Official Languages Committee on April 17th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Good morning, and welcome to the 27^th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Today is our second meeting dealing with statistics and the evolution as well as the state of bilingualism in the country; we will be hearing three witnesses who are experts in this field.

We will begin with the witnesses, and I would like to welcome them to our meeting this morning. I would ask each witness to introduce him or herself. As is our usual custom, each witness will have between seven to ten minutes to make a presentation, followed by a first round during which each member will have seven minutes to ask questions. During each subsequent round, members will have five minutes each. And we will make adjustment as we go along.

We will start with Mr. Wilfrid Denis, from St. Thomas College. He will be followed by Mr. Thériault, then Mr. Jedwab, if everyone is in agreement. Gentlemen, you have the floor.

[Wilfrid Denis, Professor, St. Thomas More College, University of Saskatchewan]

Would you like me to take my full ten minutes now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Yes, that's correct.

[Wilfrid Denis]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I have prepared a text which will be distributed to you later, once it has been translated. Unfortunately, it is 10 pages long, so I will have to move through some parts of it rather quickly.

The title of my presentation is “Official Languages in Canada: Anticipating the 2026 Census”. I will be dealing with three issues: the 2006 census, institutional structures, and an analysis of the present in order to prepare for the future. In view of the quality of the presentation made by Mr. Corbeil two weeks ago, as well as your committee's excellent May 2007 report, “Communities Speak Out: Hear Our Voice” I will not spend too much time dealing with the 2006 census itself, because in my opinion, the trends are fundamental, almost invariable, and they have not changed a great deal in the past 30 to 50 years.

There have been slight changes, but, generally speaking, where there has been an improvement in terms of language, for example in Alberta and in British Columbia, immigration also comes into play. There are still issues relating to assimilation in Alberta and British Columbia, but they are disguised as factors relating to immigration.

There is something else that must be taken into account when analyzing language trends: these trends must be compared to other national demographic data such as the aging population, the drop in the birth rate, urbanization, the rural exodus and an increase in the number of exogamous marriages. These factors apply to all of Canada, but for low density language communities, meaning the communities whose linguistic abilities are weaker, these factors will play an important role.

In the last 30 years we had seen a positive movement developing, namely an increase in bilingualism, particularly among dominant groups. But we must not forget that for many linguists, bilingualism is considered to be a process that weakens the minority language to such an extent that the less dominant language community eventually fades out.

It is possible to have a stable bilingual situation, but as you move away from Quebec, bilingualism is more likely to become watered down rather than increased. Therefore, adding people who speak both languages to the dominant group does not necessarily mean that bilingualism will grow in Canada.

One other factor relating to the census is that each census provides individual data on the entire population and its their components, but provides no information on the roles and responsibilities of various levels of government, particularly with respect to their constitutional obligations. This means that the census provides no information on the institutional foundation of linguistic communities.

We must not confuse government-made bilingualism and its agencies and organizations with individual bilingualism or bilingualism of communities. These are three separate dimensions of bilingualism that must each be considered separately.

We discussed institutional structures, which I call looking into the past. In the light of the census trends that were clearly identified by Mr. Corbeil last week — trends towards assimilation, obviously — we might wonder why the 2006 census outcome was not more promising.

I would put the question in a different way, and ask what institutional changes over the past 20 or 30 years might have led us to expect a better result in 2006.

I could identify a few of these changes, but since I only have 10 minutes, I will skip the ones that I believe are secondary, for example the adoption of the Official Languages Act in 1988. In terms of Canada's institutions, I would say that for francophone communities, the most important gain has been the right to manage their own school boards.

We must not forget, however, that it took 25 years and 32 court cases, four of them before the Supreme Court, in order to establish the case law and set in place the structures, the organization, and the institutional life that were necessary to clarify a few ambiguous sentences in the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, this case law applies to only one rather narrow sector, namely, education.

