Good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation.
Do we really know if the official languages policy is successful? If so, why is it successful, and how successful is it? Can we prove it?
What if we could prove that the presence of a school could guarantee that an official-language minority community could survive 80 years and that the absence of a school would lead to its disappearance in 40 years? Would we fund early childhood development and employability differently if we knew that the former contributed 10 times more than the latter to OLMC vitality? If we could prove that education is the most important tool to ensure vitality, should we not fund it adequately before spending elsewhere? If so, would parliamentarians accept modifying public spending accordingly? Would governments stand firm against vested-interest groups?
I don't know, but it behooves parliamentarians to assess the results of public policies, programs and investments in official languages. This is required to enhance effectiveness and efficiency, as well as democratic accountability.
To perform such an assessment, we must first set precise ends to achieve. Are they equality, equivalence, progression and vitality? They've all been used, and they all pose challenges.
I propose sustainability. It is more aspirational and measurable, and it is better aligned with the theory of being, which best reflects OLMC reality. Regardless of which end is chosen, we must identify all potential interventions and especially determine the relative importance of each one. Education and early childhood development are the sectors most worthy of public support. They should thus be funded accordingly. This core business presently receives most of the funds on official languages, but perhaps it should be funded even more and, if required, at the expense of other sectors.
After identifying specific ends and the best means to such ends, we must adopt a coherent national tripartite strategic plan in minority education—a plan to ensure that minority school boards achieve their double mandate; a plan that is strategic, which means that evidence-based priorities come first; a plan that is coherent, so investments are set to maximize results; a plan that integrates and synergizes federal, provincial, territorial and community actions; a plan that frames actions longer than five years; and a plan that assesses and updates the means. Many such plans already exist, so there's no need to start from scratch. However, they must be revised in light of the long-term ends and through the lens of the minority.
Since your mandate is to study the first-language education continuum in OLMCs and report your findings and your recommendations to the House, I tried to put myself in your shoes. I wrote my thoughts as findings and recommendations for your consideration.
In addition to the adoption and full implementation of a coherent national minority language education plan, I submit five additional recommendations: Education must be recognized and prioritized as the most important public service in support of the intergenerational transmission of language and culture. Minority families must be supported in their efforts to transmit the language and culture to their children, notably during early childhood and the school years. Minority early childhood centres and day cares must be supported in a manner proportional to their importance, similar to our support for minority schools. Minority school boards must be supported and assessed in their efforts to enhance students' identity construction and in their community sustainability. Finally, minority school boards must be granted the exclusive educational powers indicated by section 23 and be supported to ensure that they are fully implemented.
In short, if we don't ensure the success of the minority language education and early childhood systems—the core business—all other actions will be for naught.
Thank you for your attention. I will try my best to answer your questions.