Official Languages Committee on June 10th, 2021

[Luc Bussières]

Yes, that's right.

We would need to develop programming at the university. I brought up the fact that we're a small university that provides three specialization programs. We would like to develop this further. When we talk about a university such as the one in the community of Hearst, Kapuskasing and Timmins, we consider it a bit like the universities in large communities, where people are proud to have a university and where there are expectations. We create expectations, but we let people down, in a way. We can't develop these services to meet the expectations of the people in our regions and in minority communities.

We need permanent funding programs to help us overcome this funding shortfall. When it comes to one‑time funding, we must work to get a grant and then meet the related expectations. This doesn't give us the chance to work on the long‑term development of the university.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

That's the difference between the core mission and specific projects. I imagine that project‑based funding also becomes tiring on an administrative level, since it creates ups and downs.

Ms. Brouillette, you spoke about the federal government's responsibility, particularly with respect to official languages and linguistic duality. You said that the colleges and universities that your association represents are in a particular situation and that they have specific obligations, which entail special costs.

I'll go back to the idea that Mr. Poirier brought up earlier, which is the need for an asymmetrical mechanism. Ms. Adam also spoke about this at a recent committee meeting. The goal is to move away from the accounting mindset, where only numbers matter, and to consider the mission and importance of the educational institution for the vitality of the francophone community.

I imagine that you also welcome this asymmetrical mechanism. Is that right?

[Lynn Brouillette]

That's right.

I think that we need to look at things from various angles if we want to implement mechanisms to support the network of francophone colleges and universities, whose challenges vary greatly from region to region.

To address some of the issues raised by witnesses, I also want to point out that education programs provided in French outside Quebec amount to only 10% of the programs available in English.

That's why English‑language programs are so attractive. That's what we mean when we talk about the vitality of communities. Our institutions must implement all sorts of programs and services to support the communities. Dyane Adam also spoke about this last Tuesday. All these services have costs, which are related to the vitality of communities.

In our opinion, clearly the delivery of these programs and services falls under federal jurisdiction. If the federal government manages to properly define its jurisdictions, it can use them to implement mechanisms to support the communities.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I must have about 10 seconds left, Mr. Chair. Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

That's right.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I just want to welcome a new participant with Mr. Williamson.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

That's great. That's what I would like to have done, but there's no time left for him to ask a question.

My dear witnesses and committee members, that is all the time we have for the first part of the meeting.

On behalf of all the committee members and the skilled staff supporting us, I would like to thank the witnesses for your contributions. I would also like to tell you that, if any of you have not submitted a brief, you can still do so and send it to the clerk.

My thanks go to Mr. Poirier, who was here as an individual, but who was also a former member of the provincial legislature and a former President of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario. Thanks also to Lynn Brouillette, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, who was accompanied by Martin Normand, Director of Strategic Research and International Relations. My thanks also go to Luc Bussières, the Rector of the Université de Hearst.

I will suspend the meeting for a few moments, to give us time to welcome the new witnesses and do the sound checks.

A very good afternoon to our witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Let us resume the meeting.

Welcome to meeting No. 39 of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. We are in the process of conducting a study entitled: “Federal support for French-language or bilingual post-secondary institutions in a minority situation”.

I want to again welcome all the committee members and the witnesses.

I will repeat some of the rules, for the benefit of the witnesses who are just joining us.

All your comments must be addressed through the Chair. You may speak in the official language of your choice, as interpretation services are available.

If you have a technical problem, please advise us and we will deal with it quickly.

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

So let me welcome the witnesses and thank them for accepting the invitation to be part of the second hour of this meeting.

With us, we have Linda Cardinal, Emeritus Professor at the University of Ottawa, as an individual, and Daniel Giroux, President of the Collège Boréal. We also have François Hastir, C.Adm., Executive Director of the Regroupement étudiant franco-ontarien.

