Official Languages Committee on Nov. 18th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 10 of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f) and the motion adopted by the committee on September 25, 2025, the committee is meeting today to continue its study on the continuum of education in the minority language.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses we have here for the first hour of the meeting.

We have Ali Chaisson and Nicole Arseneau‑Sluyter, executive director and president of the Acadian Society of New Brunswick, respectively, as well as Marie‑Anne Alepin, general president of the Société Saint‑Jean‑Baptiste de Montréal.

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

Mr. Chair, before we begin the opening remarks, I have a point of order regarding procedure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

You have the floor, Mr. Godin.

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

I apologize to the witnesses for taking the floor.

Mr. Chair, I'm a bit surprised at the meeting timelines. I don't want to blame anyone, but I learned yesterday morning, at a meeting with an organization, that it was coming to testify on Thursday as part of the study stemming from the adopted motion on the Prime Minister's French, which had been proposed under Standing Order 106(4).

I don't think it's normal for us, as parliamentarians, to get that information from the witness himself. He was invited last week, but it was when he was in my office on Monday morning that he informed me that we were going to see each other again on Thursday.

I would like us to readjust the procedure. The witnesses today were probably informed that they were coming long before we were. For our part, we were informed late Friday afternoon of the identity of the witnesses here today, that is, Tuesday.

To do a good job, we have to be informed in advance. I understand that sometimes some of the witnesses haven't confirmed whether they'll appear. In that case, it makes perfect sense not to inform us, for logistical reasons. However, can we be informed of any confirmed attendance and receive updates as new witnesses confirm that they're coming?

That's the first point I wanted to raise. I would like to raise one more. Do you want to answer that first question, or can I speak to the second one right away?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

I can answer that first question.

The clerk is doing her best to invite the witnesses and confirm their attendance. Once all the witnesses invited to a meeting have confirmed that they will appear, she can send the members the notice of meeting, which includes the list of witnesses who will be present. There's obviously a delay between the time the clerk confirms a witness's appearance and the time the notice is sent out, but that generally isn't very long. However, it may have taken a little longer in this case.

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

I've experienced it, and I want to share my experience. The goal isn't to target people who may not have done their job well. In other words, I don't want to attack the clerk about her work. I just want measures to be taken from now on so that we're informed as soon as possible about the confirmed witnesses and so that we can properly prepare and do excellent work for official languages.

The case I'm submitting to you is very clear: I met with this person in my office on Monday morning at 10 a.m., and it was on Monday afternoon at 1 p.m. that we received the notice of meeting for Thursday. Since this is a very sensitive file, I wondered whether anyone in management was withholding information.

I would like to ask that we be informed as soon as possible. The person who came into my office on Monday morning had received the invitation on the previous Thursday or Friday. That means we lost the opportunity to use the weekend to prepare. I understand that we don't work 24 hours a day, but if we want to be better parliamentarians and do a thorough job, we have to be informed about the witnesses who have confirmed their attendance. It isn't normal for one of the witnesses to tell me that the committee will be starting a new study on Thursday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

I will speak with the clerk at the end of the meeting to see if we can do something to inform the members more quickly. That said, I think efforts are already being made to do so as quickly as possible. As I said, there's obviously a delay of a few hours, and sometimes members are informed the day after the confirmation of a witness's appearance. I'll see if there's a way to do it more quickly, Mr. Godin.

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

Mr. Chair, I don't understand why you're giving me that answer. The witnesses were invited last Thursday or Friday, and I received the notice of meeting on Monday afternoon. I just happened to meet with a representative of that organization right before that. As a parliamentarian, I was in a privileged position compared with the other people around the table, since I had information that no one else had.

In short, we can do better. I ask that we be informed as soon as you have the information so that we can do our job properly. I'm asking for the sake of the work and for the sake of all the committee members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Mr. Beaulieu, the floor is yours.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I'll be very quick.

I think it happens quite often that the clerk invites witnesses and they decline the invitation, which complicates things quite a bit. We often call or contact her, and she tells us roughly where things stand. I understand that it's sometimes difficult to predict. For example, on Thursday, one of the witnesses I had proposed to invite initially refused, and then there was talk of possibly postponing their appearance.

You could send us information telling us that you're trying to invite witnesses. I'm aware that this would complicate your work. In any case, we'll see what can be done. I understand that it's difficult. That said, if we had decided on the studies more in advance, it would be easier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, to add to that, I would say that my goal isn't to accuse anyone, but I find it unacceptable for a witness to inform me of what's going to be on the committee's agenda on Thursday. I just want us to find a solution.

Notices of meeting have been amended in the past. One option would be to send us the notice as soon as there is confirmation, even if it means making changes afterward. We understand that, for a variety of reasons, each individual's schedule can change. In this case, though, nothing changed between the time the invitation was issued on Thursday or Friday—I don't have the exact date, but I could find it—and the time the notice of meeting was sent out on Monday afternoon. The witness had confirmed their attendance. We could have received the notice on Friday, which would have given us more time to prepare.

