Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 2 - Evidence, March 29, 2004
OTTAWA, Monday, March 29, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:32 p.m. to study the operation of the Official Languages Act, and the regulations and directives made thereunder, within those institutions subject to the Act, as well as the reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the president of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chairman) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I would like to welcome the members of our committee, our witnesses and all persons attending this committee hearing. Our first witnesses are members of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada.
I would like to welcome Mr. Georges Arès and Ms. Diane Côté.
Mr. Georges Arès, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: I want to thank you for inviting us to your committee. Today I would like to draw your attention to certain concerns we have regarding the role of federal government in the official languages sector.
I would like to quickly raise several themes that will help in the discussion that is to follow. This should help give you some direction in the work you will be undertaking over the next few months.
First, the action plan for official languages. This action plan, unveiled a year ago, opens the door to sustainable action on the part of the federal government in the overall development of official language communities. The implementation of the action plan has begun and important progress has been made in certain fields, however, many questions remain unanswered.
Concerning the interdepartmental committee, in the course of the development of the action plan, a committee comprised of ministers whose mandate it was to support official languages was struck. This committee, however, was not identified in the structures that were set up within the action plan's accountability framework. In order to ensure quick and effective implementation of the action plan, it is essential that the committee pursue its work on a permanent basis to ensure constant coordination among the responsible ministers. We strongly suggest to the federal government that it make this committee a permanent structure of Cabinet even though it does not appear in the official languages accountability and coordination framework.
On the issue of consultation with communities, one of the fundamental aspects of the action plan for official languages is the acknowledgement that the federal government must work in partnership with official language communities, and in some cases provincial and territorial governments, to implement the action plan. Our communities' concerns must be taken into account in the development of government policies and programs. It is important to take stock of the mechanisms in place which will serve to ensure consultation with provincial and territorial communities. These consultations have to do with the global implementation of the action plan as well as with the steps taken by different departments involved in targetted areas such as early childhood, education and the public service.
On the issue of official languages within the federal public service, we are pleased to see that the federal government has stayed the course in terms of its policy on bilingualization of the public service over the last year. However, the changes that were announced in the administration of the public service require increased vigilance to ensure that the government can meet the goals that it has set in the field of official languages.
As you know, the Official Languages Branch was transferred from the Treasury Board Secretariat to the new Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada. What effect will this transfer have on Treasury Board's responsibilities under the Official Languages Act? This remains unclear. We will have to assess the impact brought about by this change.
On the issue of the administration of justice in both official languages, important progress has been made over the last few years by the Department of Justice in its policies when it comes to respecting official languages. The Department of Justice's community consultation process is working fairly well to date. We would like to see improvements in information sharing in order to ensure that communities be kept abreast of actions taken following consultations.
In addition, certain specific issues have our attention. On the issue of the appointment of judges, on many occasions our communities have been forced to go to court in order to have their rights respected. The process by which judges are appointed, which is currently being reviewed by the federal government, is of great interest to us. It is important that steps be taken to ensure that the issue of official languages — more specifically judges' language abilities — be taken into account in this review of the appointment process.
With respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, despite repeated interventions on the part of many francophone groups, people in some regions of the country are still having difficulty in obtaining adequate French language services from them, even in New Brunswick where the French-speaking population represents a third of the global population. This raises serious issues when it comes to fair access to justice. This file is under Treasury Board's jurisdiction, but since this is an issue of access to justice, the Department of Justice should intervene to improve the situation.
On the issue of legal aid, a recently released report points out serious shortcomings in Canada's legal aid system when it comes to official languages in several provinces. The Department of Justice must solve this problem. One option would be to impose language requirements on provinces when transferring federal funds to them with the objective of fostering full compliance with section 530 of the Criminal Code respecting court services in the official language of one's choice.
When it comes to the Attorney General of Canada, we frequently take issue with his or her stance on language rights for francophone minorities, which we consider rather weak, to put it mildly.
A recent example would be the Casimir case before the Supreme Court. The interpretation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act in particular has been a source of constant confrontation between departments and communities. We would like the Attorney General of Canada's lawyers to consult with communities before taking a stance on a file that may have a crucial impact on the development of communities. We could come to some agreement if mechanisms were in place that took into account the needs and concerns of francophone and Acadian communities. In the Casimir case, our positions were not aligned. The Attorney General did not properly take into account the situation in our communities.
When it comes to supporting official language communities, and the renewal of Canada-Community agreements in particular, when the action plan for official languages was tabled a year ago, Minister Stéphane Dion stated that the action plan was a document which could evolve and be perfected. Investments announced under the plan were meant to create new possibilities and support new initiatives. Nonetheless, they do not meet the needs of our communities in certain key development areas for instance, community development, the arts and culture.
Canada-Community agreements expiring at the end of the month of March, in two days, support these two sectors fundamental to our development and growth. To consolidate our infrastructures and support skills development, to counter the weaknesses in our networks and allow for communities to develop, it is essential that the Department of Canadian Heritage substantially increase funding for Canada-Community agreements. These additional resources will allow us to deal with certain key issues affecting our communities, including urbanization and the link between communities and education. The discussions that we have had with Canadian Heritage do not give us the impression that this department will take steps to significantly enhance its investments in the development of our communities.
When it comes to decision-making, Canada-Community agreements better equip communities to take charge of their own development. However, the recently published program evaluation report suggested that the department take back decision-making authority over the allocation of funds in the communities. This would be an unacceptable setback for our communities. We acknowledge the existence of departmental accountability requirements. We are, however, convinced that the community-Department of Canadian Heritage partnership meets the requirements of sound public management when it come to the allocation of funds.
We believe that improvements in accountability can be made to deal with the concerns raised by the evaluation report while conserving this principle of partnership.
Other government programs actually function according to similar principles: the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative of the Department of Social Development, which is a program for the homeless, and the Santé en français partnership, or french language health care partnership with the Department of Health.
In the context of overall government support for community development, we propose an equal and respectful partnership between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments and the community. It would help us meet our community development objectives. Moreover, Minister Pierre Pettigrew recognized the value of this type of management in a speech he delivered on February 23 and I quote:
I also want to say how much I believe in the governance model we have set up with the Société Santé en français. This is a highly innovative aspect of our action plan and it means that communities will ultimately take ownership of their own development. I am confident that the 17 provincial and territorial networks that have been set up will provide meaningful results in terms of access to health services in French across the country. I assure you that the Société and the networks have my support and that of my department in carrying out their mandates.
On top of increased support for the development of our communities and control over the allocation of funds, we also have to deal with the specific challenges that our organizations share with other organizations which are fully or partly volunteer based.
Recent studies have identified these difficulties as being, in particular, the retention of skilled staff, lower wages than in the private and public sectors, lack of access to professional development, as well as staff and volunteer burnout due to the shortage of staff. In order to be effective, the significant amount of volunteer work undertaken in our organizations must be supported by sufficient skilled staff.
I thank you for the interest you have in these issues and I will now take your questions.
Senator Gauthier: On March 12, a year after the appearance of the action plan for official languages, what would be your appraisal of the year that has just ended?
Mr. Arès: I would say the situation is positive in general, but there remains much work to be done.
It is positive in terms of the good work we do with the Department of Justice on the consultation process. Committees are being struck. Funding has been negotiated between the Department of Justice and various francophone lawyer federations and associations. There is funding for early childhood. The immigration file is moving ahead to our satisfaction. However, I would say that the consultation process in the regions, in the provinces and territories, leaves much to be desired. Public servants in the region don't seem to have gotten the message that they have responsibilities under the action plan and that not only do they have to ensure consultations, they also need to understand the needs and meet those needs through their department's initiatives and programs.