You will each have five minutes for your presentation. I am sure that you have seen the little card that will be used to advise you that you do not have much time left.

Mrs. Cardinal, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Linda Cardinal, Emeritus Professor, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Distinguished members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, distinguished guests and colleagues, good afternoon.

By way of introduction, I would like to point out that, in my area of research, namely language policy, education is a favourite topic of research for many scholars, both in Canada and around the world. Education in the minority language is also a right that minorities hold very dear. It is through that education that a major part of the production and the reproduction of a minority environment reveals itself, its identity, its aspirations and its prospects for development.

The Université de Moncton is a good example of a university that participates fully in the development of its community. We can also mention the Université Sainte‑Anne, in Nova Scotia, the Université de Saint‑Boniface, in Manitoba, and the Université de Hearst, whose Rector has just spoken to us. With the same hope, we anticipate that the Université de l'Ontario français will play the same role.

We must also remember the key role played in the development of French-speaking communities by francophone colleges all over Canada, but particularly in New Brunswick and Ontario. An important issue was also raised in connection with higher education in French, namely governance by and for francophones. Without doubt, that type of governance distinguishes most of our institutions.

Other institutions have chosen to find a home in major universities, such as the Campus Saint‑Jean at the University of Alberta, the Dominican University College at Carleton University and the Bureau des affaires francophones et francophiles at Simon Fraser University. Finally, we have the University of Ottawa and the Université Saint‑Paul, which have chosen institutional bilingualism. In general, we are currently talking about governance by and for francophones. That is the preferred choice of the major educational institutions in the Canadian francophonie.

In my comments today, I would like to review with you the ways in which that governance is achieved, in order to ensure that Canada's institutions of higher learning in French can take more control over their development. I also have a recommendation to bring to your attention, namely that the Government of Canada adopt a policy to support post-secondary institutions in minority situations, pursuant to part VII of the Official Languages Act.

I will use the rest of my presentation to explain that policy to you.

First, I would like to say a few words about our context today. In this context, the players are aligned in such a way as to embrace the official languages as the result of a realization of the difficult situation of French, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, particularly during the pandemic. Furthermore, federal and provincial elections are on the horizon and certain demanding financial issues threaten to dampen our ardour. However, a major movement to modernize the Official Languages Act has been gathering momentum for four years, and the document entitled “English and French: towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada” has recently been published. Those are major factors that must be emphasized.

We could also add the historic coming together of francophones in Quebec and Canada, the Government of Quebec's forthcoming adoption of a policy supporting the Canadian francophonie, the Sommet sur le rapprochement des francophonies canadiennes, which will take place next week, and Bill 96, that seeks to modernize Bill 101. As we can see, many courses of action are available.

The Government of Canada and the French-speaking minorities agree that recognizing the principle of substantive equality must guide the renewal of and the progress towards the equality of French and English. There is no need for me to tell you how important this principle of equality is, because you have been talking about it previously. Undeniably, it applies to higher education in French in this country. I would put the University of Ottawa in a category by itself by virtue of its size. But, in general, all of the French-language higher education institutions in Canada, outside Quebec, have no more than 3,500 students. That gives rise to major financial issues. The University of Ottawa, in fact, is a member of the Group of Canadian Research Universities, the U15. When it talks about its financial problems, it's talking about problems that are not at all the same as those in other institutions.

As I have a minute left—

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Actually, you have 15 seconds left.

[Linda Cardinal]

So here's what you will be asking me about.

The policy I am proposing has three components. The first is the basis for the policy, because a public policy comes in three parts: the vision or the basis, the policy instruments, and the target population. The basis is to fundamentally recognize the key role of universities and institutions of higher learning in the development of communities. A policy would be built on that approach.

I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mrs. Cardinal. We will certainly have questions for you in the next hour.

We now move to Daniel Giroux, from the Collège Boréal.

Mr. Giroux, you have five minutes for your presentation.

