Official Languages Committee on Feb. 21st, 2017

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, François Choquette]

Hello, dear colleagues.

I am pleased to chair this 48th meeting today. I am replacing Mr. Paradis, the committee's chair.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), we are continuing our study of the issues related to the enumeration of rights-holders under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We are fortunate and honoured to have here with us, as individuals, Mr. Mark C. Power, partner and sessional professor at the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law, and Mr. Marc-André Roy, who is a lawyer. We also welcome representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA, Ms. Diane Côté, acting director general, and Ms. Sylviane Lanthier, the federation's president. Also with us is Mr. François Boileau, French Language Service Commissioner of Ontario, by videoconference.

Thank you all for being here.

Before we begin, I will let Mr. Samson say something quickly.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I simply want to say that I have in the past hired members of Mr. Power's firm, one of our witnesses here today, to carry out a research contract for my office.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, François Choquette]

Thank you for letting us know, Mr. Samson.

We will begin with the FCFA representatives, who have ten minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Sylviane Lanthier, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada (FCFA)]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for inviting the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada to speak to you this morning about the issues related to the census as a tool for the enumeration of rights-holders under section 23 of the charter.

Let me begin with a question that statistician Jean-Pierre Corbeil asked last week. In his presentation, Mr. Corbeil stated that the census serves to enumerate rights-holders under section 23(1)a) of the charter only, that is, by their first language learned and still understood. He then stated the following:

The question is how this one piece of information is relevant to the intended goal.

To answer this question, let us consider the projections published a few weeks ago by Statistics Canada regarding the evolution of immigration and the official languages in Canada by 2036. One of the findings that emerges from these projections is that, as the share of immigrants in Canada's population increases, the proportion of Canadians whose first language is French or English decreases.

We are already seeing this trend in our communities. In my network of contacts, in Manitoba, there is Lassana, originally from Mali, whose first language is not French, but who uses French every day. He speaks French to his wife, who is Chilean and Spanish-speaking. Their daughter attends a French-language school. Technically, they are rights-holders, even though French is neither his nor her first language.

Examples like Lassana and his wife are increasingly common in all parts of the country. They are not exceptions, but rather the new face of Francophone communities that are evolving and becoming more diverse. That is the daily reality in a number of our communities. Identifying a francophone was no doubt much easier in 1982, when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force. It is much more difficult today since a growing number of people who were not born in Canada or who have a different mother tongue still live their lives in French. Linguistically-mixed couples are no longer just francophone and anglophone, but also those who speak French and another language.

In this context, it would be tempting to say that using a single question about mother tongue as a way of enumerating rights-holders is in a sense the same as saying that the legislative intent of the charter was to establish a rigid definition of who is a francophone. That of course was not the legislative intent, which is why section 23 includes a number of subsections, which must be interpreted broadly, in keeping with the spirit of the charter, namely, to guarantee that people living in a French-language minority community can receive their education in French.

Section 23 establishes eligibility conditions that encompass the majority of rights-holders, but, after three decades, the Government of Canada has not yet developed the necessary tools to properly identify or enumerate all those individuals. We point this out because, in 2017, using mother tongue as the only criterion is no longer tenable.

The only tool available to resolve this issue is still the census. That is why, from census to census, francophone and Acadian communities mobilize to address this issue. As Francophone communities in Canada become more complex, it is only natural to review the census occasionally in order to determine whether it still accurately captures these communities.

To return to section 23, one could elicit more useful information if the current questions about language were reworked. For example, asking the questions “In what language were you educated?” and “In what language were your parents educated?” would identify not only those individuals whose mother tongue is not one of our official languages, but who were educated in French, in part or entirely, as well as those who are sometimes called “francophones from the lost generation”. I am referring to parents who were educated in English although their parents had been educated in French. Enumerating these individuals to allow them to enrol their children in a French-language school would be consistent with the corollary objective of section 23 as a form of reparation, an objective that has been recognized by the courts.

More broadly speaking, the prevailing demographic trends call for a review of the way in which francophones are enumerated in Canada.

We support the recommendation made by the Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta two weeks ago that the question about mother tongue should be changed to make it clear to Canadians that they do not have to choose between French and English in their answer. That is just part of the equation, however. There is an appetite for a definition, a measurement tool, that would make it possible to identify everyone who truly lives in French in Canada, regardless of their heritage, mother tongue or the circumstances in which they live in French.