It is not enough to simply undertake consultations. According to the action plan, they must demonstrate that they have understood the needs and that they will meet them through their program.
Senator Gauthier: What I am concerned about is the fact that the government has announced budget cutbacks and a review of all expenditures. In 1990, after a similar review, communities lost a large percentage of their grants, which did a lot of damage and caused them many difficulties.
Have you been given the assurance that official language programs will not be affected because of how important it is for Canada to safeguard its minorities?
Mr. Arès: The minister responsible and the Minister of Finance did guarantee funding for the action plan. In February, Mr. Goodale apparently said in Regina that the action plan would remain unchanged, but if we look at other funds for the development of our communities, we do not have the same guarantees. We are discussing these issues with Canadian Heritage and we are very concerned by its position on renewing Canada-Community agreements.
Senator Gauthier: Does the amount of $751 million over five years promised under the action plan mean additional funding over and above what is usually given to official language minorities?
I am not concerned so much about the action plan, but about existing programs. For instance, the Official Languages in Education Program ends March 31. Have you been involved or consulted on the renewal of Canada community agreements with the provinces? Ten provinces and three territories are negotiating these agreements. As far as I know, nothing has been done yet. Can you tell me a little bit about this?
Mr. Arès: This is one of the problems with Canadian Heritage's way of doing things. Neither school board trustees, nor parents, nor the directors of the organizations that are affected are consulted when they determine the allocation of funds for the French school system in this country. Everything is done behind closed doors, and then they make announcements.
For instance, we learned that Canadian Heritage had no intention of renewing the amounts for the implementation of school management. We thought Heritage would add new amounts to the field of education. However, we learned that almost $90 million would not be renewed. This amount was not entirely new funding, despite what was being implied.
Senator Gauthier: You spoke earlier of the Department of Justice and the problems faced by the provinces when it comes to legal aid and official languages. The Court Challenges Program ended on March 31, 2003, and was renewed for another year. Were you involved in the negotiations to enhance and renew this program?
Mr. Arès: We were not consulted before the decision was made to renew the program for one year. It is common for the directors of the Court Challenges Program to ask us to represent them before government bodies. However, government leaders did not consult us before making the decision to renew the program for a year.
Senator Gauthier: Three cases are currently before the courts, including Casimir and Gosselin. In these cases, the applicants are challenging Bill 101. In fact, on this matter, you testified before the Supreme Court. You indicated earlier on that the Federal Court came out against minorities and francophone communities. Could you elaborate on this point?
Mr. Arès: The Attorney General of Canada's position dealt with the interpretation of section 23. With respect to management rights, under section 23, we argued, as did the Government of Quebec, that given the situation of French in Canada and in North America, this question needed to be analyzed differently. According to us, the only possible application is under section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which would allow for rights normally recognized under section 23 to be infringed on under special and reasonable circumstances.
We tried to convince the Attorney General of Canada to make the same argument, but he chose another option. On management rights, the grey area under section 23 with respect to access to a minority school in an ambiguous case, he argued that section 23 could be interpreted differently in each province or territory, according to the circumstances.
The notion that section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms could be interpreted differently in British Columbia, in Ontario or in Quebec seemed to be a somewhat unreasonable argument to us. We asked the Attorney General of Canada to argue that section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows for the asymmetrical treatment of French in Canada and in North America. The Attorney General chose not to support this argument.
If the Supreme Court of Canada were to accept the argument of the Attorney General of Canada, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada would be faced with the interpretation of the different provincial and territorial governments. Already, the Government of Saskatchewan has clearly demonstrated that when it comes to upholding rights, under section 23, they are not willing to be generous with the Franco-Saskatchewanian community. Under Government of Saskatchewan regulations, a francophone from overseas who does not enjoy guaranteed rights under section 23 must ask an anglophone school board for permission before attending a French school.
If the Attorney General of Canada's argument were to be accepted by the Supreme Court, it would be up to provincial and territorial governments to be generous or to apply section 23 narrowly.
Senator Comeau: I would like to come back to the Court Challenges Program. The advisability of its renewal is currently being assessed. A few years ago, the previous government cancelled the Court Challenges Program. This caused a general outcry in Canada. We stated that the program was absolutely essential to the survival of francophone communities in Canada. It actually ended up in the Red Book of the current government. At the time, the federations representing Canada's francophone communities had protested ardently.
Once again, the program's usefulness is being called into question. Some would like it to end. That is certainly not your intention. However, we have noted a lack of interest on the part of the current government. Is the program on its last legs?
Mr. Arès: I hope not. The Court Challenges Program is very important for clarifying rights.
Senator Comeau: At the time, the reaction across the country was clear. That is why I am surprised to see that this program is once again being called into question. This issue is not making the headlines and no one seems to have any objection, except for you.
Mr. Arès: According to us, this is part of standard program evaluation. We do not see how the relevance of the program can be called into question.
Senator Comeau: Apparently, an assessment of the relevance of this program is under way. The term "relevance" seems quite strong.
Mr. Arès: We will find out. If that were the case, we would have been approached by the directors of the Court Challenges Program, because we are members of this program; they would have informed us of their concerns with respect to the renewal of the program. At this point, we have not been informed of any such concerns.
Senator Comeau: Do not wait for an announcement. In politics, it is quite common for issues to die when they do not attract great interest.
Mr. Arès: We will look into it.
Senator Comeau: My second question is on the census. If I am not mistaken, you are part of a group responsible for studying census questions every five years.
Has the issue of the Acadians in the census been raised during any of your meetings?
Mr. Arès: I will ask Ms. Côté to answer this question because she is a member of the working group.
Ms. Diane Côté, Director, Liason and Research, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: We are not part of a working group, Statistics Canada consults us when they are reviewing census questions. There have been consultations in the past, however, we have not had questions regarding that in a long time.
Senator Comeau: Perhaps you could ask them the question at your next meeting. The fact is that out of the 17 groups that are named and who are asked the question, you find Chileans, Vietnamese, French, Scottish, and you never find the word "Acadian" on this list. We, the Acadians, have to identify ourselves as being of French origin. I do not know if you know Acadians, but as a general rule, they do not identify themselves as being of French origin, they identify themselves as being Acadians. It would be interesting to see the evolution of the number of Acadians in Canada. The only way for that to happen would be if people could identify themselves as part of a group. I raise this question from time to time and I believe that it is important.
In your presentation, you made mention of one of the concerns that you have, urbanization. Could you explain this to me?
Mr. Arès: We have seen what is going on in the rural regions of our communities. We have many rural regions in our communities, in northern Ontario, the Acadian peninsula in New Brunswick, northern Alberta. In these regions, the youth are leaving and going to large urban centres. You can call it rural exodus, but we would rather call it urbanization. It is a problem that has been in existence for quite a while, but that has not yet been dealt with. The Department of Canadian Heritage is only now starting to deal with the issue of urbanization. That creates problems.
One of the issues that is raised is how to continue offering services in rural regions when the numbers are decreasing and how to offer services to a growing population in urban centres when we do not even know where these people settle in the big cities, how to reach them, how to get them interested in the organizations that are there. Not much is being done on this front. What do we do to continue offering services? We have an opportunity in the large urban centres, but we are not taking advantage of it because we do not have the resources to deal with the problem of rural exodus and with the opportunity that that could represent for large urban centres. This is an issue that should have been dealt with a long time ago, but is only now being dealt with through a coordination committee with Canadian Heritage. It will take some time before there is any concrete action. I think it will take a long time before we get the necessary resources to study the problem of rural exodus and seize the opportunity which is ours in the large urban centres.
