LANG Committee Meeting

    Welcome to the 34^th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, on this Thursday, March 29, 2012. Pursuant to Standing Order 108, today we are going to study the evaluation of the roadmap in order to improve programs and service delivery.

    This morning, we are first going to hear from Mr. Saint-Maurice and Mr. Lacombe, from the Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française, followed by Mr. Taillefer and Mr. Boudreau, from the Canadian Teachers' Federation.

    Welcome.

    We are going to start with the Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française.

    Mr. Chair, I would like to thank you for the invitation to appear before your committee this morning. It is a privilege for us, as representatives of the Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française, to be able to share our viewpoint with the members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

     The Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française (ACELF) has been around for 65 years now and has contributed to developing French-language education to maintain the vitality of francophone communities in Canada. The ACELF is a leader in bringing together stakeholders by encouraging dialogue and reflection on current issues in education, primarily through an annual convention and through the publication of a scientific journal called Éducation et francophonie. In addition, we are sensitive to the needs of education networks, and we are aware of the dual mandate of francophone schools in minority situations. We provide them with training activities and educational materials that are always on the cutting edge in areas involving francophone identity and the sense of belonging to a contemporary and inclusive francophonie.

    If you take a look at our association, you will see a Canada-wide network of members from all walks of life. We bring together stakeholders from all sectors in education, from early childhood to post-secondary education. These stakeholders work in educational institutions, for school boards, for associations, and with teacher and parent groups.

    To develop its guidelines, the ACELF also relies on a board of governors, which includes stakeholders elected from four Canadian regions—Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, and western Canada and the territories—and representatives from the 13 ministries of education of our Canadian provinces and territories. Those two features are unique to us in the world of French-language education; we have members across Canada, including Quebec, and representatives from each of the 13 ministries of education.

    In terms of funding from the federal government, our association receives substantial financial support from the Department of Canadian Heritage. And we are very grateful for that. First, this financial support enables us to organize a nationwide annual convention that brings together Canada's major players in French-language education. It is actually the largest multi-network meeting in Canada's francophone education community.

    This funding also enables us to offer continuing education to early childhood professional staff and to the staff of French-language schools in minority settings. Since implementing the internship program 25 years ago, 1,609 stakeholders have been able to benefit from it.

    In addition, this funding allows us to publish a journal specialized in French-language education.

    Furthermore, the funding helps us support young francophones aged 11 to 14 to participate in an exchange with young people from another francophone community in Canada. In over 25 years, almost 5,380 students have benefited from this cultural and educational experience.

    Lastly, this money allows us to develop educational materials for francophone schools, helping to build the francophone identity of young people and their sense of belonging.

    In terms of funding from the roadmap, the ACELF has not benefited from it directly. Actually, the grants we receive do not come directly from the roadmap budget. But, since almost 75% of our funding comes from programs under Canadian Heritage, we think we have some ideas on future priorities that may be of interest to you.

    As for a new federal official languages support strategy, the ACELF wishes to affirm its support for the community strategic plan developed under the leadership of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. The ACELF is a signatory to this leaders' forum and supports its implementation.

    But today, we would like to talk about what we know best, which is French-language education. So we would like to take this opportunity to tell you about some of the major issues that need to be considered in order to better support the education sector. I would also like to mention that these issues were formally identified by our network.

    The four issues that I am going to present to you already receive attention from our association, given that our three-year action plan for 2011-2014 includes many initiatives along those lines.

    The first issue has to do with developing early childhood resources and expanding family services. This challenge pertains not only to education, but also to the entire community and the organizations that provide services to the francophone population. Early childhood clientele must be at the heart of priorities in order to secure the long-term future of francophone communities. The recent study done by researcher Rodrigue Landry provides evidence to that end. The study “Petite enfance et autonomie culturelle” shows beyond any doubt that early childhood is the foundation for the vitality of a minority language. To achieve this, it is important to take action early on to develop a child's francophone identity. As a result, the actions taken by parents, institutions, the community and governments have to build on each other to advance towards the same goal. Appropriate resources and infrastructure must also be accessible.

    With its partners from the Table nationale en développement de la petite enfance francophone, the ACELF is already committed to making early childhood and family services a priority for action. In addition to the continued training offered annually to early childhood professional staff, the ACELF and its partners have developed a number of educational tools and have a host of other initiatives in mind for the coming years, including an interactive Internet site for exogamous families to help them develop their children's francophone identity.

    The second issue is to expand professional development that deals with the specific nature of teaching in minority settings. Teaching in French in a minority setting requires teachers to have specific skills. As we know, young people who live in francophone minority communities evolve in a physical, social, artistic and even virtual environment that is predominantly anglophone. So these young people don't have enough opportunities to live in French. As a result, teachers must come up with special strategies to overcome this challenge.

    Not only does the need for specific skills hold true for teaching school subjects, but it is even more true for developing the francophone identity of these young people, since, may I remind you, French-language schools in minority settings have a dual mandate. In addition to academic learning, schools must support identity building by encouraging young people to have a strong sense of belonging to their language and their francophone culture. In terms of this identity-building mandate, the initial training offered to teachers is still not sufficient. To improve this aspect of teacher training, some faculties of education have some very promising initiatives, but we must also think about continuing education for the approximately 13,500 teachers and 1,000 principals who work in our schools. It is important for them to have opportunities to hone their skills.

    Organizations like ours produce specialized educational materials for teaching in a minority setting. Although all the players in the education community recognize the quality of those materials, we don't have the tools we need to make all those resources known and to provide training.

    Furthermore, several nationwide training initiatives are being implemented. I have in mind two projects sponsored by the Council of Ministers of Education Canada (CMEC). First, the cultural approach to teaching will allow teachers to help young people discover important and meaningful aspects of the collective francophone culture, whatever the subject studied may be. There is also the online training project that was developed by the Fédération canadienne des enseignantes et des enseignants. And there is the Trousse du passeur culturel, for which training is still required.

    Those are just a few examples, but they clearly show that the movement to develop the skills of staff working in a minority setting is well under way. At the same time, they show that it is crucial to invest the funds needed to ensure that training for using those resources is available, depending on the various service delivery methods.

    The third issue involves developing cross-cultural skills among stakeholders and young people. Canada has always been a land of immigrants and, over the past few years, this phenomenon of enrichment has been growing. The arrival of this diversity has significantly marked most francophone communities and many of our schools. In order to foster an inclusive environment, it is important to develop cross-cultural skills among young people and stakeholders in school networks.

    By cross-cultural skills, we mean developing attitudes and skills that encourage the in-depth knowledge of one's culture and the culture of others, with a view to build a pluralistic and renewed collective francophone culture.

    The fourth issue has to do with promoting the personal development of young people so that they become more involved in the Canadian francophonie. As a result of a wide range of activities, many young people are already working towards developing their francophone community. In order to encourage all young people to become more involved, it is important to give them the opportunity to have various personal experiences that will help them to become more familiar with the various facets of our contemporary francophonie; understand the issues that affect the future of our francophonie; be able to have personal opinions on the issue and make decisions consistent with their opinions; get involved based on their interests and talents; and take action that will contribute to the well-being of other members in the community.

    Thank you, Mr. Saint-Maurice.

    Mr. Taillefer, the floor is yours.

    Good morning. Thank you very much. The Canadian Teachers' Federation (CTF) is pleased to respond to the invitation to present our testimony. Joining me today is Mr. Ronald Boudreau, our Director of Services to Francophones.

    At the outset, we wish to stress that we appreciate your open-mindedness in wanting to better understand the challenges surrounding the official languages, although it seems as if the whole exercise has gradually turned into a consultation process in view of a federal strategy. We would be remiss if we did not mention that we would have hoped for a more formal consultation mechanism if indeed the presentations made before the committee were to lead to the next roadmap.

    Moreover, the Sommet des communautés francophones et acadiennes (Summit of Francophone and Acadian Communities of Canada) held in June 2007 laid the foundations for strategic planning by minority francophone community partners, including the CTF. The Government of Canada should give special consideration to the strategic community plan that grew out of the summit and involve in a special manner those stakeholders who speak on behalf of their members while encouraging the development of structures that would strengthen the autonomy of minority communities.

