Official Languages Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2022

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the guests for their evidence. They've provided us with a great deal of useful information.

I'd like to begin with some questions for Mr. Termote.

From my understanding of what you said, your data are based on the 2017 census. As we know, a census takes us five years back in time. As you pointed out, this means a picture of the situation in 2011-2012. My first question is whether your conclusions about the demographic situation were based only on the census?

Here is my second question. As you know, the results of a new census are going to be published very soon. Do you think the demographic data on the decline of French in Quebec and Montreal will have changed?

As for my third question, I would like to know what you think are the areas where the French language has become most vulnerable in Quebec.

[Marc Termote]

Your questions are far-reaching. I'll try to answer them as quickly as possible.

I'd like to begin by making a correction: a census does not give a picture of a situation from five years ago. The 2016 census gives us a picture of language behaviour, no matter what the province or language group is, at the time of the census. This picture allows us to study changing behavioural patterns from one census to the next. For example, we can compare a cohort of immigrants from census to census. I think it's important to point that out.

For public language, the only information the census provides is language of work, and it has only done so since 2001. It's true that this is a very short period for identifying a trend. As it happens, this one is not very positive. Quite the contrary.

It's worth emphasizing once again that language of work is a serious problem. One of the indices that deserves attention is first official language spoken, often referred to as FOLS. The first official language spoken is chosen on the basis of your knowledge, your mother tongue and the language used at home. It's the language you speak when you leave the house and go out in public. According to Statistics Canada, the ability to speak this first official language in public has declined considerably since 2001.

Moving on now to your next question about the data used to make forecasts, these projections or forecasts have proved to be accurate so far. Whether for fertility, language behaviour, international immigration or any scenarios underpinning them, they have all proved to be highly accurate.

We can therefore assume that what we forecast for 2021 will basically be confirmed by the 2021 census. That, moreover, is what has been the case for all the forecasts we've made in the past. I have been making them for approximately 40 years now. We have always correctly forecast trends, although occasionally they proved to be correct more quickly or more slowly than we thought. But the fact is that the trends have always been corroborated. I would therefore be very surprised if the 2021 census, for which we will soon have the results, would not do likewise.

I'm not sure whether I've answered all your questions.

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

Mr. Chair, would it be possible to ask one final question?

Mr. Termote, In what spheres, other than language of work, do you feel that the French language has been weakened,?

[Marc Termote]

One obvious area is the language used in cultural activities.

A survey was conducted by the Office québécois de la langue française some years ago. In addition to censuses, one mustn't forget surveys. For information about language used in public areas, we need to look at surveys.

This cultural activity survey clearly identified major problems. This was only to be expected. One example is the language used by businesses in dealing with the public, which has been problematic according to the surveys. The situation improved significantly until around 2001, but it has worsened ever since.

There are all kinds of other areas, but we don't have enough time to discuss them.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you Mr. Termote.

Mr. Beaulieu now has the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Termote.

Mr. Termote, there is a lot of immigration in the rest of Canada, particularly in Toronto. Almost 100% of language transfers among newcomers are towards English, and English is not threatened because it truly is the common language in the rest of Canada, where French represents a very small minority.

If Quebec were to adopt a territorial model, there would be more language transfers towards French. Of course even if there were 50,000 immigrants per year, the number of language transfers would max out at 5,000 or perhaps even 10,000, but at least as immigrants arrived, they would receive French-language training.

Would a territorial regime in Quebec help to protect French?

[Marc Termote]

I believe that the Toronto model follows the territoriality principle. Territoriality is not only a matter of law, as in Belgium or Switzerland. Territoriality is also all about numbers.

An immigrant who settles in Toronto will speak English because there's no other choice. Immigrants who settle in Rome will speak Italian, no matter what their native language might be. There is no legislation on it. These countries do not need it, because the principle of territoriality is based on numbers.

Quebec could increase the number of transfers to French with additional linguistic territorialization, but it would be impossible to take this very far and caution is advisable.

Estimates show a maximum of 7,000, 8,000 or 10,000 language transfers per year in Quebec, in all directions. This includes not only immigrants who change their language from French to English, but also from English to French. This represents a net annual increase of 2,000 francophones.

With the introduction of new measures, this could increase from 2,000 to 4,000, and 2,000 is a highly convergent estimate. The number could easily be doubled, but it would be very small compared to the 20,000 or 25,000 missing francophone births.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I'd like to ask a quick final question.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, You can ask it during the next round of questions.

Thank you, Mr. Termote.

Ms. Ashton, you now have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Termote, I'd like to return to the point you just raised about demographics and the need to strengthen French language learning at home. I would also like to discuss the shortage of education services for young children in French, particularly outside Quebec.

My question is about funds paid to the provinces by the federal government for day care centres. This funding was definitely needed. All of the provinces except Ontario have agreed to this federal funding.

Do you think the federal government missed a great opportunity to promote the development of French by failing to include language provisions in the provincial agreements for the delivery of day care services?

[Marc Termote]

I'm not qualified to answer your question, even though I understand what you mean.

It's always easy to say that we missed the target. But I couldn't tell you by how much, because that would require studies on each and every instance. Things differ from one province to another.

I'd like to return to the key point of my presentation.

All the government's efforts, together with those of its Francophile colleagues in other provinces, will not alter the trend. In other words, it might slow the decline, but it won't reverse the trend.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Do you have anything to add on this subject, Mr. Rousseau?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Yes, thank you Ms. Ashton.

I'd like to draw the committee's attention to the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision, of which you may already be aware. It's about a rather different matter, having to do with the federal government transferring the management of employment assistance programs.The same approach could be applied to day care centres.

