Evidence of meeting #13 for Official Languages in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was castonguay.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Yes. Well, each witness makes a 10-minute opening statement, which is followed by a question period.
We have already heard Mr. Castonguay's opening remarks, in which he presented his views. We would now like to hear your perspective. Following that, we will open it up for discussion.
9:15 a.m.
Associate Professor, Joint responsibility (languages) for the Centre of Ethnic Studies, Faculty of Education, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Are you still doing this, Jack? Do you want to go first?
I was not aware that I was expected to make a 10-minute opening statement, but it does not matter. I will get started and just pretend I am having a conversation--
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Because they, unfortunately, arrived a little late, I think it might be wise to open it up for questions. That way, Ms. Lamarre and Mr. Jedwab will have a better understanding of what Mr. Castonguay just said.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
I think we will follow the normal procedure, Mr. Weston. Now that our witnesses are here, we will hear from them first.
Are there any further points of order?
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Could we ask Mr. Castonguay to briefly summarize his testimony for the benefit of our two new guests?
9:15 a.m.
Associate Professor, Joint responsibility (languages) for the Centre of Ethnic Studies, Faculty of Education, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Thank you; I would appreciate that.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Yes, I am in favour of that—if Mr. Castonguay is willing to do it.
Mr. Julian, is your comment along the same lines?
9:20 a.m.
NDP
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Great!
Mr. Castonguay, could you summarize your presentation? That will be helpful, even for us.
9:20 a.m.
Adjunct Professor, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes, I can. I have confirmed and clarified the observations made by Mr. Jedwab, based on 1996 census data, with respect to the policy of encouraging Francophone immigrants to settle in areas outside Quebec—not only Ottawa, but Toronto, Sudbury, Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton, and Halifax. Mr. Jedwab's study did not necessarily support that policy. If memory serves me, it found that, after 10 years in Canada, more than half of international Francophone immigrants, whose mother tongue was French, had already adopted English as the language spoken at home. Consequently, that policy tended instead to support a demographic deficit—which does not exist—in the Canadian English-speaking majority outside Quebec.
Mr. Jedwab also presented statistics which showed that, basically, Canada, outside Quebec, was already taking in more Francophone immigrants than Quebec. I was able to confirm this using 2001 and 2006 census data contained in two papers which I have copies of for everyone. The most recent one is in English and relies on 2006 data, with a slight difference… Outside Quebec, there are different linguistic realities. There is what is known as the bilingual belt—in other words, the Acadian part of New Brunswick, the Franco-Ontarian region of Ontario (Eastern and Northeastern Ontario) and key metropolitan areas like Moncton, New Brunswick, and Ottawa and Sudbury, in Ontario. I should just mention in passing that immigrants from abroad habitually settle in major urban centres. That is where the jobs are, and so on. That is why I paid particular attention to metropolitan areas. I noted that in those three urban centres, Francophones did not lose their mother tongue; rather, French continued to be the language spoken at home for most of them, whereas outside of those areas—and here I support Mr. Jedwab's findings—starting with the first generation, by the age of 45, more than half of the Francophones who had settled in Halifax, Vancouver, Calgary or Toronto had adopted English as the language spoken at home--
9:20 a.m.
Adjunct Professor, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I guess we can leave it at that.
I was questioning the wisdom of a policy that relied on a rare resource.
It's a precious resource, francophone immigration; there isn't that much available worldwide to come in and help the flagging demographics of the francophone minorities, which are too far removed from what one could call French Canada, French Canada being Quebec, the Acadian part of New Brunswick, and the franco-Ontarian part of Ontario. They are too far removed for this fresh supply of francophones to have any long-term effect. It's ephemeral.
I'm just putting into question the whole policy, based on the facts.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Mr. Jedwab, I believe you are now ready to make your opening comments.
9:20 a.m.
Jack Jedwab Executive Director, Association for Canadian Studies, As an Individual
Would you like me to use the 10 minutes I have been allocated?
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Association for Canadian Studies, As an Individual
I was expecting to speak more generally about Francophone immigration outside Quebec, as well as Anglophone immigration inside Quebec. That is the topic I was expecting to address when you invited me.
Perhaps I could just digress for one moment. I carried out a study for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages that dealt with Anglophones… Can you hear me? Do I need to use a mike? Normally, I have quite a loud voice.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
For the purposes of translation, I think it would be appropriate for you to use the microphone.
9:25 a.m.