    The CTF represents approximately 200,000 teachers through its member organizations. Of these, over 10,000 work in minority French-language schools and approximately 8,000 in English-language schools in Quebec. Given this particularity of our membership reflecting both Canadian linguistic minorities, we are confident that we can bring a balanced perspective to a federal official languages support strategy.

    Let us first emphasize that the notion of equality between both official language communities will be at the heart of our presentation. The CTF has for a long time defended the rights of its members and advocated for a just and equitable public education system in Canada and throughout the world. However, we are increasingly aware that even though schools provide an unrivalled development tool to ensure the preservation of languages in minority settings, they cannot counter on their own the effects of linguistic assimilation.

    We have just published a survey prepared by the researcher Diane Gerin-Lajoie that compares the reality of francophones living in minority settings and that of Quebec anglophones, also a minority group in that province. This study confirms, among other things, that the visibility of the minority language and culture in the public space has an important impact on an individual’s connection to identity. Not surprisingly, identity building has become one of the key elements of the francophone communities' mandate. It is however disturbing to think that the lack of French in the public space can bring young francophones to question the relevance of their mother tongue when the time comes to contemplate their future.

    We will therefore focus in this presentation on some of the many challenges related to living in French in a sustained manner in minority settings, while recognizing that the development of the next federal official languages support strategy will also foster the preservation and full development of Quebec's anglophone community. Our presentation will also include a few recommendations in three areas that are particularly dear to our hearts as teacher representatives.

    The first area is early childhood and welcoming measures. In 2004, the CTF published a study entitled Teachers and the Challenge of Teaching in Francophone Minority Settings. A high percentage of teachers reported the dominance of English in their communities as one of the main challenges they were facing. This situation is greatly exacerbated by key demographic considerations: the rural depopulation weakens regions where the concentration of francophones is highest; and the growing number of francophones living in urban settings is also having a direct impact on their escalating assimilation.

    Two other factors must also be considered: the recruitment of children of rights-holders and the welcoming of newcomers. Teachers in French-language schools fully support the efforts being made by all stakeholders to welcome the largest possible number of children entitled to a French-language education in their schools, but they are deeply concerned over the diversity in family backgrounds, especially when these children speak little or no French upon their enrolment in French-language schools.

    Teachers also greatly support the intake of children of immigrant families, but worry about the lack of measures to support these families both at the school and community levels. The linguistic challenges are obvious, but there can be other equally important concerns.

    In the summer of 2007, the CTF commissioned a study on the intake of immigrant families into French-language schools. The research demonstrated just how poorly prepared minority communities are for welcoming newcomers, whether into the school system or in the community.

    This gives rise to two observations. First of all, the next federal official languages support strategy must provide substantial support for early childhood development, which is the avenue most likely to be able to support recruitment efforts in French-language schools. Furthermore, this component of the strategy must go hand and hand with a set of welcoming measures, both at the school and community levels, so that the children of rights holders, as well as those from immigrant communities, will be able to contribute to the francophonie and to Canadian society as a whole.

    We recommend that the federal official languages strategies invest in intake and support initiatives of those generations wishing to renew their ties with French or for immigrant families wanting to enrol their children in French-language schools. We also recommend that it promote the establishment of French-language early childhood centres across the country to prepare children for their active participation in French-language schools and in the francophone community generally.

    The second challenge has to do with new technologies. Education in French in Canadian minority settings makes sense only in an economic framework that gives it an equitable place. Parents who choose to send their children to French-language schools do so in part because of their attachment to the language, but also in the hope that the next generation will be provided with more opportunities to live in French in every sphere of human endeavour. The driving force behind young people's decision to continue their education in French-language public and post-secondary schools is the opportunity to work in their language or to benefit from their bilingual skills.

    The CTF is concerned about how little attention is being paid to technology in the measures to support official language communities. We released last year the results of a survey involving more than 1,600 French-language school students on technology and building a francophone identity. Given our previous comments on public space and resulting concerns, we are disturbed by the lack of opportunities to communicate in French through technologies since they are the media most widely used by young people throughout the world. We therefore believe that the federal official languages strategy must promote increased French-language content on the web and infrastructures that monitor, update and renew information. We also believe that the government must support innovative initiatives for the use of technology in areas like networking, distance education, language learning and dissemination of cultural content.

    The third challenge has to do with research support. For the past 15 years, children have been educated in French in communities where several generations before them would never have dreamed of the possibility. Thus the advent of French-language school governance by the francophone community, sometimes after a hard-fought battle, marks an important turning point in the history of Canadian bilingualism. The empowerment of the francophone community in education has yielded sound results. It is contributing to the progress of bilingualism and to respect for cultural diversity across the country. The Government of Canada needs to learn lessons from this experience and to try to apply it in other areas. This empowerment of the community cannot take place without relevant information on the realities and challenges that are at the heart of the French-language schools’ mandate.

    Therefore, we cannot overemphasize the importance of research for the advancement of language communities, particularly in minority settings. The numerous studies conducted by the CTF received solid support in the past from the federal government through the Department of Canadian Heritage. These studies and surveys enabled us to better understand the realities of communities and to intervene more coherently with young people on whom rests the future of Canadian bilingualism.

    The federal official languages strategy must support research and dissemination of knowledge so that decisions and investments are based on reliable data that would be likely to yield results.

    To conclude, the CTF is one of the national organizations to have followed the lead of the Canadian government with respect to bilingualism and the modernization of its structure. Our federation defines itself as bilingual in its operations and publications, and serves organizations whose membership reflects Canada's linguistic duality.

    We are proud to contribute in a significant manner to the development of our country and of the values that make it strong and unique, both at home and abroad. Much remains to be done to give language minorities all the elements they need to live in French on an everyday basis. This is what drives our actions as a Canadian federation, and we can only hope that this will equally be the driving force and ultimate goal of the Canadian government in the development of its next official languages support strategy.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Taillefer.

    We have 35 minutes for questions and comments.

    Go ahead, Mr. Aubin.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Good morning, everyone, and welcome. Thank you for being here and let me congratulate you on the quality of your presentations that shed some light on this topic for us. I feel like I am going back to when I first fell in love with teaching. It sort of feels like home.

    My first questions are for Mr. Saint-Maurice.

    In your presentation, you said you receive significant financial support from Canadian Heritage, but, if I am not mistaken, almost no support from the roadmap before us. When you have so many ideas and so many projects, I am trying to understand why you have no or very little funding from the roadmap. Is that because of not being familiar with the roadmap programs or because the projects you presented did not meet the criteria? I feel that things don't add up.

    I wouldn’t say that the projects presented didn’t meet the criteria, given that we did not present any as part of the roadmap, as such.

    Actually, in the areas we usually work in, Canadian Heritage is our major source of financial support. So we meet Canadian Heritage’s criteria. Indirectly, we are able to reach francophone minority communities and all of Canada. We have partners across the country. We really do work in cooperation with others. Some of the organizations with which we are closely linked and with which we move education forward are very dependent, if I may say so, on the roadmap.

    Our director general works full time. I am a volunteer. Mr. Lacombe is in a better position to give you an accurate answer about the ramifications and all the details.

    Under the roadmap, preferred sectors were identified and education was not really one of them. But we can’t say that we have been neglected, because we still receive the financial support we need to do what we want in education in the years covered by the roadmap. That’s the explanation.

    Furthermore, there are two versions of the roadmap: one with the additional amount and the other with all the amounts together. It is still not quite clear for us: do we get funding from the additional envelope or the comprehensive envelope? If it is the comprehensive envelope, then we have received funding from the roadmap because we were already receiving funding from existing envelopes. If it is the additional envelope, we did not receive any additional funding.

    Thank you.

     I will now turn to Mr. Taillefer and Mr. Boudreau.

