Official Languages Committee on April 22nd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting No. 27 ^x of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

The committee is meeting for two hours today on its study on Government Measures to Protect and Promote French in Quebec and in Canada.

Just as a reminder, all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the use of a headset with a boom microphone is mandatory for everyone participating remotely.

As you know, interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either the floor, English or French.

Almost all, if not all, of the witnesses are used to appearing before our committee. You know our rules.

First, I would like to welcome all our witnesses to this meeting. You will have a total of seven and a half minutes for your opening remarks, which will be followed by a period of questions. I will signal to you when you have a minute of time left for your remarks or your answer to a member. When you see a red card, that will mean your speaking time is up.

I would now like to welcome this afternoon's witnesses officially.

From the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, we have Carol Jolin, President, Peter Hominuk, Executive Director, and Bryan Michaud, Policy Analyst.

From the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities, we have Éric Forgues, Executive Director.

As an individual, we have Rodrigue Landry, Professor Emeritus at the Université de Moncton and former Director General of the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities.

Without further ado, we will begin with the representative from the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario. I presume Mr. Jolin will be taking the floor.

Mr. Jolin, you have the floor for seven and a half minutes to make your opening remarks.

[Carol Jolin, President, Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I'd like to thank you for inviting me to speak as part of your study on government measures to protect and promote French in Quebec and in Canada.

As our national organization, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, or FCFA, wisely notes in its draft proposals regarding the Canadian government's commitment to protect and promote French across the country, the Government of Canada mainly promotes French in three ways: by funding the organizations and institutions of the francophone and Acadian communities; providing cash transfers to the provinces and territories for instruction in French as a first and second language and for providing French-language services; and funding official language learning in the public service.

Since I addressed Ontario's chronic underfunding of official languages during my last appearance here, I will not dwell on that issue today.

My remarks today will focus on federal transfers for postsecondary French-language instruction.

This funding is essential to our community. As you know, there is a shortage of francophone and bilingual professionals in many sectors, health and education in particular.

Postsecondary French-language education is the number one asset that will enable Ontario and the entire country to address the labour shortage.

Education is oxygen to our communities.

As you know, the Franco-Ontarian community is facing an institutional crisis, particularly in northern Ontario since the announcement that Laurentian University made on February 1 ^x.

Half the university's French-language programs have been cut since that announcement was made, and nearly 40 teachers in the French-language programs were laid off—in English. The position of officer responsible for recruiting foreign students for French-language programming has also been axed. The bulldozing is complete.

Bilingualism at Laurentian University has thus been annihilated.

While there is a glimmer of hope that the universities of Sudbury and Hearst can continue French-language university programming in the north, many questions remain.

How have we come to this pass? Is the funding that the Canadian and Ontario governments have provided actually being used for French-language programming and services? Or has it gone to debt repayments or to fund day-to-day operations, as would appear to be the case for part of the money earmarked for research as well as gifts from donors? I don't have the answers to these questions, nor, I would imagine, do the honourable members of this committee. I also very much doubt that the governments have them either. Laurentian University, like other minority community universities, is not required to account for funding related to official languages.

Laurentian University has not invested in francophones in the past 20 years. Since 2000, it has created 26 English-language programs, which have enabled it to increase its number of anglophone students by 2,170 this year.

Only five new French-language programs have been introduced during that same period, and they have added only 124 francophone students this year.

According to data gathered by Laurentian University's Regroupement des professeurs francophones, or RPF, on April 11, the university cut 45% of its French-language programming, but only 20% of its English offerings.

Incidentally, we are citing the Regroupement's figures here because those provided by Laurentian University have proven to be misleading.

When it comes to accountability…

Why such disproportionate cuts to French-language programs?

The Canadian and Ontario governments, as well as the Consortium national de formation en santé, or CNFS, invest more than $12 million in Laurentian University annually to support its efforts to provide high-quality French-language programming and services.

Where does that money go? We don't know.

In March, our lawyers from the Juristes Power Law firm filed a notice of motion to have the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, or AFO, instated as an interested party in the court-supervised financial restructuring process.

The local newspaper Le Voyageur reported a few days ago that several affidavits signed by Laurentian University professors and filed in court had outlined facts that revealed the limits of the university administration's willingness to invest in French-language programs.

They referred to nonexistent efforts to recruit francophones internationally, problems in securing what are considered flagship programs on the francophone side and obstacles raised to undermine the establishment of a French-language university, but especially the lack of any decision-making power wielded by francophones at Laurentian University.