This appetite is reflected in the inclusive definition of a francophone that has been put forward by the Ontario government. This is not a simple issue and, since we are not statisticians, we do not have any magic solutions to offer you today. Thought must be given to this issue, which is complex because francophone communities are complex in 2017.

Before I conclude, I would like to share some more general thoughts about access to French-language schools. In recent years, there have been at least two cases of disputes between a school board and a government pertaining to access to a French-language school. These cases are now before the courts. In the case of the French-language schools in the Northwest Territories, the NWT court of appeal ruled two years ago that governments are entirely justified in controlling admission to minority-language schools, in view of the costs involved. The court also ruled that the charter right to French-language education applies to Canadian citizens and therefore excludes immigrants. Taken together, these two aspects could considerably reduce enrolment at our schools and be detrimental to our communities.

In another case involving school rights in Yukon, the Supreme Court confirmed that governments have the power to control access to minority-language schools. We have noted this. That said, perhaps the federal government should encourage the provinces and territories to interpret section 23 broadly, generously, and in a way that is consistent with the legislative intent. Considering that immigration accounts for more than 15% of the population in our communities, it would be very harmful for governments to use a narrow interpretation that bars access for permanent or even temporary residents from French-speaking countries, on the pretext that they are not Canadian citizens.

Thank you for your attention and I will be pleased to take your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, François Choquette]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lanthier.

We will move on right away to the next witness, Mr. François Boileau, Ontario's French Language Services Commissioner.

Please go ahead.

[François Boileau, Commissioner of Ontario, Office of the French Language Services Commissioner]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, hello.

I would like first to thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee today to present the brief of the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner regarding the issues related to the enumeration of rights-holders under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The data collected by Statistics Canada provide the federal, provincial and territorial governments with population figures...

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, François Choquette]

Mr. Boileau, I'm sorry to interrupt, but could you slow down please?

[François Boileau]

Okay.

The data collected by Statistics Canada provide the federal, provincial and territorial governments with population figures for their jurisdictions and contain the necessary information on variables such as age, ethnic origin and language. More specifically, the census can also shed light on the vitality of Francophone minority communities.

Although that vitality will be tested in the coming years, francophone minority communities have a valuable tool: a Canada-wide network of minority-language educational institutions that is protected, publicly funded, and managed by and for the members of the minority. The various levels of government need census data that tell them the size of francophone communities and the number of section 23 rights holders so that they can plan public policies and the delivery of services to those communities.

Section 23 gives education rights to Canadian citizens, francophone minority parents, who fall into one of the three rights-holder categories: first, parents whose first language learned and still understood is French; second, parents who received their elementary education in French in a minority setting; and third, parents with a child who was educated or is being educated in French in a minority setting.

To properly plan and implement public policies regarding French-language education in francophone minority communities, the education ministries and departments need data about the three categories of right holders. However, not all of that data is available. The census does not ask questions about the last two categories of rights holders. As a result, only parents in the first category are counted.

This problem is of concern to the commissioner's office for three main reasons.

The education ministries and departments do not know the exact number of rights-holders and will therefore underestimate the number of eligible children in making plans for their elementary and secondary school systems. Moreover, the vitality and demographic weight of francophone minority communities are declining. More accurate enumeration of rights-holders would encourage enrolment of rights-holders' children in early childhood programs, which in turn would ensure a continuum of learning in French.

In the special report entitled “When the most elementary becomes secondary: Homework Incomplete, the Commissioner's Office”, I recommended that the ministry of education revise its practices for assessing French-language education needs and use the inclusive definition of francophone, which is the calculation method officially adopted by the Ontario government, in order to better reflect the diverse reality of the French-language school boards' potential student population and make more accurate enrolment projections.

If the number of rights-holders in a particular community does not warrant a school under section 23, the education ministries and departments will usually not build one. However, if the education ministries and departments are using census data to do enrolment planning, they are using partial data, since the census does not measure the number of rights-holders in the last two categories. Clearly, therefore, the actual numbers of rights-holders across Canada warrant more schools and larger schools in many francophone minority communities.

The British Columbia Supreme Court's decision in the Conseil scolaire francophone de Ia Colombie-Britannique v. British Columbia (Education) case confirms the dangers inherent in education ministries and departments using only the partial data from the census to determine the maximum potential number of rights-holders in a community. There is a real danger that the province or territory will underestimate the number of rights-holders and carry out enrolment planning that does not reflect reality. In addition, the provinces and territories could use the lower number of rights-holders to justify allocating fewer resources to French-language school boards.