Executive Director, Association for Canadian Studies, As an Individual
Can you hear me better now? Perfect.
So, I had the opportunity, in response to an invitation by Dyane Adam, who was the Commissioner of Official Languages at the time, to carry out a study on immigration and the vitality of linguistic minorities—the one that Mr. Castonguay referred to. I would just like to mention that, as part of that study I was commissioned to carry out, I also had the opportunity to meet with many leaders of Francophone communities outside Quebec, as well as the Anglophone community leadership in Quebec.
It should also be acknowledged that, at the time, an asymmetric approach was used by decision-makers at Citizenship and Immigration Canada with respect to Quebec, as opposed to the rest of Canada. I would just like to explain what I mean by “asymmetric”. In the case of Quebec, I was told quite clearly during the discussions that there was the McDougall-Gagnon-Tremblay agreement—an agreement relating to resources for immigrant integration—as well as another agreement signed in 1978 dealing with the immigration selection process, responsibility for which had been transferred to Quebec, except in cases involving humanitarian immigrants, or refugees.
Therefore, I was asked to respect that agreement. That is advice that I consider to be very wise and that I want to emphasize here today—in other words, the need to respect Quebec jurisdiction with respect to immigration, while at the same time considering the fact that, outside Montreal, there were communities whose demographic situation was not so positive, and which were even fragile or vulnerable in some cases. I also had to evaluate ways of cooperating with the Government of Quebec to see whether resources could be provided to English-speaking immigrants wanting to move to regions outside Montreal.
Therefore, the mandate I was given, in terms of examining the situation in Quebec based on that premise, was somewhat limited.
That was just to give you a recapitulation of the approach to Quebec vis-à-vis this issue. I'll say rather summarily that, as I said before, going forward in terms of the situation of English speakers living in Quebec, it's very important to respect the two agreements that have been struck with that province in terms of immigrant selection and the resources accorded to immigrants who choose to settle in Quebec whose primary language is English.
That said, I think there are opportunities or other means to honour the commitment the federal government has to the vitality of linguistic minorities, which includes a commitment that extends quite obviously to Quebec with respect to the English language community, in terms of its vitality. Some of you may be aware that the federal government definition of an English speaker in Quebec is based on a derived census variable: first official language spoken. With that variable, or indicator, if you like, the population of English speakers in Quebec is anywhere between 900,000 and one million persons.
The indicator that the Government of Quebec uses is mother tongue. Based on that dimension of the census, you're looking at a population of somewhere around 600,000. So there's a vast gap between the federal definition of who's an anglophone in Quebec and the Quebec definition, if you do the simple math, a gap of about 300,000. Within that gap of 300,000, you'll find a very substantial number of people who were not born in Canada.
So under the federal definition, the English-speaking community looks a lot more vital from the standpoint of numbers, if you're going to measure the quality of the experience of the community on the basis of its numbers, as opposed to the Quebec definition, which will have far less immigration built into the number that it estimates constitutes the English-speaking population.
Within that group, I think my advice again, in the limited amount of time I have and to the extent that I'm treating that issue, is that there are pockets of vulnerability within the group of individuals that the federal government will designate as English speakers and that the provincial government may not designate as English speakers.
There are a lot of statistics to show, for example, that immigrants originating from South Asia, which is primarily English speaking—even if their mother tongue may be Punjabi or various other languages—often find themselves in situations of economic vulnerability. They're disproportionately greater. As much as Quebec has authority over integration—except for humanitarian cases, as I mentioned earlier—and it also has a manpower agreement with the federal government, to the extent that there are opportunities to support those groups that are making an adjustment to Quebec's reality, that would be a useful way in which the federal government could play some role. It would have to do that in a collaborative fashion with the Government of Quebec, given the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction in that regard.
I think that's also true to the extent that outside of Montreal, where again the immigration plays out differently than in Montreal, the federal government can provide the support to those communities, as it has traditionally, and look at the type of support it provides so that those people choosing to become part of the English-speaking community in the Eastern Townships or in Quebec City can access those resources and permit them to be part of the community experience.
All the while, I think it's incumbent on the English-speaking community of Quebec to support the need for the acquisition of the French language,
and the need for all immigrants to learn the French language.
I think it is also important, for the Government of Quebec, that the Anglophone community be involved in delivering that message to immigrants, in terms of the need to learn French. I think that Anglophones in Quebec, particularly the young generation, are very interested in learning French. I want my own children and the children of my colleagues to learn French and, naturally, they speak it better than I do.
