Official Languages Committee on Dec. 1st, 2011

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks to the witnesses for being with us.

I'll continue in the same vein as my colleague Mr. Godin, who nearly took the questions out of my mouth.

I want to understand this clearly. Is the percentage you referred to, the percentage of minority francophones, worse than the percentage in the general population, comparing francophones to anglophones? If so, why is that the case?

[Normand Lévesque]

It's worse. Note that the overall result of 42% breaks down as follows: it is 56% among francophones and 39% among anglophones. I repeat that this is not just in the minority environment, because Quebec is included. Some 55% of adult Quebeckers 16 to 65 years of age are classified as level 1 and 2. This is not a phenomenon purely characteristic of the minority community or that affects only francophones. Consequently, it is important to take that fact into account.

There are a number of reasons for this. Researchers have identified three. First, reading habits are much less developed among adult francophones in the francophone community in general. Second, access to the education system in the past was very difficult. Third, researchers have determined that social realities call for changes in adult skill levels. Earlier I talked about a continuum and the fact that we no longer talk about illiterates. In social and economic terms, what an adult is now being asked to do to achieve good performance has nothing to do with what was required 20 years ago. Literacy levels are therefore not static; it is important to understand that. Moreover, the reports published since 1993-1994 prove that. Nothing is static. The social and economic changes also have an effect on these literacy levels.

The other difficulty, access to high-quality services in French for adults with low literacy levels, is obviously a serious problem. The Roadmap funds only a portion, funds one project. I would remind you that, under the federal government's Roadmap, we cannot deliver services. That is one of our performance indicators. The federation does not deliver services, but rather develops expertise. It is funded by the federal government. Education and training are provincial jurisdictions; we recognize that. How is federal funding structured to offer services in the provinces and territories? That's one of the keys of the current Roadmap or the next one. It's currently posing serious problems for service delivery and access to services.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Let's take the case of an individual from a francophone minority community who, at the outset, has problems with his own language and has to work in an anglophone environment. If he doesn't have good French skills, he won't have good English skills either. So if he loses his job, his employment prospects will be very limited in the short, medium and long terms. I'm talking about workers 55 and over who have just lost their jobs and who still have to work for 10 years before they can retire. They'll have problems.

[Normand Lévesque]

You'd think you'd just read our website!

Skills development is indeed a serious problem for adult francophones living in an anglophone setting, as you said. Generally speaking, to find a job in Canada, you at least have to be proficient in English. To do that, you have to have skills in your own language. That's one of the issues.

The second issue for francophone communities, as you know, is their development. This goes beyond the ordinary adult who is facing problems; it covers the development of the community.

And what you are saying is true. In general, adults with low literacy skills, whether anglophone or francophone, are the ones who have the most trouble keeping their jobs or finding a job. There is a series of problems, in health, for example. And they say literacy is one of the health indicators. Consequently, it's a very complex problem to which we cannot provide a simple response.

That's why it's important to develop a Roadmap that is clear. The federal government's role is also important, particularly with regard to the development and offer of services for the adult francophone clientele with low literacy levels. The response can't come just from the government. It has to be developed jointly with the provinces, which is not currently the case. We do not receive funding from the provinces, which is a serious problem.

The next Roadmap, or the next funding framework, as you mentioned, will absolutely have to take this issue into account. In any case, the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility. Beyond that, however, there has to be a framework to promote adult skills development. But there is currently no such framework at the federal government level. There is no leadership, there is no comprehensive approach to the development of continuing education. There is none in the federal government. None of the departments has that responsibility. We have a very specific approach to economic development and the labour market, which poses a problem for the development of the francophone communities. That is clear in our view.

I could talk to you about that until tomorrow morning, so you're better off stopping me.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

In view of all that, today we know that, on the whole, our workers need more academic skills. Just think of information technology and all that. Imagine what happens to workers who have trouble just writing and who have to work with a keyboard. For some, merely being unable to work at a keyboard can cause a psychological block.

Should we continue putting in place small specific programs that would enable workers at least to acquire basic skills?

[Normand Lévesque]

Small programs don't work, sir. This isn't the time for small programs. This is the time for massive skill development action.

The federal government has identified nine major competencies, called essential competencies. One of those competencies is the one you mentioned, information technologies.

This is no longer the time for small programs. It is now time to develop an approach that makes sense for these adults. I repeat: all languages included, we're talking about 42% of the population. A study is currently being conducted as part of the International Study of Adults, jointly with the other 25 countries, and we will know the results in 2013. We expect to see the same type of results.