In summary, Statistics Canada needs to update the census by adding questions to measure the number of parents in the last two categories and provide an accurate count of the number of rights-holders in a given community so that education ministries and departments can base their enrolment planning on the actual number of rights-holders.

Statistics Canada recently published a report on immigration and the vitality of the Canadian Francophonie. The figures are alarming: between 2015 and 2035, the proportion of the population outside Quebec whose mother tongue is French is expected to drop from 3.8% to 2.7%, excluding immigrants whose mother tongue is not French but who are fluent in the language.

This decline is attributed not only to immigration but also to the low fertility and aging of francophones outside Quebec. These conclusions are echoed by the report entitled “Immigration and Diversity: Population Projections for Canada and its Regions, 2011 to 2036”. By 2036, the number of people whose mother tongue is neither English nor French could increase to between 26% and 30.6% of the national population, compared with 20% in 2011.

The decline in the demographic weight of the French language is worrisome, especially since Ontario has been unable to reach its goal of 5% francophone immigration. The French-language school system will become more important as a means of preserving the French language and francophone culture. Consequently, the ministries and departments cannot afford to use partial data from the census, which does not contain questions designed to enumerate the members of all three categories of rights-holders.

From preschool programs to elementary and secondary school and then to post-secondary studies, the proper enumeration of rights-holders is also essential for maintaining the continuum of learning in French in Ontario. There is a very important connection between access to minority-language education under section 23 and the delivery of early childhood services. According to the report entitled “Early Childhood: Fostering the Vitality of Francophone Minority Communities”, my colleague, the former commissioner of official languages, pointed out that French-language services provided to young children not only support acquisition of the language but also promote the development of a sense of belonging to the francophone community.

In Ontario, it is clear that early childhood programs funded by the provincial government play a crucial role in maintaining the identity connection to the French language among young children, particularly the children of exogamous couples.

The two levels of government should engage in a dialogue and work together to arrange suitable early childhood services that would be equivalent to the early childhood services provided in the majority language.

When the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Children and Youth Services are planning the numbers of spaces in those centres, they should base their work on the potential number of rights holders according to data from the updated census. Minority-language early childhood programs undoubtedly serve as feeders for minority-language elementary schools.

If two questions are added to the census to measure the number of rights holders in the last two categories and if the inclusive definition of "francophone” is used, we believe that there will be more children in preschool programs, which will lead to higher enrolment in elementary, secondary, and post-secondary institutions. This continuum of learning creates a critical mass of young francophones, which is vital for francophone minority communities.

Francophone minority communities are facing a number of challenges that may seem insurmountable. In view of low fertility rates, declining demographic weight and the effects of assimilation, rights-holders need, now more than ever, an education system that is comprehensive, appropriate and of equivalent quality.

A shortage of schools, or schools of equal quality, often results in an exodus of Francophone students to English-language schools. The census must ask the questions needed to measure the numbers of rights-holders in all three categories.

I therefore propose that the federal government add two questions to the 2021 census to produce a complete, representative enumeration of rights-holders. These two new questions should be able to show how many parents received their elementary education in the minority official language in accordance with subsection (23(1)(b). Asking people if they completed their elementary education in French is a fairly simple question. We also need to ask how many parents have a child who received or is receiving his or her elementary or secondary education in the minority official language, in accordance with subsection 23(2), and whether they have a child enrolled in a French-language school. These changes should be made in time to allow for the inclusion of these questions in the next census.

Thank you once again for your attention. I look forward to your questions, which I will answer to the best of my ability.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, François Choquette]

Thank you very much, commissioner. Your testimony is much appreciated. The committee members will have some questions for you in a few minutes.

We will now move on to Mr. Power and Mr. Roy, who are both appearing as individuals. They will have a total of 20 minutes for their presentation.

Please go ahead.

[Mark Power, Partner and Sessional Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello, parliamentary secretary and members of the committee.

Thank you for this invitation to appear as part of your study. You should have received a written version of our presentation in French and English; it is nine pages long, including two short appendices. As good lawyers, we will not read it, but will instead add further points. You may, however, refer to those documents if you are more visual or are looking for more specific legal answers to certain points.

If I may, Mr. Chair, I will say a few words and then give the floor to my colleague, Mr. Marc-André Roy.

Let me begin with a few words about our topic.