     In your presentation, you talked a great deal about the importance of research. You referred to a number of studies that have been conducted over the years and you presented the findings.

    Have the findings from those studies led to concrete projects, supported by the roadmap, that can change how people live in French in communities?

    Thank you for that excellent question.

    In our view, everything needs to be based on research. The research we did in partnership with ACELF primarily, but also with other organizations, has led to action.

    Before taking action, there has to be a clearly defined scope of action. That is what helped us identify the major challenges and issues. Together with ACELF, among others, we then developed a number of very important projects whose results were distributed across Canada. They are concrete tools that teachers use in the classroom.

    Mr. Boudreau works on those projects. He could give you some concrete examples.

    Yes, absolutely.

    Our studies have actually led to projects. We feel that it is important to really understand a situation in order to be able to react to it. That research has enabled us to create tools that deal with teenagers, for example. There is a real problem with drop-out rates based on language and also dropping out of French-language schools to go to English-language schools or immersion schools. In our view, it is important to reach out to those young people to understand exactly what is happening at that critical age. With ACELF, we created a tool designed to start a dialogue with teenagers. That is a concrete example.

    There are also training opportunities and meetings with teachers in order to talk about those issues that are crucial for the future of the francophonie. Losing our good kids aged 15 to 18 is definitely very worrisome.

    Thank you.

     I also share another of your viewpoints. It has to do with the quality of the roadmap evaluation process. Let’s say another roadmap is implemented, whatever it may be called. Would you be worried that this new financial envelope will force you to create new projects rather than support the ones that you have already set up and that probably did not get a chance to fully come to fruition?

    Thank you very much.

    We think that it is absolutely necessary that our projects come to fruition and that we make sure they are sustainable. Our challenge is not a one-time challenge; it is there on a daily basis. So it is important to continue doing research, to assess the situation in minority settings and to take action that will encourage young people, who are really our future, to want to continue living in French.

    As we said in our presentation, the whole economic aspect is very important for families and young people. We want them to picture a future in French in Canada. So yes, it is important to support those projects. Of course, some of them will come to an end, but others must continue, and the support has to be ongoing.

     In addition, as we continue to study the situation, new challenges may come up. We talked about technology in particular. This will certainly be the focus of discussions for years to come, especially in the context of a francophone space.

    Okay.

    Thank you, Mr. Aubin and Mr. Taillefer.

    Your turn, Mr. Menegakis.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you for testifying before us today.

    As you know, we are studying the Roadmap for Linguistic Duality. Our government has invested more than $1 billion in the roadmap.

    Thank you for your presentations. I thought they were very interesting.

    My first question is for the representatives from the Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française.

    I was struck by your comments, and very pleasantly so, that yours is a national organization with representation from every province and every territory across the country.

    You seem satisfied with the funding you're getting from Heritage Canada. You said it is a significant amount. Could you tell us how much it is annually?

    It is around $475,000.

    Around, yes.

    It is mainly for our basic operations.

    It allows us to operate.

    Thank you.

    You also spoke about a double mandate. To me teaching the language and promoting the culture are both very important, because I grew up in a multicultural community myself. I grew up in the province of Quebec; my parents were immigrants to this country from Greece. I believe promoting the language, to youth in particular, is greatly facilitated by good cultural programs.

    Can you elaborate a little bit on what your efforts have been in promoting cultural programs across the country, in addition to your efforts that you presented to us this morning?

    I am going to start the answer and Mr. Lacombe can continue.

    In a very broad sense, I will say that the conventional learning of French and math, among other subjects, is part of the basic education that every child should get. The cultural component is what makes it possible to build the identity of an individual. We grow up somewhere, whatever the place; we grow up in a community, in an environment. If we ignore that aspect and say that we are just focusing on education and learning as such, our work is incomplete.

    Our concern is to build the identity of every child, of every individual, until they become adults, so that they can be whole citizens living in two cultures. Make no mistake: the anglophone culture in which francophone minorities are immersed is easily acquired. We must not fight it, we must live with it. Often, the trouble is making young francophone people live in French on a daily basis when they live in an anglophone setting. That is why we say that we must start with families, from early childhood, and continue it in school.

    With the help of other organizations like the CTF, we have developed the Trousse du passeur culturel, which we talked about in our presentation. The purpose of the Trousse du passeur culturel is exactly to address this fundamental aspect. Once the learning is done, it is important to live as well. This way of living and of asserting oneself is going to encourage more francophones to continue attending francophone high schools. It is a great challenge. Minority communities are often worried about whether their future will be in French. If they decide to continue in French, they are afraid of failing and of not being able to go to university. Those are some of their concerns.

    Culture strengthens identity. We believe it is very important.

    Richard might have some more concrete examples for you.

    Actually, the cultural aspect—that which is related to arts and culture—is very important. We can well imagine that it's a component of building our identity.

    To do this, there are a number of ways we get people involved and equip the teaching staff and school management. Moreover, we implemented the Semaine nationale de la francophonie—national francophonie week—which has existed for 20 years, and it became what is now the Rendez-vous de la francophonie. We invite the communities to take over and hold activities that focus on arts and culture.

    We also have a set of tools, a bank of learning activities that has been on the Internet since 1996. There are a lot of activities that give teachers ideas about how to incorporate arts and culture into their subjects, not just in French, history and geography, but also in economics and a bit everywhere. Because culture is omnipresent. We are thinking about arts and culture, but all the cultural elements are part of it as well.

    There are tools such as the Trousse du passeur culturel, which provides indications about how to use art resources and arts organizations in the region in class to create a stronger artistic environment in the school.

    There is currently a pan-Canadian initiative by the ministries of education to develop what they call the cultural approach of teaching. We will equip teachers, regardless of the subject they teach, so that they can incorporate references to francophone culture into their subject. This way, textbooks will not just expose young francophones to components relating to American, British or Australian scientists. There are still francophone scientists. I gave the example of economics, but this applies to all subjects.

    Thank you.

    That's it?

    If you have another question, you have to be brief.

    I have a quick question for the Canadian Teachers' Federation. I was really pleased to see the recommendations that you put in the package you presented to us today. One of them was to promote French language content on the web.

    Are you familiar with the Language Portal of Canada? It's a website that the Translation Bureau here on the Hill has put up. It had 29 million hits in the last 11 months. That's over 80,000 an hour.

    Could you comment on that? Would you be familiar with it?

    Monsieur Boudreau will comment.

    Yes. I must say that we greatly appreciate the fact that it is now free and accessible, since it's a tool we use.

    We're the ones who did that.

    As Mr. Taillefer said, the federation is a bilingual organization. We have our own translation service, which uses this tool every day. And I use it daily in my own work.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Bélanger, you have the floor.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you for being here, gentlemen.

    Mr. Taillefer, thank you very much for your presentation. I especially want to thank you for the first two paragraphs of your brief. In the first paragraph, you say you would be remiss if you did not mention that you had hoped that the government would hold a proper consultation. I fully agree with you. A committee like ours is in no way equipped to conduct a professional consultation, since the atmosphere is sometimes very politically charged and we have only two hours a day, twice a week. That does not constitute a professional consultation.

    This decision by the government came at midterm. We actually learned about it three months after we began our study and had met with people. So we have questioned witnesses without even knowing that our mandate was to hold a proper consultation for the purposes of studying the roadmap. I think this shows the government's contempt for the committee and our communities. I thank you for highlighting that.

    Furthermore, I'd like to thank you for talking about the 2007 Summit of Francophone and Acadian Communities of Canada. I took part in that summit as an observer. It was a real exercise involving the entire community and its constituents. All the organizations, everyone signed the plan in the end. So I think that the government could draw inspiration from that for the renewal of the roadmap, which has already been decided, as announced by Bernard Valcourt in Newfoundland and Labrador. He said that the funding for the next roadmap would be reduced. I don't know why we are being asked to continue to carry out this exercise, but we are going to do it.

