Official Languages Committee on Nov. 20th, 2012

[Anthony Wilson-Smith]

First of all, thank you for your question and your comments, which I appreciate. I am prefacing that because I think my answer won't be entirely satisfactory to you.

As Mr. Jedwab mentioned earlier, one of the challenges is that education is a provincial jurisdiction, so that means 10 different areas as well as the territories to deal with. Only four of 10 provinces currently teach history as a mandatory subject, and trying to improve that is a great preoccupation of ours.

I believe within this context, for reasons I've mentioned, the bicultural, bilingual nature of the duality of this country is such that it's an essential part of our history, so the greater teaching of history would produce that result.

Four years ago we also produced a report card specifically on the teaching of history, and which provinces were doing well with regard to their focus and otherwise. We're looking at doing that again. It may be that we could include a component on bilingualism. I wouldn't be prepared at this point to say we would do that specifically.

I would just mention to you that all our staff at the meeting level, at the coordination level, are bilingual. We go to pretty much every teachers' conference I can think of in this country and we make our materials available bilingually. That includes, for example, always bringing a good quantity of French language material to English conferences, and the reverse, in addition to the language of that conference.

We've had a heavy preoccupation with Quebec, and despite controversy in some quarters over Quebec's approach to the teaching of history, it should be mentioned that they had either the highest or one of the highest scores in terms of the focus they put on it traditionally, so that may be something we'll be looking at.

Again, I apologize. I can't tell you that we have a specific focus on bilingualism in what we're doing right now. It's more of a means than an end.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dionne Labelle, go ahead.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Hello and welcome. Thank you for being here.

My questions are mostly for Mr. Corbeil.

I was very persistent in asking the committee to invite you. I impatiently waited for this year's statistics to be published. Those statistics are the most useful element that helps our committee properly grasp the linguistic situation.

I have heard a great deal said in the debate on interpreting those statistics. So I would like to go over some of the elements with you. I don't know whether we will have enough time, but I would like to discuss three topics: the demographic factor, the choice of allophones and the assimilation of certain francophones.

Let's look at the statistics on the language spoken at home. In Canada, in 2006, the number of people who spoke French at home was 6,608,000, while that figure was 6,827,000 in 2011. In Quebec, that number was 6,027,000 in 2006 and 6,249,000 in 2011. The increase basically comes from Quebec. Is that correct?

[Jean-Pierre Corbeil]

Given Quebec's demographic weight within the federation, yes, you are entirely right.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you.

At the same time, let's look at the use of French by francophone communities outside Quebec. In Manitoba, the number of people who use French has gone from 19,500 to 17,900. There has been an incredible drop in British Columbia, where the figure has gone from 15,325 to 7,135. Ontario has also registered a drop, with the number going from 289,000 to 151,000.

What will 2017 bring? At what point must we say that linguistic minorities are in jeopardy? If I look at the statistics—I also looked at previous years, including 2001—the situation is frankly rather worrisome.

If the trend continues, when do you think we will lose our first francophone linguistic minority in Canada?

[Jean-Pierre Corbeil]

I would probably need more time to explain what a linguistic minority is. There is actually no consensus on that. For instance, in Ontario, the province with the most francophones outside Quebec—over half a million—the definition varies greatly from one region to another. It is different depending on whether we are in the north of the province, in the Ottawa region, in western Ontario or the southwest. The location makes a big difference. What clearly stands out is the contact issue. Being part of a very small minority within a municipality will clearly influence the transmission of languages. That leads to an increase in what we call exogamy—where a person's spouse is someone from another linguistic group.

However, there is also a little-spoken-of phenomenon, whereby many francophones use English in public. Ottawa is certainly a very good example of that. Francophones make up 17% of its population. Yet a very small percentage of francophones in Ottawa use French in their everyday lives, with the exception, of course, of people working for the federal public service. Naturally, all kinds of factors are involved. It is difficult to answer with certainty, but we clearly know that the vitality of French is weaker in some provinces than in others.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I wish you could be here for at least four meetings. That way, we could really have a constructive discussion and find out exactly where things stand. In fact, I don't think we are able to break down much of the data that comes from Statistics Canada in order to get a fuller picture.

