Official Languages Committee on June 10th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 39 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 me.

Lastly, I remind all participants and attendees that you cannot take photos or screen captures.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses. I thank them for accepting our invitation to appear before the committee.

For the first hour, we are hearing from, as an individual, Jean Poirier, former member of provincial Parliament and former president of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, as well as Lynn Brouillette, president and chief executive officer, and Martin Normand, director of strategic research and international relations, both from the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne. We are also hearing from Luc Bussières, rector of the Université de Hearst.

I see that Marie-France Lalonde has raised her hand.

Mrs. Lalonde, go ahead.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much. I apologize, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to delay the appearances, but the clerk has sent us a request to appear from the University of Ottawa in relation to the study. I have spoken with the representatives of the Association des universitaires de la Faculté Saint-Jean, who met with Mr. Blaney and Mr. Godin to request an appearance. If possible, I would like to know what my colleagues think about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mrs. Lalonde.

We will begin with Mr. Godin, and then Mr. Blaney could say something.

Mr. Godin, go ahead.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Concerning what my colleague Mrs. Lalonde just said, we have received a copy of the request you have received, as chair, from the Association des universitaires de la Faculté Saint-Jean, to add Chiara Concini to the witness list.

Has the committee made a decision on whether we will reply to the association to let them know what the committee has decided? If the committee accepts, will the meeting be held in a committee or subcommittee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Blaney, do you want to say anything?

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

I will be brief, Mr. Chair.

Yesterday, I met with Chiara Concini, from the Association des universitaires de la Faculté Saint-Jean. I told her it would likely be difficult to hear from her.

I did tell her I would at least suggest to committee members that she submit a written brief, which could be worthwhile considering in our study. We could do the same for the other witness proposed by Mrs. Lalonde.

So we could decide to hold additional meetings, but it seems that House business could eat into the time planned for committee meetings, at least next week. Perhaps we should take five minutes, without witnesses, to discuss this amongst ourselves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

I will consult the clerk, but I just want to remind you that we have scheduled four meetings for this committee study and that today is the last meeting.

If we have the committee members' consent to act on Mr. Blaney's suggestion, we could discuss it in camera and decide when we could hold extra meetings. It's a bit complicated, technology wise, as we have to stop, and new passwords are then needed to go in camera.

So I will discuss this with the clerk, because it cannot be done now. After this meeting, you will receive an email informing you of what can be done, if that is what all the committee members want. Is that okay with everyone? Okay.

We will continue the meeting. I want to remind the witnesses that they have five minutes for their opening remarks and that I will let them know when they have a minute left for their presentation or when they have no time left, be it during the presentation or during the question and answer period.

Mr. Poirier, go ahead for five minutes.

[Jean Poirier, Former Member of Provincial Parliament and Former President, Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you.

This committee has heard many statistics concerning the disparity in funding among post-secondary institutions in Canada, as well as between French-language and English-language institutions.

I would rather like to focus on the reasons why the federal government must support French-language communities outside Quebec more directly and rethink the way funding is allocated to communities. Answering that question actually helps better understand the challenges related to this matter.

For over 50 years, I have been advocating for the promotion and defence of French language and culture, both locally and internationally. I have done that as a member of Parliament for Queen's Park over four terms. I have also done it as president of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, as a community development officer, and so on.

As a fourth generation Franco-Ontarian, I think I am in a position to properly evaluate the past, current and future situations of French outside Quebec.

For more than 262 years, Canada's francophones have been aspiring to true equality between this country's two official language groups. However, that true equality has been slow to materialize. A person does not need to hold a doctorate degree in this field to understand the reality of our experience. All they need to do is avoid watered down history texts published over the years, texts that have been approved by governments, even the church, and which have been redacted. Those texts have hovered over our reality, which has not always been rosy. I would even talk about institutional and individual francophobia. In those texts, authors carefully avoided describing real obstacles we must constantly face—that reality and that francophobia—generation after generation.

Provinces have even adopted laws and regulations to ban the teaching of French. For example, we, Franco-Ontarians, have for decades been subjected to the Government of Ontario's infamous Regulation 17.