The development in the health care sector represents a second change that we have seen in the past 20 years, and is possibly due to the challenges surrounding the Montfort Hospital case. The creation of Société Santé in French and 17 regional networks have no doubt been an important factor, even though research and development in these networks is somewhat limited. We can't really say that we now have health institutions. These two development streams, namely health and education, would not have been possible without the Court Challenges Program. Your committee has a report on this issue, so I will leave it at that.

Moreover, the ministerial conference on francophone affairs, which brings together the provincial and territorial ministers responsible for the francophonie has, in past years, been an interesting event. However, provincial governments often boast about all of their initiatives to support language communities even though, in many cases, this is only lip service. Rights that have not yet been granted are not really rights at all.

I would have liked to have more time to discuss one final change: the weakening of the Catholic Church as an institutional pillar for francophone communities and the transfer of a number of health and social services responsibilities from the Church to the welfare state, particularly since the Second World War. The government is currently returning some of these responsibilities to the communities, but the Church can no longer provide the institutional capabilities that it had in the 1940s and 50s, and even before then.

I will move on to the third section that deals with analyzing the present in order to prepare for the future. We can agree on a certain number of observations, for example, that assimilation represents a major challenge. I believe that we must take into account the asymmetry between the provinces and even between some regions within the same province. In fact, the advisory committee on health stated that a differential strategy was required to deal with this asymmetry. It is impossible to apply a one-size-fits-all approach that will meet the needs of all of the communities. Each one is very different in terms of its development. As to the third trend, demographics, it confirms the importance of immigration for the entire country as well as for language communities. There is no way around it.

Now that we have all of these facts, what needs are a priority? If I may engage in making a projection, I would say that we need to develop an institutional base, and adopt a national action plan as soon as possible, as well as find some way to involve the provincial and territorial governments, particularly in areas that involve their jurisdiction and where they can't get a handle on institutional constraints. The action plan must emphasize a strengthening of the institutions. In other words, particularly in areas involving early childhood, health, the integration of immigrants, and maybe even the fight against poverty, these measures must allow institutions to develop so that we can build on what has already been accomplished in the area of school board management. We must not forget that children can often become assimilated before they even start attending school. The years before formal education begins must be connected to the school in some way in order to allow these families and their children to integrate the community.

Other institutional developments should be considered, particularly in under-developed regions or sectors. In some regions we will have to work from the ground up, even in education. One basic aspect—

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have about one minute left, Mr. Denis.

[Wilfrid Denis]

One of the fundamental aspects of this institutional development is what I call the institutional anchoring. School board management is a wonderful example of what can be accomplished when the management rights are granted to francophone communities. Therefore, it is a matter of developing sectors related to early childhood, health, welcoming immigrants and fighting poverty through a network of dedicated institutions, similar to what has been done for education.

In looking to the future, every political leader in Canada should wonder how the 2026 census data might differ from the data that was collected in 2006. We must ask ourselves what we can do differently. If we continue to do the same things, then we will have the same outcome in 2026, except that the trends will be even stronger. If the Canadian government wants to be a national or even international leader in the area of language communities, then it must find some way to encourage the provinces, the municipalities, major institutions such as universities, the media and the private sector to make French a national language.

French must be an official language, but that is not enough. Having a bilingual government and agencies is necessary but that is not enough either. Making bilingualism available to those who speak the dominant language is useful but it is not enough. The French language must be standard practice throughout the country, in other words, it must be “standardized”, it must meet certain standards. That is what will make the French language not only an official language but also a national language. The federal government has the choice: it can show national leadership or it can put on the brakes and take civil society back 10 years into the past.

I will spare you my conclusion, which is even more amazing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

In any case, committee members will be receiving a copy, Mr. Denis. Because of time constraints, we have to be fair to all of our witnesses. We will now move on to Mr. Joseph-Yvon Thériault.

[Prof. Joseph-Yvon Thériault, Professor, University of Ottawa]

Thank you for inviting me. I am happy to be here. I must tell you, however, that my specialty is not demographics. I am interested in matters relating to identity, language and policy.

