Official Languages Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[Jean-Pierre Corbeil]

My answer will apply specifically to New Brunswick. We definitely used the approach adopted by Rodrigue Landry from the Canadian Institute for Canadian Research on Linguistic Minorities, which is located in Moncton. Increasingly, in our studies, we break down New Brunswick into three of four regions—homogenous francophone regions, manly francophone regions and regions, such as Moncton, where one-third of the population is francophone, where exchanges with the anglophone minorities are obviously different than those in homogenous regions.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

There is also Miramichi, where one third of the population is francophone and 70 per cent anglophone, and we receive service in English.

[Jean-Pierre Corbeil]

Exactly.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

So that is where we should get our data.

[Jean-Pierre Corbeil]

Exactly, and that is why in the Survey on the Vitality of official language minority communities, New Brunswick was broken down into three main regions. From memory, there were the North-Eastern region, the South, and the rest of the province.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

We have been talking about New Brunswick, but what is the situation in Ontario? Is it broken down into regions? There could be Kapuskasing and Hearst...

[Jean-Pierre Corbeil]

Ontario is broken down into regions: the North, the South, the Toronto region, the Ottawa region and the rest of the province. This will provide us with information that will help us take into account the percentage of francophones in the regions. It is difficult to do the same thing outside these two provinces for obvious reasons having to do with sample sizes. For example, we would certainly like to have large enough population groups in Manitoba or Saskatchewan. The advantage is that we develop a concentration index in the survey on vitality. The variable will be used. For example, in a scale of one to ten, someone in British Columbia could live in a region with an index of eight, which is a high concentration of francophones. However, British Columbia may not be a good example, because francophones are scattered throughout the province. The same is true of Toronto. This concentration index does allow us to take into account the concentration of francophones in the particular region. The same is true of anglophones in Quebec.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

You have the floor, Mr. Simard. You are a very patient member of Parliament.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, gentlemen.

A few years ago, I was a member of a human resources committee that studied literacy. We quickly noticed that francophones outside Quebec had far more problems than the population generally. So these data are very important for us because solutions may be completely different for those individuals. In 2001, when the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne told us that there was not much specific information, we were very concerned.

Since I arrived a little late, I do not know whether you have already answered this question: is the information we have today more accurate? In addition, I would like to know who decides which questions will be asked in the surveys? Do you decide randomly to conduct a survey on the health of francophones? How are these decisions made? Must the communities request such studies in order for them to be done?

[Jean-Pierre Corbeil]

Thank you for your question.

I will comment first on the International Adult Literacy Survey which was conducted in 2003. The results for the country and the provinces were distributed last December. Next December, a monograph on the state of the official language minority communities will be published.

Until now, the detailed information we had came from the 1994 survey. Although we do have some information on the survey conducted in 2003, it is quite general and brief as regards the official language minority communities. Given the fact that in this survey we managed to get an oversample of anglophones in Quebec and francophones in New Brunswick, Manitoba and Ontario, we are better able to identify the factors that have an impact on the levels of literacy among francophones outside Quebec or anglophones in Quebec.

You also asked who makes the decisions. One of the responsibilities of every federal government department and agency under section 41 is to consult, either yearly or regularly, the members of the official language minority communities to get their feedback or to get a better understanding of their needs or their priorities.

In 1998, Statistics Canada, together with other federal government partners, organized a two-day symposium to hear from the official language minority communities. There will be one held in 2007 as well. In the meantime, we have met with various communities and associations, including the FCFA, to find out what their needs are.

When we want to study certain themes, as in the case of the 17 modules that make up the Survey on the Vitality of the Official Language Minorities — an advisory committee composed of experienced researchers is established, together with representatives of the communities. That allows us to focus the surveys properly.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Did Heritage Canada ask you to do that, or did Statistics Canada take this initiative itself?

[Jean-Pierre Corbeil]

The Post-censal Survey on the Vitality of the Official Language Minority Communities has been discussed for a very long time. We, at Statistics Canada, knew that this was probably the only way of getting reliable data on a number of areas having to do with the official language minority communities. We had discussions, first with Heritage Canada and the Privy Council Office. There are now eight federal partners that funded the Survey and are on the steering committee and the task force regarding this survey. This is not just a Statistics Canada initiative.

There was the Action Plan for the Official Languages in 2003. The post-censal survey will be the source of the information required to determine what progress has been made when it comes time to renew the action plan in 2008.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Mr. Corbeil.

Mr. Simard, your time is up.