So, there is a need to involve Anglophones in Quebec in the process of promoting French in Quebec as well as diversity, particularly within the Montreal community, and to ensure that no contradiction between the two emerges. We often hear this idea that there is a contradiction between belonging to an ethnic community, whatever it may be, and the desire to learn French or English. We see this kind of debate taking place in Quebec, as well as outside Quebec. But I think that if we include all groups in the process, and if they have the sense that they are truly involved in the process, that will better serve immigrants, the Government of Quebec and the federal government's goal of preserving the communities' vitality. So, that is my short speech on Quebec.
As for the rest of Canada… Mr. Castonguay quoted me earlier and said that he agreed with me—which is very rare, so I am not sure quite what to say. Even though he agrees with the figures I published at the time, we each draw very different conclusions.
I agree that we have to work hard to create the conditions, outside Quebec, that will support Francophone communities which, at the time I conducted the study, expressed the desire to receive immigrants. Although there are some issues, as Mr. Castonguay clearly pointed out, in terms of preserving the French language among these immigrants, we also know that there are more general issues of anglicisation within the same communities. We have to work very hard to support these communities and the efforts they are making, rather than criticizing them for being unable to progress or even maintain themselves.
I think we made an historic mistake in the 1960s with the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. We opened up our society to diversity, within our duality, but we did not really consider what direction might be taken by immigrants settling outside Quebec, without the necessary resources to support existing Francophone communities. Had we looked at that issue more closely, we might have discovered that there was an opportunity to attract more Francophones to areas outside Quebec and provide resources to these communities. We made some historic errors.
I would not like to see us taking the same approach as back then. I hope that we can make more resources available to these communities, so that they are able to receive immigrants in French. I know there are community groups here in Canada that have that same desire. I also know, based on the experience of civil society, NGOs and my own community experience, that it is not possible, using numbers alone, to measure the landing experience for immigrants coming to this country. That must also be considered.
Despite policies put in place to promote increased immigration outside Quebec… This morning, when I was on the train, I was looking at Citizenship and Immigration Canada's figures on the number of Francophones, which they define, in this case, as individuals who speak French when they arrive here, as well as people who speak French and English when they arrive. I do not think we have seen any significant increases. We have seen increases in actual numbers, but they reflect an increase in total actual numbers of immigrants in recent years. In percentage terms, however, it is not very significant.
By way of conclusion, I would like to touch on one final point. Last night, I was looking at figures from the U.S. census—the “American Community Survey”. I had nothing to do. It was during the second intermission of the hockey game. I needed some distraction, because I was a little nervous, as you noticed.
It shows that 154,000 French nationals emigrated to the United States. Between the years 2000 and 2008, 42,000 French immigrants settled in the United States.
As you know, the United States does not have a program which supports Francophone linguistic minorities. That does not include Haitians: 522,000 Haitian immigrants currently live in the United States. A significant proportion of them arrived in the U.S. between 2000 and 2008, before the terrible disaster which occurred in Haiti less than a year ago.
The numbers we found are really very small. That does have quite an impact on communities outside Quebec. In terms of their vision of the future, that also gives them a little hope. I understand why Mr. Castonguay says that this is false hope, but I do not want to criticize them. That is pretty well what--
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Perfect. Thank you very much, Mr. Jedwab. Both of you have made your positions clear.
Now, to find out whether the glass is half full or half empty, we welcome Associate Professor Patricia Lamarre, Co-director of the Centre for Ethnic Studies, Faculty of Education, Université de Montréal.
Ms. Lamarre, would you like to make some comments? The Committee is basically interested in how immigration could be used as a tool to develop Canada's official language communities.
9:35 a.m.
Associate Professor, Joint responsibility (languages) for the Centre of Ethnic Studies, Faculty of Education, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
First of all, I want to extend my sincere thanks for your invitation to appear. This is the first time I have appeared before a committee. I must apologize; I did not realize I was expected to make opening comments. I thought it was a round table, where people would be asking questions and there would be a general discussion. At the same time, I do not think this will be a problem. I can easily use the 10 minutes I have been allocated, as I always have something to say.
