Official Languages Committee on April 27th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 28 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

The committee is meeting to hear witnesses as part of the study on government measures to protect and promote French in Quebec and in Canada.

My thanks to the witnesses for being with us for the duration of the meeting.

We will suspend the meeting at around 5:10 p.m. for a short period in camera.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.

First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to remind all participants of this meeting that taking screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

Before speaking, click on the microphone icon to activate your own mic. When you are done speaking, please put your mic on mute to minimize any interference. A reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the use of a headset with a boom microphone is mandatory for everyone participating remotely.

However, should any challenges arise, feel free to advise me, so as to foster everyone's full participation in this meeting.

Without further ado, I would like to welcome this afternoon's witnesses. From the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, we welcome director general Alain Dupuis. Jean Johnson, the federation's president, is having technical difficulties. He is attending, but he won't be able to speak.

We also welcome, as an individual, Mariève Forest, sociologist, president and founder of Sociopol, and visiting professor at the University of Ottawa. Also as an individual, we welcome Jack Jedwab, president and chief executive officer, immigration and identities, Association for Canadian Studies and Canadian Institute for Identities and Migration.

Each witness will have seven and a half minutes for their presentation. I will advise them when they have one minute left and when their time has run out. Then we will move on to the question period.

Without further ado, we will start with Mr. Dupuis, who has seven and a half minutes to give his speech.

Mr. Dupuis, turn on your mic. You have the floor.

[Alain Dupuis, Director General, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Let me say that the president, Jean Johnson, would really have preferred to be here. Unfortunately, due to technical difficulties, I will be making the presentation, but he most certainly sends his regards.

Thank you for inviting the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, to appear today as part of your study on protecting and promoting French across the country. In September, we warmly welcomed the government's commitment in this regard in the Speech from the Throne. For us, this commitment is not only welcome, but necessary, given the vulnerability of French.

Soon after the Speech from the Throne, the Office of the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages asked the FCFA to propose principles and measures the government could adopt to protect and promote French across the country. As a result, the FCFA produced a discussion paper with several proposals. The paper was submitted to this committee as part of this study.

In the paper, we first confirmed that French is the official language that needs specific support measures to achieve genuine equality with English. We recommended that a council be created to report periodically on the status of French in Canada and to recommend appropriate action. The council would specifically include representatives of the francophone and Acadian communities.

I note that this idea is not in Minister Joly's official languages reform document, and it is something we will discuss with her. Our communities must participate in the implementation of Canada's language policy, which we think is essential.

Second, we noted in the paper an issue of social cohesion around the major Canadian values of the 21st century. Over time, the societal choices that have been made have brought Canada to where it is today. These choices include linguistic duality, cultural diversity and reconciliation with indigenous peoples. However, these choices are not well understood by everyone. As Official Languages Commissioner Victor Goldbloom said in 1992, people cannot support what they do not understand. We believe that government has a responsibility for civic education to foster a better common understanding of these great values and why they are fundamental.

Third, we called the government to action on the demographic weight of the francophone communities. This demographic weight has been eroded over the decades due to assimilation and because the francophone community is not renewing itself at the same rate as the English-speaking community. In this action plan for official languages, the government has already set the objective of restoring this demographic weight to 4%. This will require bold action on francophone immigration and on support for the social and cultural vitality of the francophone communities.

Fourth, we recommended that the government work with the provinces and territories to eliminate the many barriers to learning French as a second language, so that it is no longer seen as a privilege for the few, but as a right for all Canadians.

Fifth, francophone communities are stronger when they are united. Closer ties between Quebec and other francophone communities in Canada are to everyone's advantage. The federal government can contribute to this by promoting francophone mobility, particularly at the post-secondary level. It can also clarify Radio-Canada's mandate so that the Crown corporation's role is to foster better mutual knowledge between Quebec and other francophone communities.

Sixth, the vitality of French depends on French-language services that reach Canadians where it matters most: locally. That is why we are advocating for better cooperation between the federal government, the provinces, the territories and the municipalities to move toward a full range of French-language services developed with, by and for francophone communities. In this regard, Minister Joly's reform document proposes to promote the use of accountability tools in federal-provincial-territorial agreements. The FCFA believes that we need to go further and include strong language clauses in the agreements that transfer funds to the provinces and territories.

Finally, for the seventh recommendation, I would refer you to Graham Fraser's book Sorry, I Don't Speak French: Confronting the Canadian Crisis That Won't Go Away.

