Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 9 - Evidence - Meeting of December 8, 2014
OTTAWA, Monday, December 8, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day, at 5 p.m., to continue its study of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public).
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I now call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages to order.
I am Senator Claudette Tardif from Alberta, and I am the committee chair. Before we get started, I would ask the senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis from Quebec City.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre, a senator from New Brunswick.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Good afternoon. My name is Marie Poulin, and I am from northern Ontario.
Senator Chaput: Maria Chaput from Manitoba.
The Chair: Today, we are studying Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public), sponsored by Senator Chaput. The purpose of our meeting today is to gain a better understanding of the difference between the variables currently used to calculate significant demand and those proposed in the bill.
To help us today, we have two witnesses. It is a pleasure to have both of you here. Jean-Pierre Corbeil is the Assistant Director of the Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division at Statistics Canada. He is joined by the Director of the Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, François Nault.
I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Corbeil. My understanding is that Mr. Nault is here to provide support and assist you in answering questions. Following your presentation, the senators will ask you questions.
Jean-Pierre Corbeil, Assistant Director, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, Statistics Canada: I would like to thank the committee members for inviting Statistics Canada to appear before the committee to inform its discussion on Bill S-205.
I will begin by providing some background on the concept of the first official language spoken. Statistics Canada began publishing population estimates based on the first official language spoken variable in 1989. I will then discuss how the country's linguistic landscape has changed and how Canada's census took into account the demand for new statistical data to enhance our knowledge of the situation facing official language minority communities, in particular.
The need for the federal government to measure the demand to provide services to Canadians in each of the country's official languages emerged in the mid-1980s, with the significant upsurge in international immigration. A growing wave of immigrants whose mother tongue was neither English nor French were arriving from non-European countries. The longer they stayed in Canada, the more likely they became to speak English or French at home or work, and less than 2 per cent of Canada's population reported being unable to speak either English or French. As a result, numerous stakeholders and data users began to wonder about how to obtain estimates on the first official language of these individuals.
Underlying this effort was section 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which stipulates that ''[a]ny member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French. . . . where (a) there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language.'' With respect to measuring significant demand, section 32(2) of the 1988 Official Languages Act indicates that the government may take into account ''the number of persons composing the English or French linguistic minority population of the area served by an office or facility, the particular characteristics of the population and the proportion of the population to the total population of that area.''
The 1986 census made it possible to disseminate numerous language statistics illustrating various facets of the demolinguistic reality, such as language transfers and English-French bilingualism by language group. Nevertheless, some users were interested in obtaining population estimates for both English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. They sought a fuller picture of the demolinguistic landscape, more complete profiles of anglophone and francophone communities, and a measure of the demand for services in each official language.
Statistics Canada established the ''first official language spoken'' variable in 1989, at the request of the federal government, specifically, Treasury Board. Statistics Canada then proposed two options, method I and method II, to obtain estimates of the first official language spoken by Canadians. Although both methods were based on a variety of assumptions, they were distinguished by the order of importance given to the three 1986 census variables.
In December 1991, the federal government adopted method I in the Official Languages Regulations, governing communications with and services to the public.
The Chair: Sorry, Mr. Corbeil, but would you mind slowing down a bit? I am being told that the interpreters are having some trouble keeping up.
Mr. Corbeil: My apologies. Section 2 of the regulations describes the method used to determine the first official language spoken, which gives consideration, firstly, to knowledge of the official languages, secondly, to mother tongue, and thirdly, to language spoken most frequently in the home.
The notion of first official language spoken comprises two specific dimensions. On the one hand, the epithet ''spoken'' refers to the ability to carry on a conversation in the first language in question. That means that the approximately 75,000 people whose mother tongue was French and who lived in a province or territory outside Quebec in 2011 reported being unable to carry on a conversation in French, and were therefore not counted as part of the population whose first official language spoken was French.
On the other hand, the adjective ''first'' has two distinct meanings. It designates the first language learned in childhood, or what we call the mother tongue. Among people whose mother tongue is neither English nor French, the term first official language instead designates their primary official language, the one that they know best at the time of the census or the one spoken most often at home.
In Canada, the term ''first official language spoken'' gained widespread use in the study of the situation of official language minority communities. In order to determine a person's membership in a given language group and that group's status in the various domains of the public sphere, the approach that relied on the mother tongue variable increasingly gave way to the more inclusive approach based on the first official language spoken variable.
[English]
While the 1986 census had three language questions used to derive the notion of first language spoken, three additional questions have been added to recent censuses. Starting in 2001, a new question on the other languages spoken on a regular basis at home, other than the one spoken most often, has been asked in the last three censuses.
This question was added in response to requests from many institutional and community stakeholders who believed that though a mother tongue is not identified as being spoken most often at home, it does not mean that it is not spoken at all.
In this sense, the new information helped to distinguish between, for example, the predominant use of English at home and the French mother tongue being abandoned. The same thing goes for other languages. Furthermore, a two-part question on the language of work has been asked of Canadians in the 2001 and 2006 censuses and in the 2011 National Household Survey.