We are lawyers and do a lot of work in education law. We do a lot of work with French-language school boards or boards of education outside Quebec, which every day use the kind of census data collected by Statistics Canada. We have a lot of practical experience with the major frustrations and great limitations resulting from census data at this time. For example, we took part in a trial that lasted 240 days. It was hellish. I hope I never have to go through that again.

We spent 240 days in British Columbia during which much of the expert discussion, which lasted for weeks, involved demonstrating the effect of not collecting certain data in the census. On behalf of school board lawyers across Canada who do that kind of work, and even on behalf of those who represent governments, thank you for your attention to this topic. We hope you will be able to make recommendations that will enable Statistics Canada and the responsible minister, the Honourable Navdeep Bains, to settle this matter once and for all.

To be clear, the communities essentially want two things. First, they would like all rights-holders to be counted, not just those in one category, but in the two other categories as well. Secondly, they would like better data on the linguistic vitality of communities to be collected. This is especially important in view of the announcement by the Treasury Board President, Mr. Brison, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Ms. Joly, about the review of the regulations on the provision of federal government services in French and English. Whether your work pertains to the application of either section 23 or section 20, it is very important, in my opinion.

I have reviewed the testimony of all the witnesses you have heard. In my opinion, Mr. Landry essentially suggested the structure of a report. The ACFA has already explained what official language minority communities would do with Statistics Canada data. Mr. Jean-Pierre Corbeil stated that it is not too late to act and that the timing is good. Mr. Corbeil also pointed out that the federal cabinet has the power to make such decisions. Statistics Canada is certainly responsible for this file, but ultimately it is up to the government to decide. I would simply draw your attention to that fact.

In the little time I have left, I would like to talk about the four reasons Mr. Corbeil cited for not changing the census or at least not doing so right away. To be clear, I do not consider these reasons to be significant. I will tackle them one by one.

First, Mr. Corbeil stated that 11 questions would have to be added. I am not a statistician and I do not have a doctorate in the field. I would simply point out that Mr. Landry told you right after Mr. Corbeil's presentation that that would not be necessary and that most of the data could be ascertained through a very few questions.

Next Thursday, the ACFA and the Fédération des conseils scolaires francophones de l'Alberta will be providing your committee with an 80-page report co-signed by Rodrigue Landry. The report highlights some questions that need to be asked.

Mr. Corbeil’s comments to you were just to scare you off. They are certainly no reason to fail to act. Mr. Corbeil also said that it would cost a little more. Really, is that true? The Government of Canada is going to conduct a census anyway and, in a five-year cost, we are talking about adding some questions.

However, even if it were true, part VII of the Official Languages Act requires the government to spend funds when it helps official language minority communities and when it is seen as a truly positive measure for them. It is not too late for the parliamentary secretary to include those costs in the next roadmap, if it really is a significant expense. Again, in my view, what was said was just to scare you off.

Here is the third reason Mr. Corbeil gave for failing to comply with the requests from the communities. Mr. Corbeil suggests that the provinces might perhaps be able to collect reliable data themselves. We will consult the communities anyway—those are Mr. Corbeil’s words—but let’s see that comes up with.

Process matters, but results matter even more.

We do not just want to be consulted; we want the census to ask genuine questions that will provide genuine data.

Moreover, we are hearing a lot, especially these days, about cooperative federalism. That means that the federal government must listen when the provinces ask for something. If you take the document that I have provided to you and look at the next –to-last page, you will see a one-page letter. This is not rocket science. Look at the letterhead. In the clearest way possible, the Government of British Columbia is not asking the Hon. Navdeep Bains if it is possible to have a post-census survey or to collect more data in our schools. The second line of the first paragraph reads as follows:

“requesting the Canadian Census be modified”.

The second paragraph reads as follows:

I write to you in support of the CSF. The Ministry of Education supports the CSF's request for receiving complete and reliable data regarding the three categories of minority language education rights holders under section 23 of the Charter...

I am quoting the important words.

...and agrees that the efficient way to access this information is through the Statistics Canada census.

The third most populous province in the federation is asking the Government of Canada to modify the census. For Statistics Canada to say that the provinces may possibly be able to look after it is not an acceptable response. Let’s stop messing around; let’s modify the census!

I now come to my fourth and final point, Mr. Chair. When he appeared here, these are the words I heard Mr. Corbeil say:

… but when people say that Statistics Canada only counts a small part or only 50% of rights holders, I would like to know how they measure or come up with that percentage.