I will be brief. I would like to wait for your questions in order to provide more details.

Léon Dion, who was a political scientist at Laval University and who, coincidentally or accidentally, was the father of someone whom you know quite well...

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I don't think it was an accident.

[Prof. Joseph-Yvon Thériault]

Mr. Léon Dion often said that through Canada's bilingualism policy, there had been a diversion away from the recommendations that were made by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, also known as the B & B Commission, during the 1960s.

This commission took great care in making a number of recommendations to enhance the use and development of the French language in Canada, so that it would become more dynamic. In the opinion of the commission, French is the language of one of the two national communities, also known then, and sometimes even now, as one of the two founding peoples, but it had a minority status. For the elder Dion, there was only one minority language in Canada, that is to say, the French language, and it was occurring even in Quebec. French was the minority language in all of Canada.

Instead of adopting a policy to affirm the status of French throughout Canada, the country's linguistic framework, after the B & B Commission, opted for a series of laws recognizing language equality, official bilingualism and, de facto, the recognition that there were two linguistic minorities: francophones in Canada outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec.

This led to what one might call an initial perverse effect, namely, confrontation between two language regimes in Canada: official language bilingualism from coast to coast and, in Quebec, the affirmation of the French language, the will to make French the commonly spoken language in the province.

For the elder Dion, Quebec's policy to promote French as a minority language in Canada and North America was clearly the intention of the B & B Commission. Therefore, the policy to limit it or to constrain it through bilingualism went against what the B & B Commission had brought forward.

How is all of this related to the census? I would start by saying, as Wilfrid Denis stated, that we learn very little from a census in one go. Demographic trends are slow-moving. Modulations take generations before becoming new trends. The 2006 census tells us very little that is new about the evolution of language in Canada, other than to confirm the overwhelming and sometimes century-old trends.

For example, one central dimension in the evolution of language in Canada relates to the fact that languages are territorial, and have been for quite some time. Quebec is becoming more and more French. That has been the case since the 1930s; the trend did slow slightly in the 1960s, with less francization in Quebec because of the arrival of immigrants after the war. But things stabilized with the language laws in the 1970s. I will come back to that.

Quebec is becoming more and more French and, in the past 50 years, Canada has become more and more English. This trend has been confirmed through the 2006 census data as well as in the post-census review published last December by Statistics Canada. Canada continues to become more English.

This territorialization occurs on a smaller scale over a longer period of time. The northern and eastern part of New Brunswick are becoming more francophone. Moreover, it is the only place outside Quebec where territorialization is advantageous to the French language. Here is a brief statistic. Francophones in New Brunswick represented 17% of the population in 1867 and in 1960 they represented 35%. Within one century, they went from 17% to 35%. That demonstrates the effect of the territorialization of languages in northern and eastern New Brunswick.

How did these two language frameworks, the one in Quebec and the one in Canada, change the way in which these languages have developed?

It would appear that in Quebec, the policy to assert language has stabilized its evolution, particularly as it relates to the teaching of French to immigrant children. This has allowed the territorialization of the French language to continue after it was stopped because of immigration to the anglophone community.

Outside Quebec, the last 40 years of bilingualism have not changed the evolution of the language. It is only in New Brunswick that French has become stronger. Elsewhere, and this has to be said, the situation is much more serious. Numbers are dropping throughout the rest of the country. The francophonie is surviving thanks to the constant stream of immigrants from Quebec and Acadia. Fort McMurray is one example. Alberta is the province that has seen an increase in the number of francophones over the past 10 years, because of the economic downturn in the Atlantic provinces and in rural Quebec.

There is a constant stream of new arrivals to this region, but this new population—and this is also a sign of failure—is having a hard time reproducing beyond the first generation. Something is not working. West of the Ottawa River, francophones are assimilating at the same rate, if not faster than allophone immigrants or the Franco-Americans south of the border. This is happening even though they live in a country where French is an official language, the language of one of the two linguistic communities.