This is an important situation to consider. I appreciate your responsiveness, Mr. Chair. I hope that we will find more effective ways to be better informed in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

I'll confer with the clerk on that.

Mr. Godin, I know you wanted to raise a second point, but I'm aware that we have witnesses before us. As I said five or 10 minutes ago, I will be happy to work with the clerk to find a faster way to inform committee members. I hesitate to get into the details of the process right now, given that we have witnesses waiting for us.

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

Thank you for your responsiveness. Let us help each other be more effective and better informed.

The other thing I wanted to point out is simply that I sent a notice of motion. I can't discuss the motion today, because of the 48‑hour deadline, but the notice of motion will be distributed by the clerk within the next few hours, if it hasn't already been done, for us to discuss it next Thursday. Perhaps it should be added to the committee's agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Let us get back to the witnesses now.

I would like to welcome the witnesses. Each organization will have five minutes for their opening remarks. We will then move on to a question and answer period with committee members.

Ms. Arseneau‑Sluyter, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Nicole Arseneau-Sluyter, President, Acadian Society of New Brunswick]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, it is a privilege to be here to talk about the continuum of education, from early childhood to the post-secondary level.

For a long time, discussions pertaining to education took place mainly between the federal government and the provinces. In 1982, new players came onto the scene: school boards. They are often the only real place where our communities can truly have our voices heard. However, no francophone school board in the country is currently able to fully educate all its rights holders.

Let’s be honest: Everything starts in early childhood. That’s the key. We need more spots allocated to francophone services, better access to said services and better-paid, better-trained staff. Without these things, we’ll never make it.

I would like to talk to you about a situation I experienced back home in Saint-Jean. Nearly 1,000 rights holders do not have access to a spot in a French school. Because of a lack of spots and schools, these children are only integrated into the system gradually. That’s the sad state of affairs. That’s what I’m seeing, what I’m hearing, what I’m experiencing and what people are talking to me about. That’s where we’re at and it’s real.

When schools can’t accommodate their own rights holders, it jeopardizes our linguistic identity. The Acadian Society of New Brunswick, or SANB, is convinced that in order to preserve our identity, anything to do with early childhood must include the federal government, the province and the community. The community has to be at the table. That’s the key to attaining substantive equality.

The evolution of French-language education in New Brunswick and Canada has met many challenges and struggles. In 2025, we still have to fight for the very existence of our francophone schools. Today, New Brunswick’s Education Act has no constitutional basis. That is why the SANB is advocating for full school management, a model that would allow our communities, particularly elected school boards, to manage and control both the schools and the programs offered therein.

Francophone post-secondary institutions in minority communities across the country remain fragile. They are young and are still struggling to compete with the majority’s large institutions. This is the result of a history in which our communities have been pushed towards assimilation. This fragility makes it even more difficult to remedy the historical injustices weighing on our thriving communities.

When Father Clément Cormier and his collaborators founded an Acadian university, no one could have imagined that a simple constitutional amendment in 1982 would change our reality so much. This university, centred on the New Brunswick community, was created to train generations of Acadians. Let’s not forget that, in 1963, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not exist, nor did French immersion. Most francophone school boards in Canada had not even seen the light of day.

So how can we expect an Acadian institution to meet the growing demand for francophone schools across Canada? This reality puts enormous pressure on the training of teachers who will be working in our Acadian schools.

The numbers are a testament to this situation. While the major universities in the province have hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and donations, the Université de Moncton, our Acadian university, has much less. This confirms one thing: It will continue to depend financially on the government.

That’s why our first recommendation is to strengthen accountability for early childhood education, so that francophone day cares actually receive the funds earmarked for them.

Second, school boards must be allowed to negotiate directly with the federal government, since large sums are absorbed by provincial governments and do not reach those in need.

Third, ensuring predictable post-secondary funding is essential to the emancipation and future of our institutions.

I appeal to you, distinguished members of the committee: Let us work together. We ask you to act, co-operate and commit yourselves alongside us.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you very much, Ms. Arseneau‑Sluyter.

I’ll now yield the floor to Ms. Alepin for five minutes.

[Marie-Anne Alepin, General President, Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Honourable members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to take part in these consultations.

Our organization was founded in Lower Canada in 1834 to defend the French language and democracy. At the time, we were fighting with patriots against British repression. As you know, other Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, or SSJB, chapters sprang up just about everywhere in Canada in the 19th and 20th centuries. They played a central role in all of Quebec’s and French Canadians’ language battles.

The SSJB has always been close to francophone communities outside Quebec and has supported their fight and taken part in their large mobilizations and protests. Specifically, I am referring to mobilizations and protests against regulation 17 in Ontario and against the closure of Franco-Saskatchewanian and Acadian schools.

Although anglophones have a numerical minority in Quebec, they are part of the majority of Canadians that elect the federal government, which has predominant power to legislate and spend public funds. They have enjoyed broad privileges since British and English Canadian colonialism.