What is the federal government's role in this area? What is the federal government's role in development of the francophone communities and of competencies in adult francophones? These adults will not disappear tomorrow morning. They represent 66% in New Brunswick, 55% in Manitoba, 55% in Ontario, and 55% in Quebec: 800,000 level 1 adults. What are we talking about? It's no longer the time for small programs. This is the time for major investments in a Canada-wide strategy. The federal government cannot decide to do this or that in Ontario, for example. That's not how it works, and we are aware of that.

The Roadmap must serve as a political, not just an economic lever. We must adopt a comprehensive approach that stays the course for these adults. If three or four around the table had this problem, we would implement small programs. Currently, there are 10 million of them and they represent 42% of Canadian adults. We've been talking about francophones for a while now, but it is interesting to see that literacy problems aren't limited to one single language. Adult anglophones encounter this problem as well. It's a problem for them too.

The government can't limit itself to one single action. The federal government reminds of guys: a guy is incapable of doing two things at the same time. That's not true: the government can do more than one thing at a time. My girlfriend always tells me that, since I'm a guy, I can't do more than one thing at a time. The federal government makes me think of that. It's just investing in employment. It doesn't work like that; that's ridiculous.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Bélanger, you have the floor.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Lévesque. First, congratulations on your new position.

Mr. McRoberts, welcome, and I wish you success in your three submissions.

Mr. Lévesque, are those 800,000 level 1 individuals you referred to only in Quebec?

[Normand Lévesque]

That's just in Quebec.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Oh boy!

How many level 1 individuals are there in Canada? That is the lowest literacy level, isn't it?

[Normand Lévesque]

That's correct. We are having trouble determining that. I'd have to review the figures.

It is also difficult to get any national-level figures. For the francophone communities, we're oversampling in only four provinces: Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Quebec.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

We can extrapolate. So a few million Canadians are apparently at level 1. Wow!

Let's talk about the continuum of those 16 to 65 years of age. First, do you measure the skills of people over 65?

[Normand Lévesque]

No, not us. That is done through Statistics Canada's international surveys.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

All right.

Are there any variations on the 16 to 65 continuum? Are the youth less illiterate or more educated?

[Normand Lévesque]

No. There are variations; you're right, but they aren't as broad as that.

As we said earlier, since the skill levels aren't static, economic and social changes cause differences.

The phenomenon is that—

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I'll stop you there. I don't have a lot of time because I only have one speaking round. We'll talk about that later. Is your office still located on Montreal Road? I'll go and see you. I'm a grandfather, so I'll arrive at your door.

Before that, I have two or three brief routine questions—you know me, Mr. Chairman. Out of courtesy for our guests this morning, I will explain the context.

According to the schedule, we will devote the second part of the meeting to committee business, including a notice of motion that I introduced. I don't know what is going on, but that is the third time one of your members has not come. He mounted the barricades when the government appointed a unilingual auditor general. He was not pleased with that. I introduced a notice of motion calling on the committee to bring in the headhunters who had conducted the process that resulted in that man's selection. I wanted to give the member in question the chance to vote on that motion, but he is not here. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I will not introduce it again this morning. I will wait for him to be here. I am telling you right away, if he comes, I will do it.

My other question is for you, Mr. Chairman. When a committee chair breaks in camera, what do we have to do?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I don't know what the implication of that question is—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

—but I won't read anything into it. I'll answer the question.

You can adopt a report on the part of the committee and have the chair report to the House that there seems to be a prima facie case of privilege. The House will halt its business, be seized with this issue, and debate this question of privilege.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I don't intend to do that, but you said one thing this morning: "The committee has decided not to table this report in Parliament."

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

The committee has not decided to make public a report by tabling it in the House. That's clear.

I don't think that's inconsistent with honouring the rules that business in camera not be revealed. Had the committee decided to make the report public, I would have had to table it in the House, and I clearly haven't done so. Therefore—

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chairman, this isn't working.

On Tuesday, you told me we couldn't report negative decisions, only positive decisions made in camera. This morning, however, you revealed a decision that might have been made in camera. I can't talk about it, but you seem to be able to talk about it.

Anyway, so much for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Let me be more precise.

The committee has not taken a decision to table a report concerning linguistic duality in the House. That's clear.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

No, I was talking about the report—

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

That is consistent with the rules of being in camera. If you wish to disagree with the chair, you can move a motion to overrule the chair. But I'm telling you that's consistent with the rules of in camera. What is not permissible, just to be clear, is for any members of the committee—