Of course, the major trends to which I referred are occurring, but the language policy examples from Quebec prove that we can in some way affect these trends with a language planning policy.

I have two suggestions for Canada's language policies, something to which we should aspire in order to better reflect the linguistic reality of our country, with a view to influencing the trend to develop the French language, the language with a sociological minority status.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have two minutes, Mr. Thériault.

[Prof. Joseph-Yvon Thériault]

First, I would suggest that we move from Canada's legal linguistic framework to a language planning policy. Thirty years of bilingualism in Canada have not resulted in any language planning policy on our territory.

I think we have spent too much time attempting to give legal recognition to both languages, to establish their equality, rather than to plan their use. As an example, I would cite the recent Supreme Court decision on bilingual services that must be provided by the RCMP to the entire province of New Brunswick. In my opinion, that does not provide much of an advantage to New Brunswick's francophone community. It seems to me that it would be better to have a policy to provide French-language legal institutions and to allow French to be used at work rather than to simply recognize that a linguistic duality applies throughout the province.

There is no shortage of examples. I am suggesting a very simple outlook: there should be less emphasis on a Canada-wide recognition of bilingualism and more attention paid to promoting French-language spaces and institutions. In other words, we should emphasize planning over legislation.

This leads me to my second and final point, asymmetry. A legal framework is universal. A policy can be targeted. The B & B Commission had called for bilingual districts. I would prefer to say that it was advocating districts in Canada where the French language could be asserted. The choice was made to have national bilingualism, but that did not prevent the decline of the French language outside Quebec.

With asymmetry we could straighten the existing language comfort zones rather than dilute all of the efforts that are made throughout the country. This would, in my opinion, be better suited to the sociological reality of language territorialization. It would allow for the strengthening of regions where, culturally, there is an easier reproduction of the French language even if economically these regions are in a downturn.

For example, one of the best things that we could do to develop the francophonie outside Quebec would be to declare northern and eastern New Brunswick as priority development zones, a type of Marshall plan for the regions where the francophonie has its roots, regions that are shrinking, not because of assimilation but because of economic underdevelopment.

I will end by saying that we need more language development policies and more asymmetry in the way in which these policies are devised. I am not saying that we should give up on Canada-wide bilingualism. That is an essential component of any binational concept. However, a legal framework is not a language policy. In Canada, we thought that the equality of both languages was a language policy, and no thought was given to developing any type of language planning policy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Thériault from the University of Ottawa.

We will now hear from the Executive Director of the Association for Canadian Studies, Mr. Jack Jedwab.

Mr. Jack Jedwab, you have the floor.

[Jack Jedwab, Executive Director, Association for Canadian Studies]

Thank you Mr. Blaney. I am very happy to be here with you this morning.

I will probably be speaking in English and French. That is how I operate at home, because my wife is a francophone. This is what my children do regularly. I apologize. Let me also apologize, first and foremost, to the interpreters, since, as we know, for them the going can sometimes get tough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

They are used to it.

[Jack Jedwab]

I assume that you have already received quite a bit of information, as Joseph-Yvon Thériault has already said. I will emphasize some data, some trends that various policies have had a hard time accommodating.

I will deal with identity because there is a strong relationship between demography or demographic trends as we know them and the categories that we define to measure the progress of linguistic communities and identity. What is identity? It is the way in which people define themselves in terms of their language. It is belonging or not belonging to a community.

What does it mean to be a francophone in Montreal, in Moncton, in Edmonton or in Regina, for example, where there already exists an asymmetry in the reality that the francophone communities experience in different areas? I am also of the opinion that, when it comes to their policies, the federal government practices a type of de facto, if not de jure asymmetry in their distribution of resources to these communities.

I mentioned trends. One thing that I found striking in the census was the issue of exogamy. There are three elements or three factors that have greatly influenced francophone communities outside Quebec. There is more than one reality when it comes to francophones living outside of Quebec.