    You both talked about welcoming newcomers, and I thank you for that. Since we are being asked to hold a consultation, I am going to do so. I am going to send you a report. In the previous Parliament, the committee did a study on immigration that was not completed. It had done some good collaborative work. The committee had tabled the report to Parliament. However, the government called an election before it could respond to the report. The committee of the current Parliament has not yet looked at the report again nor obtained a response from the government regarding its recommendations, which basically touch on the points you are raising. I am going to send it to you. Would you please respond to this report so that the committee can at least benefit from your knowledge and your concerns in this respect? It's true that it's important for the future of education in our communities. So I thank you for raising this point. I'll send you the report once I'm back in my office. I also see that my assistant, who is in the room, is taking notes.

    You also spoke about early childhood. Could you please briefly give me your comments because I want to take the rest of the time to talk about education. Early childhood is part of that. The federal government had signed agreements with all the provinces, and each of them involved early childhood for linguistic minorities. In each case, the linguistic minorities had applauded these agreements, but the first thing the new Conservative government did in 2006 was to announce that it would abolish these agreements. Could you please comment on this?

    For us, early childhood is an area that we have decided to embrace more in the past two years. For us, early childhood is not included in the education structure…

    Please be brief.

    …since we are working with the school networks.

    However, it is obvious for us that, increasingly, day-care centres must be better equipped and open to welcoming minorities because integration or disintegration begins there. There are more and more exogamous families today. We need to work to raise the awareness of children at a very early age.

    Thank you.

    Early childhood is a key to the survival of linguistic minorities. The research clearly shows that young people who take part in early childhood programs in French are more likely to maintain their connection with French through their school experiences and in the community later on.

    Moreover, there may be greater repercussions. In fact, the OECD told us that, in countries where there are very specific early childhood programs, the school performance of those young people is higher than that of young people in countries without programs. So it is an economic and social advantage for countries. It's really critical for us.

    Allow me to interpret your comments. I believe you said that it would be better to maintain this type of agreement. That's how I interpret it, and I don't hold you responsible.

    Education is central in the context of the roadmap. We want the roadmap to be renewed, but we have no idea how the hundreds of millions of dollars transferred to the provinces for this component will be used.

    Can you tell the committee if these hundreds of millions of dollars transferred to the provinces are actually allocated to the education of linguistic minorities and, if so, if that funding is used properly?

    Neither I nor ACELF know how this funding is used. Our organization is not an advocate. We do not work on these matters.

    This is a very difficult accounting exercise for us, as an organization. In some territories and provinces, more money is allocated to the minority language education system. However it is impossible to determine whether the entire amounts are used for their intended purpose. Transparency would really be an important aspect for us.

    Thank you.

    Okay, thank you.

    Mr. Weston, you have the floor.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I also want to thank our guests. It truly is a pleasure to hear your comments.

    Mr. Taillefer, I was struck by something you said. You alluded to inescapable demographic considerations. Those of us who support bilingualism in our country and the growth of French in minority communities and the growth of English in minority communities in Quebec know that it's an important effort.

    In the context of the roadmap, what do you think our best practices are? What is the best way to invest the funds to fight these inescapable demographic considerations?

    First, to put things into context, I should say that the face of the francophonie is changing. Immigration is certainly boosting the number of French speakers and making the francophonie more vibrant, but it is also presenting a number of challenges, hence the importance of action research, which involves being able to determine the issues and then put in place programs that deal with those issues.

    I would like to give the floor to Mr. Boudreau so that he can round out my answer.

    The reality of the francophone community isn't common to all Canadians. For example, it goes without saying that the rural depopulation of the majority population does not lead to linguistic assimilation. However, this is the case for francophones. Mr. Taillefer mentioned the immigration factor, but there is also the whole matter of urbanization. Our francophones in rural communities who have grown up and developed in local majority communities where infrastructures supported the language are now in large cities and are victims of assimilation.

    With respect to maintaining the community, this becomes an additional cause for concern to us, which is why we are hoping that the targeted amounts are approved to encourage action research in those areas.

    Mr. Saint-Maurice, it's truly a pleasure to welcome a team of individuals who are at the forefront of education in our country.

    I'll ask you the same question: what are the most important efforts in our roadmap? Where do you think the money would be best invested?

    As you said, the roadmap somewhat concerns us; it concerns us financially.

    In my opinion, the best efforts will still be those that are devoted to the communities, to culture and to education. Those are the areas we need to enrich, develop and support. The minority communities need support that they cannot produce themselves. So it is important that the roadmap complement their financial efforts.

    Do you think that the children from a province like mine—British Columbia—need to go to Quebec or New Brunswick to receive good second language training, or can they get it in their own community?

    I think that children in British Columbia, and children elsewhere in Canada, must absolutely be able to do it in their own community. That is what we have been working so much on for several years. We encourage interactions between the francophone communities of Quebec and the francophone communities in minority situations, but this is just a strengthening of the efforts that are already being made locally.

    When young people from British Columbia come to Quebec, they say, "Wow, it's beautiful, it's fun", but when young people from Quebec go to British Columbia, they say, "These people have guts! What these people experience on a day-to-day basis isn't easy, but they really do good things that are worth supporting." So it's reciprocal.

    I think that young people—this is why we're talking about identity building—across Canada, in the small communities in the Northwest Territories and in Victoria or Vancouver, must absolutely be able to develop in their community, and this is increasingly true.

    It is also in this sense that immigration is an added value that gives even more hope for success. Across Canada, with the exception of majority Francophone communities, we are seeing an increase in the clientele of francophone students in francophone schools, even though the number of francophones in Canada is not increasing. Despite all that, there has been an increase in students in our schools. That means that there are more and more rights holders under section 23 attending our schools.

    You just said something very important. Even though my family has benefited from studying in Quebec a number of times, we know that it isn't just a dream, but something real: we can blossom in both languages. In the past, we couldn't attain that objective as a nation.

    Thank you, Mr. Saint-Maurice.

    Thank you, Mr. Weston.

    I'd like to thank our guests for their testimonies.

    We are going to take a break to give our witnesses time to leave and to allow the second group of witnesses to arrive.

    Welcome to the 34^th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

    We are welcoming Mr. Leclair, Mrs. Turnbull and Mr. Lemoine from the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers. We also have Mr. LeDorze and Ms. Bourbonnais from the Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers.

    Welcome, everyone.

    We'll start with the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers.

    Thank you.

     Mr. Chair, dear members of the committee and partners, I wish you a good day.

    Allow me to introduce myself. I am Caroline Turnbull. I work with the New Brunswick Ministry of Education and Early Childhood Development, francophone sector. I also serve as vice-president of the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers, the CASLT. It is in this capacity that I am here today.

    Mr. Michael Salvatori, president of CASLT, registrar and chief executive officer the Ontario College of Teachers, deeply regrets not being able to attend and sends his most cordial greetings.

    I'm accompanied by Guy Leclair, executive director of the association, and Mr. Hilaire Lemoine, executive in residence at the Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute, University of Ottawa. Mr. Lemoine is treasurer of CASLT, and it is in this capacity that he is here today.

    The Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers has been in existence for more than 42 years. Its mission is to foster professional excellence in the teaching of second languages in Canada. It is composed of over 3,000 members. Its organizational structure, representative of all Canadian provinces and territories, allows it to be present throughout the country.

     Over the years, the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers, CASLT, has endeavoured to meet the needs of its members with regard to professional training, educational resources, sharing of ideas, and exchange of information.

    Today, new needs emerge. New technology, multilingualism, multiculturalism, and internationalization are much more prevalent in the classroom, adding new challenges to teachers' tasks. It goes without saying that the services, activities, and resources of CASLT evolve within this Canada-wide context. Besides striving to enhance our teachers' skills and the quality of education, CASLT aims, first and foremost, to reinforce students' second language acquisition and to ensure that our young citizens become bilingual and contribute in an exemplary fashion to Canadian society in the 21st century.

    As a national association, and with the help of support programs for official languages offered by the Department of Canadian Heritage, CASLT also leads important national projects, creating synergies and partnerships that support its mandate. These achievements benefit not only our youth but also all stakeholders in education. I would like to present to you two major initiatives currently undertaken by CASLT that illustrate this work.