However, we are inclined to believe that the funding provided by the federal and provincial governments has helped make francophone needs count to a greater degree and to be better funded.

Consequently, as the process of modernizing the Official Languages Act begins, we feel it is essential that the act provide for new accountability models designed to ensure full transparency regarding government funding granted for this type of budget envelope.

We also consider it essential that all funding that the federal and provincial governments provide to support French-language education and services, as in the official languages in education program, for example, be withdrawn from Laurentian University as soon as possible and redirected to the University of Sudbury. The Franco-Ontarian community's trust in Laurentian University has now reached its lowest point, and the university no longer has any credibility in the community it claims to serve.

The Franco-Ontarian community's clear view is that the future of French-language university programming in northern Ontario lies with the University of Sudbury and the University of Hearst, not Laurentian University, which should transfer its French-language programs to those two institutions as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Jolin.

Thank you for staying within the time allotted to you.

We will immediately go to our next witness, Éric Forgues, who is executive director of the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities.

Mr. Forgues, you have the floor for seven and a half minutes.

[Éric Forgues, Executive Director, Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities]

Thank you.

As you mentioned, I have been executive director of the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities, the CIRLM, since 2012. Rodrigue Landry, who is also here today, was executive director of the Institute from 2002 to 2012.

The institute was created in 2002 with funding that Canadian Heritage granted to the Université de Moncton. Its mission is to work together with its partners in conducting relevant research that can support the various stakeholders, the official language minorities and the framers of public language policy.

My presentation will focus on three points: the importance of research and data in formulating government official language action plans and developing public policy, the importance of engaging francophone populations and the need to clarify part VII of the Official Languages Act.

I will not be presenting figures or analyses to show how fragile the francophone communities are since that has been done on many occasions. We know that the communities' demographic weight is slowly declining, that the vitality of French is low in certain regions and that their institutions are fragile. We also know that there is an associative sector striving every day to combat the pressures of assimilation and that thousands of francophones and francophiles are helping to make French a living language.

What is missing, in my view, are research-based public policies. We lack any genuine official languages planning that includes clearly defined objectives and means or measurable results that are to be achieved. We must be able to measure more accurately the impact of action taken by government and francophone actors to address the communities' vitality. There must also be more transparency and accountability for the communities.

Consider, for example, the Action Plan for Official Languages 2018-2023: Investing in Our Future. That plan provides for official languages investments totalling $2.7 billion. It states: "Our new Action Plan will help Canada achieve measurable, evidence-based goals supporting the vitality of official-language minority communities and the bilingualism of Canadians."

Two measurable objectives from the action plan are presented. First, the action plan's measures are designed to stabilize the proportion of francophones in the country at 4%. Second, the aim is to work toward a target of 4.4% of all immigrants by 2023. I don't think that's enough to determine whether the $2.7 billion investment will have any real effect on the communities. Other indicators seem to be needed. I am thinking, for example, of indicators of the number of parent rights holders who send their children to French schools, educational infrastructure needs, the language young people use on social media, how they consume French-language cultural products and so on.

To live in French, young people and adults need a French-language social environment and well-established francophone institutions. They need francophone workplaces and educational spaces, childcare centres, sports, organized recreation, media and social media. They need a French-language public and media landscape. Have we analyzed the communities' sociolinguistic environment? Have we based the measures we take on those analyses? As far as I know, that has not been the case. This is one of the limits of government intervention. Government invests significant funding without basing its intervention on rigorous and precise planning that produces measurable results based on research, analysis and conclusive data. A community of researchers can assist government and the action it takes. We have extensive expertise in official languages. Many individuals, including Rodrigue Landry here, have contributed to this effort a keen understanding of the factors that influence a community's linguistic vitality.

Now I will discuss public engagement.

Canadian government intervention should increase public participation in developing government action plans for official languages and government action as a whole. Public engagement should be based on consultation activities and discussions on the needs and priorities of the communities. And it should start with communication. It is important that francophone actors and the Canadian government inform the public of progress that has been made. We are in the third year of the Action Plan for Official Languages 2018-2023: Investing in Our Future. Where do we stand today? No progress reports have been released. The government and francophone organizations must do a better job of reporting their actions and achievements to the public.