In it, Mr. Fraser notes that the government has historically taken a defensive and justificatory stance on linguistic duality, rather than promoting its benefits. Creating a positive perception of French and francophone communities starts at the top. The Government of Canada is in the best position to promote the French language and francophone communities across Canada in its official discourse and publications.

In conclusion, let me be direct. The status of French, whether as an official language of Canada or a language in the public space, is losing ground. I'm not just talking about bilingual government communications during a pandemic. I'm also talking about the precarious situation of francophone universities like Laurentian University, and the Campus Saint-Jean in Alberta, for example. I'm also talking about the use of French in the public service.

Those who feel that this is not a big deal are mistaken. The erosion of French is the erosion of part of Canada's DNA. The federal government is absolutely justified in wanting to act strongly and boldly.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much for your speech, Mr. Dupuis.

We now go to Ms. Forest, sociologist, president and founder of Sociopol, and visiting professor at the University of Ottawa.

The next seven and a half minutes are yours, Ms. Forest.

[Mariève Forest, Sociologist, President and Founder of Sociopol, Visiting Professor at the University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, everyone. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the thinking on measures to protect and promote French in Canada.

I would like to point out that I have been working on the issue of official languages for almost 20 years. As such, I have two sets of proposals to share with you related to two of my areas of expertise, namely post-secondary and immigration.

First, I will emphasize the importance of approaching post-secondary education from a distinct strategy that takes a restorative perspective. Please note that the thoughts and data related to this come from a study commissioned by the Department of Canadian Heritage. The final report has not been submitted yet. Therefore, the perspectives I'm sharing with you are those of the researchers and are not binding on the department.

The second point I will raise is the importance of systematically viewing immigration from a longitudinal perspective, meaning a perspective that considers the dynamics of language transfer. This point will be shorter, but you should know that, over the past few years, I've conducted several studies on immigration, particularly with regard to workforce integration, temporary residents and governance. Please feel free to ask me questions on those other subjects.

With respect to minority language post-secondary education, education has traditionally been analyzed and funded as a whole. However, I believe that it would be beneficial to employ a strategy for post-secondary education that is separate from that of elementary and secondary education. The strategy should include access to French-language education and limited incentives. Universities and colleges are indeed among the few institutions in a francophone community that play a very central role in both proximity socialization, that is, identity building, and in socialization in the public space. I'm referring here to the representations that francophones have of themselves, but also to those of the majority group in relation to French, to francophones and to francophone communities. I will pick up the conceptual baggage developed and discussed by Mr. Landry last week to emphasize the unique nature of post-secondary when it comes to institutional completeness.

That said, the various databases we consulted show limited access and incentives for French-language post-secondary education in Canada and outside of Quebec. We are close to completing a report of over 120 pages and nearly 80 tables. I will share just a few numbers with you.

In 2018-19, of the students enrolled, about 2% studied in French, if you combine universities and colleges. Let me put that percentage in perspective: In 2016, 3.8% of Canadians spoke French as their first official language. Yet universities and colleges are unique in being able to accept not only francophones, but also francophiles and foreign students. In actual fact, the two systems are not separate, as is the case at the primary and secondary levels. So there are issues in terms of access.

In terms of incentives, we can certainly point to some challenges. For example, student debt is higher for those studying in French. This is especially true at university, but it's also true at college. Programs are less diverse, especially in science, technology and mathematics. That's quite significant, especially if you exclude the University of Ottawa. Of course, an institution's reputation is generally supposed to matter in students' choices, but that factor comes into play much less when they choose to study in French.

In addition to consulting various surveys, we spoke to industry representatives. The issue of funding emerged as important. However, it remains a very complex issue.

I will make three points. One is that the funding environment for post-secondary education has changed significantly over the past 15 years in Canada. Tuition fees are now a greater part of institutional revenue. That makes it more difficult for smaller educational institutions to compete.

In addition, planning for and providing French-language education at francophone or bilingual institutions requires more investment. That's the case in several budget categories, such as educational resources, required travel, or language training.

All post-secondary institutions have a mission to provide services to the community. Yet, when one's community is dispersed, remote, low-profile, and French-speaking, the resulting dynamics are unique.

I will close with the issue of immigration. I will focus on the importance of integrating the longitudinal perspective more strongly by taking language transfers into consideration.

Our current concern is primarily the very low numbers of French-speaking immigrants that are landed and settled each year. And with good reason. Of course, it is important to continue along those lines.

However, language retention among immigrants has received little attention. In a study in which we developed demographic forecasts for francophones in Ontario, the data clearly showed that the number of new French-speaking arrivals does not in itself greatly influence the demographic curve, if the rates of language retention are the same for francophones born in Canada as for those born elsewhere.

