Skip to content
OLLO - Standing Committee

Official Languages

 

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages

Issue 19 - Evidence - Meeting of April 29, 2013


OTTAWA, Monday, April 29, 2013

The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5 p.m. to continue its study of best practices for language policies and second-language learning in a context of linguistic duality or plurality and began its study on the impacts of recent changes to the immigration system on the official language minority communities.

Senator Maria Chaput (Chair) in the chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Honourable senators, I call the meeting to order. Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am Senator Maria Chaput, from Manitoba, chair of the committee. Before introducing the witnesses appearing today, I would invite the committee members to introduce themselves.

Senator Champagne: Good afternoon. Andrée Champagne, I represent the province of Quebec.

Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.

Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.

Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis from Quebec, from the Senate riding of Rougemont.

Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.

Senator Tardif: Good afternoon. Claudette Tardif from Alberta.

The Chair: The committee is continuing its study of best practices for language policies and second-language learning in a context of linguistic duality or plurality and today begins its study on the impacts of recent changes to the immigration system on official language minority communities.

It is a great pleasure to welcome Mr. Graham Fraser, the Commissioner of Official Languages, to this meeting. Mr. Fraser, on behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for taking the time to present your point of view to us as part of our two studies and to answer our questions.

On behalf of committee members, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment for a second term as Commissioner of Official Languages and to thank your office for the work it has done in promoting and achieving the objectives of the Official Languages Act.

Mr. Fraser, you now have the floor, and senators will follow with questions.

[English]

Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, honourable senators and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am accompanied today by Carsten Quell, Director of Policy and Research; and Sylvain Giguère, Assistant Commissioner of the Policy and Communications Branch.

[Translation]

I would like to thank you for inviting me here today to discuss two important studies that your committee is undertaking. Second-language learning and the impact of immigration on official language minority communities are issues that I have been examining since the beginning of my mandate.

[English]

Canada is world renowned for its linguistic duality. Our economy is becoming increasingly knowledge based, and in a world where international competition is accelerating, language skills are more important than ever.

According to the 2011 census, immigration is playing an increasingly important role in Canada's demographic growth. This phenomenon makes it more difficult to increase our bilingualism rate, but it is also a great opportunity to enhance the vitality of our official language communities if they succeed in welcoming newcomers in their midst.

[Translation]

Our official language communities are stronger than they were 10 years ago, but their future is still uncertain. They often do not have enough resources to serve newcomers to Canada effectively. Government institutions that encourage French-speaking newcomers to settle outside of Quebec have a responsibility not only to be very clear about the nature of our francophone communities but also to coordinate with provincial jurisdictions. I should point out that it is important to better harmonize linguistic duality and cultural diversity.

[English]

Newcomers do not always understand the complexity of Canada's linguistic reality, which is different from the purely geographical approach used by other countries. Treating all communities in the same way does not work when it comes to our policies for welcoming immigrants into minority language communities. Indeed, I see many francophone communities asking themselves whether the work they have already done has even been taken into consideration in relation to the Government of Canada's new approach to business immigration and labour market integration.

[Translation]

Other changes have also affected the work these communities do every day, particularly in Manitoba, where the community has a close relationship with its provincial government. Welcoming a chef from Brussels who wants to open a restaurant in St. Boniface is not even remotely similar to welcoming a family that has spent the past five years in a refugee camp on the Rwandan-Congolese border.

The second example requires a variety of organizations, various types of reception structures, a different approach to the health and education systems, and a great deal of cooperation among everyone involved. People who have had traumatic experiences must be given the proper assistance and support to help them adjust to their new life.

[English]

Above all, special attention must be paid to young people whose educational level does not match their age and experiences. Immigration families are usually under a lot of stress with both parents out of the house and working two jobs, often at minimum wage. This is what settlement organizations have to deal with.

[Translation]

With the inclusion of substantial new funding in the immigration component of the new Roadmap for Official Languages, the government appears to recognize the importance of supporting official language communities in their work to welcome, integrate and retain newcomers to Canada. However, the lack of information about this funding implies that it will probably be earmarked to help newcomers learn one of the official languages — realistically, French in Quebec and English in the rest of the country — so that they can integrate more easily into the job market.

[English]

This kind of approach is certainly useful but has little to do with increasing English-French bilingualism or promoting linguistic duality. I hope that during the course of your studies you will be able to get some clarification on these issues from Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

It is also difficult to see how this new funding will help official languages communities fulfill their objectives in terms of attracting and recruiting newcomers.

[Translation]

The vitality of our official language communities depends on the involvement and commitment of the immigrants who live there. This is what my team has found over the past several years as we prepared a series of case studies on community vitality. Immigration was identified as an important factor in the development of every community we looked at: the francophone communities of Sudbury, Halifax, Winnipeg, Calgary and British Columbia; rural communities in Saskatchewan; and various English-speaking communities in Quebec.

[English]

In almost every case, there was a direct relationship between greater diversity and community vitality. These studies on community vitality are available on my office's website.

Let me address your study on second language learning. Since the passing of the Official Languages Act, the Government of Canada has promoted English and French second language learning through various initiatives. Meeting with people from across the country, I have seen that ``French as a second language'' programs have had only limited success, not because of a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the young people or a lack of will on the parts of their parents, but because of a lack of resources.

[Translation]

English-speaking students who want to learn French are denied access to programs because there are not enough spaces, not enough funds or not enough qualified teachers. The social objectives that form the foundation of our language policy call for long-term investments.