Efforts must be made to work more closely with the public, who are the first ones affected by these measures. When I say the public, I am thinking of citizens. Consultations must not be restricted to francophone professionals. I believe it is dangerous to limit consultations to organizations because an organization, by definition, will always advocate a point of view related to the very purpose of its existence, mission, objectives and so on.

Of course, there are also benefits to consulting the public because those organizations have developed expertise in their spheres of action. That expertise should not be overlooked, but there has been a tendency to overlook citizen expertise in recent years. Many experiments are being conducted around the world to involve citizens to a greater degree in the democratic life of their country. A recent report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, reveals that a wave of formal discussion is under way. Promising ideas are waiting to be explored in order to urge francophone and francophile populations to engage with the francophonie relying on their collective intelligence.

I think we should encourage the creation of citizen deliberation spaces to determine the needs and priorities of the communities and to propose ways of addressing them, but, more broadly, to determine a society-wide project for the francophonie.

In closing, I will address part VII of the Official Languages Act, which directly concerns the communities. Part VII requires the government to take positive measures to enhance the vitality of the minorities and to assist their development. It is essential that part VII be clarified in order to minimize room for interpretation. For the government, it must be construed as narrowly as possible.

As lawyer Michel Doucet has said, part VII of the act has "a remedial character" and "its purpose is not to maintain the status quo but instead to remedy the historic and gradual erosion of the rights of official language minorities."

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Forgues.

We will now continue with Mr. Rodrigue Landry, professor emeritus.

Mr. Landry, you also have seven and a half minutes to make your presentation.

[Rodrigue Landry, Professor Emeritus, Université de Moncton, former Director General, Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for having me here today to talk to you about the Official Languages Act and the vitality of the minorities.

I intend to provide you with a survey of the views I have developed in a forthcoming publication. My presentation will be divided into three parts.

First, let's talk about the impact of the Official Languages Act on the vitality of the linguistic minorities. Our research shows that contact with government cannot be distinguished from other types of linguistic contact in the public sphere. Linguistic contacts are statistically unrelated to individual linguistic identity. Instead they are related to subjective linguistic vitality, by which I mean individuals' perception of the status and vitality of a language in society. This subjective vitality is only faintly related to the desire to belong to the minority community.

The public services that the federal government provides represent only a very small portion of linguistic experiences in the public sphere. Consequently, the Official Languages Act has little impact on individuals' language development.

We therefore come to the first sociolinguistic principle respecting the potential impact of a language law on the vitality of a minority: no language policy or law has an impact on the vitality of a minority unless it promotes the linguistic and the cultural socialization of its members. In our view, only part VII of the Official Languages Act appears, at least implicitly, to offer that potential. We will return to this point.

Now let's consider the actors who are essential to the vitality of a language. Our theoretical models reveal three essential and relatively independent actors whose roles influence the vitality of a linguistic minority: the community, the civil society of the minority and the state or government.

The first and most important essential actor is the community itself, not in its broader and impersonal sense, but as the sum of the individuals and families who constitute what researchers call the "intimate community," of which the family is the basic unit. It guarantees the intergenerational transmission of language and the foundations of individual identity.

The second essential actor is the civil society of the minority, which manages the minority's social organization. It exercises invaluable leadership in creating and maintaining the group's institutions, its "institutional completeness." The civil society also acts as an intermediary between members of the minority and the state.

The third essential actor is the state, which supports the linguistic minority's vitality by legitimizing its existence in society through policies that recognize individual and collective rights. The state delivers programs and services in the language of the minority and may fund vital institutions.

Our second principle is therefore as follows: a language policy or act has an optimal effect on the vitality of the linguistic minority when it promotes the growth of the group's collective identity and coordinates a synergistic set of concerted measures taken by the three actors essential to its vitality.

Responsibility for the coordination of and synergy among the three actors that enhance the minority's vitality falls to the state. The state is the legitimate political decision-maker and holder of power and resources. The state is in the best position to implement an effective language planning program.

Now I would like to discuss part VII of the Official Languages Act. Part VII is collective and remedial in scope and concerns the genuine equality of the two official language communities. This part of the act addresses the objective of enhancing the vitality of the minorities that the government has set, more particularly in section 41. Note that the English version of section 41 refers to "enhancing the vitality," whereas the French version contains the words "favoriser l'épanouissement."