We know that English has an assimilating power over francophones born in Canada. Do immigrants assimilate in the same way as francophones born in this country? Do they do so at the same speed? In the long term, which factors contribute to reducing language transfer among immigrants?

Those are questions that have not been looked at closely. It is my view that they would benefit from being among the measures to protect French in Canada.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Ms. Forest.

We have Jack Jedwab with us, appearing as an individual.

The floor is yours for seven and a half minutes, Mr. Jedwab.

[Jack Jedwab, President and Chief Executive Officer, Immigration and Identities, Association for Canadian Studies and Canadian Institute for Identities and Migration, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks also to the members of the committee for inviting me to share my thoughts on the status of the debate over official languages and linguistic duality in Canada, especially in Quebec.

I will start with my observations and end with some recommendations on immigration. First, as I mentioned, I want to establish a little of the context for the current debate in Quebec.

Personally, in some respects, I find it unhealthy. My concern is the very basis for the debate, which may well influence policymakers as to the way in which language policies will be developed. The issue is harmonizing the Official Languages Act and the Charter of the French Language. Those were the objectives with which I was presented, or are part of the mandate I was given, for this meeting of the committee.

As I know that time is an issue, I will quickly deal with four points. Language targets or objectives are often vague and the policies and programs are measured by reference points that are badly defined or not defined at all. As an example, the Charter of the French Language stipulates that French is to be the “normal and everyday language.”

As a result, some people wonder what exactly normal and everyday language is. Does it mean that, when people interact in public spaces in Quebec, they have to speak French?

If that is the objective, it is unrealistic, given the demographics in Quebec and the number of speakers of English as a first or second language who live here. A general objective may not be unhealthy, but it can lead to confusion if it is not closely defined. It is simply a matter of better defining the objectives for the official languages.

As Mr. Dupuis mentioned earlier, referring to Victor Goldbloom, if people do not understand an objective because it is not precise, it may well lead to confusion. That is my first point.

The second point I want to raise is about concepts of majority and minority in a given territory. Those concepts are often fluid. For example, the idea that francophones form a minority on the Island of Montreal leads some to believe that non-francophones are the majority. If we follow logic like that, we might get the impression that a person such as myself, with English as my first language even though I consider myself partly francophone, could put myself in the same category as Mr. Dubourg, for example, whose first language is Creole and with Ms. Martinez Ferrada, whose first language is probably Spanish. Are we going to say that we form the majority and then decide to impose who knows what language on the francophone minority on the Island of MMontreal

I understand the way that the relationship between a majority language and a minority language is presented. But I would never imagine that Ms. Martinez Ferrada or Mr. Dubourg would invite me to a meeting to decide how we, as a majority, could come up with a language policy in Quebec. We are not the majority on the Island of Montreal. However, when I meet with my colleagues, I get the impression that they take it for granted that 52% of the people with various first languages that are not French, share English as their first language and want to impose it on the minority. In my view, logic like that is unhealthy and distorts the debate.

The third point I want to bring up is linked to the previous one. Why do we insist on a certain piece of territory, such as the Island of Montreal, instead of the whole Montreal metropolitan area? A choice like that is not justified in demographic terms. When I ask colleagues who are demographers why they choose the Island of Montreal instead of the Montreal metropolitan area to establish the number of francophones, their answer is that they do so because downtown is on the Island of Montreal. Now the South Shore is closer to downtown Montreal than the West Island, which is on the Island of MMontreal A number of questions come up as to the way things are interpreted.

I would like to quickly bring up two other points.

Let me switch to English, because I'll do this in both languages.

Very rarely is causal evidence provided for certain measures or initiatives that are introduced to deal with either the improvement of the position of the French language, whether it's in Montreal, the rest of Quebec or elsewhere, or supporting the English-speaking community with respect to issues around vitality.

We need to have more causal evidence of measures we adopt, “causal” meaning, if for example the members of my National Assembly in Quebec say that we need to say “Bonjour” instead of “Bonjour, hi”, it would be important to provide causal evidence of the effectiveness of that type of a proposal, and not just throw it up in the air, we'll vote for it unanimously and it's all good.

Because actually, more people are saying “Bonjour, hi”, and “Au revoir, goodbye”, and having conversations in both languages since that measure was suggested by legislators in Quebec than was the case before that suggestion was made. I can assure you wherever I go now it's “Bonjour, hi”, everywhere I go almost. We're not thinking about the impact of those measures, just their symbolic nature.