My second point has to do with allophones. According to your documents, 2% of the 200,000 allophones who come from all over the world settled in francophone communities outside Quebec. And those communities make up 14% of Canada's population. The birth rate in francophone communities is down 50% over a decade ago.

When only 2% of immigrants are choosing to settle in French-speaking communities, how are these communities expected to survive? It's mathematically impossible.

[Jean-Pierre Corbeil]

There is no doubt that the number of French-speaking immigrants is lower, even lower than that of francophones outside Quebec. The fact that the majority of immigrants who settle outside Quebec mainly opt for English-speaking communities is an important consideration. We have observed that frequently.

However, you might be interested in hearing a few other figures. Let's look at some demographic projections. In the 1960s, for every francophone living in Europe, there was one francophone living in Africa. In 40 years, for every francophone in Europe, Africa will have six or seven. What that means is the increase in the world's French-speaking community will happen mainly in Africa. And we know that African-born immigrants make up an ever-growing portion of francophone communities outside Quebec. So that is definitely an important avenue to explore.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Dionne Labelle.

Mr. Wilks.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair, and thanks to everyone for coming today.

I have two short questions, Mr. Chair, and if I don't use all my time, I'll deflect it to whoever or let it go by.

My first question is to Ms. Hylland and the Canada Games. It's interesting because sport is one of the things that brings our country together. One of the things that it's missing, not only in sport but in most of our national events, especially as we move out west—and I'm from British Columbia—is trying to exploit the French language more. As we get past the Manitoba border, it becomes less.... Once we get into Alberta, it's really less...and then there is British Columbia.

I wonder if there is a way, when the Canada Games woos its way out west from time to time, of trying to enforce the French language even more through linguistic duality. It seems to me as though, with all due respect, it's the lesser of the two languages the further you go west. It shouldn't be that way. It should be, in my opinion, 50-50. How do we get there?

[Sue Hylland]

Again, I have seen nothing but communities, whether east or west, wanting to embrace this. I mentioned earlier that in Sherbrooke, Quebec, where the next Canada Games will be held 10 months from now, they're hosting English Wednesdays, and in Prince George, B.C., they are in the process of doing the same but in the reverse, French Tuesdays. People are embracing it. We have certain standards.

David...Mr. Wilks, we could—

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

It's okay. My name's Dave.

[Sue Hylland]

We could review those standards, certainly, and see if there's a need to move linguistic duality further, and how the standards need to shift to be able to do that 100%, because we have control of the standards. We can do that.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

To the Historica-Dominion, I'm quite passionate about the military. My son was in the last combat mission in Afghanistan with the Van Doos, which was interesting because he's from Edmonton, out of 1 CER. There was a little bit of a challenge, shall we say, between the two languages, but when under combat, language seems to be the secondary instrument to ensuring everyone understands what they're doing.

One of the things that I think we could work toward in 2017, Mr. Chair, is to expand upon how important it has been for our military beyond 1812, so from the First World War to the present, and the input that not only our English-speaking but our French-speaking forces have had in the wars. The Van Doos have been around since 1914. They were formed in 1869, but classified as the Royal 22nd in 1914.

It would seem appropriate to me, Mr. Chair, that we really work toward explaining how important both official languages have been to the military in all of the combat we have participated in. When we look at 1812, although it is a very significant event, I would suggest that the other conflicts that we've been in throughout the years have been just as important. We sometimes fail to recognize that.

I want your comments on how we can better explain the importance of Canada's official languages within the context of military conflict.

[Anthony Wilson-Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Wilks.

First of all, on a personal note, my admiration and respect for your son.... I was actually in Afghanistan in a different war about 20 years back for a very short time. I have a very small appreciation of the amount of time he spent there, but enough to give him my great admiration.

All we do in our veterans program, as with everything else, is done bilingually, and with this focus, both present and past. The average veteran of World War II is now 89 years of age, and they are leaving us at a rate of 500 a week. So the time to pay respect to them and to hear their stories, of course, is now, not to wait. We send, sometimes, native French speakers into English communities, or the reverse, but we certainly tell those stories. I mentioned that we have 2,500 taped archival memories in our archives of World War II and the Korean War, which includes veterans from both language groups.

In particular, at the beginning the year we started to introduce more recent serving or currently serving men and women, or those who just recently left the forces, talking about their Afghanistan experiences as well. Again, of course, that represents the two groups as well. There's a very real linkage where we are now crossing all generations.