[Daniel Giroux, President, Collège Boréal]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to send my regards to Marie‑France Lalonde and Paul Lefebvre, who are old friends of the Collège Boréal.

Ontario has 24 public colleges. Only two of the colleges are francophone and the Collège Boréal is one of those two. The Collège Boréal has 38 access centres, located in 26 communities all over Ontario, from Windsor to the small community of Hearst, about which you heard a presentation earlier. So we cover a huge territory. Each year, we receive a report that measures five areas: student satisfaction, graduate satisfaction, satisfaction on the part of the employers who hire our students, graduation rate, and employment rate in the students' field after they graduate. Those are our five performance indicators.

Ontario's 24 public colleges have been receiving that report for 21 years. For 19 of those 21 years, the Collège Boréal's report has shown it to be the best among Ontario's 24 colleges. For such a small institution, that is incredible. It demonstrates the power of the francophonie.

I want to bring up two points about the Collège Boréal. The first is about the scholarships that make it possible to study in French. Some were designed for immersion programs in anglophone school boards. The main campus of the Collège Boréal is here in Sudbury, as is an anglophone college. Francophone school boards are still losing students. In fact, 50% of them still choose to study at the anglophone college, in programs that the Collège Boréal also offers.

Let me give you an example. A number of years ago, I registered in a commerce program at Laurentian University. I had the choice of studying in French or in English. At the time, I was 18 years old and I did not recognize the importance of continuing my studies in French. What encouraged me to do so was the scholarship for French-language studies. When I graduated at the age of 22, I really did recognize the extent to which those studies had opened doors for me, in terms of culture, mastery of the language and career possibilities.

At 18, students are bilingual. They can choose to study in French or in English. We can make that choice easier for them. Scholarships for French-language studies, which no longer exist, would be absolutely critical. Some institutions can afford them, but the small ones cannot. This is my first recommendation. In my day, in 1988, the scholarship was $1,000. A scholarship to study in French, at a cost of less than $3,000, would really change things for francophone school boards.

The second point is about core funding. By that, I am referring to the Official Languages in Education Program, the OLEP. We have been receiving exactly the same amount of funding since 2003. That is to say that, 18 years later, given a cumulative inflation rate of 2%, the funding we receive is practically 45% less than we received in 2003. Some catch-up is therefore needed in terms of core funding. I am not talking about targeted funding, but about the core funding that allows us to become organized, to make preparations and to structure good programs. Funding is absolutely critical. Core funding, the OLEP, must, at a minimum, be increased to match the inflation rate.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Giroux.

I believe that all members of the committee and everyone involved were able to see how proud you are of the Collège Boréal.

We now move to François Hastir, from the Regroupement étudiant franco-ontarien.

Mr. Hastir, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[François Hastir, Chartered Administrator and Executive Director, Regroupement étudiant franco-ontarien]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I would like to thank you for inviting us before you today to represent francophone students.

The Regroupement étudiant franco-ontarien, or RÉFO, is the voice of the more than 22,000 francophone students registered in one of Ontario's French-language and bilingual post-secondary education institutions. Our organization was founded in 2009 as a direct reaction to the problems of assimilation in bilingual institutions. You will understand, therefore, that I will be talking a lot about that subject today.

Last February, Laurentian University announced that it was seeking protection from its creditors under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the CCAA, an act designed for private companies. It subsequently abolished 28 programs in French, laid off 100 or so professors and staff members, and terminated its agreements with its affiliated universities.

Laurentian University stated before this committee that only 10% of students would be directly affected by the cuts that have been announced. Our organization does not share this view and, in that context, I would like to tell you about our former president, Marie‑Pierre Héroux.

Marie-Pierre has been a committed student since high school and is in her final year of the history and French studies programs. Originally from Eastern Ontario, she chose Laurentian University because of its bilingual model and, over the years, she has developed a deep attachment to the community of Sudbury.