From what I understand of the analyses conducted by the legal experts who interpret part VII of the Official Languages Act, considerable work remains to be done to clarify its object and scope. What does it mean to take "positive measures" in order "to enhance the vitality of the minorities," "to support and assist their development" and "to foster the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society"? In my view, if these ambitious aims are not reflected in specific and actual objectives regarding community vitality or in clear government responsibilities and commitments, the Official Languages Act may well be important in appearance, given its symbolic character for the country, but have no substantial impact on the actual equality of the two major linguistic communities concerned.

Revitalizing a language is an ambitious and complex undertaking. No language can be revitalized without a genuine language plan. This plan is based on an extensive and ongoing research program that guides the precise nature of priority objectives, the implementation of actions designed to achieve them and evaluations verifying their effectiveness.

Paradoxically, since Official Languages Act was amended in 2005, as a result of which part VII is now justiciable, the federal government's engagement in its five-your plans appears to have regressed, if the five-year period from 2003 to 2008 can be taken as a reference point. The first action plan for official languages, in 2003, contained several elements of a true language plan. It was based on research and set genuine priority objectives tailored to each of the official language minorities. The plans and roadmaps that followed appear to have been more the result of political compromises than genuine language plans.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

You have 15 seconds left, Mr. Landry.

[Rodrigue Landry]

From a language revitalization perspective, in addition to the fact that the fundamental objective of the Official Languages Act and its part VII lacks clarity, three major flaws make it impossible for the federal government to make commitments to enhance the vitality of the minorities: the lack of a genuine language plan; the negligence of the main actor involved in enhancing the vitality of a language, which is to say the community itself, consisting of its individual members; and the lack of intergovernmental coordination between the federal government and the provinces and territories.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Landry.

I would like to remind the witnesses that, if they wish to submit their briefs to us, they may forward them to the clerk. We would be very much appreciate that.

We will now go to the period of questions. I would remind members that we will have two periods of questions. The first will consist of our usual rounds of six minutes, five minutes, two and a half minutes and five minutes. We will have the same rounds in the second period of questions since the witnesses have agreed to stay with us for the next two hours.

We begin with the the first vice-chair of the committee, Mr. Blaney.

Go ahead for six minutes.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. chair

Thanks as well to our eminent witnesses for making themselves available.

This is an important study for the members of this committee since we would like to expand the application of the Official Languages Act to include, dare I say it, French language minorities in North America.

My first question is for Mr. Landry.

You have conducted some extremely interesting research. You've previously spoken to us about statutory insecurity, which you have addressed in your writings. You've also presented some new information to us today.

We are, of course, examining ways to reframe the Official Languages Act for our francophone minority communities, but don't you think we should also take this opportunity to examine the decline of French in Quebec?

I'd like to have your perspective on that subject.

[Rodrigue Landry]

We've conducted research in Quebec on both francophones and anglophones. The francophone research dates back to the 1990s, whereas our last research project on Quebec anglophones goes back to 2008 or 2009. What struck me was that we observed no qualitative differences between francophones living in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec. In other words, when we study them based on a demographic profile and the vitality continuum, we see that, in a low-vitality context, they behave as minority francophones.

I must say that French is more protected in Quebec than in most other provinces. And yet the people who constitute the sector that I call the intimate community, that is, the individuals and families that constitute it, behave in the same way as people in the majority when they're in the majority and as people in the minority when they're in the minority.

We published two articles, one on francophones and the other on anglophones, and we focused on the factors in their lives that had an influence. For example, we know that the language used in public has a definite impact on subjective vitality and that the language used in private life, together with other aspects of lived experience, predict identity. The factors are the same for anglophones living in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec. They behave as a minority when they're in the minority.

However, there's a difference among Quebec anglophones. I don't think Quebec's anglophone community constitutes a threat to that province. It's the strength of English around the world, particularly in North America, that does that. You could say it's the epicentre. Researchers have drawn a planetary analogy: English is the big planet that attracts all the others. It's a very interesting model. English is now the language that everyone wants to use. You can see how people are drawn to English even in Quebec. I would note, however, that the concept of vitality applies to all groups, both francophones and anglophones in Quebec.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

That's very interesting, Mr. Landry. You seem to be saying that francophone minorities outside Quebec are a twofold minority, since Quebec francophones behave, to a degree, as a minority when they're in a minority situation. That's more or less what we see happening on Montreal Island. However, anglophones see and feel the ambient appeal of the English language in North America even when they're in the minority.