One of these trends is exogamy. Exogamy applies to people who, like myself, are married to francophones. In my household, since my wife is a francophone and since women play a greater role in the choice of language that their children will speak, my children's mother tongue is French. When the situation is reversed, when the woman is an anglophone and the man is a francophone, then English is the language that is usually passed on to the children. Naturally, it depends on the part of the country, which does have an impact on language. According to the census, this is often what happens.

Across the country, we see an important link between the levels of outmarriage of francophones to anglophones and the rates of language transfers.

For example, in Newfoundland, about 80% of francophones are married to anglophones. In Nova Scotia, 55% of francophones are married to anglophones. In New Brunswick, it's the opposite—only about 15% are married to anglophones.

Then we go on to places like Winnipeg, where it's about 50-50. In Saskatchewan, some 70% of francophones are married to anglophones; Alberta, 66%; Calgary, about 40%, etc.

So when you look at the results of the census, you can see that there is a relationship between exogamy and francophone adoption of English, wholly or partially.

That's a hard reality for any government to address. It's hard to encourage people to marry within their community, even though there are communities that do such things. But we need to take this into consideration as we think about what can be done from a policy standpoint in a world where there is increasing diversity and duality of identity.

With respect to vitality, immigration is also an important factor in some francophone communities outside Quebec. We have to be realistic about the notion of vitality. If we assume that vitality means substantial growth in numbers, then we risk setting up unrealistic targets in our language policies, since these dual and multiple identities are becoming more common in many parts of the country.

You can see from the StatsCan data that in certain parts of the country—in British Columbia and Toronto, for example—immigration plays an important role in the composition and size of the francophone community. This assumes an inclusive definition of that community, which the StatsCan data support.

In places like British Columbia and Alberta, francophone populations have grown in real numbers, and this growth is largely a function of Quebeckers

moving to these areas. For example, in British Columbia approximately 50% of the population was born in Quebec. These are Quebeckers from British Columbia, if you will. They play an important role.

Over the five years between 2001 and 2006, these gains were less significant because Quebec's economy was more stable and its political situation was more reliable. Fewer francophones left Quebec for these other areas. Paradoxically, you might say that the more instability there is in Quebec, the more francophones will leave for other areas, where the population ends up increasing as a function of that instability. It is somewhat paradoxical.

There is, then, this linguistic duality. A study conducted after the census noted that many francophones outside Quebec called themselves bilingual. In Manitoba, in British Columbia, they called themselves bilingual. It is difficult to measure identity in the census, where people were asked to tick off one box or another. Identity is a word used in the singular, despite the fact that it is possible to declare one's mother tongue to be both French and English. That is surprising because two languages are not taught to very young children at the same time. It is really over the years that their mother tongue is determined.

It is this mix that is important. Causes of this demographic change are also evident. Between 2001 and 2006, there is a decrease in young francophones and an aging of the babyboomers in several areas outside Quebec.

I am now going to talk about bilingualism, because I assume I have about 30 seconds left.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have two minutes left.

[Jack Jedwab]

That is extraordinary. That is unusual for me, usually I go over my allotted time.

With respect to bilingualism, for several years now, two approaches have been used at the federal policy level. One approach was to assist minority language groups asymmetrically, to a certain extent, and this involved allocating resources in different ways to different areas, resulting in a “no one size fits all” for communities. Do not think that in Saskatchewan, for example, one should decide that because the community is diminishing, its resources should be reduced. I do not think you should shoot someone who is vulnerable. Having said that, an asymmetrical approach is being used. However, I think that the government has realized over the past five or six years that it is important to make sure that more anglophones speak French because francophones need to have interaction, in some parts of the country, with anglophones who speak a second language. If fewer anglophones speak French then there will be fewer opportunities for francophones to interact in their own language. So I think that is also an approach that should be used.

I also think that when it comes to bilingualism, to teaching French as a second language to anglophones, Canada is not strong enough. We are even behind the United States, where people are learning Spanish as a second language at a much faster rate than what is being done here with respect to teaching French. More pressure should be applied in this area. I do not think, contrary to Joseph-Yvon, for whom I have an enormous amount of respect, that in a situation of cause and effect, bilingualism is the reason why there has been a decrease in the number of francophones outside Quebec. In fact, I think that the more people speak French the stronger the message is that it is important to speak French and the more this is valued in society.

