority outside Quebec and a francophone majority in Quebec. Each majority is associated with its own minority, francophone outside Quebec and anglophone inside.

However, the double-majority concept has no sociological basis. This becomes clear when we consider the fact that Quebec anglophones assimilate half the allophone immigrants who settle in Quebec. Quebec anglophones form only 8% of the population, based on mother tongue, but assimilate approximately 50% of immigrants.

In reality, Quebec anglophones have the linguistic vitality of a majority, even in Quebec. In actual fact, the Official Languages Act confirms a competitive and unequal bilingualism between English and French across Canada, including Quebec. Francophones' relative weight has declined sharply in Quebec since 2001, whereas that of anglophones has remained stable or even increased.

The linguistic dynamic in Canada is not governed by provincial boundaries but rather by the country's borders. This means there is only one genuine majority in Canada, and it is anglophone. Canada is an anglophone-majority country. In my view, the double-majority concept, which forms the basis of the Official Languages Act, is false and misleading. The act should be based on the recognition that there is only one real majority in Canada. It should be asymmetrical.

I have applied this idea to funding for universities in Quebec and calculated that the three English-language universities there—McGill, Concordia and Bishop's—receive 30% of total university revenue in Quebec.

I remind you that anglophones form 8% of the population. That means that the funding English-language universities in Quebec receive is 3.7 times greater than the demographic weight of the province's anglophone community. These universities thus constitute an institutional "overcompleteness".

On the other hand, French-language universities in Quebec are underfunded relative to francophones' demographic weight because they receive 70% of funding, whereas francophones form 78% of the population in Quebec. This underfunding of francophone institutions weighs directly on the linguistic vitality of the francophone group in Quebec.

It is interesting to note that federal research funding is largely channeled to the three English-language universities in Quebec, which receive 38.4% of federal funding allocated to Quebec. McGill University alone receives one third of federal funding to the province.

I see my time is up. The rest of my remarks are set out in my brief.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Yes, Mr. Lacroix, your time is indeed up.

I take this opportunity to remind witnesses that they may also submit their briefs to the clerk and we will consider them as we continue this study.

Mr. Robert Haché now has the floor.

Mr. Haché, you have five minutes for your opening statement. Ms. Berger may also speak.

[Robert Haché, President and Vice-Chancellor, Laurentian University]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. It is a pleasure to be speaking to you today from Laurentian University, which is located in Sudbury, in northeastern Ontario, on the land governed by the Robinson-Huron Treaty of 1850 and the traditional lands of the Atikameksheng Anishnawbek and Wahnapitae first nations.

Allow me to begin by thanking you for this invitation to appear before your committee. Thanks as well for the important work you are doing here and in your communities to honour the francophone communities' experience in minority communities across Canada. Having lived and worked in both official languages in various regions of Canada, I have witnessed firsthand the impact that the federal government and this committee have had for decades on the protection of linguistic minorities and the promotion of bilingualism in Canada.

Laurentian University is the largest bilingual university in northeastern Ontario and the only institution in Canada with a highly cultural mandate. It offers a university experience in English and French as well as a comprehensive approach to indigenous education.

Our university has been serving francophone students across northern Ontario, a fertile ground rich in Franco-Ontarian history, for more than 60 years. It has been the incubator of the Franco-Ontarian renaissance and a place where many of French-speaking Ontario's most important symbols and institutions have been conceived and celebrated. It is also acknowledged as the first bilingual university in Ontario, governed by the French Language Services Act.

We are determined to secure Laurentian's future as a university where French-language programs and teaching are appreciated and its bilingual character celebrated. We will remain committed to the next generation of young francophone leaders in the arts, social sciences, business, research and design, public administration, education and community development.

Earlier this year, Laurentian University faced an impossible choice: close the university's doors or set down the path of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to ensure the university's survival. We recognized that this would be difficult and that our community would be impacted.

The CCA process is allowing us to restructure our academic and operational affairs in a way that will be financially viable for the university's long-term future. It is difficult. It is still painful for our community. We've had to say goodbye to talented and committed faculty, staff and researchers, many of whom worked right up to the end of the semester to help our students succeed.

Laurentian has revised its academic program offerings to focus on student interest, academic strengths and desirable outcomes for the students. Laurentian continues to offer 28 consolidated undergraduate programs and five graduate programs in French, which have strong enrolments, meeting the needs of our students. In all, given the focus on maintaining in-demand programming, fewer than 10% of all students enrolled in French-language programs are being directly affected by these changes.

These offerings keep us among the most comprehensive institutions with respect to our balance of French- and English-language programs. Furthermore, our francophone students continue to have a variety of French-language courses to choose from in their programs.

Lastly, I want to underscore that enrolment in our French-language programs has been increasing over time. This matters greatly. Contrary to the general trend in northern Ontario's declining population base, strong French-language program enrolment is a sign that Laurentian's francophone students and their communities remain engaged in what Laurentian has to offer.

We look forward to serving francophone communities in the north and across Ontario, Canada and beyond for many years to come.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Haché.

We are now ready to begin the first round of questions. The first Vice-Chair, Mr. Blaney, will ask the first question.

I ask members please to state clearly to whom you are directing your question.

Mr. Blaney, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for Mr. Haché, but first I would like to make two comments.

First, I would like to thank the witnesses for being here.

We welcome you with open arms for this study and for the one on the decline of French across the country.