    The first example is the Common European Framework of Reference. As its name indicates, the framework was created in Europe and aims to establish common references for teaching, learning and assessment of second languages. This reference tool offers several advantages. Please refer to appendix 2, which gives an exhaustive list of these. This framework allows us to establish common uniform levels of language competency applicable to primary, secondary and post-secondary schools, as well as to the workplace, throughout Canada and around the world.

    It focuses on communication in action, autonomy and self-directed learning throughout one's lifetime. It therefore facilitates interprovincial international mobility, and transition to the workforce. These assets appeal to students and parents who see the framework's relevance and significant added value.

    Although CASLT is a national leader with respect to promoting the framework, many people have worked, and continue to work, towards its implementation. The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada studied the framework in depth and wrote a guide for its use in the Canadian school context. The Council of Atlantic Ministers of Education and Training adopted the framework and curriculum development for official second language programs within the four Atlantic provinces.

    And the Minister of Education in British Columbia developed a language curriculum based on the framework in 2010. Various ministerial departments, school boards, councils of ministers, schools and teachers throughout Canada have adopted, and continue to adopt, the basic elements of the framework. Through the work of CASLT, the idea of the systematic implementation of the framework is growing throughout the country.

    A second example is the creation of forums and national steering committees implemented by CASLT in order to foster dialogue among all stakeholders and research institutions, for example with the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, with the Institute of Official Languages and Bilingualism, University of Ottawa, or the Second Language Research Institute of Canada, University of New Brunswick.

    These interactions may focus on, among other things, the evolution and effectiveness of certain teaching methods or programs, such as basic or intensive French, or the tendencies related to best practices for utilizing technology in second language teaching.

     Disseminating results of these discussions can enrich knowledge, not only for teachers and school administrators, but also for researchers, public policy analysts and decision makers, within the Ministry of Education, the federal government, professional teachers associations, etc.

     The evolution and advancement of bilingualism as well as the promotion of linguistic duality in Canada are certainly not perfect yet. These are important and long-ranging national projects that progress constantly, albeit with certain delays, but overall, the work that is done is commendable.

    For example, only a few years ago we were focused on ensuring the transition of second-language students from primary to secondary school. Today we are working to ensure their transition from secondary school to post-secondary education and to the workforce. This being said, we need to continue our efforts, since this imposing project is not yet completed. Still today there is a lack of second-language teachers, the second-language teaching profession is still undervalued, and needs for professional training, educational resources, and best practice sharing are still acutely felt.

    Funds granted through Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality and other programs offered to the provinces and territories by Canadian Heritage have allowed us to maintain and sometimes to broaden second-language programs offered in schools and in teacher training institutions. However, there is still much to accomplish in order to revise and update certain curricula in line with new language-teaching and learning practices. We need to ensure that teachers have the necessary tools and opportunities for continuing education and that administrators are well aware of teachers' needs and of new second-language teaching methods. This is where associations like CASLT can intervene.

    While we are very grateful for the financial support received from support programs for official languages offered by Canadian Heritage, we note that despite investments made by the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality, to our knowledge there has been very little new funding granted to associations such as CASLT that work towards promotion, development, effectiveness, and excellence of programs for teaching official second languages in all Canadian schools.

    In this day and age, it is essential to be bilingual. We need to offer our young people a second language education that will allow them to be competitive, both nationally and internationally. Public and private sectors increasingly look for this type of skill in young employees. Our schools bear the responsibility of preparing our young people for this new reality.

    Education professionals who are entrusted with the responsibility of teaching and guiding our young people, including the learning of official second languages, must have the resources, the necessary training and support that will allow them to offer quality education to our young people, something to which they are entitled as Canadian citizens. In this context, CASLT is committed to continuing its work with second language teachers and education professionals, enabling them to play a key role in this project which is so important to our society.

    In closing, we would like to suggest five recommendations we believe are essential to providing quality second language education for all students across the country.

    One is a clear federal leadership with respect to bilingual competence in our students at all school levels, particularly at the end of secondary school, by renewing and enhancing agreements with provincial and territorial governments, providing increased support to second-language teaching associations, and by renewing a multi-year strategy such as the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality.

    The second is a sustained financial commitment that will allow the implementation of a Canadian framework of reference for second-language teaching and learning based on the Common European Framework of Reference.

    The third recommendation is increased funding for research, for the development of innovative language teaching methods and for the development of initial and continuing training programs for second language teachers.

    The fourth is a national campaign to promote the second language teaching profession to young bilingual graduates pursuing university studies.

    The fifth is financial support for a campaign to disseminate new research on bilingualism, demonstrating its numerous and diverse benefits with respect to intellectual capacities, mental health, international mobility, professional advancement, etc.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, Mrs. Turnbull.

    Now, the Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers has the floor.

    What do Shelly Glover, Niki Ashton, Justin Trudeau and James Moore have in common? All these members of Parliament have French immersion in common, either as a teacher or a student. We could also include in that list the young Canadian athletes who managed to charm viewers in both languages during the recent Vancouver Winter Olympics.

    My name is Philippe LeDorze, and I work in the Pembina Trails school district in Winnipeg as a language coordinator. I am speaking to you this morning as president of the Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers, the CAIT. Our board of directors is made up of people from across Canada, all united by their love of education and the French language. Some are francophones whose mother tongue is French and others are francophones whose mother tongue is English. Our association has been around for about 40 years, since the birth of your predecessor, which was borne out of the official language support programs, now Canadian Heritage. We are pleased to take part in your consideration of the roadmap, and we want to contribute through our expertise, that is to say French immersion, which is an exemplary model of learning French as a second language in Canadian schools throughout the country.

    And what progress we've made in 40 years! Approximately 350,000 young anglophone Canadians are registered in French immersion. Never before have there been so many Canadians able to express themselves in English and French as today. Almost 18% of Canadians can speak English and French, compared with 13% in 1971. The rate of bilingualism in young people 15 to 24 years of age has gone from 18% in 1971 to 23% in 2006.

    Learning a second language even contributes to health. The most recent studies have shown that bilingual individuals are less affected by cognitive illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease. French as a second language programs are growing in Canada, and it's thanks to a 10% increase in French immersion programs in recent years. Immersion is increasing almost everywhere in the country. In some provinces, immersion programs are unfortunately like a lottery: only the lucky will have access to them. We deplore that. Parents who choose French immersion for their children should have the right to it, regardless of where they live.

    Immersion is and will remain the most effective program for learning French as a second language. Students attain high skill levels in French as an added value, meaning it doesn't affect their mother tongue or their knowledge in other subjects. So it is desirable to maintain and broaden access to these programs, because demand is growing in many regions.

    We want to highlight the importance of the roadmap throughout the country and point out a number of examples of success that can be traced back to the roadmap. The roadmap lays out the values of the Canadian government with respect to languages. It states quite clearly how important English and French are to the country and, at the same time, concretely shows its support for linguistic duality. The education of young Canadians in French immersion guarantees a bilingual future for our country, a future where the added value of French and English also values the other languages spoken in Canada.

    All kinds of projects have been made possible by the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality. In no particular order, here is a very small sample that speaks to the presence of French as an official language in the west. One example is the creation of a French-language resource centre in Grande Prairie, Alberta, whereby several school districts cooperate to better meet the needs of the French-language learners, both first-language learners and second-language learners. As well, there is the participation of young Canadians in the creation of cultural content through Immersion Clip, a video contest run by ACP and the University of Ottawa. The themes developed by these young bilingual Canadians over the past few years were Canadian citizenship, perseverance, the meeting of cultures, and, this year, essential democracy.

    Another project involves a collective creation by six schools in my school board, namely, an original song titled Notre école. This project was directed by Damien Lussier, a local songwriter from Manitoba.

    There is also the Boréal film festival in northern Manitoba. It involves a partnership between the Flin Flon school district and Freeze Frame, which shows video and animation to young people learning the language of Leclerc, Tremblay and Lavoie.