Senator Comeau: I think you have identified a problem that I feel every weekend when I go home to Nova Scotia. The youth are leaving their communities and where do they go?
Mr. Arès: When people go to larger urban centres, be it Ottawa, Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto, Halifax, they get lost. They are there, but sometimes they do not know that francophone organizations exist in the area of arts and culture, for instance. Schools are sometimes not even aware of the fact that there are French schools. There is a lot of promotional work that needs to be done to raise awareness and get people involved. It is an issue we are going to have to address quickly.
The Chairman: Mr. Arès, I have three questions for you. First, as a follow-up to what Senator Comeau was saying regarding Acadians and census data, if I understand correctly, when a census is carried out and we receive the results of the census, a working group is struck to deal with the issue of official languages and the application of the regulations on official languages. It is based on numbers therefore, justified by the latest census data we have, and the working group, which you sit on, studies this data to see if we should continue offering services. The problem is that it is always based on a number. I am raising this issue because I am extremely concerned — and I am not the only one — by the questions asked in the census. For instance, in Manitoba, if you take the question of French spoken in the home as opposed to the question of French used, understood, and spoken, there is a big discrepancy in the percentages. However, the census and statistics for Franco-Manitobans are solely based on the language spoken at home.
If I take just my own family, starting with my daughters, my brothers and my sisters, I counted 75 people who were not included in the census with respect to language spoken at home, because one of the spouses did not speak French. So people are taken out of one category and put elsewhere, and then we are told that there are fewer francophones in Manitoba. Although we always talk about numbers in connection with the services that we get from the federal government, we also have the Acadians and other groups who are asking questions. Have the census questions that people are asked to answer not become discriminatory? My question is a bit long, but could you answer it?
Mr. Arès: Ms. Côté is a member of that working group. However, Madam Chair, I must say that this is our first working group resulting from a census, and we are the ones that asked for it in order to look into such issues. What you have just said is very worrisome to us.
Ms. Côté: Yes, in fact, this is the first time in history that we have managed to sit down with representatives from Treasury Board to examine how the regulations are implemented. Unfortunately, as far as the calculations go, the regulations were defined in the late 1980s and early 1990s with very specific parameters that Treasury Board uses.
The definition of a francophone in the regulations is a complicated calculation that starts with knowledge of the official languages and ends up with the mother tongue. A person whose mother tongue is French will necessarily be considered a francophone. Even if the person does not speak French at home, he or she is still counted as a francophone.
The third question in this set is about the language spoken at home, and it is true that we lose a certain number of people there, especially those who say that their mother tongue is English-French.
In the work that we have done over the past two years, we have tried to bring up the issue of having the regulations changed or reviewed to redefine who a francophone is, among other things. There will be political work to do in that regard, but we have already presented a certain number of recommendations to the committee.
The Chairman: My second question deals with the official languages plan. Mr. Arès, from your presentation, I understood that the community and cultural sectors were less involved in this action plan than other sectors. We are almost at the end of March, and the Canada-Community agreements that were to be signed before the beginning of April have still not been signed. If I understand correctly, our communities will be getting bridge funding until those agreements are renewed?
Mr. Arès: That is what we understand from Canadian Heritage's arguments.
The Chairman: How many Canada-Community agreements are there across Canada and do they do a little more to address the needs of the community and cultural sectors than the official languages action plan does?
Mr. Arès: There is one Canada-Community agreement for each provincial or territorial community. There is even one in Quebec for anglophones. There used to be an agreement for national organizations, but now each national organization will negotiate separately with Canadian Heritage. A single agreement will no longer cover all national organizations. However, our members have clearly said that they want to continue with the Canada-Community agreements, with this partnership that has developed over the past ten years, in which representatives from Canadian Heritage sit down with community representatives to study the needs, set priorities and allocate funding for the various priorities. That is the partnership that has developed and that our communities want to maintain.
The evaluation report prepared by Canadian Heritage calls into question some of the things that have been accomplished in this area over the past ten years. One recommendation in that report states that Canadian Heritage representatives should not be involved in deciding on priorities and funding issues, since that would bind the minister when it came time to decide which projects to approve. We see it rather as an indication that this partnership, according to the evaluation report, should be changed and the community representatives should make recommendations that could then be refused by Canadian Heritage.
That is not in keeping with the idea of letting the communities take charge of their own affairs, which is at the basis of the work being done by Health Canada and the Société Santé en français. That is why I included the quote from Minister Pettigrew in my text. He recognizes the importance of having the communities take ownership of their own development. Canadian Heritage does not seem to be taking the same approach. Instead, they want to put an end to the partnership that has developed over the past ten years so that, in Ottawa or elsewhere, they can reject projects or funding priorities that were identified by community representatives alone. That would give the Canadian Heritage officials in Ottawa absolute discretion to be able to say no.
Our people have told us that they absolutely do not want this to happen. They want to maintain the partnership approach. People in the regions, Canadian Heritage and our community representatives work very well together. They first have to do a needs analysis, set priorities and allocate funding. Why abandon that model? As for the evaluation report, our communities refuse to accept that recommendation. They refuse to accept other recommendations in that report, since those recommendations do not support the approach of community control over community development and do not preserve the partnership that had been developed with Canadian Heritage.
The Chairman: If we were to meet with the Minister of Heritage, what recommendations would you suggest that we make to her?
Mr. Arès: I would like you to tell her the same thing that I told her when we met a few weeks ago: If you want to create a new approach, that is fine, but let us do it together, taking into account the development priorities of our communities, the funding based on the development needs and not an amount limited by the program. If the funding cannot be increased, community development will be restricted because there are organizations and communities that cannot get any funding because there is not enough to go around.
I could give you examples from Alberta, where I come from. In Lloydminster, a group of francophones tried to organize activities, but they did not receive any funding. What happens in French in that community today? Not very much. Does that kind of approach encourage or restrict development?
There needs to be an acknowledgment that development has to be funded. It is not limited to a certain amount of money that the government is prepared to put into it. That is the message that we would like you to pass along to Ms. Scherrer, that is, that the department needs to sit down with the communities in an open-minded way, look at the needs, and try to understand the communities before imposing anything on us.
[English]
Senator Keon: Obviously, we are all aware of the importance of community involvement and leadership, but I cannot grasp, in your presentation and in the questions so far, what the mechanism is for ongoing dialogue between the community and Heritage Canada. When do you talk? How is it set up and so forth?
Mr. Arès: Senator, I think in the provinces and territories there are joint committees, where the representatives of Heritage Canada sit down with representatives of the communities to discuss, first, the needs of the communities and their development, and then the priorities and the financing that should be allocated to these various needs. There is good discussion at that level.
At the national level, it needs to be developed much more. We have the impression at times that we are "consulted," but we are not heard. I think the action plan insists that there be a consultation, but that there also be a determination that the needs have been understood and answered in the programs and initiatives that are subsequently developed. It is not just saying people are to be consulted. You have to show that consultation meant something, namely, that you heard what the needs are and you responded.
At the moment, we just do not have the impression at the national level that our needs are being understood and responded to. The impression we get is that the needs of the program, as administered by Canadian Heritage, are what is being responded to, namely, there is a limit on the amount of dollars available, and therefore, you have to adjust according to that.
If you put in place new organisms, everyone must share a smaller pie. If we put in place different organisms or societies and those people have to fight with their neighbours to get a share of the pie, you can understand the frustration that sets in. People get angry and frustrated, and they go where they do not face that frustration all the time.