I've always found that a bit funny, too, that we in Quebec in the National Assembly will say that we don't want the word “hi”, but we're okay with the N-word. I mean, think about the paradox there, which is striking to me in some instances. Anyway, we'll leave that aside for the time being.

My final point is that it's the view that languages are inevitably in competition.

According to that vision, as soon as you speak a little English, it means you're speaking less French.

The key to the threat to the French language, at least in Quebec, is in the workplace. French is declining in Montreal in customer-service sectors, such as restaurants.

It isn't because you speak a little more English or a little less French that the two languages can't coexist. In fact, they must coexist in some ways. There is lots of mixing, and there has been lots of mixing in Montreal and elsewhere in Quebec, which is great in terms of some of the change that we're seeing and some of the fléchissement that we're seeing. We need to be able to manage that.

I think that's over for me.

I have one minute. That's good.

Thank you, Mr. Dubourg.

Very quickly, if we're going to try to deal with issues around the percentages of francophones, anglophones and allophones, we need to look at the issue of immigration, obviously. It's immigration and projections around the future numbers of immigrants we will receive and the language composition of immigrants that is creating the perception that French, as a mother tongue or a language spoken at home.... Those aren't my preferred categories for measuring the situation, by the way. I prefer looking at the situation of French in the workplace or first official language spoken, but we need to better consider how we can augment the percentage of francophone immigrants coming to Quebec.

A lot of that is in the hands of the Quebec government. To be fair, over 20 years—and I can show you the data—the Quebec government can't do more in that area than it has done, and the federal government is not the obstacle to that happening.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much, Mr. Jedwab.

We now move to the time for questions.

I would also like to advise members of the committee that, pursuant to the routine motion we passed, our first round will be 50 minutes. We will then have about 15 minutes left and, for that second part, I propose to allocate four minutes to each party. You can also separate your time.

Mr. Blaney and Mr. Dalton have the floor for the first six minutes. I assume that Mr. Blaney will be starting.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We are counting on you to divide up the time into equal slices, just as we do with a nice sugar pie.

My thanks to the witnesses for their presentations.

Before I share my time with Mr. Dalton, I will ask two questions.

My first question goes to Mariève Forest.

Ms. Forest, you talked about a restorative approach to post-secondary education. We know that our second-language post-secondary education institutions are currently under pressure. Mr. Dupuis specifically referred to the crisis at l'Université Laurentienne. In addition, dark clouds are gathering over flagships like the Université de Moncton and the Campus Saint-Jean at the University of Alberta.

You seem to be talking about restorative measures. Are you implying that some things were not done correctly in the past, in terms of funding or in the approach that was chosen? I would like to hear what you have to say on that in particular.

[Mariève Forest]

I can't express an opinion on what was done in the past. As I explained, in terms of funding, the context has also evolved in the last 15 years and goes far beyond the French-language post-secondary institutions. But it has affected them. Fifteen years ago, we could not say that.

However, all kinds of measures could actually be put in place at the moment. The critical state of several institutions is very clear, not only when we talk to their leaders and follow the media, but also when we see the different sets of data, which make it very clear that access is limited. We must also develop a keen understanding of the protection measures that can be put into place and the factors that make those institutions vulnerable.

There are all kinds of governance models at the moment. In the west, they have academic units within large anglophone universities. Ontario has a number of bilingual models. Some places have French-language institutions.

At the moment, we do not know with any accuracy what really allows students to thrive. When they live in French, students can develop in a safe environment in terms of language.

A lot of data needs to be gathered at post-secondary level.

The restorative point of view more specifically applies to what we see today, limited access.

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

You talked about governance models. Given what we have heard about l'Université Laurentienne, the bilingual model certainly does not give us any appetite to repeat the experiment.

Let me turn to Mr. Dupuis, of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the FCFA.

Mr. Dupuis, you started your remarks by referring to the Speech from the Throne and by saying that it was necessary to recognize that French needs particular support. You also provided recommendations.

What is your reaction to the fact that, going forward, we recognize that French, even in Quebec, must receive particular attention from the federal government, at the same time as support is renewed for francophone minorities?

I was talking about the sugar pie earlier, do we have more people sharing the same pie or do we have to have a different approach?

I would like to hear what you have to say on the matter. Let me say, by the way, that I appreciate the FCFA's openness on this issue, which is a concern for us all, wherever we are in the country.