What makes the data collected from this question unique is that they cover the use of languages in the workplace, a key space in the public sphere. However, we do not have information on the language practices outside the home of the unemployed and those not of working age.
Following the 2006 census, and with the support of around 10 federal departments and agencies, Statistics Canada conducted a large-scale survey on the vitality of official language minorities. Thanks to this survey, important information was collected on the link between the first official language spoken and the primary language or the one in which a person is most at ease speaking. The results show that in Quebec the first official language spoken was almost always the language in which one feels more at ease speaking.
Outside Quebec, however, the relationship between the main language and the first official language spoken varied widely. For example, 83 per cent of adults in New Brunswick whose first official language spoken is French reported being more at ease in French, while 7 per cent reported being equally at ease in French and in English. Conversely, 67 per cent of adults in Saskatchewan whose first official language spoken was French, reported being more at ease speaking English.
In 2006, in the provinces and territories outside Quebec, close to one in three adults whose first official language spoken is French reported being more at ease speaking English than French. Therefore, francophones who live in a highly minority language environment are more likely to use English and feel more at ease speaking that language.
[Translation]
Simply because a person's first official language spoken is English or French, it does not necessarily mean that the language is spoken at home. For instance, of the population outside Quebec whose first official language spoken was French in 2011, more than 20 per cent, or 193,000 people, reported that they did not speak French most often or on a regular basis at home.
Of those who had both English and French as their first official language spoken, 122,000 people, nearly 70 per cent used French as a second language in the home, as opposed to a dominant one.
It is worth noting that, among the population of workers outside Quebec with French as their first official language spoken, nearly 17 per cent, or just under 100,000 people, reported not speaking or using French at home or at work.
French may be spoken at home even when English is the first official language spoken. Of the population outside Quebec with English as their first official language spoken, more than 42,000 people spoke French at home either most often or just as often as English, and 254,000 reported speaking French on a regular basis at home in addition to the language spoken most often.
In the case of the population with English as their first official language spoken, speaking French most often or regularly at home generally corresponds to the fact that more and more francophones outside Quebec live in a household made up of an exogamous couple, meaning that the spouses have different mother tongues. For instance, of the population outside Quebec who reported having English as their mother tongue and who live in an English-French exogamous couple household, nearly 50,000 people reported speaking French most often or regularly, in addition to English, at home, in 2011.
According to the 2006 Survey on the Vitality of Official Language Minorities, a portion of generally English-speaking young people outside Quebec who participated in a French immersion program were also likely to speak French, at least on a regular basis, at home. During the 2012-13 school year, 373,000 young people were in a French immersion program at a French-language school outside Quebec.
In conclusion, Statistics Canada provides data to its federal government partners in their implementation of the Official Languages Regulations. Bear in mind, however, that the method used to obtain that data and estimate the anglophone and francophone minority populations was adopted in 1991 on the basis of 1986 census data.
Statistics Canada has made every effort to deliver high-quality data. Today, Canadians have access to other pieces of statistical information, which have been added since 2001 to enhance our understanding of the country's language dynamics and reflect the diversity and complexity of those dynamics.
Lastly, at the request of the committee, you have a table and a graph that provide comparisons based on 2011 census data. They show the numbers and percentages of the official language minority population by first official language spoken and knowledge of official languages, for each province and territory.
I would now be pleased to answer any questions you may have on anything I have said. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you kindly, Mr. Corbeil. We will now start the round of questions with Senator Fortin-Duplessis, the committee's deputy chair.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, welcome. It is always a pleasure to have you here.
Part IV of the Official Languages Act concerns communications with and services to the public. Could you elaborate on what the census data reveal about the linguistic and cultural assimilation of the communities? I would also like to know how you define assimilation, statistically speaking.
Mr. Corbeil: Thank you for your question. For a variety of reasons, Statistics Canada has always tried not to refer to assimilation, because the data available over the years gave us information on language practices in very specific contexts.
For example, we know that there are Canadians outside Quebec who, despite not speaking French most often at home, do use it regularly outside the home. The question is this. At what point do we consider a person to be assimilated?
For a long time, the available data compared the language spoken most often at home with the mother tongue, and that is why the notion of substitution or language transfer was used.
That being said, at one point, we did also refer to the notion of anglicization, which designates the phenomenon of English occupying a growing place in daily life.
I would say that the 2006 Survey on the Vitality of Official Language Minorities, to the extent that it refers to a person's being more at ease in English than in French outside Quebec, certainly addresses what can be called anglicization, where English really becomes the main language.
Now, as for cultural or linguistic assimilation, we have often used the term ''vitality'' as opposed to the term ''assimilation.'' For instance, certain communities in Canada have significantly less institutional vitality than other communities; that institutional vitality is characterized by the number of institutions providing service in the minority language. Therefore, as soon as a person begins to function essentially in English outside Quebec, we can refer to anglicization or poor linguistic or cultural vitality.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Could you elaborate on how institutional vitality could be defined?