Senator Keon: Is the consultation process being handled by Heritage Canada on a sort of ad hoc basis? Do they come in, ask the questions and then leave, without any obligation to come back with the answers? Is there a formal process for dialogue?
Mr. Arès: The formal process for dialogue needs to be developed to the point, as I said, where we have a feeling that we are really being listened to, that there is a partnership, in the sense that the needs are being addressed and there is a recognition of the contribution of our communities to the community development that is occurring across the country.
It is only occurring in the provinces and territories where they do have these joint committees that sit down and have good discussions on the needs, then the priorities and then the funding.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: I would like to come back to the Canada-Community agreements. Ontario has a different system from the other provinces. It is not the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario that consults people and allocates the government funding. It is the steering committee, appointed by Canadian Heritage, of the Canada-Community agreement. The officials are the ones running things, but they do it in a roundabout way.
So ACFO has a budget of around $200,000, and the steering committee of the Canada-Community agreement has a budget that is two and a half times bigger. In December, Ontario had a crisis. ACFO could no longer survive because it had no more funding. It was the Canada-Community agreement that had strangled it by refusing to provide the necessary funding. You are aware of the problems in Ontario. Following that situation, I have the impression that they want the same thing to happen in every other province, that they want to block the provincial and territorial associations from being involved in allocating funding and identifying projects that should be funded. Am I wrong?
Mr. Arès: The funding of lead organizations is problematic just about everywhere in the country, mainly because the envelope is limited. The lead organization in each community has worked over the years and decades to set up other associations dealing with specific areas or topics such as women, youth, the arts, culture, and economic development. The recognition of the importance of the lead organization has declined in the communities because these other organizations have questioned the role of the lead organization, but also because there was no government acknowledgment of the need to have lead organizations that were strong, credible and respected in the communities.
Senator Gauthier: So you will agree with me that the new Canada-Community agreement formula needs to be revised in order to improve the agreements?
Mr. Arès: To improve them, but also to recognize the role and importance of having a political lead organization in each community. It is important to have one organization that can speak on behalf of the whole community and not just certain specific sectors. There must be an acknowledgment that lead organizations have a crucial role to play in their community's development.
Senator Gauthier: If I understand correctly, people in Canadian Heritage are hesitant right now to come up with a formula. I have read the evaluation report and I saw flaws in it, like you did, but I also saw that some good things had been done. I am also a bit concerned; the lead associations in the provinces and territories should be consulted. This is not being done in Ontario; ACFO is not being consulted. It is being given $200,000 and told to solve its problems, and then the arguments start. This has been going on for six years in Ontario and I would not like to see the same thing happen in Acadia or the West. It has not been a good experience for francophone Ontarians. What can be done to fulfil the promise that communities would be consulted? Who will be consulting whom? I am told that the action plan will involve annual consultations with the communities. It is true that Mr. Dion met with the ministers responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs last October. Have there been meetings with the communities since that time? Ms. Côté is nodding her head, which is a positive sign.
Ms. Côté: In the structure for implementing the action plan, there are to be two consultations every year. One would be scheduled for the spring, with officials responsible for the various files in the action plan, and the other in the fall, with the ministers responsible for the various files. So last year a meeting was held on October 6th involving the ministers and the presidents. Another was held last Monday with senior officials from the various departments and either the presidents or executives of the various organizations.
Senator Gauthier: Is there good communication?
Ms. Côté: Yes, generally speaking.
Senator Gauthier: So the concern raised a few minutes ago, that is, that the department might take over decision- making power again for allocating funding to the various groups, is no longer valid?
Mr. Arès: It is not the same thing. These are consultations that were held last week involving various departments. We are talking specifically about the agreements with Canadian Heritage, and that is different.
[English]
Senator Mercer: I have a background of working extensively in the volunteer sector, and I believe that there are some problems that the government cannot solve, but that collectively, we in the communities, as volunteers and as community groups, can help solve some of them. However, one of my frustrations in working in this sector in Canada is that when we switch languages, from English to French, we do not have the same materials available to train people how to properly raise money and manage associations, and it is an ongoing frustration. At one time, government was available to help with the translation of those materials by making extensive dollars available. Do you find that in your work? If you do, does it come up in your consultations with Heritage Canada, and do you mention the fact that there is a shortage of available materials in French for the training of volunteers, people who work in the volunteer sector and the professionals who run volunteer organizations?
Ms. Côté: That is a very good question. Actually, we had developed a project to work on leadership and training for our community associations across the country that we had proposed to Heritage Canada and Human Resources Development Canada last year; that was refused, unhappily, so we will be starting to work again on that. It is very difficult, because it is not only just translating material that has been written in English, but also it is necessary to adapt to the situation. It is not sufficient just to translate things literally because the situations are sometimes different.
Senator Mercer: I agree. These matters do not always translate easily and the communities are different. However, there are a number of organizations out there working in other languages, mainly English, which have done good work and have good resource materials, if we could get those translated.
I am involved with the Association of Fundraising Professionals, whose members in Canada are continually frustrated that we cannot get enough materials translated because we cannot afford to do it ourselves. Perhaps a partnership with and support from your organization might be helpful to them, or vice versa. You may wish to look around with the minister for partnerships in providing support.
[Translation]
Senator Léger: Last year we were very pleased to see that the long-awaited action plan was finally being introduced. One year later, there is a new minister in charge and I would not like to lose that momentum already.
Let us talk about consultations. When a doctor consults another doctor, both sides have to know what they are talking about. The government does not seem to me to be as passionate as the official language communities in these consultations. It seems rather detached. The level of interest is not the same.
When consultations take place, both sides should have an equal knowledge of their specialty, which does not seem to me to be the case in the present situation.
Mr. Arès: I think that both sides know what they are talking about. However, they do not seem to share the same desire to promote community development.
We often have to deal with an administration whose financial means are limited when it comes to responding to the desire and passion of people trying to develop their communities, most of them volunteers and some of them employees who can put time into these activities. The people involved are passionate about helping their communities develop but they are limited because of the way the programs are administered.
As a result, the exchanges are not at the same level. The two sides do not share the same understanding of how important community development is. Those issues are not the priority for certain program administrators. Priority is given to program administration rather than to community development.
Senator Léger: There is the fact that they do not speak the same language.
Mr. Arès: It is true that there are sometimes problems with understanding.
Senator Léger: But there has been progress over the past 30 years.
The census issue is also an area of disagreement. Maybe there is a need to change the terminology we use. We are Canadians first and then our background is Acadian, Aboriginal, et cetera. That should be identified very clearly.
Of course, I am Acadian. And some Aboriginal people may perhaps say that they are not Canadians or Quebeckers first and foremost. But the census form could be changed to make sure that everyone is using the same language.
Mr. Arès: It would be helpful to use the same language and to understand each other.
Senator Léger: You have raised a number of points: partnership, community ownership. I received a letter about the Canada-Community agreement that laid out certain concerns about grants that would no longer be received, funding that would be reduced, and changes that would be brought in.
There have been changes, of course. But after 40 years, here should have been more change. We need to work on attitudes. Back in the beginning, in 1969, people talked about "biculturalism." Culture is more than just a word. Maybe we would share the same language if we expressed ourselves in another form, such as dance, instead of through discussion.
We are dealing with official languages and people are not even talking to one another — which is not the case around this table.
The authorities and officials are supposed to work to ensure continuity. Can there be continuity if people cannot speak to one another?
There is also the eternal issue of funding. It is difficult to get along without it.
Mr. Arès: A vision of the future of our communities needs to be worked out in cooperation with government representatives and development objectives identified in all the areas that are important to the communities. To my knowledge, that kind of exercise has never been done.