To ensure that linguistic duality continues to be perceived as a Canadian value, the government needs to take measures that will have a sustainable impact. We need to put more emphasis on ways of giving citizens opportunities to improve their second language skills.

[English]

For example, we need to invest in exchange programs and language training programs in both languages for newcomers and their children. Canada needs to provide a true continuum of second language learning opportunities for all Canadians, from elementary school through to the labour market. It is a vital part of preparing our young people for the future as productive citizens in their own country and as citizens of the world.

[Translation]

Second-language education is an important element in the promotion of linguistic duality as a Canadian value. One of the challenges is getting universities to provide more learning opportunities for students. The rate of bilingualism among English-speaking Canadians could be much higher.

I would like to reiterate some of the recommendations I made in my 2009 study, Two Languages, a World of Opportunities: Second-language learning in Canada's universities, and several of my recent annual reports, including the one that was published last October.

[English]

At the moment, most of the exchange opportunities in Canadian universities involve institutions in other countries. Exchanges within Canada are rather limited. The government could take the initiative to create a new program to promote opportunities for students to study intensively in their second official language at another Canadian institution. This program would be the Canadian equivalent of the highly successful Erasmus and Erasmus Mundus programs, which seek to foster cooperation among European universities, promote exchange and dialogue between cultures, and facilitate mobility of students and staff — all to prepare participants for life in a global, knowledge-based society.

[Translation]

I recommended fostering cooperation with the provincial and territorial governments and post-secondary institutions to increase the number of programs in which students can take courses in their second official language.

I also recommended that the Prime Minister take the necessary measures to double the number of young Canadians who participate each year in language exchanges at the high-school and post-secondary levels.

[English]

I see that the government has not addressed these recommendations in the roadmap. Giving young Canadians more opportunities to experience life in a community where the other official language is spoken is an excellent way for Canada to celebrate its shared heritage in 2017.

Thank you for your suggestion. I would now like to take the remaining time to answer any questions you may have.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner. The first question will be asked by Senator Tardif, followed by Senator Fortin-Duplessis.

Senator Tardif: Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, allow me to congratulate you once again, Commissioner, on accepting the three-year renewal of your term. We are very pleased about that.

Mr. Fraser: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I am pleased to be starting a second term.

Senator Tardif: Mr. Commissioner, I would like to ask you a question about the immigration issue that the committee is currently studying. I know this is one of your priorities. You said so in a report you published and in your appearance before the Senate Committee of the Whole.

I would like to go back to the funding provided for in the roadmap. The government recently announced the new roadmap for 2013 to 2018, in which we note some investments in the immigration sector.

Do you think the share of funding allocated to immigration in the Roadmap for Official Languages 2013-18 is adequate for the next five years?

Mr. Fraser: What is hard to know is the nature of those amounts. Sums of $120 million have been allocated to language training for immigrants. If my understanding is correct, however, that is not necessarily language training for the official language communities, but rather general language training for immigrants, in French in Quebec and in English for the provinces outside Quebec.

Details have not yet been determined. With these $120-million amounts, the total amount of roadmap funding has been established as though there were a total of $1 billion to $124 billion. However, I find it somewhat difficult to view this $120-million amount as a contribution to linguistic duality or to the communities. If it is to be used to teach English to an immigrant in Vancouver who speaks Punjabi, that is excellent, but I do not know whether that is really linked to linguistic duality, growth or defending the vitality of the official language minority communities.

I am not criticizing the idea that it is important for immigrants to receive enhanced language training when they arrive in Canada, but I think a distinction must be drawn between that training and support for a program that was designed as a support for linguistic duality and the official language minority communities.

Senator Tardif: That is definitely a question that I will put to the minister when he appears before our committee because, if my understanding is correct, those $122-million amounts were funding an existing program. So this is not new funding.

Mr. Fraser: That is my understanding too.

Senator Tardif: This program was already in existence and it was added to the Roadmap, as a result of which the total funding invested in the Roadmap is $120 million less because we are not doing certain things that we could have done if we had invested that $120 million elsewhere.

Mr. Fraser: Indeed, if you subtract those $120-million amounts, you will see a budget reduction of approximately 9.5 per cent instead of an increase.

Senator Tardif: If my understanding is correct, those amounts could be used to learn either English or French. In a province such as Alberta, for example, a newcomer would probably be registered for English courses, and that funding would be used for all the provinces, except Quebec, where French would be taught to the anglophone majority. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. Fraser: That is how I understand it, but Mr. Giguère has taken a closer look at this.

Sylvain Giguère, Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: We do not know exactly how this will work because we were told that the eligibility criteria would not be known until September.

Will previously existing programs be maintained in full? Will the official language minority communities be favoured? We do not know. We will have to wait to see what criteria are applied in order to determine who will benefit from that funding.

Senator Tardif: A number of orders have been issued concerning the changes to immigration; I believe there are about 30 of them.

Have you had a chance to look at those orders issued by the Privy Council Office? Have you also assessed their impact on Citizenship and Immigration Canada's ability to achieve its official language objectives?

Mr. Fraser: The decision I am most familiar with concerns the takeover of the Provincial Nominee Program, in which the role of the provinces has been transferred to Ottawa to be replaced by a program focusing on the immigration of business people.

Premier Selinger of Manitoba, in particular, has complained about that decision because Manitoba has been working hand in hand with Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Société franco-manitobaine for many years to increase francophone immigration. Since the decision, however, there has been a decline in immigration to Manitoba for the first time in many years.