I work at the Centre for Ethnic Studies at the Université de Montréal. At the Centre, we focus on immigration and the integration of newcomers to Montreal and Quebec in a number of areas, including the workplace and school. I represent neither the Francophone nor the Anglophone communities. My life experience has taken me all across Canada. I have lived in both Anglophone and Francophone communities. To which group do I belong? Well, the answer to that is not clear. Was I part of a minority or a majority? I was born in Quebec City, of a Francophone father and an Anglophone immigrant mother. I went to French school, but at home, we spoke English. When I was asked, for statistical purposes, what my mother tongue was, I would answer that it was English. If I am asked what language I use in the social or school context, I say that it is French. If I am asked what my language of work is, I say that they are both French and English. If I am asked what language I love most, I say, both. I guess I consider myself to be a “Franglophone”. However, in the statistical data, I do not exist. So, it is on behalf of people in the same situation as myself that I would like to speak to you today. There are many of us. Our language practices on a daily basis are not considered—perhaps because they are too complex for the purposes of statistics, that aim to measure a linguistic reality by placing individuals in groups. When you do that, though, what are you actually doing? You are squeezing out or losing the reality for a great many Canadians, Quebeckers and immigrants.
Today I will be questioning a number of ideas. In my opinion, we are at the end of a period of accommodations between two well-defined linguistic communities. I have sensed that for a good 10 years now—since I began a research program at the University of Montreal. We are at the end of a period during which we arrived at solutions and political accommodations—the 1960s and the 1970s. That approach involves duality, the duality of two communities. Linguistic diversity is separate—it is someone else's reality, that of allophones. Eventually they will become integrated into something which is still perceived as being tightly closed—the Francophone and Anglophone communities.
The fact is, however, that these communities are transforming themselves from within. Let us take the example of the Anglophone community in Quebec. It is very multicultural, very multilingual and very bilingual. The same applies to schools that are located in Anglophone areas of Quebec. There are schools with large numbers of Francophone rights holders and large numbers of bilingual, trilingual or unilingual rights holders who are in French immersion to become bilingual in order to survive, to feel comfortable, be mobile and be able to participate in the life of Quebec.
As regards immigrants to Quebec, we have noted a marked improvement in their proficiency in French. The figures speak for themselves. In terms of the status of the French language, we can look at daily use of the language in the workplace and long-term practices in the home. They show that French is establishing itself. However, it is doing so in a context where there are other languages, including an interest in English on the part of both Francophones and immigrants. Therefore, the context is one of duality.
I lived outside Quebec for 10 years, in the Acadian community in Nova Scotia.
I witnessed the emergence of French-language school boards in British Columbia. We are not serving Francophones outside Quebec who use only that language; we are serving Francophones who want to maintain their French and their Francophone identity, while at the same time using English, and possibly other languages. We see small French-language schools in British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta taking in immigrants who are welcome there, because they help to maintain what is in place. Those small schools need a clientele. Communities outside Quebec are very happy to welcome immigrants, but what does that require them to do? It requires a redefinition of Canadian Francophonie, Quebec Francophonie and what it is to be a Francophone.
Are we going to say that a Francophone is someone who identifies very closely with the language, or will we say that a Francophone is someone who is proficient in French? In order to define this kind of social reality, which evolves quickly… We all know that the 20th century was a period of rapid transformation; in the 21st century, that transformation is occurring even more rapidly. Canada developed the concepts of linguistic duality and multiculturalism in the 1960s and 1970s. There is a need to reflect on and clarify what we are now and where we are going in the future. That means we need to change our indicators. Here I am talking to the language experts. They measured one reality in the 1960s and 1970s, based on a model of linguistic assimilation. They looked at the language spoken at home.
And yet, if we engage more with the people who speak different languages at home and ask them, not what the dominant language is at home, but rather, what languages are spoken in the home, we discover a completely different reality. There are people who speak several languages at home and want to preserve those languages, because they see those language skills as resources that are beneficial for their children's future.
Now it is up to us, in government, to see those resources and those skills as future assets that will take us a long way. We have to stop thinking in terms of language dominance. We need indicators—data and census analysis—that are more sophisticated and nuanced. We also need to consider ethnography. There are good ethnographers here in Canada. If you want to learn more about the educational realities of small French-language schools outside Quebec, talk to ethnographers. There are some. They are here in Ottawa, this week, for a symposium which is being held at the University of Ottawa. You can hear what they have to say this afternoon.
What you need is a study that captures the complexity of identity-related connections to language and of language and identity-related practices. Thank you.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Thank you very much, Ms. Lamarre, for your enlightening comments and for using the expression “Franglophone”, regarding which it will certainly be said that you hit the nail on the head. It is a very interesting concept.
Mr. Bélanger.