When intergovernmental agreements between the federal government and the provinces are being signed, they could include much firmer obligations pertaining to the promotion of French in other provinces. However, the federal government should not be required to promote English or oblige Quebec to promote it in the province. The important thing here is the asymmetry of bilingualism.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Rousseau.

Ms. GLadu, over to you now for five minutes.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also thank the witnesses for being here with us today.

I'd like to begin by asking Mr. Boivin a question.

Mr. Boivin, when I was sitting on the standing committee on the status of women, we were told that there were problems with respect to legal services, including a shortage of lawyers.

Two months ago, the riding ofSarnia—Lambton acquired francophone designation in Ontario. At the moment, though, there are no legal services in French.

What would you suggest we do to obtain francophone lawyers for my city?

[Daniel Boivin]

This is a good example that demonstrates how giving power and resources to community organizations enables them to liaise with the sectors that need services, such as those pertaining to seniors, the status of women, health and education. It makes it possible to find people who can perform a bridging role by coming to settle in your region on a permanent basis, or by implementing the practices of several other cities.

Your community, Ms. GLadu, Is located close to a number of large francophone communities. Elsewhere in Canada, francophone communities are very remote from the major francophone communities. Not being able to deal locally with occasional problems of the sort you mentioned means that these communities have no access to justice in French.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Rousseau.

Mr. Rousseau, could you speak to us on the issue of territoriality in Ontario? In some regions, there are areas that could be improved in terms of French.

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Thank you for the question.

If we were to apply a territorial logic to Ontario, it would mean having to determine which regions had a concentration of francophones. That would enable the federal government to focus its efforts on promoting French in those regions.

This logic is, after a fashion, implicit in Bill C‑32. According to this bill, employees have the right to work in French in Quebec and in regions where there is a strong francophone presence.

As for Ontario, the federal government could make a greater effort to promote French, particularly in border region regions like northeastern and eastern Ontario.

The scholarly literature has shown that when efforts are concentrated in areas where many people speak the language, they can support its long-term vitality.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Rousseau.

My next question is for Mr. Termote.

Mr. Termote, you talked about families in Montreal. What should be done to increase the proportion of Montrealers who use French at work?

[Marc Termote]

The question is very relevant.

In a normal society, someone who speaks a language at home speaks the same language when they leave their home for the public space, including at work or in a store. That is how things work in a normal society, with the exception of regions with linguistic boundaries, like Montreal.

An immigrant who arrives in Montreal and speaks a language different from the two official languages has to choose one of those languages. There is no longer a third language in the public domain. So they have to choose. However, people don't always get to choose the language of work. Those are questions I ask myself when the language of work is used as an indicator.

What is more, all the studies show that people will speak their own language as often as possible outside the home. Many surveys have been done on that. They would like to speak their language at work, but they cannot always do so. That is where there is some room to play. Mr. Arseneault's and Mr. Boivin's comments show that it is possible to do that.

Will things change? Once again, I am pessimistic about that. I think we have to play with that element. That is absolutely necessary, but it will not be enough. There are too few language changes compared with the consequences of under–fertility and international immigration.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Termote.

I now give the floor to Angelo Iacono for five minutes.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for joining us today.

My first question is for Professor Rousseau.

Mr. Rousseau, as a Quebecker, I agree with you concerning the protection and promotion of French to ensure its survival in a space dominated by English.

However, can you tell us how a balance can be maintained between protecting French and promoting that language outside Quebec?

[Guillaume Rousseau]

Thank you for the question.

That brings us back to what we refer to as asymmetry.

Traditionally, the country has adopted a symmetric approach. The federal government wanted to protect the French minority language in other provinces and, symmetrically, it acted in similar fashion in Quebec to protect English–speaking Quebeckers' right by promoting English. That was the symmetric approach.

We understand the political motivations underlying that approach. It allowed for a compromise between Canada's two main language communities, which seems very logical. However, what we are seeing 54 years after the Official Languages Act was enacted is that this logic of symmetry works against French in Quebec and in favour of English in Montreal. It favours French in other provinces, but very minimally.

The symmetrical approach helps many individuals and small communities. It contributes to the respect of minor individual rights, but, if we look at the whole picture, its impact on French in other provinces is very limited. However, this approach has a significant impact on the promotion of English and, in some respects, on limiting the promotion of French in Quebec. The only possible approach is to scrap this symmetrical logic in favour of the principle of asymmetry, whereby the federal government would not deal with the issue of English in Quebec in the same way it deals with it in other provinces.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

My next question is for Professor Termote.

Mr. Termote, as a demographer, what approach do you think would help reflect francophones' demographic weight in Canada?

How can Quebec be kept as a place for francophones without francophones in other provinces facing extinction?

[Marc Termote]

That question is very relevant for a demographer, and I thank you for it.

I have already emphasized under–fertility, but I don't see how we could impact that factor. A decision won't be made tomorrow that, from now on, only francophone mothers will be entitled to family allowances. Pro-birth policy cannot be applied to a single language group. It would not make sense. So we can't work on the fertility aspect. The only two aspects we can work on are immigration and francization of immigrants.

A study Statistics Canada published a year ago slipped completely under the radar. People usually don't like bad news. That study shows that you may well increase the number of francophone immigrants, play around with the numbers and linguistic composition of immigration, but that has practically no impact. Researchers have formulated hypotheses to determine to what extent the decline would slow down if immigrants were francisized more, and they found that this only slightly slows down the decline, but that is all.

As a demographer, I must tell you that, unfortunately, all the hypotheses formulated over the past 40 years have had the same result. We are not pessimistic because we want to have pessimistic outcomes. We formulate hypotheses on fertility, mortality, immigration and linguistic behaviour. We use those hypotheses to create scenarios. No one has ever questioned those scenarios because they have all turned out to be more or less correct. We press a button, and we get an outcome that is not very pleasant. That is all.