After the conquest, British authorities were quick to recognize that asserting discipline and assimilating the Canadian population into the empire would require establishing control over the education system. From 1766, British authorities inaugurated some 30 or so English-language schools in major urban centres in Quebec, even as French-language schools experienced a marked decline. Starting in 1790, there was approximately one school for every 588 anglophone residents, compared to just one for every 4,000 francophone residents.

In 1801, in Lower Canada, the governor adopted the law creating the Royal Institution for the Advancement of Learning, the official name of today’s McGill University, which established royal schools in rural communities to provide English-language instruction.

By 1828, more than 90% of children did not have access to schooling for lack of money in their parish of residence. The Patriote Party members of parliament, together with Louis‑Joseph Papineau, decided to rectify the deplorable situation and passed the Loi des écoles de syndics. However, in 1836, the British governor vetoed the renewal of this law and as a result, over 70% of the 1,462 existing schools were forced to close. The Province of Lower Canada did not have any school structures for more than six years. English-speaking Lower Canadians already had five institutes of higher education, but there were none for francophone Canadians. Université Laval in Quebec City was only established in 1852.

In English-speaking Canada, the regime established by the Constitution Act, 1867, was characterized by a kind of anti-francophone paranoia fuelled by the Orange movement and the Ku Klux Klan. Language laws prohibiting the teaching of French and its use in parliamentary practice were in force across all provinces that are now majority anglophone. Members would be familiar with the laws from that era, including the Tupper Law in Nova Scotia, the George King Schools Act in New Brunswick, regulation 17 in Ontario, and so forth. While these laws did not apply in Quebec, French-language education was largely underfunded, as it is today. There was practically no French-language instruction until 1875.

In light of this historical context, the implementation of the Official Languages Act in 1969 and the official languages in education program, or OLEP, in 1970 appears even more disparaging and disrespectful towards Quebec. Instead of repairing the harms caused by 200 years of underfunding a French-language education system in Quebec, the government of the Canadian majority chose to impose a program designed to perpetuate the preferential financing of the English-language education system and English as a second language for all Quebeckers. To this day, the continuum of education in English in Quebec is more reflective of this majority aspect.

In closing, while the federal government’s modernized Official Languages Act has recognized, as you all have, the decline of French and its minority status even in Quebec, and despite the fact that Ottawa should also be defending and promoting French, nothing has changed. Federal funding for official languages in Quebec is entirely allocated to the development of English-speaking communities and to promoting English. Specifically, the official languages in education program is almost exclusively earmarked for the anglophone education system and English as a second language.

The Société Saint‑Jean‑Baptiste de Montréal has been defending French in Quebec for 200 years and has never received a penny from Canada to support French. We are only participating in these consultations to deliver the message that if your actions hinder the protection of the French language in Quebec, you risk writing yet another dark chapter in our history. You’re familiar with this history and so you’re accountable. You have the power to change the trend.

However, in our opinion at Société Saint‑Jean‑Baptiste de Montréal, right now, the only way for us to ensure the viability of the French language on North American soil—and this will come as no great surprise—is for francophone Quebec to become a country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

Thank you, Ms. Alepin.

We are now going into members’ question time.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies, your testimony radiates passion, and that’s inspiring. We bring this kind of passion to our committee, but you no doubt exemplify it daily in your environment.

My first question is for Ms. Arseneau‑Sluyter.

Based on what you have said, there is an unfortunate lack of clear accountability in the area of early childhood. Can you tell us more about that?

[Nicole Arseneau-Sluyter]

I’ll refer that question to Mr. Chaisson.

[Ali Chaisson, Executive Director, Acadian Society of New Brunswick]

Thank you for that question, Mr. Godin.

I think the time has come to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

I’m sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Chaisson, but we can’t hear you clearly. I’ve stopped the clock. Please give us a couple of minutes to resolve the technical issue and we’ll get back to you.

I hereby suspend the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yvan Baker]

I call the meeting back to order.

Mr. Godin, you used 40 seconds of your speaking time.

We’ll go back to you, Mr. Chaisson.

[Ali Chaisson]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the question, Mr. Godin.

For many years, the primary concern has been the way funding flows from Ottawa to the provinces and especially how it reaches these provinces’ current accounts. We could give you all sorts of examples where the amounts allocated by Ottawa don’t align with what actually makes it to communities and particularly to French-language school boards.

For example, there have been instances where the provinces have used the monies allocated by the federal government through the official languages in education program, OLEP, to fund expenditures that would ordinarily fall under provincial jurisdiction. For example, if an English-language school board has a computer specialist, it goes without saying that the French-language school board would similarly be entitled to have a computer specialist paid for with taxpayer dollars. There are many examples of this type of situation.

I have a feeling that early childhood education is the next area where we are going to run into problems. I’m not sure we’ll have the ability to keep track of these millions of dollars from the federal government meant to fund day care spaces and that the amount from Ottawa will align with the amount that actually makes its way to day cares and early childhood centres. As such—