    The importance of creating in French strengthens the seriousness about learning French in young people. The roadmap makes this possible.

    Through roadmap funding, the CAIT publishes a journal and electronic newsletter for immersion educators. More than 6,000 people receive these publications.

    The CAIT organizes training days for teachers in the region and days for new teachers. We met with more than 500 people in 2011.

    The CAIT organizes a national convention. In recent years, between 500 and 1,000 immersion teachers from across Canada have attended.

    The CAIT organizes competitions for students. Over 150 students submitted a clip or a poem in 2011 as part of our poetry and Immersion Clip competitions. Thanks to partnerships, we are offering scholarships to the winners.

    The CAIT provides support to teachers on our website and our blog. Over 1.5 million people visit our website annually.

    The CAIT is the advocate for the Diplôme d'études en langue française au Canada. To carry out this role, we have developed information kits, information sessions, DELF symposiums and done research.

    The CAIT published an oral competencies framework, which has been downloaded over 150,000 times. We have also produced a book entitled 70 activités motivantes de communication orale, published by Chenelière. This project has been very successful. The CAIT is currently working on a framework for written competencies.

    Lastly, not too long ago, we published some research entitled "Pourquoi les nouveaux enseignants d'immersion ou de français langue seconde quittent-ils la profession? Résultats d'une enquête pancanadienne".

    Let's talk about challenges and avenues for action. The CAIT believes that the roadmap is really important for education in French. Continuing the roadmap reaffirms the Canadian government's commitment to linguistic duality. The roadmap is a compass that guides us and also helps us to measure the road taken, to know the status of bilingualism in Canadian society.

    I would like to use this forum to propose a few courses of action to you. We need to continue to invest in French as a second language education and build on the success of immersion by allowing a larger number of Canadians to become bilingual. It is extremely important to facilitate access to immersion programs for Canadians in urban and rural areas, to allophones and children with learning difficulties. Immersion is for everyone.

    We need to enrich what's offered in the French immersion program at the secondary school level to motivate young people to stick with it. Moreover, this would involve investing in the education continuum by equipping post-secondary institutions with programs that promote bilingualism and linguistic duality. The universities have a big role to play in training young bilingual people to help the public service in recruiting the some 5,000 bilingual employees it will need each year in the future.

    We need to encourage research and its dissemination, and provide tailor-made training opportunities for French immersion and French as a second language teachers. We need to encourage the provinces and territories to gradually align the curriculum of second language programs with the competency scales of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, the CEFR.

    We also need to take steps to create a national tool for assessing French language skills, calibrated against the common framework of reference, that covers the various sectors, including the school, university and even professional sectors. The CAIT would be happy to manage this national project with the participation of one or two ministries of education and partners such as the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers. The Canadian expertise is there; we just need to bring it together and coordinate it to create this new Canadian tool.

    Lastly, this also involves promoting the creation of bridges between francophiles and francophones.

    To conclude, allow me to reiterate the importance of the roadmap. Let's celebrate its many successes and, very soon we hope, we will be able to delight in future successes that we will all be proud of. The Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers remains at your full disposal if you need information on education in French in Canada. Happy trails to the Standing Committee on Official Languages in creating the next step.

    Thank you.

    Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

    First, I'd like to thank you for your presentations. Both of you have raised very interesting aspects.

    Mrs. Turnbull, you spoke to us about, among other things, the importance of strong leadership from the federal government to promote second language learning. Could you please provide more detail about how you see the government's exact role in this area?

    Thank you.

    The relationship that we have already established with Canadian Heritage is still very positive. We have been given opportunities to get informed and to share our activities, our research and our raison d'être with people who work at Canadian Heritage, including the Official Languages Secretariat. I think this relationship is important.

    The government's leadership with respect to bilingualism enabled our society and our country to be on par with other countries where people are also bilingual, where there are several official languages.

    Perhaps Mr. Lemoine would like to add something.

    Yes, thank you.

    Ms. Michaud, your question is interesting. As you probably know, second language teaching is not protected by any legislation. It's up to each province and territory to put programs in place based on their budgets, means and the context in which the government operates.

    For over 30 years, the federal government has concluded agreements with the provinces and territories for both language teaching and minority language teaching. It is these agreements and mechanisms that have enabled the provinces to be responsible and that have encouraged them to show they are responsible in this area.

    In that regard, perhaps I will…

    Had it not been for the federal government, these programs would still be more scattered and probably disconnected in a number of provinces. I'm talking about second language programs where there really isn't a lot of cohesion from province to province, and the federal…

    I'm sorry for interrupting, but I don't have a lot of time left. Could you please wrap up quickly?

    Yes, I'm finishing up.

    So I was saying that, in my opinion, the federal government's leadership is essential in this area.

    Regarding programs, several groups have already mentioned that they had some difficulty in determining whether the money allocated by the federal government was really being spent properly in areas such as education. There may be some work to do in that regard. Currently, we are in the middle of the assessment process. We will be able to figure out whether the process could be improved.

    Both groups talked about the importance of implementing a common framework of reference for language teaching. That is a fairly significant element. Could you tell us a bit more about why this is so important for Canada?

    Canada has a number of provinces and territories, and each of them is responsible for its own programs and curriculum content.

    A Canada-wide problem is that teachers, departments, schools and school districts do not interpret second-language learning in the same way. Should the focus be on vocabulary? Should it be on grammar? Should the focus be on real-life communication? Therefore, we need a common framework in order to redefine what's required for proper communication.

    The idea is also for our young Canadians to become self-sufficient in assessing their own second-language skills. With such a framework or standard in place, we could track their development and progress. Implementing such a framework in each province and territory would help us meet the needs defined by the educational authorities.

    Thank you.

    I would like to add something to that answer. The common framework enables those who teach French as a second language to use the same kind of terminology to describe the skills acquired by young learners.

    There is no such framework now. In fact, everyone uses their own language in terms of their learning outcomes, in their curriculum and their province. The framework would help standardize the language used in terms of success.

    That would also mean a change in philosophy for curriculum materials. Currently, greater emphasis is placed on what young Canadians are learning and on what their second-language abilities are. That also dictates the teaching method by making it more focused on students and on how well they can speak, read and think in their second language. That is why this approach is important.

    I have another quick question for you.

    Earlier, you talked about the importance of access to immersion programs for allophones and high-risk children. Could you quickly expand on that?

    In terms of access to immersion for everyone, we must recognize the fact that all young people can actually do well in an immersion program, regardless of their mother tongue or their future student qualifications.

    We know that, in order to increase access to immersion, we must make the program available as early as kindergarten or Grade 1. That is actually the case in Manitoba, where I work. This way, we would ensure having as many active offers as possible available to families who choose immersion studies for their children.

    Allophones are clearly interested in learning the country's second official language, or rather the other official language—it is not a second language; I apologize. What we need to do now is encourage school boards to make it all happen.

    Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

    Mr. Williamson, go ahead.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I also want to thank the witnesses for today's presentations.

    Ms. Turnbull, you are from New Brunswick, and so am  I. Are you from Fredericton?

    Yes.

    Are you by any chance from Hanwell, or the downtown area?

    I am not from Hanwell. I am from New Maryland.

    I am very familiar with that area. My riding's boundary sits just south of New Maryland.

    I have three questions for in the wake of your presentation.

    First, you say that there is currently still a shortage of second-language teachers. Why?

    In certain parts of Canada, depending on how much an education board promotes second-language learning, greater emphasis is sometimes placed on first-language learning. We promote second-language learning, given its potential impact on cognitive development and on many other areas, according to research.

    In some cases in Canada, teachers do not always choose to teach a second language. I will talk about where I work, in New Brunswick's francophone sector. In francophone-dominated regions, especially in northern New Brunswick, English as a second language is taught by generalist teachers who don't always speak English. There may be similar situations in British Columbia, where French as a second language is taught by people who only speak English.