Ms. Boucher will ask the last question.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I have two short questions.

I have been listening to you for some time now, and I wonder if there are still members of linguistic minorities outside Quebec who are unaware that they can be served in their language. Is that still happening today? Do you ask that question when you conduct this kind of survey? Do some individuals tell you that they were unaware that they could be served in French, for example, in a small village?

[Jean-Pierre Corbeil]

The survey that we currently have in the field contains a module that deals with services offered by the federal government.

We did a pilot test prior to this survey, and we agree that what we seem to be hearing—again, the data is piecemeal, since we only consulted a small sample of people—are comments from people who say that they were aware of the service being provided by the federal government, but that they did not even consider it when it came to the provincial government.

Obviously, I am not necessarily talking about New Brunswick. The French Language Services Act does exist in Ontario, but I think it is clear that a significant number of people are unfamiliar with the Official Languages Act. There are probably still people who do not know that they can obtain services in their language.

It is also clear that it always comes down to services being actively offered. If you dial a toll-free 1-800 number and you are told to push 2 for services in French, it is clearly possible to obtain services in French. However, if you make a call and it is answered in English, the question probably does not even arise.

That is why I am telling you that there are always considerations, and actively offering services in one language is undoubtedly an aspect that has an impact on the perception people have regarding the possibility of receiving services in their language.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

As you know, our government is very supportive of communities, especially as regards access to health care in their language. I am clearly one of these people, because I am old-stock francophone. Now, I am bilingual, but I do like to be served in my language, as it is much easier for me to express myself, especially if I am sick, for example, as someone said earlier.

Based on your knowledge, what might happen if we were to give people more information so that they know that they are entitled to be served in their own language?

[Jean-Pierre Corbeil]

I would reframe from answering that question as it involves projections or predictions. I will say however that there are always two sides to an issue such as actively offering services, in other words whether it is possible to use the services in question, and the public's perception. We are aware, as we know a good number of them, that francophones use English out of habit. In the federal public service, for example, many anglophones are working very hard to master French, but when they speak French to a francophone, the francophone often replies in English. That is a reality. I can understand why some anglophones often scratch their heads because they are so puzzled by that.

I know that some francophones are very aware of linguistic issues and that others are to a lesser degree, for a host of reasons. There again, I will refer back to the post-censal survey that we are currently conducting. It contains a module entitled “Sense of Belonging and Subjective Vitality of the Community”. In that module, we asked questions such as: Is it important for you to use French? Is the future of your francophone community important to you? How do you assess the vitality of your linguistic community? These questions will certainly make it possible to gain a better understanding of the practices and linguistic behaviour that can be observed in the other modules. That is what we are working on in the private sphere.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

If you ask that kind of questions in Quebec, everyone will agree, but outside Quebec, do people have the awareness? I am thinking, for example, about francophones in Alberta. Is there a lack of information, a kind of fear? Speaking both languages is now automatic. However, bilingualism does have consequences.

[Jean-Pierre Corbeil]

Surveys that are more qualitative in nature have been conducted in the field. I am going to say a few brief words about mixed or exogamous unions. People have said that they are a disaster, because as soon as francophones marry anglophones, they start to use English. However, research shows that francophones who are more inclined to use English within an exogamous couple, have, in many cases, already shown a significant interest in English, be it from a very young age, or at least since the age of 15. So previous behaviour is important.

We also know that access to education in one's own language definitely influences future behaviour. In Manitoba, for example, a very high proportion of francophones did not have access to French schools. Some of them attended English high schools, and others studied in both languages. These people have a very strong bilingual identity. That factor undoubtedly influences perceptions in terms of identity and linguistic practices.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank our guests: the debate was very informative. I also want to thank committee members, who asked very interesting questions. We will suspend the meeting for about two minutes. We will then move on to Ms. Barbot's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

We will now resume our proceedings and go to Ms. Barbot's motion.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, my motion reads as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) of the Regulations, the Standing Committee on Official Languages recommends that the government continue the funding of the Court Challenges Program at the level set in fiscal 2005-2006 and that the adoption of this motion be reported in the House as soon as possible by the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Are there any comments or questions?

Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chairman, given the reality of official language communities, the Court Challenges Program is clearly very important. I will proudly support this motion, but I would like to make an amendment.

It reads as follows:

[...] recommend that the government continue the funding of the Court Challenges Program at the level set in fiscal 2005-2006 to ensure the continuation of this program and that the adoption of this motion be reported in the House as soon as possible by the Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Petit.