The Laurendeau-Dunton commission, the bilingualism and biculturalism commission of the 1960s, did not raise the issue. We have gone much beyond what the commission said at that time. We have developed school governance, which was not at all something recommended by the Laurendeau-Dunton commission. Work has been done in certain other areas, such as health and economic development, which were not the subject of recommendations by the commission.
We need to work together to develop a vision for the future of our communities and both sides really need to understand the importance of having adequate resources.
Senator Léger: That seems indispensable to me. There is also a need to develop Aboriginal languages. That is why this effort must go beyond the financial context. New immigrants also have certain linguage rights — we are in Canada. One right does not cancel out the other, but the issues are not the same. The time has come to act.
Senator Comeau: I appreciate the fact that you have talked about the need for a vision. We often set objectives on an annual basis or some other basis. However, you have touched on one of the most important points, the need for a vision.
The new Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada is apparently responsible for implementation of Parts IV, V and VI of the Official Languages Act. Were you consulted on this change? Treasury Board used to have that responsibility.
Mr. Arès: We were not consulted before this new provision was announced.
Senator Comeau: What worries me is the fact that this is an agency. Agencies sometimes have greater autonomy than departments. It seems that less importance is being given to Parts IV, V and VI.
I would like you to look at that more closely. The fact that you were not consulted on this issue adds to my concern.
Mr. Arès: It would also be important to ask Treasury Board about the exact mandate of this agency for the future. It is not clear to us. We are going to need to look into this issue and react. This is a new concern for us.
Senator Comeau: Could you advise the committee, once your analysis is done, and share your comments and concerns with us about the fact that you were not consulted on this change?
Mr. Arès: Yes.
Senator Comeau: It could be done through a meeting or through correspondence.
The Chairman: Thank you. I would ask you to keep us informed so that we can meet with you as soon as there is a need. It is not a good idea to wait too long. We need to work together more and more. Just when things seem to be going well, they suddenly take a turn for the worse. That is life and we need to carry on.
Mr. Arès: We know that you are very busy. We thank you for giving us the opportunity to meet with you.
The Chairman: Before going to the next witness, I would like to give Senator Gauthier the floor. He has something to present to us very briefly.
Senator Gauthier: I will be brief. We have had some good news in the region: an active member of the committee has been honoured today by the francophone media in the national capital region. The newspaper Le Droit named Senator Keon its personality of the week.
Senator Keon is a renowned cardiologist, who has devoted much of his life to medical research and who is retiring this week from the Ottawa Heart Institute, which he founded. I am pleased to tell you, on behalf of the members of the committee and the francophone community, that the Ottawa Heart Institute respects linguistic duality, and that is a plus for us because we have had difficulties with other hospitals in the region. But you people at the Institute do a wonderful job, so thank you very much and you have our sincere congratulations.
The Chairman: Congratulations.
Senator Keon: Thank you.
The Chairman: We will now move to our second group of witnesses. We have with us this evening Mr. Andrew Parkin and Ms. Gina Bernard, from the Centre for Research and Information on Canada. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
Mr. Andrew Parkin, Co-Director, Centre for Research and Information on Canada: I would like to thank the members of the committee for inviting us to come and share the results of our research with you.
Since this is our first visit, I would like to take a few moments to talk about the CRIC. The CRIC now manages a program of the Canadian Unity Council, which is an independent, not-for-profit organization that has been around for 40 years. CRIC's research program is largely funded by the Government of Canada. We greatly appreciate the government's support for our research.
[English]
I am Co-Director of CRIC. My colleague, Gina Bernard, is a research projects coordinator here in Ottawa. We both worked on the project about which we have been asked to talk to you this evening.
We are here to talk about the research that we summarized, analyzed and published in our last paper, entitled "Bilingualism: Part of Our Past or Part of Our Future?" I believe the paper has been distributed to the members of the committee.
We review in that study a series of surveys about public attitudes to bilingualism. We also summarize a survey that we conducted ourselves in December 2003, a study that was done in cooperation with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We appreciate the support that we had from the office for that part of the study.
We had two objectives for the study. The first was to look at how public opinion on bilingualism had evolved in Canada over the last number of decades. The second was to analyze current attitudes to the policy of official bilingualism and to the learning of French as a second language.
The context for our interest in this subject was the government action plan on bilingualism and its target of increasing dramatically the number of young Canadians who can speak both official languages. The question we had going into this was: Is that action plan likely to be well-received by the public; or how is that plan likely to be viewed by the Canadian public? How receptive will the public be to the criticisms that have been voiced about the plan?
One criticism that preoccupied me at the time the plan was announced was that it was not that relevant because it focused on English-French bilingualism at a time when Canada was becoming more and more multicultural and therefore more multilingual. That is some of the context we had in the back of our minds as we undertook the study.
I would like to review some of our main findings, all of which we can return to when it is time to answer your questions. In terms of what we found, there are three things I want to highlight for you. The first, central finding is that support for bilingualism in Canada — bilingualism as a general principle or an official languages policy — has not been falling over time. In fact, it is remarkably stable. It fluctuates from time to time. In particular, there was a drop in public support for bilingualism at the beginning of the 1990s. The losses at that time have been since regained. Thus, the level of public support for bilingualism in Canada is now as high as it has ever been, according to the data we have that can measure these attitudes going back to the beginning of the 1980s or, in some cases, the late 1970s.
After 20 to 25 years, we now find ourselves in a period where our support for bilingualism is at least as high and, in some cases, somewhat higher than it ever was. There is no sense that this is less relevant to Canadians. In fact, the opposite seems to be true.
There are two additional points I want to make about this general pattern. The first is that it is important to understand that the level of public support for bilingualism depends entirely on the type of question that you ask. In particular, the more information you give survey respondents about what you might mean by a policy of official bilingualism, the higher the level of support. A general question about bilingualism, without explanation, will obtain lower levels of support than a question that mentions the delivery of government services in both official languages or the rights of linguistic communities to receive services or to have their children educated in the official language of their choice.
I will pause now to highlight the very high levels of public support in Canada right now for francophone minorities to have access to French language schools in provinces outside Quebec.
As I said, the more you define what you are talking about, the more positive the results are.
The second qualification is that there are important variations in support according to the age and gender of respondents, and the region in which they live. Women tend to be more supportive than men. Younger Canadians are somewhat more supportive than older Canadians. I am talking about the anglophone looking at bilingualism. Quebecers, obviously, are very supportive of official languages and bilingualism policy. However, outside Quebec, Atlantic Canadians are consistently the most supportive. Ontarians are also supportive, but somewhat less so. Support tends to be lower, although on the whole fairly positive, in Western Canada.
Those factors tend to intertwine. Thus, when you see that Western Canadians seem less supportive of bilingualism on the whole, it can be important to go further and say that there is a generational issue here, as well as a gender one. Young Westerners and, in particular, young women in the West, can be quite strongly supportive of bilingualism.
It is important to avoid blanket conclusions about an entire region when there are some important nuances within it.
The first finding was that there was no evidence of declining support and some evidence that it is even improving.
The second point that we emphasized in the paper is the very high level of support today for the importance of learning a second language, and for learning French as a second language in particular, if you are an anglophone in Canada: 77 per cent of anglophones outside Quebec will say it is important for their children to learn a second language, 74 per cent will say that the second language that is most important for their children to learn is French and 75 per cent of anglophones outside Quebec who do not speak French say they wish they did.
On top of this, you get very high levels of agreement with other statements about language and language skills. Canadians will almost unanimously agree with a statement that talks about whether people who can speak more than one language will have success in the global economy. You will have very high agreement with the idea that learning a second language can be very fulfilling to yourself as an individual, and with the idea that it is an important subject for children to study in school.