The symbol that unites us, as francophones, is the fleur de lys. However, if we were to let certain members of the majority adopt a symbol more representative of the way they see our quest for equality, I am sure they would choose a bar code, like the ones on products. We are being perceived as an unjustifiable cost, a frivolous expense and a waste of public funds. That is what I have often heard.

At a time when we absolutely deplore the horrible racism that has been and is still being directed at first nations, Blacks, Asians, Muslims and so many others, it should also be understood and accepted that Canadian francophones also deserve a slogan like “French Lives Also Matter”.

You have witnessed the way the Government of Ontario stopped supporting the creation of the Université de l'Ontario français and the way it has abolished the position of independent French-language services commissioner. You have seen how Laurentian University, although bilingual, has cut French programs in an unfair and shameful manner; how Campus Saint-Jean, in Edmonton, is on the brink; and how an advisory committee, in Newfoundland and Labrador, even proposed abolishing francophone and anglophone school boards.

Provincial governments still refuse to understand, accept and implement their role, their duties and their commitment toward their own French-language communities. That is why the federal government, in its mission to achieve substantive linguistic equality in the country, must get involved and ensure that francophone communities can fully benefit from French-language programs at the post-secondary level.

The Official Languages Act must better reflect the real needs of our French-language communities. Since we still don't have full linguistic equality, asymmetric amendments to the act must be a possibility, if necessary, to comply with our distinct and urgent needs, as we are still catching up.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Poirier.

I want to use this opportunity to congratulate you on serving as a member of Parliament over four terms. Well done!

Ms. Brouillette, from the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, I now give you the floor for five minutes.

[Lynn Brouillette, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today.

The Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, or ACUFC, brings together the 22 francophone or bilingual post–secondary institutions located in eight Canadian provinces. Our mission is to increase access to French-language post–secondary education in francophone minority communities, and to represent the collective interest of our members with federal institutions.

I would like to use my time to present four main ideas to the committee. The brief we have submitted to the committee elaborates on those ideas.

First idea: Francophone communities and students get the short end of the stick when governments toss the ball back and fourth concerning the funding of post–secondary education. Today, I want to present our point of view on what the federal government can and must do to address funding issues directly.

Second idea: We feel that the government must think of other methods to provide federal support to post–secondary institutions. The primary vehicle the federal government has used to support post–secondary institutions in our communities is the official languages in education program, or OLEP. As you know, that program complements the funding provinces provide. The program contains many good aspects that must be retained. However, that program is over 50 years old, and it is time to check whether it still meets the needs of post–secondary institutions.

Third idea: We have no doubt that the federal government has the right to provide minority francophone and bilingual post–secondary institutions with direct support without undermining provincial jurisdiction in education. I will explain. Our institutions cater to francophone minorities in Canada. Their civic mission is different from that of institutions that cater to the majority. They must assume additional responsibilities and perform additional duties. The initiatives our post–secondary institutions must implement to fulfil that civic mission come directly under federal jurisdiction. I have three examples for you.

First example: Our post–secondary institutions must contribute in a special way to the vitality of francophone minorities. The federal government is the steward of that vitality, and it has an obligation to take action in that respect. That is a federal responsibility.

Second example: Our institutions must increase the rate of French and English bilingualism in the country. It is the federal government's objective to increase the rate of individual bilingualism, and it must find innovative ways to achieve that objective. That is another federal responsibility. Our institutions can help the government accomplish that goal.

Third example: Our institutions provide the necessary structures to welcome an international clientele. They establish partnerships with settlement agencies in the transition toward permanent residence. The federal government is in charge of francophone immigration, as it has set a target to meet. Once again, this is a federal responsibility.

Fourth idea: We are noting that political will is evolving more quickly than administrative vehicles, so the government must take action in that area. To that end, we ask you to make three recommendations in your report to the government.

First recommendation: That the government adopt regulations for applying part VII of the Official Languages Act.

Second recommendation: That the government adopt a public policy statement to support the post–secondary sector in a francophone minority context in its areas of jurisdiction.

Third recommendation: That the government develop a permanent program for supporting post–secondary institutions in a francophone minority context in order to take action in categories of need related to federal jurisdiction.