I often think that the cooperation between the federal government, Manitoba and the Franco-Manitoban community has been a model. I frequently mention that in the other provinces, and I think it is unfortunate that it cannot continue in the same way, as was the case for many years.

Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Like my colleagues, I want to congratulate you on your reappointment. That is undoubtedly because you have done an outstanding job. I wish you all the luck in the world.

Mr. Fraser: Thank you very much.

Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I noted an interesting statistic in your annual report. You said this: 70 per cent of English Canadians wish they were more proficient in French, and 90 per cent of French Canadians think that learning English is valuable if you want to travel, get a better job or explore other cultures.

It seems to me that there is a strong desire among Canadians to learn both official languages. Would you say that interest is growing?

Mr. Fraser: In the long term, I would certainly say that it has grown since the Official Languages Act was introduced. At the time, in the 1960s and early 1970s, there was strong opposition to the idea of linguistic duality as a Canadian value. A majority supported the Official Languages Act, but it was more 60-40, and the numbers were reversed in parts of the country.

I think we can see enormous progress. For example, it is now understood that you must be proficient in both official languages to become the leader of a political party. That is true for all parties, and there is not even any debate about that.

However, it is another matter to say that this latent desire is always transformed into a personal will to take second- language courses, but I believe we have reached a point where the level of passive bilingualism is much higher than in the past. In fact, there are a lot more Canadians who appreciate hearing and listening to French in public places or at public ceremonies and who understand it, even though, according to the census, they say they cannot carry on a conversation. At least they understand.

Those who cannot understand French feel that the use of French at official public ceremonies is part of Canada's identity, and that constitutes a change in attitude.

Senator Fortin-Duplessis: The provinces and territories are responsible for education under the division of powers. We therefore see different teaching models being established to promote second-language learning across the country. Would you say that the present school system enables young Canadian children to become bilingual?

Mr. Fraser: I cannot say that because French-language learning is not compulsory west of Ontario. East of Ontario, there is a compulsory aspect to learning the other official language. There are differences in terms of the year in which it starts and ends, but it is optional in Western Canada.

That does not mean that is not the case, in the sense that, based on my experience across the country, I have come to the conclusion that the best immersion system is in Edmonton. For example, we see that immersion is growing in British Columbia. There is considerable interest in second-language learning, but there are inequalities.

At the very start of my term, a member from the West asked to meet with me and I was somewhat apprehensive about being criticized by that person. To my great surprise, he asked me, ``How is it that a young girl from a small town in my province does not have access to the same quality of French-language learning as another girl living in a larger city in the province?''

It occurred to me that, if that kind of serious criticism of official language policy was coming from members from Western Canada, it was a sign that we had made enormous progress. However, there is indeed unequal access to high quality training. There is also a shortage of teachers, and we are reaching a stage where it is a challenge to recruit teachers to replace the ones who are retiring. Furthermore, recruitment is often a challenge for immersion schools in small towns and municipalities.

I have heard some stories that are quite similar to the plot of the film La Grande séduction. People are trying to attract immersion teachers to small, quite remote municipalities. Universal access is a problem.

Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

Senator McIntyre: Mr. Commissioner, we all acknowledge your attachment to Canada's language policies and your wish to create more second-language learning opportunities for Canadians. Unless I am mistaken, you made that a central theme in your 2011-2012 annual report.

I have two questions for you. The first concerns immigration and the second language policies and second-language learning. As you know, we increasingly seem to be promoting economic immigration and the hiring of skilled workers.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, indeed.

Senator McIntyre: In your opinion, could an excessive emphasis on economic immigration have a negative impact on the objectives the government has set for itself, particularly with respect to francophone immigration?

Mr. Fraser: That is the fear I have heard expressed by people in Manitoba, who have witnessed the transfer of responsibility for provincial nominations under that program. I believe they are not necessarily contradictory. I always come back to Manitoba because I consider it a success story in this area.

There is a restaurant on the Louis-Riel Bridge between Winnipeg and Saint-Boniface. The lease expired and was renewed by the owners of the Chez Sophie restaurant. I mentioned the hypothetical story of a Belgian restaurant operator because the owner of Chez Sophie is a restaurateur who comes from Alsace and who was attracted by the Destination Canada program. He arrived eight years ago and managed to win the contract to manage the restaurant, which is in a key position as a meeting place between Winnipeg and Saint-Boniface.

I do not believe that one program will necessarily say that it cannot achieve the objectives of another, but support is needed for the Destination Canada program. Canada went and recruited business people who wanted to settle here and operate a business in a particular field, particularly given the economic circumstances in Europe.

I saw a television news story on a recruitment campaign in France in which companies managed to obtain very highly skilled high tech labour. So it is possible to achieve both objectives at the same time.

Senator McIntyre: My second question concerns language policies. As you know, the federal, provincial and territorial governments have jointly supported official language learning since 1970. As education is a provincial and territorial jurisdiction under the Constitution, the provinces and territories have established different teaching models to promote second-language learning.

Are you satisfied with the approach adopted by the various levels of government? Are there any provinces or territories that are performing better than others in this area?

For example, if we look at changes in the registration rates for French as a second language programs, better known as FSL programs, we see that those programs are very popular in certain provinces such as Prince Edward Island, British Columbia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

We also note a slight decline in enrolment in FSL programs in New Brunswick since the mid-1970s. How do you explain that drop in New Brunswick, when there is an increase in other provinces such as Prince Edward Island?