Unfortunately, the two programs in which Marie-Pierre was a student were abolished. All the professors she had since she entered university were laid off. The French-speaking residence in which she lived also shut its doors. In her own words, all the reference points that she had created for herself in her university experience disappeared overnight.

However, Marie-Pierre received confirmation from Laurentian University that she will be able to earn the remaining credits she needs from a very limited selection of courses, the number and content of which are still unknown. In the eyes of Laurentian University, therefore, she is not considered to be a student directly affected by the cuts. However, let me ask you, as Canadians, as former students and as parents; do you really consider that Marie-Pierre is not suffering any direct consequences from those cuts?

Does the very question not answer itself?

Today, Marie-Pierre is looking at transferring to Ottawa and leaving a region where she might well have made a life for herself. She feels significantly insecure as to how her studies will continue and as to the value of her future degree. Unfortunately, Marie-Pierre's story is not unique and shows the limits of bilingual educational institutions. This is because not only is French-language programming still not a priority for those institutions, but also because bilingual status for them means that a number of programs are under the direction of those from the majority community, who are not equipped to understand the complexity of francophone realities.

The culture in these universities tends to analyze the obsolescence of course offerings using criteria such as the number of registrations, the economic benefit and the costs of maintaining them. Although those criteria are important, they do not assess the real contribution of those courses to the cultural and linguistic vitality of francophones or their role in combatting exodus and assimilation. Thus, a number of the now-abolished programs were essential in creating initiatives and organizations that are vital for the Franco-Ontarian community.

Finally, although the bilingual educational institutions offer courses in French, they provide a university life and a campus where most activities take place in English. For the students, this contributes directly to assimilation. It is therefore critical for the federal government to work hand-in-hand with the province to ensure the development of independent university institutions run by, for and with Ontario's francophone communities and students.

It is also crucial for the federal government to ensure that a situation like the one at Laurentian University does not happen again. To do so, it can act on three fronts.

On the legal front, the government can pass legislation preventing other public educational institutions from seeking protection under the CCAA. It can also ensure that the redrafted Official Languages Act better defines the obligations of institutions that receive funds from the OLEP or from programs designed for OLMCs.

On the financial front, the government must demand better accountability for the transfers from the OLEP. Specifically, it must ensure that the money provided is not spent on purposes other than those set out in the program and the roadmap. We also suggest a specific envelope in that agreement for francophone organizations working in education. That envelope would allow them to increase the scope of their initiatives to combat assimilation, to strengthen francophone cultural identity among the students, and to provide more data-gathering tools in order to assess the linguistic vitality on bilingual campuses.

Finally, to deal with the specific situation at Laurentian University, we ask for a financial support program to be established with the province as soon as possible, so as to put a hold on the courses and programs provided at Laurentian University and to financially support the transfer of those programs, courses and resources to the Université de Sudbury, an entirely francophone institution.

The RÉFO will submit a brief to you, following up on today's appearance and addressing the topics discussed in greater depth.

Thank you for your attention.

I will be glad to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hastir.

We now move to the time for questions. Let me advise members of the committee that the first round of questions will be for six minutes and the second round will be shorter.

Mr. Dalton, you now have the floor for six minutes.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you.

My thanks to all the witnesses for their testimony. Their passion for the issue is very clear.

Last week, we were told that, in 1982, when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was created, 37% of secondary students continued to post-secondary level. Today, that figure is 72%. Many more secondary students are continuing their studies to post-secondary level.

However, the Charter protects the language rights of students at secondary level, but not those of students at post-secondary level. This is a problem that concerns us all.

Could you tell us more about the vitality of the communities and the number of registrations in francophone post-secondary institutions in Ontario? Last Tuesday, we heard from representatives of the Campus Saint‑Jean and they reported an increase. Has there been a drop, is it stable or has there been an increase?

Mrs. Cardinal, do you have any comments on the subject?

[Linda Cardinal]

Thank you for the question.