In closing, I will say that the government must take action, as it clearly states in its official languages reform document that communities cannot be strong unless institutions are also strong. We must avoid a weakening of francophone minority post–secondary institutions leading to a weakening of community vitality.

I would be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Ms. Brouillette.

I remind the committee members that Ms. Brouillette is joined by Mr. Normand.

We will now hear from the rector of Hearst University.

Mr. Bussières, go ahead for five minutes.

[Luc Bussières, Rector, Hearst University]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the vice-chairs and members of the committee for inviting me to appear today.

I feel the need to start with a bit of background on Université de Hearst, which still has a relatively low profile outside northern Ontario, in particular, and Ontario, more broadly. Université de Hearst has been serving francophones for 68 years. I'd like to share some historical milestones. Séminaire de Hearst was founded in 1953 to provide secondary education to francophones. The institution's name and status changed in 1959, when Séminaire de Hearst became Collège de Hearst and began offering university courses. The third major development in the institution's history was in 1972, when it became known as Collège universitaire de Hearst and gained provincial recognition as a public institution. Since then, our funding has come from the province directly, not through Laurentian University, with which we have been affiliated since 1963. From that point forward, our affiliation with Laurentian University has been academic, as opposed to financial. In 2014, we were authorized by the province to formally adopt the name Université de Hearst.

Finally, just recently—on June 3—the Legislative Assembly of Ontario passed Bill 276, giving Université de Hearst a charter and making it an independent institution. Once that process is complete, our affiliation with Laurentian University will come to an end. Université de Hearst will join the ranks of Ontario's 20 or so stand-alone universities.

Université de Hearst is firmly rooted in northeastern Ontario, with three campuses: Hearst, Kapuskasing and Timmins. Our contribution to the educational, social, cultural and economic development of the region's francophone community has been widely recognized by our many partners for quite some time.

If an institution like ours is not well connected to its community and fails to be responsive, it will struggle to survive in the face of social, demographic, economic and political change. In 2014, we completely revamped our post-secondary service delivery model. Here's a recap of what we have achieved since. First, enrolment has gone up by 125%, even though northern Ontario's demographics are not in our favour. Second, international students, from 25 countries, now make up 60% of our entire student body. Third, we achieved all of that with an offering of just three undergraduate programs.

Despite our nearly 70‑year history and despite our resilience and ability to innovate, our financial situation has always been—and continues to be—a cause for concern. From 2011 to 2021, we ran seven budget deficits. We have an annual budget of $8.5 million. We generate roughly a third of our revenue, and the rest, $5.8 million, comes from subsidies. Through the official languages in education program, or OLEP, we receive approximately $450,000 from the federal government. That amount has not changed since 2003 and accounts for less than 8% of our total subsidies.

However, to perform the role expected of us, we need significantly more support, especially from the federal government, which should invest in strengthening the institutional underpinnings of francophone communities. We are the federal government's natural allies in ensuring the vitality of minority communities, training a bilingual workforce and achieving francophone immigration targets. At stake is the federal government's responsibility to protect, promote and, ensure the vitality of, the country's linguistic duality. That is why the federal government must increase the funding it provides through the OLEP and establish measures to remedy the impact of the extended freeze on the federal contribution. Also necessary are new ongoing programs to support post-secondary institutions in minority language communities.

In conclusion, it is imperative that the federal government act to ensure the decline of our community institutions does not undermine the vitality of our communities, as Ms. Brouillette mentioned. Through Official Languages Act reforms, the federal government can take swift and robust action to ensure Canada's linguistic duality has a stronger and more sustainable future.

We are counting on your support.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Bussières.

None of the witnesses went over their allotted time.

I'd like to welcome the honourable member Arif Virani to our meeting.

We will now move into our first round of questions. Each party will have six minutes.

I assume Mr. Blaney is going to start us off. Please indicate who your questions are for.

Mr. Blaney, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have the same question for all three witnesses. They can answer in the same order in which they gave their presentations. First, though, I want them to know that their opening statements were music to my ears.

Ms. Brouillette, I know you spoke with my assistant. I didn't have the chance to meet you virtually, but I'm glad we have that chance today.