Mr. Fraser: My explanation is that a change was made in the immersion program a few years ago. Early immersion was abolished and immersion was not introduced until grade 5, and you cannot eliminate a few years of immersion without there being an impact on the total number of students enrolled in immersion.

I also observed this when the previous New Brunswick government conducted a study because they were very concerned about the economic decline in that province and therefore about pressure on resources. Some recommendations were made, including that early immersion be terminated, and that decision was implemented based on that concern about limited resources.

As for the increase in British Columbia in particular and Western Canada in general, it must be said that there is more demand than supply. As a result, some school boards use the first-come, first-served system. Parents therefore stand in line all night to register their children and the system operates somewhat as a lottery.

I think that is proof that there is a capacity problem. I met the father of a minister who proudly told me how he, his son, a minister of the Crown, and his son-in-law had organized shifts throughout the night so that his granddaughter could be registered. I felt mixed emotions when I heard that story. On the one hand, you can say it is admirable that Canada is such a democratic country that even a minister of the Crown has to stand in line all night so that his niece can be registered in an immersion program. On the other hand, why do you have to stand in line all night to register a child in a program that is internationally recognized as a high quality program?

I believe there has been a kind of funding cap that, year in and year out, has limited the number of students registered in immersion to 300,000 since the 1980s.

One of the reasons why there has been no increase is that parents have not managed get there early enough to stand in line all night. I do not think that organizing a division of resources in the same way as you sell Rolling Stones tickets is necessarily the best way to meet a demand as obvious as that expressed by these parents.

Senator Poirier: Congratulations, Mr. Fraser, on the extension of your term. It is very much appreciated.

My first question concerns second-language learning. In your view, what province in Canada is achieving the greatest success and why? And would it be possible for them to share their knowledge with the rest of Canada?

Mr. Fraser: I am going to give you a fairly personal answer and it concerns what the Edmonton public schools have done. Several years ago, they observed that registration was down and students were leaving the program after a number of years. Following a study that contained 12 or 14 recommendations, they analyzed the quality indicators necessary for a high quality program to function. A number of criteria emerged, including support from school principals, educational support for teachers and parent involvement. So that, in a way, was quite an obvious set of criteria. The school board implemented them and they witnessed quite a drastic turnaround in the board's immersion programs.

That is all by way of an incidental remark. I am talking about a model for establishing a high quality system, but it is quite limited in that it involves a single school board in a province where French-language instruction is not mandatory at any level. So it requires parent involvement and there is absolutely no obligation.

I would mention another province that I believe has the highest rate of student involvement in immersion and second-language learning: Prince Edward Island. I cannot conduct the same quality analysis in this instance because I lack the information, but every indication I have seen suggests that the province, the minority community and the school board are really engaged. There was this belief in the province that the more bilingual young people were, the greater economic asset that would be for the province. I was really impressed by the support we saw at all levels of involvement, from the premier's office to the classroom.

There is also a great deal of interest in FSL instruction in Newfoundland and Labrador. I mention these examples, but as I do not have a mandate to investigate or establish very clear comparison measures, this is somewhat anecdotal. However, these are the findings I have made based on what I have observed.

Senator Poirier: When does French-language immersion start in the school systems of those provinces? Does it generally start in grade 1?

Mr. Fraser: Yes. There are three entry points, as it were, grades 1, 3 and 5, and they differ from province to province.

Senator Poirier: Is there any country that is a leader or model for second-language learning? And if so, could Canada draw on it?

Mr. Fraser: I have always been very much impressed by the Scandinavian countries in that regard. According to the OECD studies, Finland, for example, has the highest literacy rate. It also has two official languages, and instruction in Finnish and Swedish is mandatory. English-language instruction is also introduced at various stages of the school curriculum.

The advantage that the Scandinavian and European countries with two official languages have is that education is a national government responsibility. It is more difficult to establish national standards for a federation like Canada, where education is a provincial jurisdiction.

I read the report on a study conducted by a master's student at Carleton University on language training in the armed forces of five countries that had two official languages: Canada, Belgium, Ireland, Finland and Switzerland. Canada was the only one of those countries that provided paid language training for officers. All those countries had linguistic obligations. All officers had to become proficient in both official languages of their country, but at their own expense. The difference was that officers in those other countries had received mandatory instruction in both official languages, as was the case for all students until the end of secondary school, which we do not have here.

Senator Champagne: You really feel like saying that the federal government does not care about bilingualism elsewhere. We have had quite some difficult times, and yet we have made a big effort to support francophone immigration by giving it another chance. In Roadmap 2013-18, the investments in the immigration sector are at least 7 times greater than under the previous initiative and 16 times greater than when the Action Plan for Official Languages was introduced in 2003.

An effort has therefore been made to facilitate an influx of immigrants who were initially francophone. I am still afraid that our francophones will be assimilated by anglophones if we do not make a major effort, such as bringing in this Bill 14, which is monstrous, in my humble opinion.

Where do you draw the line between integration and assimilation? Do we integrate people who come from another province or country into our francophone life in a place like Quebec, or do we let francophones be assimilated by the anglophone population around us? You have experienced that for many years. Do you know where the line between integration and assimilation is?

Mr. Fraser: That is a very good question. It should not be forgotten that, when we talk about recruiting francophone immigrants from outside the country, we are talking about less than 2 per cent of francophone immigrants. That is far less than the percentage that the francophone communities outside Quebec represent.