Ontario has seen a major recovery in terms of education in French. However, more remains to be done. When we lose an institution like Laurentian University and there is no way of replacing it, we would expect an institution for francophones to be established elsewhere, in Sudbury for example, where one is run by and for francophones. Access to education in French may well decrease.

At the University of Ottawa, about 15,000 francophone students succeed in reaching higher education, although, we agree, it is not always in French. However, the University offers a range of programs in French and we have just established a new undergraduate program in pharmacy.

But it is an ongoing problem. In Ontario, access to advanced studies is critical as a result of Regulation 17, as Mr. Poirier was saying. The problem exists all over the country, specifically in New Brunswick and Quebec. Francophones have some historical catching-up to do in terms of higher education. The situation remains fragile. We can see that access to post-secondary studies in French could very easily decline.

This requires constant action from governments, specifically provincial governments, because, as we know, higher education is in provincial jurisdiction. So it is tricky for the federal government to become involved. However, some provinces have to recognize their role in funding higher education in French.

The federal government has a role to play, which is why I proposed a policy to you earlier. Institutions in minority situations have one very important feature that is not found elsewhere. This is the role that these institutions play in the enhancement and the vitality of the communities. These universities and colleges have become the new cultural centres in the Canadian francophonie. The institutions are central to the arrival of immigrants and to relationships with employers.

Today, universities in minority situations are not simply religious colleges providing programs in canon law. Now, those universities offer a range of professional programs. We want young people to learn that vocabulary in French, so that they are then able to train the middle class in their fields.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

I hope you don't mind if I interrupt you. Thank you very much for your comment.

Mr. Giroux, you mentioned that federal funding has not increased since 2003. We have heard that from other participants. It is frustrating. It gives me the impression that the federal government lacks both vision and effort when it comes to Canada's francophone minorities. You talked about various ways of helping them. Specifically, you mentioned scholarships and core funding, and we have heard that from other witnesses as well.

We sometimes hear that, if the province gives $4 million to the Campus Saint‑Jean, for example, there is an expectation that the feds will also give $4 million.

Do you feel that the federal funding contribution should be separated from the provincial contribution?

If not, do you have any other comments on the subject?

[Daniel Giroux]

Thank you very much.

I am also an accountant by profession, and there is no doubt that the more direct transfers we receive from our partners, the better off we are.

We have other agreements, for research specifically, under which we receive direct funding from the federal level. By the same principle, I believe that it could come directly from the federal level. The same goes for scholarships. We work directly with our partners at federal level on other initiatives, such as with anglophone school boards wanting to establish French immersion programs.

I feel that it can be worked on in a number of ways in order to provide direct funding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Giroux and Mr. Dalton.

Mrs. Lalonde, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

I have several questions and I'm going to start with Mrs. Cardinal.

Mrs. Cardinal, thank you very much for joining us today.

At the moment, what are the federal government's obligations under part VII of the Official Languages Act?

[Linda Cardinal]

Its obligation is to commit to enhancing the vitality and development of official language minority communities. That is its key obligation and, under part VII, it must also take positive measures in that regard. For example, the funding in the Action Plan for Official Languages 2018-2023 is a positive measure through which it can fulfill that obligation.

We might consider that its commitment to higher education falls under part VII of the act. This is because funding, either core funding or specific funding, is a positive measure used to fulfill its obligations to the official languages.

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

Is it written exactly like that, or is that an interpretation of the federal government's obligation in terms of post-secondary education under part VII of the act?

[Linda Cardinal]

I feel that part VII is important because the commitment to enhancing the vitality and development of official language minority communities may include funding a community centre, but it can also include funding research programs in a university. The federal government is very involved in research.

The federal government cannot be asked to accredit training programs for paramedics or social service workers, because those are in provincial jurisdiction. However, by supporting higher education, it can be involved in a whole range of areas, because doing so is a positive measure.