I'm used to speaking very quickly. I'll try to slow down.
The majority of the country, about 80% and a little bit more, is actually unilingual, unable to speak both official languages. They may be bilingual or trilingual in other languages, but in terms of our understanding of bilingualism officially, the vast majority is unilingual.
The 18% of us who are bilingual are the ones who get more attention. We're more the object, if you like, of the critical mass of people we'd like to expand through various programs, through our laws and through the policy delivery mechanisms and programs in place to effect those changes, notably in the education system, which is a provincial jurisdiction, as we know.
We also know that the concentration of our bilingual population is largely in Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick, and again, it isn't large, given the population of New Brunswick relative to those larger provinces. It's been described as being very concentrated in the bilingual belt, which I'm sure is a term some of us have heard before. I can assure you, the bilingual belt—as I closely follow the demographic trends—has not stretched out very much over the years. My belt has stretched out over the years, but not the bilingual one.
If Canada can describe itself today, as it likes to do, as a bilingual country, it is largely a function of the concentration of bilinguals in those three provinces, and more specifically, in the area I've just described. At best, we can describe ourselves as a bilingual country from a de jure standpoint, not so much from a de facto standpoint, given the percentage of people who are bilingual.
In fact, paradoxically, my home province of Quebec can describe itself as more de facto bilingual, but not de jure bilingual, given the laws in place. This may seem a bit counterintuitive, but it's a function on the one hand of the geographic distribution of language communities in the country, and on the other hand of the predominance, I would argue, of English in North America.
Despite the challenges associated with expanding the number and percentage of people who are bilingual, this remains an extremely important objective. We must ensure measures are in place as much as possible to try to improve our percentage and increase the number of people who are able to speak both official languages.
This is important not only in terms of our official languages policy, but also in terms of meeting the needs of people from official language minorities. Linguistic duality has those two objectives specifically: first, to broaden the critical mass of people who are able to speak both languages and, second, to ensure the vitality and continuity of those who identify with official language minorities.
The two objectives are interrelated or interconnected to the extent that, for people who belong to and identify with official language minority communities, it is important to have a critical mass of people who speak the other language as a second language if they want to be able to interact as much as possible in their first language.
In my mind, one of the most important places for achieving official languages objectives and ensuring the vitality or continuity of the language of people from official language minority communities is the workplace. We will need more people in workplaces who are able to speak both languages, in order to allow members of linguistic minorities to interact in their first language.
That's why I suggest, as one example—and there are many—that the two are interconnected objectives, even though we may seem them as disconnected on some level, in terms of the way the law and the policies and programs are offered, formulated and delivered.
Let me quickly go through three other points. Regarding public opinion and messaging, we're all quite sensitive to public opinion surveys. We see battles of public opinion surveys as to where Canadians stand with regard to bilingualism and language minorities. It's very important, I think, in our messaging—not only as thought leaders and elected officials but as reflected in our laws—that we're quite clear and unambiguous about our commitments.
I would say that one of the things that's very important in this area, with regard to language duality, is to remind Canadians that it's a foundational proposition. It's fundamental to our country, its continuity and its cohesion.
It's also fundamental to a variety of programs. Let's take Canadian multiculturalism as an example. We need to be reminded that Canadian multiculturalism is situated within the context of those two official languages. I think that's something that needs to be quite explicit with regard to our Multiculturalism Act, so that there's no ambiguity about such things. I'll go into more detail about that in the question period, if I'm asked.
It is not only a need to provide services to official language minority communities. It is a collective responsibility of Canadians with respect to official language minorities. Sometimes, the impression is that it is offered to them, but it should be very clear that it is our leaders' responsibility, and that it must be very clearly written into our laws and policies.
It's also part of the messaging. We need to know via our legislation and other relevant policy documentation that linguistic duality and support for official language minorities is a binding historic commitment to our country. Not doing so can allow some politicians and some pundits to note that there are more Mandarin and Italian speakers in some of our larger provinces—you may have heard this from one of our leaders in my neighbouring province of Ontario—than there are French speakers. Doing so, I think, transgresses the responsibility and commitment that we have as a country to our language minorities.
The language of positive measures, which I talked about in support of community vitality—