There are success stories. The one I know best, and that I have always thought was a success, is the program of a Winnipeg organization called Accueil Francophone du Manitoba, where francophones from the community welcome francophone immigrants when they arrive at the airport, take them to their place of residence, register their children at a French-language school and organize a three-year assistance program.

They have understood that it is not enough just to be there on arrival, but that they also have to offer support and assistance to immigrants and refugees. The director of Accueil Francophone is herself an immigrant from Mali who came to study at the Université de Saint-Boniface. The program was created when Ibrahima Diallo was president of the Société franco-manitobaine. An immigrant from Senegal, he works at the Université de Saint-Boniface and met his wife, a Franco-Manitoban, while completing his doctorate in Paris. The program was organized by people with experience in immigration and integration into the francophone community.

Make no mistake, some of the francophone immigrants I have met in Toronto did not know that there was a francophone community or French-language resources in that city. They chose Toronto because they wanted to be in an anglophone North American city.

Others, however, thought that Canada was bilingual and equally so across the country. When I asked them what made them think that Canada was completely bilingual from sea to sea, they answered that it was the federal government's websites. Everything is in English and French. They thought that meant that both languages had equal status and that they could get the same services across the country and speak, shop, study and so on.

So let there be no mistake, you can move to Winnipeg, open a business and target the francophone community, but at some point you have to speak English if you want to do business with the city, obtain permits and function in Winnipeg. So this organization, Accueil Francophone, organizes English courses for francophone immigrants so that they can function effectively in the majority society.

I believe that, on the one hand, the consensus among the minority communities is that their future depends on their ability to become immigrant host communities, but one of the challenges is also that not all francophone immigrants want to become members of a minority community and join in the demands, struggles and history of the province's minority community.

So there is a twofold challenge: the challenge of French Canadian community to transform itself into a francophone community, and the challenge of telling immigrants from the Maghreb and African countries, ``You have a place here.'' This is a twofold inclusion challenge.

Senator Champagne: I remember a meeting of the Assemblée des parlementaires de la francophonie in Paris in 2009. We were allowed to ask His Excellency Mr. Diouf one question, and I asked him whether anyone had thought about who would be the Grand témoin de la francophonie for the Vancouver Olympic Games. He said, ``But we do not need one in Canada.'' I can tell you that I joined in the discussion to say that a Grand témoin de la francophonie would be necessary in Vancouver, that we had been working with the Games organizers for two years and that you had been working there as well, and we ultimately got someone who was very well qualified. We ultimately received, as you told me, perhaps not compliments, but comments from people who were surprised about the bilingualism we were able to organize in Vancouver for the 2010 Olympic Games.

I have a brief final question. Commissioner, you probably had to offer an official reaction to this Bill 14 in Quebec. You no doubt issued an opinion. I have not seen it, and I am ashamed of that fact.

Mr. Fraser: Please do not be ashamed. My concern was first the impact of the Parti québécois' election platform and then that of Bill 14 on community institutions. I was struck by the fact that they had not taken the measures outlined in the election platform to limit access to CEGEPs. One point that I mentioned to the ministers Ms. De Courcy and Mr. Lisée is that I am very uncomfortable with the use of percentages to measure the vitality of the minority communities. I think that means that it is the size, growth rate and majority that will define minority rights and services, and I think that is inappropriate and unfair. It is not because a majority grows more quickly than the minority that the minority should lose rights and services.

Senator Champagne: Including the right to study in English for those who wish to do so.

Mr. Fraser: Yes. I raised another point. If you look at the issue of the right of military members to send their children to English-language schools in relation to the future mass of francophone students, the French language is a drop in a bucket, a total of 600 students in Quebec. And that is a temporary extension.

If you look at that from the point of view of the small schools that are scattered across Quebec and that are finding it hard to survive, the loss of 600 students is enormous for a school board. If you approach this logically by saying that this is an extension of the act, which is inconsistent with the principles of the French Language Charter, then I agree, but if you look at it from the point of view of the survival of the small schools, very important institutions for small anglophone communities, these are institutions that will suffer collateral damage as a result of a decision made based on a logical principle, as it were, to make the administration of the French Language Charter more logical.

Senator Champagne: In any case, these children of military members, who very often have to move to other provinces or countries, already have trouble getting placed in a different educational system. If they are also forced to change languages, I do not think that is the best way to turn them into people who will really be useful citizens of the province and country in future. Thank you, commissioner.

Senator De Bané: Commissioner, I would like to join with all my colleagues in telling you how pleased we are that you have agreed to serve a second term in this position as Commissioner of Official Languages, which is so important for the unity of this country.

There is a paragraph in your speech that I consider very, very important, on page 3, and I quote:

The social objectives that form the foundation of our language policy call for long-term investments. To ensure that linguistic duality continues to be perceived as a Canadian value, the government needs to take measures that will have a sustainable impact.

If I look at the province with the largest population, Ontario, which attracts 50 per cent of all immigrants who come to Canada, the vast majority come from Asia, particularly the Asia Pacific region. Fifty per cent of all immigrants go there; today it probably has the most multicultural society in the world.

How can we make new immigrants understand this Canadian value if there are no sustainable measures?

I would like to invite the Commissioner of Official Languages to think about, to suggest to us all as a group, those sustainable measures that would help us keep that challenge in mind at all times.