In other words, Mr. Corbeil is asking if there is actually a problem. It is like he is asking us “to prove a negative”.

We have no statistics on the two other categories of rights holders. Thirty-five years after the charter came into effect, that is a serious problem.

If that is not enough to convince you, listen to this. Messrs. Samson, Lefebvre, Arseneault and Vandal know exactly what I am talking about. The vast majority of francophone rights holders arriving at French-language daycares need to be made more francophone. They come to class and they have every right to do so, but the language first learned and still understood is English. So they have to be made into francophones. The educators in the room can tell you that it works.

But a problem remains. When those children become adults and fill in the census, they indicate that French is not the first language they learned. So the census does not count them. To us, they are rights holders under paragraph 23(1)(b). When judges tell us that there are fewer and fewer francophones, when Mr. Corbeil tells us that a few rights holders are being counted, we are seeing that, of all the categories, we are counting the one of least significance. The rights holders under paragraph 23(1)(b) are not being enumerated. I know, because in the case of British Columbia, without exception, English is the language first learned for almost all the children coming to daycare all over the province.

The same thing happens in North Bay, the same thing happens in Sudbury, the same thing happens almost everywhere in Manitoba, and certainly in Nova Scotia, as Mr. Samson knows full well. It even happens here in Ottawa. That is a personal note, and I will not go into the details right now.

For heaven’s sake, can’t we count all the rights holders? At the moment, the situation we find ourselves in with the census data is ridiculous. I will end on this point.

When we ask Statistics Canada for special orders, counting the number of rights holders in places in British Columbia like Squamish, Pemberton, Sechelt and Whistler, we see that there are more francophone students in the schools than the census shows.

We might think that this is because of a generous admission policy. It might lead us to believe that non-rights holders are allowed to enrol. That is not the case, because the province of British Columbia prohibits non-rights holders in minority schools. So the statistics are useless. Can we please do something?

Thank you.

[Marc-André Roy, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, Mr. Power is a hard act to follow, but I will do my best. I will deal with three points that Mr. Corbeil raised in his testimony last week. I will then say a few words about our document.

First, Mr. Corbeil indicated that francophone minority communities were not the only ones to request specific questions about themselves and to make that request as a matter of urgency. I do not know what group Mr. Corbeil was talking about, but official language minority communities are the only ones—together with indigenous communities, perhaps—to have rights that depend on their numbers and that are protected by the charter. This is an important distinction to be made.

Statistics Canada and the government should show leadership and provide us with the data we need. These very precise data allow us to identify rights holders wherever they are, either in small communities or in urban centres. Extrapolations made on the basis of surveys, the long-form census, or other surveys conducted with samples of the population are simply not sufficient for us.

Second, Mr. Corbeil said that there were already too many questions about official languages in the census. The reply to that is that there are indeed a number of questions about official languages in the census, and, as citizens of this country, we should be proud to make sure that we are well aware of official language minority communities. However, as I mentioned, there are no rights attached to the language frequently spoken at home, although there are questions about it.

Our rights are based on the first language learned and still understood, and on the language of instruction of parents and their children. If you ignore two of those three categories, there could be 20 questions and it would not be enough. If the number of questions is really the issue, which I doubt, the questions on the language most frequently spoken at home must be put back into the long-form questionnaire. Before the previous government removed them, those questions actually were in the long questionnaire. So that space can be used for the essential questions that everyone must be asked, not just 25% of the population.

Third, Mr. Corbeil said that Statistics Canada had not consulted lawyers and he indicated no intention to do so. We see that as a problem, for two reasons.

First, part VII of the act requires the government to consult minorities and gather good information. That implies that it must consult experts in education and at community level, but also lawyers. Actually, failing to consult lawyers may result in errors. For example, when he appeared, Mr. Corbeil pointed out that one of the current issues is that the mother tongue of a good number of immigrants settling in the country is neither French nor English and that francophone immigrants settling outside Quebec were not covered by section 23(1)(a) of the Charter. But that is false.

For example, immigrants from Arab countries who have learned Arabic, French and English in that order, have French as their first official language. So they are rights holders as soon as they acquire Canadian citizenship. In reality, almost all provinces and territories allow them into francophone schools even before they obtain their citizenship and even though they are not yet official rights holders. So it necessary to enumerate them.

Those are the three points in Mr. Corbeil's appearance that I wanted to address.

I would like to briefly describe the document so that it will be useful to you after we leave. It is nine pages long, including the appendix that Mr. Power mentioned.

