Official Languages Committee on Feb. 7th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We'll come back to that later, Mr. Beaulieu. Your time is up.

The next questioner is Ms. Ashton, for two and a half minutes.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Brouillette, if I understand you correctly, there are problems with the $121 million budget allocation over three years. First, it's non-recurring, and second, you need to match amounts to access the funding. So the establishments struggling most will not be able to use this assistance.

These issues can be found across the federal government. Project-based funding is very touchy in general, especially for institutions that have a public mandate and need funding to carry it out.

Did I understand you correctly?

Do you have any further comments on this?

[Lynn Brouillette]

That pretty much sums up what I said.

The problem is often about matching the funding. Sometimes it happens, but generally, from what our members have told me, the provinces do not necessarily match funding. They have to take money that is already being used for something else, for example to cover operating costs. The project then doesn't turn out the way the establishment wants.

I do not know if there were other aspects to your question. Perhaps my colleague Mr. Normand can add something.

[Martin Normand]

To come back to the question of leverage that was raised earlier, because you appear to be moving a little towards that, Ms. Ashton, in some cases the opportunity to match can be leveraged, but as Ms. Brouillette said, sometimes provinces ask establishments to go get their matching funds from somewhere else other than new funds for their project.

Then you end up with one-off projects that are not renewable and are only partially rather than fully funded. Establishments then tread water, that is, they repeatedly apply for funding for one-off projects rather than getting the core funding they need to fulfill their mission of supporting community development.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you for clearing that up.

In your opinion, do changes need to happen as soon as possible?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Perhaps we can back to your question later.

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also like to thank all the witnesses for being with us today.

On that same note, I find it unfortunate that one-off non-recurring projects are only funded at 50%. If these projects under provincial jurisdiction became renewable and were funded year after year, I tend to think that the province would ask the federal government to simply send them the money. The provinces could then use those funds as they see fit, with no further accountability if that money is invested in promoting French in other provinces.

Is it the federal-provincial education agreement that's keeping us from having recurring rather than one-off projects?

If anyone can shed some light on this, I will be happy to hear it.

[Lynn Brouillette]

I will say a few things in response and then give the floor to my colleague if he has anything to add.

In my opinion, yes, these agreements do need to be reviewed. I am talking about the federal-provincial OLEP agreements. As mentioned earlier, it's really about the funding mechanism. I believe there are solutions and we can reach the objective, which is stabilization. In fact, we want to do much more than stabilize. We want to establish a broader program base in our establishments.

So we will have to agree to revisit this agreement and how things work between the federal and provincial governments so that we can reinforce our members' capacities. We're talking about core funding here.

I'm going to share some numbers with you. Our establishments offer a total of about 1,200 college and university training programs. However, that's equivalent to only about 10% of the programs being offered in English. You can see that there's a very wide gap. We talk about real quality, in particular, but clearly we are nowhere near that.

Of course, we can't offer the same number of programs as they do in English. We talk about our establishments' capacity to accommodate francophones, but to make it easier for them to do that, we need to offer a wider range of interesting programs.

So, we will need to do some groundwork involving both levels of government to support our institutions. They want to enhance and build their capacity and then introduce programs that will be supported by the provinces.

Mr. Normand, would you like to add anything?

[Martin Normand]

Thank you, no.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Lepage, would you like to add something?

[Roger Lepage]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

In my view, one of the gaps is that federal government partially funds construction of new schools, for example, but under the Constitution, that area is a provincial jurisdiction. Subsequently, the francophone minority inherits the responsibility of playing the middleman between the two levels of government to ensure that they both contribute to completing a project.

I suggest that when the federal government wants to step in where education is concerned, it should meet with provincial representatives. They can then work out a comprehensive 10- to 20‑year agreement for building schools so that the wrongs of the past can be corrected. A small minority must not be forced to inherit the job of liaison between the federal government and the provinces. We have neither the energy nor the skills to do it.

I would like to see the federal government take a leadership role here. That would involve a full assessment of how many schools would be needed within 20 years. If the federal government works with the provinces and they have a 20‑year agreement to build schools in all the provinces, we won't have to go to court every time to make our case. It's not our job to be the middleman between the federal and provincial governments.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Lepage.

That's all the time we have to address this issue.

Mr. Iacono, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses here with us today.

Ms. Brouillette, what can the federal government do to support post-secondary education in a minority language without infringing on provincial jurisdiction?

[Lynn Brouillette]

That's an excellent question.

I will let my colleague Martin Normand answer it.

[Martin Normand]

Thank you.