Ms. Chouinard, my first comment is directed to you. Thank you for making us aware of the increasing role universities play in society and thus with regard to language for both Quebec and the minorities.

Mr. Lacroix, you are a prolific author. For example, you have written that Ottawa is highly unlikely to use its weight to support French across the country; that it should take a political tack because French is the only official language that declines from one census to the next; and that substantive equality between English and French, not mere legal equality, should obviously have entailed the adoption of asymmetrical linguistic norms.

You have referred to this in discussing studies on postsecondary education. Ultimately, as Ms. Chouinard said, the minority has suffered for the sake of the majority. I'm sure you'd like to comment, but I'm going to put my question to Mr. Haché.

Mr. Haché, you are at the centre of the study we've undertaken as a result of your university's situation. We regret the general situation, and I would clearly like to say to you, "What a waste!" What a waste it is for a university to find itself in this situation. We are all attached to our university system and to our bilingual institutions.

Before you, we heard from other witnesses, notably from the Franco-Ontarian community, and it seems the relationship of trust with your university is now broken. The francophone community no longer believes you can be the driver of francophone vitality in northern Ontario.

You said some good things today, but, in actual fact, you've abandoned the three satellite universities with which you had cooperation agreements. I understand that what you're going through isn't easy, but the question I want to put to you is very simple.

Are you prepared to transfer the French-language programs that Laurentian University offers to an organization such as the University of Sudbury, an educational institution that would be solely by and for northern Ontario francophones?

[Robert Haché]

Thank you for that question.

I understand the sentiment you express, and I also understand that we have work to do to restore the community's trust. This isn't an easy situation for us or for the community. We're still devoting all our efforts to serving our students.

Our French-language programs are important because they represent Laurentian University's future. We will continue to offer them at Laurentian for the future of francophone education in northern Ontario.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Can you tell us this afternoon whether the French-language programs offered this year will be offered at Laurentian this coming September?

[Robert Haché]

All the programs that have been retained will be offered in the fall and for the foreseeable future.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

This week, the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages indicated that she was prepared to make additional investments.

Going back to the question I asked you about the University of Sudbury, how do you view the relationship with that university? If you want to play a leadership role, why abandon your relationships with the three institutions that provided training in French?

I'd like you to explain to me how you could regain the trust of those institutions because you know the Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques de l'Ontario discussed Laurentian University. The relationship is quite troubled, Mr. Haché.

[Robert Haché]

Thank you for that question.

Laurentian's financial position has been deteriorating for many years. Many problems have arisen along the way, including in the relationship with the three federated universities, to the point where our financial situation was no longer sustainable. We had reached a dead end and substantial changes had to be made so we could continue pursuing the university's mandate.

In the review we conducted, we focused on the most popular programs, where enrolment was high, and we're moving forward in that frame of mind.

I should point out that the programs that were terminated were mainly ones that had only two or three students a year. From both financial and academic standpoints, it's unsustainable to have such low enrolment in certain programs, despite the efforts we've made over years to attract students.

In spite of it all, as I previously said, the francophone student population at Laurentian University has risen in recent years. As a result, the programs that will continue are programs that are of interest to students and that we will continue to support.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

We're speaking generally about French-language programs. Mr. Haché, how do you see Laurentian University's situation in the next few months or when classes resume in the fall?

[Robert Haché]

We're very confident about September and the new term. Students are still applying for admission to the university, and we'll be there to support them. We expect them to return to the campus.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Haché.

Mr. Blaney, that's all the time we have.

I therefore yield the floor to Mr. Lefebvre for the next six minutes.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My questions are for Mr. Haché, but I also have a brief question for Ms. Chouinard after that.

Mr. Haché, the cuts to French-language programming have stripped Laurentian University of its soul. You say you have a plan, and I'd like to hear it.

Before starting in on official languages and programs, I'd like to clarify some points. We've clearly spoken together over the past year. On a few occasions, we've discussed the Alphonse-Raymond amphitheater, where the Department of Canadian Heritage wanted to fund renovations.

Is that true?

[Robert Haché]

Yes. The renovations are under way.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

They're being done by the federal government, which is supporting the renovation.

[Robert Haché]

Yes.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

On December 22, you convened a meeting with Mr. Serré and me to discuss Laurentian University's situation. That was the first time we had directly heard about the institution's financial situation.

I told you the federal government could support you for the official languages program. Is that true?

I also told you I might contact Minister Joly's office to see what we could do because, as you know, and as was said on Tuesday, although the official languages program is a federal government transfer program, it is administered by the province. I also told you to contact the province and the federal government and that we could work together to advance this file.

Is that true?

[Robert Haché]

That's also what I remember.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I also told you about the indigenous languages program, which the Department of Canadian Heritage introduced the previous year, and the fact that Laurentian hadn't filed for the first component. I urged you to take a look at the program and told you I would follow up with the Department of Canadian Heritage on the subject.

Is that true?

[Robert Haché]

Yes.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

All right.

On the one hand, Laurentian approached the province and asked that the federal government and Minister Joly's office intervene on official languages. The university approached the provincial government and began those discussions.

Mr. Haché, during another committee meeting last week, you said you had also discussed Laurentian's finances with the provincial government. You'd been having important discussions with that government for some time.

I have to ask you a very simple question, the answer to which will enlighten some members who appear not to understand government jurisdictions.

What level of government is responsible for postsecondary education? Is it municipal, provincial or federal?