All of those are elements where there is not a very large difference of opinion between age groups, because everyone seems to be in favour, but if anything, young people are always a little more favourable, again demonstrating that languages, learning a second language and learning French continue to be relevant because it is something that has even greater appeal to younger Canadians than others.
The third point that I want to underline is the positive relationship between bilingualism and multiculturalism, certainly as policies, but I am talking more about visions of the country.
It is the case, and the survey research does show, that immigrants, people born outside the country and who have moved here, are more likely than other Canadians to want their children to learn a second language that is not an official language, for understandable reasons. If their family brings another language to Canada, there is a desire for them to maintain the capacity to speak that language within the family and within the community. This desire to keep those languages other than English and French alive within their families and their communities should in no way be interpreted as lesser support for English-French bilingualism in Canada. In fact, immigrants are more likely to support bilingualism than people who were born in Canada. They are more likely to say that bilingualism — by bilingualism, I am always talking about English-French bilingualism, or official bilingualism — helps define what it means to be Canadian or makes them proud to be Canadian. They are more likely to say they wish they spoke French.
The key point is that they are very likely, and more likely than other Canadians, to say that the fact that Canada has two official languages makes it a more welcoming place to people from outside the country or to immigrants from other cultures. If you look particularly at immigrants coming from outside America, outside Britain, outside Europe, they are the most likely to say that the two official languages policy is an attribute that makes Canada more welcoming to them. This shows the linkage between a policy or vision of multiculturalism and one of bilingualism, and that that linkage is appreciated by the people it touches most directly, that is, immigrants.
From a slightly different angle, if you leave aside the division between immigrants and non-immigrants, looking at the population in general, it is true that multiculturalism, in terms of the growing diversity of the country, does increase interest in languages other than official languages. If you look, for instance, at that question of which second language is most important for your child to learn, in somewhere like British Columbia, there is an increased interest in a language other than French. We are looking at a primarily English-speaking society in terms of the public language, but 38 per cent in B.C. will say it is important for their children to learn a language other than French. In particular, in Vancouver, Chinese is a popular choice. In no way does it outweigh French. French is still the choice of the majority, but nonetheless, it is there.
My view is that we should not put languages in competition with each other. Those who are interested in learning these other languages will either eventually be, or are presently, interested in learning French as well, because the question just asks about your first choice, not the full possibilities. It is more important to work on convincing those who do not think any other language is important to become interested in languages than it is to worry about whether there are parts of Canada where languages other than French as a second language are attracting interest.
In conclusion, the survey work that we did and the review of trends over time were very encouraging — almost surprisingly encouraging in some ways. We did end the paper by stressing the difficulty in squaring this positive result with the census figures showing that only 7 per cent of anglophones outside Quebec right now speak French. It is higher, as you know, for younger people, but nonetheless, there is a large gap between the number of anglophones who say they wish they could speak French and the number who actually do, and the number presently enrolling their children in French schools or in immersion schools. There is this disconnect between the support in principle, or the theory, and the practice, and I would like to say a few words about that.
First, even if goodwill does not always lead to action, it does not mean that the goodwill is not important in and of itself. I think we can imagine that Canada would be a very different country and we would be in a very different situation if, as well as not speaking French, anglophones were saying they did not think it was important, that they did not want their children to learn it and that they did not want to learn it themselves. The disconnect is there, but that does not mean that the support in principle is not important.
Second, the survey does help us to narrow where we need to focus our energy. If rates of bilingualism among anglophones remain relatively low, even if they are growing over time, I think we can start by saying with confidence that it is not because Canadians are opposed to bilingualism as an idea or a principle or a vision of the country. Some of the political battles that were perhaps relevant when the Official Languages Act was first introduced, for instance, are no longer as relevant today. In other words, that ideological battle has perhaps been won. If rates of bilingualism are low, it is not because Canadians as a whole do not think languages are important or an important part of education, or an important part of the economy or an important skill to have.
The survey closes off a few avenues as unproductive. It does not necessarily give us the answer, but as I said, I think it can narrow our focus. The survey does not say this, but it was my conclusion that it leads us to focus on the very concrete steps that have to be taken for goodwill to be translated into action — in other words, the conditions in a local community that either encourage or discourage parents from enrolling their children in immersion schools or French language schools; either encouraging or discouraging children from retaining the second language they learn after they leave school and immersing themselves in the other culture, et cetera. It leads us to focus on these very concrete aspects of the problem, rather than convincing Canadians about the big picture and whether it is an important part of Canada, of Canada's future, Canada's history, Canada's personality. Canadians are already convinced of that.
That is the extent of the presentation I wanted to make to you. As I said, I am very happy to fill in any detail or explore any part of the conclusions that we have been through.
[Translation]
Once again, thank you very much for the invitation. I will be happy to answer all your questions.
Senator Gauthier: Hello, Mr. Parkin; where do you come from?
Mr. Parkin: Montreal.
Senator Gauthier: That is why you speak both official languages. One of the problems with the word "bilingual" is that it irritated a lot of Canadians in the 1970s. People said that you could not be fully Canadian unless you were bilingual. That was absolutely not the intention. The concept of linguistic duality has now replaced the word "bilingual" and I am very pleased that it has. There are 20 million unilingual English Canadians, some four million unilingual francophones and nearly seven million bilingual Canadians.
I have been in politics for some time now. I have always noticed that the francophone majority or the anglophone majority has always demonstrated a sort of resistance towards the imposition of bilingualism. Anglophones used to say "You are ramming French down our throats." We experienced this for years. It was not true but it is what they thought. When the existence of French in Quebec was being called into question, there was a sort of nationalist brainstorming, Quebeckers began being criticized. Quebeckers went on the defence, and decided to assert themselves. We had two solitudes living together.
There is one thing that I have always found surprising. Are you a demographer, Mr. Parkin, a statistician?
Mr. Parkin: No, not by profession. We are now working with a lot of surveys but I have a more general background as a political scientist.
Senator Gauthier: One question that I have always asked myself is how is it that no Canadian university requires knowledge of both official languages to obtain a degree? Here at the University of Ottawa, in the past, there used to be a language test. It was eliminated because there was resistance towards it, a negative effect; it was not attracting people. Today, we encourage young people to become increasingly bilingual. Objectives have been set; Mr. Dion's action plan aims for 50 per cent within 10 years, given the fact that currently, 25 per cent of young people are bilingual.
If we want to encourage bilingualism among young people, it would not be such a bad idea to tell them that if they want to obtain a university degree, from now on they would have to be able to pass a language test, in order for bilingualism to be effective. What do you think?
Mr. Parkin: If you will allow me, I will answer the first part of your question and following that the second part. To come back to the issue of linguistic duality and bilingualism, I agree with you. It is a good way to assess the data. When I say that the controversy over the notion of a bilingual country is almost over, I am exaggerating a bit. However, Canadians, I agree, accept linguistic duality. Indeed, that means that francophones accept it; I myself am not francophone and it does not bother me.
From this point of view, the same goes for multiculturalism. If we accept it, that does not mean that we have to learn about all cultures. We want Canadians to be diversified. In looking over all of the survey questions, the highest level of support is for francophone minority rights. This is one form of the more generalized support for diversity in Canada.
Bilingualism is different. It means being able to speak both languages, it is a subject that we have dealt with because the government's plan is to promote it. It is, at the very least, relevant.
With respect to university testing, I agree with you completely. I myself have noticed that if you look at posters hanging in universities, you can see that there are opportunities to study in London, in Italy, but we do not see any opportunities to participate in exchange programs between the University of Toronto and the University of Montreal. Perhaps they exist, I am not an expert in the field, but I would like for us to start asking that question.