Mr. Poirier, thank you for being such an ardent advocate. I really appreciated what you said about substantive equality for minority communities. You underscored the need for an asymmetrical approach.

I'll be in the House later, and we realize what communities are going through. I am a Quebecker and I recognize that you and I face the same thing; the reality is catching up to us.

Ms. Brouillette, you said the federal government has to make a concrete commitment. We aren't hear to criticize the provinces. They aren't perfect and they face constraints.

We, in the federal government, need to develop mechanisms to increase funding for the cornerstone that is Canada's linguistic duality; we need to leverage the Official Languages Act and fulfill our constitutional responsibilities. That is precisely what Mr. Bussières was talking about; he is calling on the federal government for enhanced structural support.

My question is for each of you. I'll start with Mr. Poirier.

Mr. Poirier, have you come up with mechanisms, targets and costs? Do you have a per-capita funding formula to propose? How do you think the federal government can discharge its constitutional obligation to support educational institutions on an asymmetrical basis?

Before you answer, I want to tell you that the committee began its study on the crisis facing Laurentian University, only to realize that it was the tip of the iceberg. We heard the same worrisome things from the people in Moncton. The Campus Saint‑Jean is also in the same boat.

We really feel this study will be useful.

How, then, should the federal government structure the support it provides? What mechanisms should it put in place to establish a fair and stable funding formula, one that meets the needs of minority communities?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Poirier, you have 30 seconds to answer.

I stopped the clock; I want to let members know that, because of the time, we will have only one six-minute round per panel.

I'm starting the clock again.

Go ahead, Mr. Poirier.

[Jean Poirier]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Blaney, what you're proposing is a change in philosophy that could lead to a complete overhaul of how support is provided to French-speaking communities outside Quebec.

I cannot tell you today how exactly to get there, but I do suggest that you really examine the matter to come up with a recommendation by the end of your study. It has to have the backing of francophone communities, who must come away with the sense that they are genuinely being supported.

Truly, you will have to consider an asymmetrical approach, because applying the same approach to all groups is not working. That is clear from Canada's changing demographics, as the census results and figures show. As Bernard Derome, the former Téléjournal news anchor, would have said, if the trend holds, there won't be any students left to attend French-language post-secondary institutions.

I cannot tell you how to do it, but do it, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Poirier.

Ms. Brouillette, I'd like to hear what you think.

[Lynn Brouillette]

Thank you for your question.

We feel strongly that the federal government must play an important role, and it is essential that federal jurisdiction in relation to post-secondary educational institutions be clearly defined.

The federal government has the power to act. It could introduce a new program, something we strongly recommend, while reviewing the existing program, OLEP.

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

Thank you.

It's fitting that you say so, since that is exactly what our leader is recommending—a new funding mechanism.

Mr. Bussières, do you have any recommendations of a more practical nature? In terms of your university's needs, do you have a certain figure in mind?

How much should the federal government contribute, possibly on a per-capita basis?

[Luc Bussières]

In addition to reviewing the OLEP, the federal government needs to establish a new program, and that program has to have more than one facet or component. A mixed approach is what's needed.

The 22 institutions Ms. Brouillette talked about earlier face a fairly different set of circumstances. I'm tempted to say that the per-capita funding formula is not always well-suited to very small institutions like ours. Large institutions do not need the same level of support or even support components.

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

Mr. Bussières, I gather you are recommending core funding that takes the institution's size into account.

Mr. Chair, I have a minute remaining, and I'd like my fellow member to have the little time I have left. At least, he will have a chance to weigh in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Blaney.

My question is for Mr. Bussières.

Mr. Bussières, I realize that your university is small, but do you think performance should factor into the funding formula?

After listening to you and the other university officials, I gather that enrolment isn't the problem. Students want to study in French.

Should the government establish a program based on the rate of francization? That would be an effective basis for developing a new program, something that would motivate people, don't you think?

Goodness knows universities compete against one another, but this could present an opportunity to protect the French language and support its development.

What do you think?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Bussières, please answer in 10 or 15 seconds.

[Luc Bussières]

We've never had a problem. We've never had a problem rising to a challenge or being held to account. Our student body is entirely French-speaking, so achieving further francization would be difficult, but we can contribute to bilingualism.