    Occasionally, a lack of equality may be noted when it comes to the conditions that apply to our young people in the learning of a second official language. We believe that is one of the reasons for the shortage.

    Do you feel that a person must really be exceptionally bilingual in order to teach a second language? Is that what you are saying? I may have misunderstood.

    No, I just wanted to give you an example. For instance, I don't speak Japanese, but if I was asked to teach it, I would do my best to teach things that are related to that language. I would not be able to explain cultural sensitivities or perhaps even to speak in Japanese.

    In some of the country's regions, third, fourth or fifth grade generalist teachers are occasionally asked to teach mathematics, English and French as a second language. At times, their command of French is not good enough for teaching core French. The same goes for core English.

    Okay. So it is really a matter of language.

    Yes, at times.

    Right after that, you say that the second-language teaching profession is still undervalued. I find that somewhat surprising. I am under the impression that there are enough young people looking for a job in education who can speak both languages. However, it seems that job opportunities are lacking.

    Why do you say that this profession is still undervalued, even today?

    The Canadian Association of Second-Language Teachers conducted a survey to determine how many people usually remain in that profession. People were asked questions about second-language teaching and about the second-language teaching profession. The information gathered on this topic revealed that people were leaving second-language teaching after barely five years. According to them, their administration or school board would commonly fail to provide them with sufficient support in terms of resources, professional development, and so on.

    Of course, we invest tremendous efforts into promoting second-language teaching. That's where I have spent my whole career. I find it unbelievable that people do not like this profession, but it all depends on the forces or issues that determine how interest in specific subjects is distributed. Currently, in Canada, there is a great deal of interest in sciences and technologies, as well as in mathematics, mother tongue and literacy.

    Existing research indicates that the use of a second language provides young Canadians with a slew of benefits. Those of us who speak a second language do not see why this profession is less valued than others in certain regions of the country.

    Do you feel that, in our province of New Brunswick, second-language learning is more valued compared with other provinces?

    Yes, I think that it is very valued at home. Our province is officially bilingual, and it maintains its linguistic and cultural duality. We place great emphasis on programs for students. We place a lot of stress on both languages.

    Okay, thank you.

    Is my time already up?

    Yes.

    Mr. Bélanger, go ahead.

    In New Brunswick, only the core disagrees on this. However, that is another story.

    Ohayô gozaimasu, Ms. Turnbull. That's Japanese. It's all I know in this language.

    I will begin with the immersion issue. The 2003-2008 Action Plan for Official Languages—the roadmap's predecessor—focused on three main areas, which were retained in the roadmap. The most important of those elements was education. The other two were community and public service. The education aspect had two main objectives. The first objective was to increase the percentage of eligible people from 67% to 80% in 10 years. The roadmap, which succeeded the action plan, had the same objective, in addition to the goal of doubling the number of young Canadians learning the other language. We don't have any statistics on all that yet, but Mr. Corbeil, from Statistics Canada, came to see us last month. I don't know whether you knew about this.

    He paid us a visit as well.

    He presented us with some statistics I found very alarming. According to him, the percentage of young people between the ages of 16 and 19 who can speak both languages has gone from 16% to 13%. That is an unbelievable drop of nearly 30%.

    I would like to hear your comments on that.

    My interpretation of Mr. Corbeil's remarks is the following. When young people complete their studies, they consider themselves to be bilingual in 18% of the cases. However, when they are asked the same question around the age of 23 or 24, they no longer consider themselves to be bilingual. So there is a discrepancy. That is why we feel it is important for young people to be able to continue studying and practising French at the post-secondary level.

    We all have our own idea of what being bilingual means. We have asked young people whether they were bilingual, and were told they did not know. If we gave them a proficiency test, we would realize that they were bilingual. They are functionally bilingual, but they sometimes feel that they have lost their knowledge.

    It looks like you are less discouraged than I am.

    I feel that there is a lot of potential.

    The potential is certainly there.

    We must continue sustaining and developing it.

    So more money is needed, even though Mr. Valcourt told us that less of it would be available. We will see.

    You are probably right to say that second-language education must continue at the post-secondary level. Someone at this table—and I am talking about Mr. Lemoine—knows a thing or two about this. He managed to convince the University of Ottawa to create an immersion program at the post-secondary level.

    Is that program working well?

    Yes, it is working very well.

    I should point out something interesting. Currently, about 2,500 students are enrolled in that immersion program. Sixty-five percent of them are products of other immersion programs—a rather encouraging indicator—and the remaining 35% are products of core French programs. Either way, this means that certain programs are working.

    Those programs also cost more.

    Absolutely.

    So, more money is needed to continue with this.

    I think this is the kind of leadership the federal government must show regarding these programs.

    Okay.

    Mr. Chair, I have a question for the committee. The government side does not seem to disagree that it would be relevant to obtain information on the use of money transferred by the Canadian government to the provinces for education in minority communities.

    Should we consider inviting a few representatives of provincial education ministers? It would be worthwhile to consider that possibility. Nevertheless, I will set this question aside for the time being.

    We are talking about two sovereign levels of government in Canada.

    I understand that. They are sovereign, but we can still invite those people. They can refuse or accept. We will see.

    At some point, Alberta's government announced that, in three or four years' time, it would require all high school students to learn a second language. It would not necessarily be French, but simply a second language. Naturally, everyone thought that French would be at the forefront. There may have also been Japanese, Spanish, and so on. However, the Government of Alberta then gave up on the idea.

    This issue bothers me. Why has no province, so far, insisted on our young people learning a second language?

    I would like to answer that question.

    Go ahead, please.

    I think that New Brunswick is the only Canadian province to have a mandate, set by the premier, according to which 70% of graduates should be able to speak the second official language.

    But that is a target and not an obligation, right?

    Back home, it is an obligation. Assessments are conducted annually in high schools to determine whether 70% of our youth meet the requirement—an intermediate level in oral communication.

    An intermediate level in oral communication is a fairly diluted notion. It is not about knowing a second language.

    No, but....

    In the past, Manitoba's universities had specific expectations in terms of bilingualism.

    The same was true of Ontario, but the University of Ottawa has taken a step back in terms of that.

    We have gone backwards with regard to that. In Manitoba, we heartily approved when Alberta made its announcement public. We were then very disappointed when the province backed down.

    Back home, in Manitoba, French is mandatory at certain levels, but there are no high school targets. After high school, learning a second language becomes a choice, an option, and young people decide whether they want to keep going or not. If a young person is enrolled in an immersion program, however, they will remain in immersion. Unfortunately, that is not the case for everyone.

    Okay, thanks.

    Madam Turnbull, you said that things are not perfect yet. When will they be?

    They will be sometime in the future.

    I am going to give the floor to Mr. Boughen.

    Thanks, Chair.

    Let me welcome the panel to our meeting.

    I listened quite intently to the presentations. It seems to me that we have the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers, the Canadian Teachers' Federation, the Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers, and on top of all of that we have the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality.

    Do we have too many agencies trying to do the same thing? Is there an interface among the agencies, or what direction do they all go in?

    We work well with all our partners and we support one another.

     We have a slightly different focus. The Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers focuses on content in French in teaching; I'll let the other speak for themselves. They also have an interesting immersion, but the Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers focuses on immersion programs across the land.

    Our association certainly focuses on supporting all second-language teachers, teachers of English as a second language and teachers of French as a second language, in addition to some international language teachers as well.

    We work very well with our partners at ACPI , who support teachers and programs that are content-based. Students who take immersion programs are doing social studies in French, math in French, science in French, and technology in French, whereas the second-language programs that we basically have from one end of Canada to other might have one or two classes per week, for example.

    If you allow me, Mr. Chairman, I may add that I think that the day we have in Canada competent and full-fledged teachers of second language, whether they be immersion teachers or French or English second-language teachers, and the day that we have programs in all of the schools that cater to this kind of objective, you'll probably find that there will be less of a need for organizations like the ones you have met this morning.

    Moving to formative and summative evaluation, it seems to me that what I hear from talking with teachers is that there's too much accent on “summative” and too little on “formative”, so that students can learn as they go at their own pace in the formative setting and take away the summative part of evaluation.