I come from a family of immigrants and I clearly understood, even though I was barely 10 years old, that we were coming to Canada because we could not enter the United States, but we wanted to come to North America, not to any province in particular.

How do we make these people — who in many cases do not speak any one of the Western languages, and English and French are the most prominent languages in the Western world — understand that this is a fundamental Canadian value?

We have not managed to do that since this legislation was enacted 45 years ago. I know anglophones who have learned French and who, like you, speak the French language better than me, but who learned it because the country's unity is important for them.

That reminds me of Senator Forsey of Newfoundland, who was a parishioner of the only francophone Protestant church in Ottawa. I asked him why he went to that Protestant church. He answered that he wanted to make his contribution to Canadian unity. These are Canadians who are sensitive to this issue.

I would like the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, with the remarkable team under its management, to consider the idea of suggesting policy ideas to us in order to anchor what is written in that paragraph and what seems to me to be so true. I am not sure these immigrants understand the importance of this. Canada must be the loudspeaker for both official languages, the sounding board across the country for these two languages.

I am afraid this has not yet taken root in Ontario, the province with the largest numbers, nearly 38 per cent of the Canadian population and 50 per cent of immigrants. You and your office have the most credibility and can make us think, over the very long term, about policies that should be adopted now so that we can gradually achieve that objective.

I have seen how much Canada has changed since I became an adult. Now that I am in my twilight years, I feel that the next 40 or 50 years will produce a country so different that it will not be the one we imagined at the dawn of the 21st century.

Mr. Fraser: I do not entirely agree with you when you say that immigrants do not understand that linguistic duality is a Canadian value. Last year, I had the opportunity to meet a young woman who is now studying at university. She is an immigrant from Kenya. She arrived here at the age of seven speaking only Swahili. Her parents insisted that she take immersion courses and she did her entire education in immersion. When I met her, she told me she intended to take medicine in French at the University of Ottawa. She told me she felt that learning French made her feel more Canadian. And I have heard those remarks from many immigrants whose parents were inspired by the idea that Canada is a bilingual country and who insisted on registering their children in immersion courses and who took care to seize all the opportunities, exchange programs and all the other possibilities that exist, that are there, but that are often overlooked.

I often say that we underestimate the impact of the fact that Canada has had two consecutive female governors general who arrived in Canada as visible minority refugees — Adrienne Clarkson lived in an anglophone environment, Michaëlle Jean in a francophone environment — and who decided that they had to be competent, and to be so in the other official language, in order to really take part in the national life of this country. I do not believe it was a coincidence that Vancouver's Chinese community asked the Ambassador of France to open an Alliance française office in a Vancouver community centre after Adrienne Clarkson became Governor General.

I have never seen a relationship formally established, but I think we can see the impact. Later on, François Delattre, now Ambassador of France to Washington, told me when he was in Ottawa that one of the things that had impressed him when he was here was that French was the language of ambition. Immigrants understand that they must be ambitious in order to succeed because they do not have the family resources, contacts or networks that are available to people who have been here for generations. Consequently, they often have to work harder than their neighbours and classmates in order to succeed.

Several years ago, we conducted a survey together with the Canadian Human Rights Commission on bilingualism among visible minorities. We discovered that visible minorities in Canada are more bilingual than native-born Canadian anglophones. I am convinced that is because they are people who came here and who decided that they had to be bilingual in order to succeed. That may be unfair. The paradox of Canada is that it is an officially bilingual country, but one can succeed very well in certain parts of the country as a unilingual anglophone.

I believe that a certain amount of idealism that is transmitted to immigrants is often lost by people who have been here for generations.

Senator De Bané: I agree with your analysis. As the figures cited by Senator Fortin-Duplessis suggest, even more francophones want to learn English because we live in this part of the western hemisphere, where the French language is spoken by a community that represents approximately 3 per cent of the population of North America.

As Senator Forsey told me one day, you have to learn English because you are in North America. I have to speak French because I want my country to be united.

I think there can be no doubt that we francophones must learn English because of where we live. When French students arrive in Montreal, they obviously go to McGill University, and when that caused a storm, the Ambassador of France reminded Quebecers that those students already spoke French; what they wanted was to learn English. That is a common sense view, and reality is a stubborn thing.

I agree with you that some immigrants are informed enough to realize that, if they want to keep this country united, they would do well to learn the two languages that are on the two sides of a coin: English and French.

Commissioner, you have thought about these matters and in a way have more in-depth knowledge about them than we do. Could you suggest to us ways to make every citizen understand that a coincidental personal benefit derives from the obligation to learn both languages? That is what we expect of that citizen, but that person also has to derive a benefit.

Look at everything we have put in place to try somehow to correct the unequal involvement of women in senior positions in both the public and private sectors. A lot of small things were considered, and now this has gradually become something that absolutely must be done. It must become a reality. We cannot overlook half of the human race. Women and men must be on an equal footing everywhere.

When I arrived in Ottawa, there were no women deputy ministers. The situation has changed.

In closing, we must succeed in making the same changes so that they become permanent and Canada becomes the loudspeaker for both official languages in Quebec and in all Canadian provinces.

Mr. Fraser: I just have a few comments. A minor correction, first of all: it is quite clear that I do not speak French better than you.