A language test is a good idea but we already have a hard time getting a good number of students to pass a test in their own language! Universities have introduced a test to determine if students are fluent enough in their own language and that has already become a problem for a certain number of them.
I am not in a position to say whether or not that is a good idea. In other studies, to obtain a masters, a doctorate, the test is not mandatory everywhere. It is a problem. It is not up to me to define university policy, but I agree that there are problems.
Senator Corbin: In a statement of statistics you collected throughout Canada on general support for official languages programs, official languages, bilingualism, and so on and so forth, you treated all four Atlantic provinces as one block. Did you push your analysis a bit further by drawing a distinction between different provincial attitudes in this region? I will tell you right away why I think you should do so.
New Brunswick is the only province in Canada that has declared itself officially bilingual, and for all intents and purposes, it is a bilingual province in terms of its institutions and its programs. Bilingualism is entrenched, as you know, in the Canadian Constitution. There is no other province that has declared itself officially bilingual. That must have an impact on the attitude of citizens of this province because they have a government that introduced this type of system.
Therefore, the reaction of New Brunswickers to official languages cannot be the same as that of the people of Newfoundland — and you will excuse me, Senator Comeau, it cannot be the same as the reaction of the people of Nova Scotia — or of Prince Edward Island. When a government leads by example, confers rights and protects these rights, it goes without saying that public perception is reinforced. In the future, you should not, as everyone seems to be doing now, represent the four eastern provinces as one Atlantic block. They are independent provinces with individual characteristics.
If you have the resources — and I appreciate the work you are doing, please understand that — I think it would be appropriate to push the study a bit further in order to demonstrate that when a government has the backbone and the guts, it can commit to an official languages program. In my opinion, this is essential. I believe that New Brunswick sets an example for other provinces.
Mr. Parkin: I agree completely. It is true that in the document we published, we do not give provincial data in most of the surveys, because we drew on a lot of surveys, not all of them our own. We have only been in existence since 1996, as a research program. The sampling of the four provinces taken together was not large enough to do a by-province breakdown.
Senator Corbin: Perhaps this is so for a statistician, but I myself do not accept this.
Mr. Parkin: From a statistician's point of view, for the other surveys, that is the problem.
Mr. Parkin: We widened our sampling for the four Atlantic provinces for the very reasons you emphasized. We deal with a lot of issues relating to Canadian federalism. Canadians attitudes are not the same in Newfoundland as they were in New Brunswick. I believe that you are right on that point.
In reviewing the answers from one province to another, we noticed that support for bilingualism is higher in New Brunswick. When a province sets itself apart as a leader, there is a tangible effect among the public.
However, we must note that support for bilingualism is still very high in the three other provinces, that is, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. There seems to be a shared attitude among the four maritime provinces. This is a remarkable finding, given the fact that there is not as high a number of francophones in the three other provinces as there is in New Brunswick. Yet, opinions do not vary greatly.
We are talking about a regional personality, because in these four provinces individual support is very high. This is explained by historical reasons. The Acadian population of New Brunswick has perhaps an effect which goes beyond the borders of its province.
Senator Corbin: You are talking about a spillover effect.
Mr. Parkin: Probably.
Senator Corbin: I would like a simple clarification. Which segment of the population did you survey?
Mr. Parkin: The last survey, and the documents provide greater detail, polled some 2000 Canadians. I do not have the breakdown by province or by region with me, but these citizens were selected at random. The data is always adjusted to represent population distribution by province, by age and by sex.
Senator Corbin: By social class and level of education?
Mr. Parkin: The survey is not conducted according to social class. However, the sampling does represent social groups, income levels, and education levels.
Polling firms work very hard in order to get the best sampling possible for accurate representation. In light of the current results, we can say that some respondents are wealthier than others, and all have varying levels of education.
Senator Comeau: Not being familiar with the firm, can you talk to me about it? Who are you affiliated with? Is it a university or government organization?
[English]
Mr. Parkin: It would be a pleasure. The Centre for Research and Information on Canada is the research communications and citizen participation program of the Canadian Unity Council.
The Canadian Unity Council runs a number of programs, including Encounters with Canada here in Ottawa, where high school students from across the country come to learn about each other and the country. We were created in 1996 with a mandate to produce research and information about the country, about the challenges it faces, to make that information available to Canadians and to create occasions where Canadians can come together and discuss those.
We have seven offices across the country; five of them are citizen participation offices. Their responsibility is to bring Canadians together around tables like these to discuss exactly the subject we are discussing today. The office I share with Ms. Bernard in Ottawa is the research office, where we produce the content that animates those discussions, that goes on our Web site and that is published in this form. Our Montreal office is the head office, the communications office, which supports that Web site, creates these publications and publishes the Opinion Canada weekly newsletter.
The umbrella group is the Canadian Unity Council. As I mentioned, it is an independent, non-partisan organization with charitable status. A large part of the program funding comes from the Government of Canada, and CRIC receives a grant directly from Canadian Heritage to sustain its operations. We are also supported by the private sector and by volunteers.
For instance, when we hold round tables in cities like Calgary or Halifax, usually there is a sponsorship from the private sector and the activities only take place — because we have one person in our Moncton office, for instance, and two people in Calgary — they are only successful, because they are supported by regional volunteers who share the mission. Our Web site, which is cric.ca, has a wealth of information of this type and is a good resource for parliamentarians.
Senator Comeau: Your Atlantic office is in Moncton?
Mr. Parkin: Yes, and that is our newest office; it only opened in November.
Senator Comeau: I will not touch that. Can we access the report that we were talking about tonight — the details of which you were explaining — on your Web site?
Mr. Parkin: Yes.
[Translation]
Additional information is also available. There are additional summaries, press releases, and illustrations.
Senator Comeau: Earlier, a witness from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada mentioned the need for a vision of the future of official languages and minority communities in Canada.
Did you look into ways in which we can develop a vision for minority communities in Canada?
Mr. Parkin: We have not done a lot of work relating directly to minority communities. These communities are certainly better represented by their groups. A survey sample mainly captures majority groups. We are therefore in a better position to talk about the majority trend in relation to the minority. We are not experts in what these communities are experiencing. Nonetheless, we have done some work in this field. For example, we analyzed the latest census in order to grasp the vision that exists.
[English]
The best work we have done is on the visions that Canadians hold about their country as a whole. I may not be answering your question about minority communities, but I can certainly talk about it in terms of a general vision.
Senator Comeau: You say you are not expert on the subject, but the official language minority communities are also not experts on the majority views, which is your strength. If you, with your depth of knowledge of the attitudes and desires of the majority population of Canada, were to get together with a group like the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, possibly you could devise some kind of vision that could be established for Canada. You would be bringing your own strengths from many years in this field to work with their own strengths. It is something that you might want to discuss with the group. I certainly intend to bring it up with them, because the synergy between the two would be more than the sum of the parts.
[Translation]
Senator Léger: First and foremost, I was very surprised by the title of your document: "Bilingualism: Part of Our Past or Part of Our Future?" The past and the future go together.
The Centre for Research and Information on Canada also does research. I am a bit skeptical of research when universities are more focussed on the theoretical aspect than the practical aspect. Specialists are often cut off from reality. However, I have not noticed this with your organization.
I agree with what Senator Comeau said about a vision. You broached this topic briefly in the document accompanying your presentation.
The research you have undertaken reflects the spirit of bilingualism rather than being mere words. Here is the start of the vision we are talking about.