    Would you comment on that?

    Yes, absolutely.

    One of the main tasks that our association has undertaken for the last five or six years has been to bring forward the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages to Canada and disseminate information about it.

    One interesting and important thing associated with the European framework is that there is a learning portfolio and a learning passport. Students and adults can all have a learning passport and portfolio whereby we would be able to self-identify and self-evaluate our progress and our competencies in language.

    When programs start in, let's say, elementary school, it's a far cry between the point at which you start and the point at which you would think you are a balanced bilingual. Incrementally, students can track and learn, and that would address the formative assessment, both the assessment as learning and the assessment for learning.

    As a strategy for supporting learning, the formative assessment is essential and is certainly a part of good teaching, but there's no doubt that there's a place for summative assessment as well, something that allows you to know what you have achieved.

    I think parents have the right to know how their children are doing in school, whether they're studying math or languages. It is important for language learners to get a sense of where they are as well, as seen by objective evaluators. On that case, ACPI is working with the DELF, an international exam that does just that: it gives a level of competency, based on the European framework, of the levels of the pupil. We think that's really critical to celebrate all the learning that our young Canadians are doing.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Boughen.

    Go ahead, Mr. Menegakis.

    Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today and for your presentations. I certainly found them very informative.

    As you well know, we're studying the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality. It's an investment of more than $1 billion by our government and is of significant importance across the country from coast to coast to coast.

    We're taking our time, meeting with groups such as yours. Certainly the study is taking a very long time because we want to hear from all stakeholders and gather all of the information so that we can present the best possible scenario in our report of what we think and of what you think should be in the next phase.

    I heard earlier today from my good friend opposite, Mr. Bélanger, some comment about cutting the road map. Certainly, there's no such thing that the government has contemplated. We're waiting for the study to be completed and will be making our recommendations at the report stage as a team, if you will, in this committee.

    I want to ask you a little about the road map.

    We're studying it halfway—we're about 60% in. It started in 2008 and expires in 2013. As I said, we want to hear what you have to say, and I'd like to know what you would focus on in the next phase of the road map. A lot of good work has been done by your organizations so far. There's going to be a fair bit of funding in the road map, so I'd like to know from both of your organizations where you would phase in the next phase of the road map and what you would like to see.

    Perhaps we can start with you, Madam Turnbull.

    Certainly. Thank you.

    When we study and look at the road map possibilities, we would definitely hope to see that there is an accent on youth. The young people of Canada are citizens of Canada as well, and we would hope that all our young citizens and our young people in the provinces and territories would become competently bilingual citizens in the 21st century.

    No longer is using languages held just within the borders and confines of our own country. Using two official languages worldwide is certainly a plus and a must in this day and age, so there should be focus on our youth—and not a youth that ends in grade 12: our youth actually stay quite young until they're probably in their late twenties.

    I fully agree with that.

    So we should be focusing on opportunities and conditions for our youth.

    Again, there is education. Education doesn't stop on June 29 after you have received your grade 12 diploma, nor does it end on the day you graduate from university or community college or an institute for learning some kind of trade, so I would say that opportunities that go beyond K-12 or pre-kindergarten to grade 12 are essential.

    The other essential thing is the promotion of the benefits of having two usable languages and the advantages that Canada has from already having two major linguistic groups whereby we can profit from one another, whether it's the English learning French or francophones learning English, and really capitalizing on the successes and the advantages we have compared with other countries worldwide.

    Thank you.

    I was really encouraged to see in your presentation, and from what you said, that funding from the road map has allowed you to maintain and sometimes broaden second-language programs. That's what it's all about. It's a good-news story, and I'm happy to have heard that in your presentation, but I want to give Mr. LeDorze an opportunity.

    Thank you. I will speak to you in French, if that is okay with you.

    But of course. It's not a problem.

    I think it is really critical, as part of the roadmap, for us to promote languages and adopt relevant positions as often as possible. It is not only a matter of promoting languages philosophically, but also concretely, by providing the support required for advancement.

    Having a sufficient number of skilled teachers is one of the major challenges in French as a second language and immersion studies. Students from French immersion programs are now being trained to eventually teach French immersion themselves. That meets the needs of small communities like Thompson. Young people who were enrolled in immersion programs end up returning to work in Thompson. At that stage, things are almost at the level required to maintain the status quo.

    Okay.

    Investing in that is very important. Investing in culture is also important. That way, young people who learn a second language can know that doing so gives them access to all this beautiful culture.

    Okay, thanks.

    Mr. Godin, go ahead.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Welcome, everyone. I apologize for being late. I had other commitments.

    Ms. Turnbull, I understand you are from New Brunswick.

    I am.

    I think that we have met before.

    Are you proud of what is happening in New Brunswick?

    Yes. There is always more to be done, but I find that our province and our school systems are putting more emphasis on teaching the second official language, given that our province is officially bilingual.

    As examples, I could mention the intensive French program, which all young anglophones in the province now have access to starting in grade 5, and the pre-intensive program, which is offered in grade 4. We have been able to develop a program that produces results. The previous Core French program did not.

    It didn't produce results?

    Core French…

    Let me give you an example. My nieces have children. They are three years old and they can go from English to French. It is beautiful. They are young and they learn quickly. But New Brunswick, your province and mine, has decided to start immersion in grade 5 rather than in grade 1.

    But all the experts, including the University of Ottawa professors who testified before this committee, have told us that it is not the right way to go. We are talking about the only officially bilingual province in Canada here. Maybe you will say that it is a political matter. But it isn't; it is a human matter and it is affecting New Brunswick. We know that learning is better at a young age and we are setting French aside until grade 5. Actually, I think they subsequently decided to start in grade 3.

    Could you tell me your opinion?

    On the anglophone side, the immersion program is now available from grade 3. I am actually a teacher, but I have been working in the francophone section of the ministry of education for 12 years. My main responsibilities are for English as a second language for francophones.

    I want to know if you think that the decision to start immersion in grade 5 was well thought out.

    It's not grade 5 any more.

    Grade 3, then.

    I think that the current government of New Brunswick is studying the matter and will make its views known in due course.

    I know what the government of New Brunswick is doing; that is where I am from. I am asking you as a professional whether you feel it would be better to continue offering immersion from grade 1. That is what witnesses have told us. If we want to promote languages, the two official languages in Canada, if we want people to learn the other language, the present approach is perhaps not the best. Don't forget that, in New Brunswick, Canadian Parents for French demonstrated in front of the Legislative Building in Fredericton. Even parents were saying they did not want it.

    Forget the government studies and, as a professional, tell me if starting immersion in grade 3 is a good thing.

    I can see both sides of the issue. On the one hand, if children keep their mother tongue in order to acquire basic literacy skills in their first language, it can help them to develop skills in the second language starting in grade 3. However, it is preferable for a true immersion program to start in grade 1. As a professional in second-language teaching, I feel that languages can be acquired at any age.

    You can do it at 80, but that is not what I mean. I am talking about the education system.

    What do you think, sir?

    When it happened, CAIT come out strongly against the Government of New Brunswick's action.

    You have to realize that there are two parts to the issue. Of course, it is better to start learning French young. The younger the better. But an immersion program must not become elitist. It must not be a two-tiered program, with all the good students in immersion while everyone else is in the other program. When that happens, the immersion program is in jeopardy. That is unfortunately what happened in your province.

    Thank you.

    I am done already? How time flies.

    I have one comment.

    Next week, Tuesday, we have three groups in front of us: the English Language Arts Network, the Québec English School Boards Association, and the Townshippers' Association.

    For our meeting next week, I have set aside 15 minutes to discuss a plan for a draft report. Our analyst, Ms. Lecomte, has asked me to gather opinions from committee members about the structure they would like the report to have.

    Come prepared to give your opinions on the outline that has been distributed to you. It's a confidential document, so please treat it as such.

    I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony.

    Without further ado, this meeting is adjourned.