I was with Minister Blaney when he visited an Ottawa school recently. We had a 31-year-old who had done two tours of duty in Afghanistan. He was fluently bilingual—I guess, as they say, moitié-moitié in his upbringing—and he was at a bilingual school bringing out those experiences.

I often say that if you take a veteran of World War II and bring him into a classroom such as the one where my 11-year-old son is now...in 2039 my son will be 38, and he will be able to say, “I heard of the contributions of our great people in a war fully a century ago.”

Primarily, our focus is on telling those stories, but again, I want you to know that all we do in that is send veterans wherever they want. If it's a French school in B.C., whether an immersion school or otherwise, we will make sure they get somebody in French. If it's an English school in Sept-Îles or Baie-Comeau, they will get their presentation in that language as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Morin, you have the floor.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Actually, I am going to give my time to Mr. Dionne Labelle.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

How generous! Thank you.

I hope the other witnesses will forgive me, but I am going to continue with my questions on statistics. There is a celebration coming in 2017, and I'm trying to figure out what we'll be celebrating, exactly. I share Mr. Dion's concern.

Mr. Gourde, I find your comments troubling. Don't get me started on that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I understand Mr. Dion's concern about bilingualism, especially since part of his career, not to mention that of some of his friends, has been built on the idea that Canada is a bilingual country.

Looking at the statistics, I see that bilingualism among francophones has risen, reaching 43.4%. But as for the 17.5% of people who identified themselves as bilingual in Canada—a jump of 0.1%—we should keep in mind that the increase in bilingualism is primarily attributed to francophones, as well as anglophones in the Montreal area. But bilingualism in other parts of the country is either stagnating or declining. The rate among young people is said to have dropped between 1996 and 2011, going from 15.2% to 11.2%. Members of that age bracket usually identify themselves as bilingual because they have taken immersion or language classes at school. And yet, 10 years later, those same young people report being less bilingual.

How many of the 11.2% of young people who call themselves bilingual today will be left come 2017?

[Jean-Pierre Corbeil]

That is an excellent question. I will keep my answer very brief. It is possible to draw some clear conclusions. The bilingualism rate for that age group peaked in 1996, when young people reported being able to speak both official languages. Now, 15 years later, the individuals in that same cohort are between 30 and 34 years old. When you track them over time, it is very obvious that their level of bilingualism is now quite low.

It is a fact that the situation has deteriorated, but there is an explanation. Compare it to playing the piano. If you've learned how to play but don't practise afterwards, obviously you will lose the skill over time. The same goes for a language. It has to do with speaking the language and having opportunities to use it. The phenomenon is purely mathematical.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

For a few minutes, I want to pick up on something that is closer to home, Quebec's ability to integrate immigrants, which has gone up. Could you please comment on that?

[Jean-Pierre Corbeil]

Without a doubt, what we're observing in Quebec is basically the culmination of the province's language and immigration policies aligning. It is fact that beginning in the early 1980s, actually as soon as Quebec gained some control over immigration selection, the province largely chose to accept immigrants who were more likely to live in French than in English. They were often Spanish speakers, people of European descent, those who spoke Romance languages or individuals from countries where the language was somewhat similar to French.

Another clear phenomenon has emerged, in terms of the languages used in public and in the home: there is a very big difference between these immigrants and the ones who come from more English-speaking countries. The distinction is pretty clear. At the end of the day, the many immigrants who speak English in Montreal are usually second-generation immigrants, those whose parents settled in Quebec after the Second World War and who joined English-speaking communities. It was after that when we saw language laws redirecting children whose parents' mother tongue was neither French nor English to the French-language system. That most certainly had an impact on integration into French-speaking society.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

You brought up immigration policies and language policies, and I am glad you did. For certain people around this table, Bill 101 was a slap in the face, a bitter pill to swallow. Would Statistics Canada go as far as to say that, because of Bill 101, Quebec's French-speaking community will carry on for generations to come?

[Jean-Pierre Corbeil]

In fact, what I said is, as soon as immigrants and their children were required to enter the French-language system, those children were more likely to use French in the public arena. That is a clear phenomenon, with the figures to prove it. It's statistics, pure and simple.