On a more serious note, I do not think that the keen interest in English that is apparent from the figures contained in our annual report, which the senator cited, are related to the fact that we live in North America. We live in a world where English has increasingly become the international language of business, research and science. We can work to ensure that French is still used in those fields in Canada and that our national languages are not swept aside and replaced by what one author has called ``Globish.'' That would be an enormous loss.

It is important to acknowledge the progress that has been made. However, the challenge remains. In a way, immigrants are more sensitive to talk about values and identity. Canada is not the only country where immigrants decide to learn the minority language for reasons of identity.

I met a European Community official of Irish extraction. He spoke Irish at home with his wife, to the frustration of his sons. The family lived in Strasbourg, and the sons therefore spoke English and French and absolutely did not want to learn Irish. They considered it utterly unfair that their parents spoke to each other in Irish.

One of the sons returned to Dublin for work and decided that he had to learn Irish. He registered for an evening course, and it turned out that all the other students in the class were immigrants. Why? Because they wanted to identify with their new country. Many Irish believe that the Irish language is like Latin, that having compulsory Irish courses in the schools is somewhat old fashioned and that its use is only helpful for public servants. I have a counterpart in that country who plays exactly the same role as I do.

We should never underestimate immigrants' interest in identifying with the identity of their host country. People who have been here for generations sometimes abandon patriotic notions of identity for a more pragmatic view and think that they are more American. They watch American television, and their identity is often more local or provincial than national. For immigrants, who have taken an oath to become citizens, the language issue is often related to identity. Mr. Quell has also had that experience.

Carsten Quell, Director, Policy and Research, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: I am originally from Germany. The moment when you take the oath as a citizen is important. I can tell you about two experiences. My wife is of British extraction and speaks very good French. At her ceremony, the French was unfortunately spoken in an almost incomprehensible manner, which she thought was very unfortunate. She said that projected a poor image of the country. In my case, the ceremony was fortunately quite the opposite.

That ceremony is a key symbolic moment for immigrants and one they will always remember. In those moments, Canada can shine by transmitting certain values, including linguistic duality.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We will now go to our second round of questions. The first question will be asked by Senator Tardif, followed by Senator Fortin-Duplessis.

Senator Tardif: I have a few questions. However, I would like to begin by clarifying a comment made by Senator Champagne.

You mentioned a significant increase in funding for immigration. You also said that funding was 7 times greater than under the previous roadmaps and 16 times more than under that of 2003. That is true because that funding includes the $120 million allocated to language training for immigrants so that they can learn either English or French.

If you exclude that amount, the figure drops to a $29.5-million investment in immigration, which represents approximately $500,000 less than under the roadmap for 2008 to 2013.

Investing in language training is definitely a laudable objective, but does that help strengthen the official language minority communities? As you said, Commissioner, that is not at all the case.

My question concerns the targets set under the strategic framework for immigration. In 2003, the target of 4.4 per cent of immigrants was set for the francophone communities outside Quebec. People thought that, with a target of 4.4 per cent, they would have to be able to recruit 4.4 per cent of francophone immigrants. That target was not achieved, and an interim target of 1.8 per cent was set in 2009 for 2013.

First, do you know whether we have achieved that target, which was set in 2009? Have any new targets been set for this roadmap? Should we consult the communities to identify new targets in the event they have not been set? Lastly, there is the entire question of the 2011 Census and how that should be taken into account.

Mr. Fraser: I know that Manitoba thought it could achieve the targets, but there was a decline in immigration when the Provincial Nominee Program ended. However, I do not know whether those targets were met at the national level.

Mr. Quell: We are currently at a little less than 2 per cent. Consequently, the reduced target of 1.8 per cent has been more or less reached. The 4.4 per cent target has been deferred until 2023. So that is the present situation. To my knowledge, nothing in the new roadmap concerns targets.

The strategic plan to promote immigration in the francophone communities expired on March 31 of this year and a potential renewal of that strategic plan will have to contain a specific target.

Mr. Giguère: Mr. Quell has stated the response I wanted, but it is true: sometimes it is difficult to define a francophone because French is sometimes the third language of that person arriving in Canada and English the fourth. It is always difficult to state specific percentages and figures.

As for the targets, I believe it would be very important to consult the representative organizations to establish targets that represent the regions' actual needs. That aspect of the consultation is fundamentally important.

Mr. Fraser: To date, that consultation has not taken place, and some community organizations wonder where this 1.8 per cent figure comes from. They do not know how it was established.

So it is very important to consult the communities because we have to be able to recognize actual intake support when there is an increase in the number of immigrants and refugees. That support and advice must be available.

Senator Tardif: Do you believe that the memoranda of understanding signed between the provinces and the government on immigration are satisfactory? Do you think they should be reviewed?

Mr. Fraser: We are auditing MOUs in three departments, including Citizenship and Immigration Canada. A first draft has been sent to the institutions and we are awaiting responses. I am not in a position to comment in detail on that audit, which concerns this matter.

Senator Tardif: Would you be preparing a report on that, Commissioner? Is that information that you can send to the committee?

Mr. Giguère: It is a horizontal audit with three departments to determine whether they have an accountability mechanism to determine, for example, whether they follow up funding transfers. We obviously do not have the power to follow the funding; we do not have the power to go any further in the provinces to see what is done with the money. The report should be final in September 2013, and you will definitely receive a copy.

Senator Tardif: Are any language clauses included for each province, in my province of Alberta, for example? When Alberta negotiates with the federal government to take in immigrants, is there a language clause stating that, when you recruit so many immigrants, 2 per cent must be francophone immigrants?