[Alain Dupuis]

I would say that our communities have to think about promoting and preserving French, and not just in terms of our minority communities and the majority in Quebec. We must put all our heads together in order to promote our language. The new logic that the Speech from the Throne provides is more or less along those lines. This commitment to the uniqueness of French means that, at times, more has to be done. That is justified because unique measures have to be put into place in order to reach real equality.

Going back to the example of the post-secondary network, it is clear that it must be strengthened and consolidated outside Quebec. The need may not be the same for the anglophone minority in Quebec, and that's fine.

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

No, indeed.

[Alain Dupuis]

We could design our post-secondary system like a national network that would include institutions in Quebec and would include the idea of francophone mobility all over the country, in order to identify their services. I feel that this is a new avenue that the vision of recognizing the uniqueness of French opens for us.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Dupuis.

So we have to stop thinking in isolation and separating the francophone communities outside Quebec and inside Quebec. We have to think in terms of French having a special framework, as one of our two national languages and one of the pillars of our identity. Thank you very much.

I will yield the floor to my friend Mr. Dalton, from Vancouver.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

You have the floor for 45 seconds, Mr. Dalton.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

So, I will get right to the point.

To back up your answer, what mark would you give to the government for its efforts to promote French?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Who does that question go to, Mr. Dalton?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

It goes to all three.

Mr. Dupuis, you can start.

[Alain Dupuis]

For us, the planned reform of the official languages that Minister Joly has published met a number of the communities' demands and priorities.

When we studied the plan, we saw that it contained 80% of our requests.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lefebvre, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would really like to get into this game and ask you to give a mark to the former Harper government. But I will not do so because we are trying to work in a spirit of collaboration and to see how we can promote the Francophonie, given that we are talking about the decline of French.

Mr. Dupuis, thank you very much for your comments. I would have liked to hear Mr. Johnson also, but we will have other opportunities to talk to him. You talked about promoting French and the importance of being positive with regard to official language minority communities. You know that our government has allocated an additional investment of $500 million in its action plan. It has also presented a white paper, as you said, not to mention Budget 2021, which was brought down last week and which provides for an additional investment of $300 million in the communities.

Could you talk a little about the importance of our infrastructure in culture, in communities and, of course, in schools? Then, I would like to hear your comments about the importance of reviving the Court Challenges program with adequate funding. What does that provide for us? What does it represent in terms of the decline of French and of investments in our communities? How important are these investments?

You know that, in Sudbury, where I am at the moment and where you are from, the government has made a major investment in the Place des Arts, which will soon open its doors and will house a number of cultural organizations. This is the first time for decades that we are going to have our own cultural space. It's a great project that the community is very excited about.

In your opinion, how important are cultural and community infrastructures?

[Alain Dupuis]

For us, the key is to be able to live in French on a daily basis. We have spent a lot of time in these last 30 years building our network of schools. We have more than 700 francophone schools in the country. That is excellent, but the work must continue. We are going to need daycares in French and post-secondary education in French. We must be able to go out and live in our language and our culture in cultural spaces like that.

In terms of the Francophonie in Canada, the work will never be finished. But the investments in recent years and in the recent budget were needed and have gone to the right places. We still have some catching up to do and we have to think about what we will need to do after the pandemic. Soon, our children will not have been in school for more than a year and a half. We have not been living in our own language on a daily basis in public. So the investments are going to the right place, but we are going to have to continue and maintain the concept of “by and for". In all respects, it is essential to have institutions of all kinds run by the minority.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

I would like to talk about the Court Challenges Program. When governments take rights away from us, we can't claim them if we don't have funds. We saw what happened when the government abolished the Court Challenges Program. We lost institutions because of this inability to claim our rights. However, we have reinstated the Court Challenges Program, and I would like to hear from you about the importance of this program.

What does this do for official language minority communities?

[Alain Dupuis]

For us, this program is critical and it always has been, so we're glad it's been reinstated. This is the last card to play, for us. It is always important to work with our provincial, territorial and federal governments, but if our rights are not respected, there are non-partisan avenues for minorities. This has had a structuring impact on school boards and our schools, and will continue to do so in other areas.

So I was pleased to see the government's commitment to making this program permanent, which I think should be anchored in the next version of the Official Languages Act, so that it becomes a permanent program recognized by the act.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I fully agree.

My last question is about the census. It's not easy to do a census of all the rights holders in the country affected by section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have been talking about this for a long time and it has never been easy to do, but in the next census, we will do it. In my opinion, it will be very interesting and, moreover, it will help us enormously.

I would like to hear from you about the importance of the entitlement count, which will ultimately be done in the next census.