[Rodrigue Landry]

I'd like to make a point here. Where this is most obvious is in the media. When we analyzed our research data on Quebec anglophones, we saw that it was entirely natural for them to consume English media. That's the case even when they're very much in the minority. However, it also has to be said that even Quebec's francophone majority consumes a great deal of English-language media.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

But the fact remains that the final episode of District 31 will be on this evening, Mr. Landry, and it will be broadcast in French.

Mr. Jolin, I unfortunately don't have much time left to devote to you. I hope we remember your remarks when we focus specifically on the situation of Laurentian University. I say that mainly for the analyst and the chair. I remember many points from your remarks, particularly the recommendations. However, I don't have enough time to go back over them. You made a case. You even called Laurentian University by its English name. That suggests a certain resentment of that institution on your part.

I am out of time. We'll catch up on the next round.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Yes, absolutely. You will have an opportunity to get back to that, Mr. Blaney and Mr. Jolin, since we have a full round left.

Now we will hear from Ms. Lattanzio.

I remind members please to say to whom they are directing their questions.

Go ahead, Ms. Lattanzio.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My next two questions will be for Mr. Landry, but before getting to those questions, I'd like to ask him to send us copies of the two articles he mentioned in his reply to my colleague.

Here's my first question, Mr. Landry: what do you think are the vitality factors on which the OLMCs and the various orders of government should rely in establishing a community base for intergenerational language transmission?

[Rodrigue Landry]

I've written extensively on that subject, and I think early childhood is the leading factor. For example, I've heard from many spokespersons for various organizations. Mr. Forgues has written extensively on the interests that each association advocates. Some authors discuss neo-corporate interests, for example. In fact, all organizations want money so they can advance their own sectors. On the other hand, they don't agree on the importance of early childhood or, in particular, on increasing parent awareness in order then to encourage them to enrol their children in minority schools. However, everyone would benefit if we could really emphasize that. In overall terms, only 50% of the children of francophone minority communities attend French-language schools, although that figure comes from Statistics Canada's 2006 post-census survey on the vitality of official language minorities.

Consequently, I feel that the crucial factors are early childhood and education. Many encouraging points are also made in the white paper, which I recently read but hadn't read before I finished writing my article. It outlines some interesting aspects and, from what I understood, seems to single out early childhood.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I also understand that you published a study on Quebec anglophones in 2008 or 2009. Is that correct?

[Rodrigue Landry]

Yes, it was published around then.

There's a more recent article in which we compare their behaviour and reactions to various situations. That study is actually quite similar to another one we conducted on francophones. I think that one was published in 2014.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Would you please send us the most recent study as well as the one from 2008 or 2009?

Second, I want to ask if you could tell us about the specific issues that exogamous families face. In that particular context, what are the consequences for the transmission of the minority language to the children of those families? What are the trends in their educational and linguistic path?

[Rodrigue Landry]

Exogamy is a very interesting phenomenon. Take school enrolment, for example. Approximately 34% of exogamous parents in francophone minority situations send their children to francophone schools, compared to 88% of families where both parents are francophone. So you might believe that the entire burden rests on the shoulders of exogamous parents. However, our more in-depth analyses show that exogamy is the direct cause of failure to transmit the French language or to enrol children in francophone schools. Exogamy is a factor that influences the family language dynamic.

I like to compare exogamous families to the federal government. An exogamous family is a microcosm of society. In both cases, people have to learn to value both languages within the same unit. Politicians have to do it in Parliament, and parents in exogamous families have to do it with members of their own family. That's how I view the federal government's role, which is to increase awareness among parents. All parents want their children to be bilingual, but our surveys show that very few parents actually understand the issues involved. So-called additive bilingualism, which is acquired when you learn a second language without losing your first, is always better when you focus on the weaker language.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Landry.

[Rodrigue Landry]

That's perhaps…

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I didn't want to interrupt you, Mr. Landry, but I'd also like to ask Mr. Forgues a question.

Mr. Forgues, you said that part VII of the Official Languages Act had a remedial character.

Could we say that the Canadian government grants the OLMCs institutional completeness under part VII?

[Éric Forgues]

No. I think that, as a result of one particular interpretation, the government took a long time to implement various measures pursuant to its part VII obligations. You have to understand that part VII is a more recent development in the history of the Official Languages Act. The federal government's duty to ensure that positive measures are taken is also recent. Consequently, it's a little early in the Canadian francophonie's history for those measures to have had a considerable influence on institutional completeness. More has to be done.

One of the problems with part VII is that the federal government's commitments have been interpreted in a somewhat minimalist manner.