I am pleased with your document and encourage you to keep up your efforts. One could say that this research is somewhat anti-census.
Immigrants will be of great help; you said so, with evidence to back it up, we are not against French or English. We live in a new era in comparison with the situation 40 years ago. Today we need a new language and a new vision. This vision must be developed now.
I would also like for us to stop using the word "minority."
Strangely you said that we are going to join Toronto and London, large universities; our cities will be twinned, Moncton and Dieppe. However the City of Tracadie, New Brunswick, is already the sister-city of St. Andrew's where not one word of French is spoken. There is, therefore, a certain openness.
I am very pleased with the spirit of your research. I encourage you to continue in the same direction. I agree with what Senator Comeau said with respect to a vision for the future.
The Chairman: Senator Léger, thank you for your remarks.
[English]
Never forget what Senator Léger just said. This is something that she does not say every time regarding studies.
[Translation]
It is the nicest compliment that can be made, Mr. Parkin. It must be appreciated.
[English]
Senator Keon: Thank you. It is my impression, looking back over the last 35 years of my other professional life, that the ability now to recruit bilingual personnel, especially in Ottawa, has become very easy compared to what it was. The kids coming out of high school in Ottawa are virtually all bilingual. Whether they become nurses, technicians or doctors, if they have come out of the education system in Ottawa, they seem to be, to me, virtually all bilingual. Is that a statistical fact or is that just my impression?
Mr. Parkin: I could not comment on that because I just do not have the facts in front of me.
Senator Keon: It leads to another important issue, that many of us feel that our city should be bilingual. It would be a beacon for our country. It would seem to me some of the resistance to that now is that the recruitment of adequate personnel in both official languages remains difficult. Actually, this is not my experience in the institution I have headed for a number of years. We only have 750 employees. There was a time when it was very difficult. I am just wondering whether any of the data you have, somewhere on the back burner, add enlightenment on this.
Mr. Parkin: I could say — and I wish I had the data of the labour pool with me but I do not — we do not have that information ourselves, but I was thinking about Ottawa. There are qualifications in the report, one of which is that anglophones are prepared to support bilingualism until you talk about spending priorities and then it is obviously much lower on their list. They will usually say that the government is already doing enough. Also, as was mentioned before, opinions turn when there are fears that there are job losses involved. This is usually never the case, but nonetheless that is the button that can be pushed in order to turn around the positive results we have.
Nothing in the report speaks directly about the city, except that the idea of having a bilingual capital would generally appeal to the Canadian public. The debate in Ottawa would turn on whether you are focusing on that or whether other people are able to focus on the more negative point, which is the cost, but you have been through this debate before. That is what it will turn on, the cost and whether it penalizes people. If people can be reassured on those things, then I do not see any grounds for public opposition to that. Those would be the only two.
Senator Keon: Again, one of the things that become intimidating, and you mentioned it, is exams of any kind, for anyone. People are afraid of driver's exams when they get old. I notice the elderly patients of our institution are terrified of their driver's test. This has been a barrier, and we have to find some way of removing the stigma associated with the exams. Have you any information on that? Have you addressed it yet?
Mr. Parkin: No, is the short answer. However, that brings to mind a comment that could relate to the census. We asked roughly the same question in terms of ability to hold a conversation in the other language. We get a much higher number than the census gets. There are two ways of looking at that. One way is that people see the census as an authoritative document and always tell the truth. A public opinion survey over the phone shows there is much room for exaggerating. People will say what they would like to think about themselves. The other way of looking at it is that people regard the census like an exam and they do not want to write down that they can speak French if they think someone is going ask them to prove it.
In other words, there are two numbers for how many anglophones can speak French. It depends on where we set the bar and what our purpose is. Is our purpose to have perfectly bilingual citizens, or is it to able to participate in a common vision of the country and to appreciate that there are different linguistic communities?
Depending on how you want to test it, you will get a different result.
Senator Mercer: Thank you for being here. I have two very quick questions. I am very excited about your presentation. Through your presentation, and speaking as a Pearson-Trudeau-Chrétien Liberal, you have validated years and years of hard work in my party to convince Canadians and other parties. I want to talk about the dissemination of these figures, because Senator Comeau's new friends do not know this information and might not be happy with it.
How have you disseminated the information? That is very important. The fact that you are here telling us and that the people are seeing it on television is important. However, there are tens of thousands of other Canadians who do not see this, and it is very important because it validates many of the theories a number of us have held for years. Also, it validates French language education for the non-francophone.
My second question relates directly to that, and I admit it is a question on a personal issue, being the father of a son who was a product of the Nova Scotia and Ontario immersion programs. Do you have any statistics that show how well immersion graduates maintain their French, post-high school? I worry about training people in the second language and then, if they work in Calgary or Halifax, they may not have the opportunity to use the language on an ongoing basis and end up losing it. Then we have lost the benefit of creating that large pool of people able to speak both languages.
Mr. Parkin: First, we are a non-partisan organization. Be kind to us. We try to disseminate information as widely as we can. We have, of course, our own mailing list. It is on the Web. There are notices put out on various list serves. Our papers are often used in university courses and by students, and we put out press releases. This was when, of course, the media interest was mostly from the francophone media outside of Quebec, in other words, the people who were already there in some ways, and it was much more difficult to get the anglophone media interested, although Jeffrey Simpson wrote a column about it, and as a prominent chronicler, it did help. Ms. Bernard also prepares a newsletter summary of our newsletters for parliamentarians and the last one was sent out — last month?
Ms. Bernard: Yes.
Mr. Parkin: We try as best we can to make sure all parliamentarians have access to the research and will continue to do so. We do policy briefings here for people in Canadian Heritage, the Privy Council Office and our friends at the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, which helped us to design the study. We ourselves have not done that kind of study to follow students, so I can only cite the census statistics, which cite a fall-off. They dip down a little, which could be what you have in mind when you are talking about the issue of retention, but that is a second-hand issue I am passing on.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Parkin. Before ending, I will give Senator Comeau the floor.
Senator Comeau: Generally speaking, this committee is apolitical. We have a newcomer tonight. We are heading towards an election. He may want to politicize this committee by naming his great heroes of the past and by neglecting other great names who have contributed to official languages in Canada, people such as Robert Stanfield, Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney and many others.
One of the reasons for why we decided to distance ourselves from the concept of a Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, is that we would often get into this type of discussion where politics would be played out. I wanted to prevent the committee from heading in this direction. It is a direction we should not venture into.
If Senator Mercer wants to speak negatively of the leader of the new party, he can do so in the upcoming election campaign. If he wants to talk about the weaknesses of the leader of the new party, he whill then have the opportunity to do it. But this committee is not the place to do so. In this committee, I suggest that we stick to trying to meet the needs of our communities and to not get embroiled in petty partisan politics. If this is the case, we will have to discuss it in private; I am ready and willing to do so.
The Chairman: I am new here, as well as Senator Mercer who is replacing a colleague who could not be here today. Your comments have been noted.
Thank you, Mr. Parkin and Ms. Bernard. Your presentation raised quite a discussion. It is the reason why we are here today.
Before going in camera, I would like to mention that Senator Beaudoin could not be here today because he is at his book launch. Senator Beaudoin has been an active member of the Standing Committee of Official Languages for several years now, and he has made an exceptional contribution. We must recognize that today because next time we meet, Senator Beaudoin will have retired.
As Chair of this committee, I would like to thank him for his efforts, his contribution and his support of this committee.
Senator Gauthier: That is unanimous.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Senator Gauthier, it is unanimous, miracles do happen!
In two minutes, we will go in camera to discuss future business.
The committee is now in camera.