Of course, we understand that post-secondary education is a provincial jurisdiction, but the fact remains that the federal government has set goals in terms of demographics, community development and welcoming immigrants. Our establishments have a crucial role to play in some of these areas. For example, to support second-language acquisition, our institutions offer post-secondary immersion programs or they welcome many immersion students who want to acquire technical and professional language skills in French.

Where immigration is concerned, our institutions welcome many international students, and they often apply for permanent residency, which can help the federal government meet its francophone immigration targets, for example. Many of our institutions' mandates are aligned with the federal government's self-imposed responsibilities to promote and protect French.

By invoking part VII of the Official Languages Act, which sets out the federal government's obligations to enhance the vitality of French linguistic minority communities, we believe that the federal government can use its spending power to ensure that post-secondary institutions, which are essential pillars of these communities, have the funding they need to carry out the various missions that help the federal government achieve its own objectives on certain issues.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Normand.

Ms. Brouillette, bilingualism in schools can be a good tool for promoting French to young people in predominantly English-speaking provinces.

In your opinion, what can be done to encourage these young people to speak French outside school?

[Lynn Brouillette]

Thank you for the question. It's an excellent one.

Our college and university establishments train professionals for the labour market in a French linguistic minority context. College and university graduates usually have a solid command of both official languages. These individuals study in French, but they also know all the terminology in English, for example. They are being prepared for the workplace, which means being able to function in both official languages. The challenge is to support French more, because the minority setting affords fewer opportunities to speak French and perfect, or at least maintain, one's language skills.

That's why we were truly overjoyed with the concept of asymmetry put forward by Ms. Joly. We need more support for French in activities and workplaces. It's the reason why our colleges and universities are francophone living environments. That's very valuable and it turns our institutions into beacons that can help not only students, but also communities to protect their language.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

To your knowledge, what efforts are being made by learning centres or the provinces to attract francophone international students to francophone post-secondary institutions in predominantly English-speaking provinces?

[Lynn Brouillette]

I will let my colleague answer that question.

[Martin Normand]

Thank you.

Our establishments, or I should say our network of establishments, have been promoting study programs in French outside of Quebec at francophone establishments across Canada. The problem is, IRCC will often use intent to remain in Canada after one's studies as a reason to refuse a study permit application.

In addition, some feel that attending a francophone institution in a minority setting is not a credible pathway for these students. So, we need to do a great deal of coordination to align messages promoting studies in French to an international clientele.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Normand.

We will now begin the third round of questions. Times allotted will once again be five minutes or two and a half minutes, depending on the political party.

Our first questions will be from Marc Dalton, who is from Western Canada.

Mr. Dalton, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for their testimony, which is fascinating.

Last week, one of our witnesses spoke to the importance of the territoriality principle in protecting a language.

Mr. Lepage, earlier you said that the number of towns in Saskatchewan had gone from 80 to around 12. My family is from northern Alberta, which also has many towns, farms and large families. These days, families are not as big because fewer people are needed in the farming community than before.

More students want to learn French and continue to live in a francophone setting, but that's more in urban areas.

You've already mentioned this, but could you elaborate on the importance of protecting the language in educational institutions? I am not talking about churches and small committees, but educational institutions at various levels.

[Roger Lepage]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Dalton.

It's true that francophones in western Canada, especially, have become increasingly urbanized. As you said, there were large families and small farms, whereas now there are large farms and small families. Francophones had to move to the cities, where there wasn't the homogeneity to preserve the language. The only place left to preserve it was school, which is why the school became so important. It's the cornerstone of language preservation, as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada.

If there aren't any francophone educational institutions, from day care to post‑secondary, the French language is doomed in western Canada. The number of francophones is so small that the situation is becoming critical. That's why it's urgent to immediately build a complete network of francophone schools.

As the Supreme Court of Canada said in 2020, the fact that the assimilation rate is so high in British Columbia doesn't mean that we have to throw in the towel and say it's too late. On the contrary, we must work harder.

The situation is so critical for francophones outside Quebec that if the federal government, and the provinces and territories don't work together to sign a 20‑year agreement to build 100 schools, our language is doomed. Many of our schools are already overcrowded. In many villages or towns, there is only one French‑language school. Children in all households have to ride the bus for an hour and a half to get to school. This discourages parents, who move their children to the local school.

It has become very important that the provinces and the federal government to agree, in consultation with francophone communities, on where francophone schools or day care centres should be built, and how much money will be needed to do so within 20 years.

Right now, small francophone communities are left with the burden of demanding a school on their own. It's simply a waste of energy. Then, it's a matter of coordinating provincial funding with federal funding.

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

Let me add that the provinces, which pay teachers' salaries, are not really inclined to build schools for just a few students. It's really a big challenge. In British Columbia, for example, there's—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Dalton.