Mr. Giguère: That was in the strategic plan.

Mr. Quell: There was to be one, but I cannot say that is the case for every MOU.

The Chair: I believe the commissioner has been quite generous with his time. May we keep you for 15 more minutes?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, of course.

Senator Tardif: On the topic of language instruction, I know that post-secondary education is a pet topic of yours.

I was disappointed by an article I read in The Globe and Mail this morning that stated that a program offered in French at the University of Regina was being cancelled because of budget cuts and that the university therefore could not offer those programs because there were not enough students, and that there was also a university in Ontario that had to cut back the number of courses offered in French. I forget the name of the Ontario university.

I do not know whether you have any information on that, but I know this is something to which you are attached, the entire language learning continuum, and that it is not just at elementary and secondary school, but also at the post- secondary level. I hope this is not a trend that is starting to emerge as a result of budget cuts.

Mr. Fraser: I know that a study group at the University of Regina has taken a close look at the situation. I admit that, for purely technical reasons, I was unable to read the report they wrote. I therefore cannot comment on the study report that was prepared.

As I said in my statement, one of the things that emerged from our study on post-secondary education is that there have been very few exchanges among Canadian universities.

I was quite optimistic about the pilot project developed by the Canada School of Public Service, which gave 11 universities access to learning tools. It was a pilot project that was funded by the former roadmap and was unfortunately not renewed in the present roadmap. It was a pilot project to determine whether university students considering a career in the public service could be given access to language training and have an established level of bilingualism when they entered the public service. I have always been convinced that it is more effective from a learning standpoint, and also less costly, to train a student than to train a public servant.

I thought that pilot project had a great deal of potential to enable people considering university studies in order to become federal public servants to enter the public service with BBB or CBC bilingualism levels. I do not know why that was not included in the new roadmap.

However, I believe that the federal government has a right and a duty as an employer to send the message to the universities that they have a duty to provide students with learning opportunities so that they can become bilingual. There has to be a cascade effect and the universities have to tell high school students that, if they take a tougher French course, if they do their secondary curriculum in their second language, it will be acknowledged that it is more difficult and there will be a bonus when they apply for admission to university.

In a conversation I had with a female high school student, she told me that a teacher had told them not to take the examination for immersion students but rather the core French examination because they would then have better marks and that was all the universities looked at, that is to say the figures. I do not know whether that is unfair or not; that was a few years ago.

The government must exercise its right as an employer to send a message to the universities, and the universities must acknowledge that they have a duty to prepare students for jobs in which bilingualism is becoming increasingly important.

Senator Champagne: I find it quite surprising that we are still at the point where the federal government does not require the people it hires to have quite high levels of bilingualism, when you have to speak four languages to be a ``gentil organisateur'' at Club Med. I know that; my granddaughter has just been hired for this summer.

The Chair: I would like to ask a supplementary question to that of Senator Tardif. When you talk about the federal government's target for French-speaking immigrants outside Quebec, you say that we are achieving the 2 per cent target. I am very concerned about that because we are still ensuring that the majority will grow even faster than the minorities, are we not? We are expanding the gap?

Mr. Fraser: Indeed.

The Chair: Thank you.

Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Commissioner, there are various approaches to second-language instruction: core programs and intensive programs, linguistic environments and immersion. Some parents immediately expose their children to a bilingual environment by speaking to them in both languages and even in three languages. Other parents prefer to wait until the child starts school before they do that, and still others wait until later or prefer to let their children make their own choices. Do you think that enough is being done to promote second-language instruction to Canadian parents across Canada?

Mr. Fraser: No. Promotion is a very important factor, but there has been very little promotion of that kind, apart from the advertisements occasionally placed by Canadian Parents for French.

Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I see. I find that disappointing.

Senator Poirier: Earlier we talked about New Brunswick and also about certain changes the former government made to the immersion program in the schools.

Earlier I asked whether French immersion started in grade 1 in most provinces. You said it did. I was wondering whether you had an opinion on the consequences of the changes made by New Brunswick, in view of the fact that we are an officially bilingual province.

Mr. Fraser: I am in favour of a multitude of choices for parents. I find it unfortunate that one choice has been eliminated: early immersion. As Senator Fortin-Duplessis said, there are all kinds of ways of doing it. I am not a product of immersion or bilingualism in the home. I transformed a language that I learned at home into a language I could speak by working summer jobs. That is one of the reasons why I am so much in favour of creating exchange programs, summer job programs and other opportunities for learning outside the classroom. I currently do not have any data that would serve as a basis on which I could state the consequences of those changes, except that, as Senator McIntyre said, there has been a decline in the number of immersion students. I believe that is a matter of arithmetic; if you cut out three or four hours of immersion, there will be fewer immersion students than there previously were. I cannot tell you what that means in the long term.

Senator Poirier: Perhaps it is also too soon to evaluate that.

Mr. Fraser: Yes.

The Chair: Since there are no further questions, on behalf of the members of the committee, Mr. Commissioner, I would like to offer our sincere thanks to you, Mr. Giguère and Mr. Quell for being so generous with your time and for coming to appear here and to answer the many questions from the senators.

Once again, thank you, good luck and until the next time.

Mr. Fraser: Thank you very much. It is always a pleasure.

The Chair: Honourable senators, next week the committee will continue its study on best practices for language policies and second-language learning and will hear from representatives of the Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers and of the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers.

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.

(The committee adjourned.)


Back to top