The first page and a half summarizes the situation and sets out some legal facts that will definitely be useful to you. The next six pages reproduce excerpts from legislation or case law to which we thought it would be useful to draw your attention. Each paragraph is preceded by a subheading that goes with the citations. It is very easy to understand the information as you go through the document.

Specifically, the requirement is to base decisions on evidence, as Mr. Power said. We call this:

evidence-based decision-making

That's the only thing official language minority communities are asking. It's very important to them.

In the census, we recommend that the question on mother tongue be changed and that some questions be added—not 11—in order to find out the language of instruction of parents and their children. A post-censal survey is not enough. I think enough things has been said about that. That's not something the provinces can do with half measures. The federal government must do it through the census, which administers the questions to 100% of the population. Compliance with section 23 of the charter with respect to government communications and services depends on it.

The committee will conduct its study and table a report, which I'm sure will be very significant. It would be unfortunate if it were put on a shelf to gather dust.

We also recommend that the committee continue to study the matter and to occasionally—every four or six months—have officials from Statistics Canada and Minister Bains appear to keep you informed of the progress made with implementing your recommendations.

Mr. Samson knows what I'm talking about. The same thing happened in Nova Scotia in the Doucet-Boudreau case where the courts still monitored the case after their ruling was handed down to ensure that it is enforced. It has even become a well-known term in law. We talk about the Boudreau order to refer to the follow-up of a case to the end. I strongly recommend that you do that.

To reiterate what Mr. Power said, we are in the process of preparing a report with Mr. Landry and a number of stakeholders from education and communities. The French version of the report will be sent to you later this week, soon to be followed by the translated version.

Thank you.

We will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, François Choquette]

Thank you very much, Mr. Roy.

We will now go to questions and comments.

Mrs. Boucher, the floor is yours.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

I see that you are passionate about this. We may not be convinced, but you certainly are.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

To say the least.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

That's quite clear.

From what I gather, you were not impressed by Jean-Pierre Corbeil's appearance before the committee. When Mr. Corbeil came to meet with us, he indicated that the census had 11 questions on these issues and that, according to him, they might not be the best way to collect the data.

I come from Quebec. I have little or no knowledge of the situation of rights holders, but I have been studying the issue of official languages for a long time. I had questions for a number of witnesses who told me that many people, even these days, don't know what a rights holder is. The fact that people, even the francophones, don't know the definition of a rights holder can also pose a problem. If it's not clear for them, it can hardly be for the others. The witnesses said that it was true that people did not always know what a rights holder is, and that it was confusing in their minds.

Mr. Corbeil talked about 11 questions and you talk about having fewer questions. You live in a minority setting. You see this battle on a daily basis at home. In your view, what would be the most probing questions that could best help you to obtain the exact count of francophones outside Quebec or anglophones in Quebec, even if they are not recognized as rights holders?

You are asking us to help you, we might also need your help since you experience it every day. There are some lawyers among you. Mrs. Lanthier, you've been in the field for a long time. The same is true for you, Ms. Côté. How could the committee help you best to develop questions that would trigger relevant answers in the census?

[Mark Power]

May I start?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Yes.

[Mark Power]

First, I think experts should talk to experts. On Thursday, Mr. Landry will provide you with explicit proposals for the questions to Statistics Canada. At least, that will get the work of the statisticians under way. Sometimes, it's easier to work from a first draft than from a blank page. Mrs. Boucher, I also think it's important to avoid asking people whether they are interested in a French-language school.

The only point on which I may agree with Mr. Corbeil is that it's not necessary to ask people whether they are rights holders. As you say, most of them might not even know it.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Exactly.

[Mark Power]

Conversely, Mrs. Boucher, it is also not necessary to ask parents whether they would like to enrol their children in a French school, because that question may be too abstract for a parent who has not seen the school and who has not met with the teachers. I speak here from personal experience.

Let me conclude very quickly. Mrs. Boucher, I invite you and the other members of the committee to consult page 6 of our presentation.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Yes.

[Mark Power]

It's subheading 5.1.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Yes.

[Mark Power]

Right now, under the Constitution, the census is a federal responsibility. It is up to the federal government to take action, especially when one or perhaps other provinces set the example and demand action.

Right now, it makes no sense that the Government of Canada is standing in the way of minority language educational rights being enforced. That makes no sense, and the federal government must take action. The census is a federal responsibility.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Okay.