I will conclude with two points. First, I think we need some strong social marketing in Canada in order to communicate the value of French to anglophones. For example, on English CBC, I have never seen any advertising encouraging people to learn French because it is important for their own advancement, for progress, etc. I rarely see this. Yet in the United States, you see that kind of advertising on PBS, where people say: Learning a language opens the mind. I think that if we have that kind of advertising here, people will react by saying that French is being imposed. They do impose French yet there is not enough progress. For anglophones, learning French as a second language is a very slow process. Even here in Ottawa, in two weeks I will be talking about a new study that I am doing on this topic.

Second—and I know that private companies do not like this idea—I think that with respect to federal government contracts, more pressure has to be put on private companies for them to require a greater knowledge of French from their employees. I know that this is difficult, and that businesses do not like having this imposed on them, that they would rather do it voluntarily. However my impression is that despite all the goodwill out there, not enough progress is being made in that regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Jedwab. As a result of the last bit, you have in fact exceeded the time allotted, but I must tell you that the committee will shortly be undertaking a study on second language learning in post-secondary institutions.

With no further delay, we will begin the first round of questions. We will start with Mr. Pablo Rodriguez from the official opposition.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to all three of you.

Let's start with Mr. Denis. You said that when a community is in a minority situation, this generally leads to the extinction of the less dominant language. You also spoke about a general trend toward assimilation. This draws a pretty dark picture of the situation.

Let's talk first about francophones outside Quebec. In your opinion, are we headed towards complete assimilation?

[Wilfrid Denis]

As Mr. Thériault said, there are general trends and changes take at least one generation if not longer. Major changes will be needed in order to reverse the trend.

I am not saying that we are headed for a total disappearance of francophones outside Quebec, but I think that we're going to see the pockets get smaller. Due to other demographic trends, for example urbanization and so forth, we will see the development of francophone pockets in various urban centres. In the west, some places in Alberta where there were no francophones are now starting to ask for institutions to be created.

Some communities will be maintained particularly in urban settings but others will be lost.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I'm not saying whether you are right or wrong but it is a bleak picture. This contradicts what we were told here by the leaders of various communities. I can understand them, because they're fighting and they do so with a great deal of courage and determination. They feel like their situation is moving forward, in general, and that they are successful. It's a bit discouraging to hear such a message. I'm not shooting the messenger in saying that.

I'm speaking to all three of you. Are there examples in the world where people have managed to reverse the assimilation of minority communities?

[Wilfrid Denis]

I couldn't speak for minority communities as such, but rather for national languages. For example, in Ireland and Israel, there are very general trends. Yet, people have managed to reverse the trend in the case of languages that were in danger of becoming extinct. Obviously, investments have been made in resources in various sectors in a way that is different from the strategies developed in Canada.

I want to come back to the thrust of your question and give you an example of a general trend. We won the right to school management in Saskatchewan in 1988. In order to determine which communities would get francophone schools, the provincial government identified 14 communities. Yet, because of the legal quagmires we referred to and the fact that implementing school governance took nearly 10 years, only eight schools were opened. We lost nearly half of the rural communities that could have asked for or demanded schools. In the time it took to set up the school governance, we lost them. We have never been able to go back to those communities and set up schools there.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Just out of curiosity, have you considered the impact Quebec sovereignty would have on francophone communities outside Quebec? I feel that if Quebec were to separate, the rest of Canada could say that it no longer had that obligation. There would no longer be that feeling of belonging, or that connection. I think that this would accelerate the assimilation of francophones outside Quebec.

[Wilfrid Denis]

It would depend on the way in which Quebec would separate, because, geographically, Quebec is not going anywhere. Trade relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada would need to be defined. If it were a clear and concrete separation...