Mr. Corbeil: The scientific literature provides a huge number of possible definitions, and assigning a definition to the concept has never been straightforward.
The first scientists to use the term were basically psychology researchers, social psychologists, and they used different variables to describe institutional vitality. Vitality stems from the fact that the language has status, that the community in question enjoys a certain degree of prestige in its interactions with other groups. Demographics come into play. Bear in mind that a community's vitality is measured not just objectively — in terms of numbers and demographic considerations — but also subjectively. In the 1970s and 1980s, many researchers showed that the way people were perceived and portrayed within a community could be just as important with regard to language behaviours as general demographic factors.
So the concept is polysemous, with a variety of facets, and no researcher has managed to establish a simple definition. For instance, a French sociologist, by the name of Bourdieu, used the notion of capital. So communities would have demographic capital, meaning a sufficient number or proportion of members. He also talked about cultural capital, which takes into consideration the presence of media, teaching institutions, cultural institutions and so forth.
All of those facets make up vitality. It is a very broad concept, and that is one of the reasons why, when the initial results of Statistics Canada's 2006 Survey on the Vitality of Official Language Minorities were published, we avoided assigning a very specific definition to the concept. It is very broad and complex.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: But you still have an idea?
Mr. Corbeil: What Statistics Canada has been able to show very clearly is that a population's demographic weight, within a given region or municipality, or its concentration within a region, is significant. You can have cities like Toronto, where populations are scattered, as compared with cities in Nova Scotia, for example, where francophones are much more concentrated in an area. It is obvious, then, that these factors affect vitality, not just from a demographic standpoint, but also in terms of cultural vitality, given that access to French services will also be based on the proportion represented by the population.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Corbeil, thank you for your presentation. We have heard from a number of witnesses, including someone from Treasury Board. I understand that Statistics Canada is responsible for collecting and analyzing census data. That responsibility, however, does not extend to the application of the Official Languages Regulations.
Mr. Corbeil: That is correct.
Senator McIntyre: That responsibility falls more to Treasury Board. That being said, could you briefly elaborate on how Statistics Canada collects and analyzes census data?
Mr. Corbeil: Census data are collected the same way as all other data. Census data provide information on families, household members, age and gender. As you are well aware, in 2011, we had to provide the data to Treasury Board. As with all of our data, census or otherwise, a tremendous amount of cleanup, validation and quality control work is involved.
After all that has been done and the data has been published, we put the information on our Web site. At that point, all the data is provided to Treasury Board, precisely so it can make the necessary updates in relation to the application of the regulations.
In that sense, the data collected during the 2011 census was subject to the same verification and analysis processes. Once we were certain that the data was high quality, we were able to forward it to Treasury Board.
Senator McIntyre: When you review the documents and listen to the presentations, you realize that two variables are at play. One variable is used to calculate data in connection with the application of the Official Languages Regulations, and a second variable is used for the purposes of Bill S-205.
As you just mentioned, the first variable takes into account knowledge of the official languages, the mother tongue and the language spoken at home. That said, Bill S-205 proposes taking into account another variable, knowledge of the official languages.
What do the 2001 and 2011 census data reveal regarding the first variable, the first official language spoken variable, and the second variable, the knowledge of official languages variable?
Mr. Corbeil: In the case of the knowledge of official languages variable, the size of the population is clearly much bigger. According to the first official language spoken variable, the population outside Quebec is approximately a million people. According to the knowledge of French variable, the population outside Quebec is approximately 2.6 million people.
So there is a significant increase, and I provided the committee with a table on that aspect. If we look at the situation in Quebec, we see that about a million Quebecers have English as their first official language spoken. But if we look at the number of people who know English and are able to carry on a conversation in English, we see that the population has 3.7 million people. So the difference is about 2.6 million people who can speak English as compared with those whose first official language spoken is English.
Senator Chaput: If we apply the first official language spoken variable to the number of francophones in minority communities in Canada, my understanding is that the number of francophones has gone up across the country, but the proportion has decreased. Is that correct?
Mr. Corbeil: That is correct.
Senator Chaput: What do you think that is due to?
Mr. Corbeil: International immigration is essentially the main driver of population growth in Canada. The growth rate of that immigrant population is clearly much higher than that of the minority language population outside Quebec.
Since that population usually turns to English, we know that, from the outset, nearly 80 per cent of the population has neither English nor French as their mother tongue. We also know that 98 per cent of the immigrant population settling outside Quebec chooses English, making English its first official language spoken.
That is why we indicate that approximately 2 per cent of the international immigrant population outside Quebec is French-speaking, whose proportion is less than the weight of the francophone population.
Senator Chaput: Would I be correct in concluding that, until we set balanced immigration targets, French-speaking minority communities will continue to lose ground?
Mr. Corbeil: It is rather obvious that, in terms of a demolinguistic imbalance, as soon as you have a population where the fertility rate is low and the intergenerational French transmission rate is partial, at best, and low, at worst, the international immigrant population turns primarily to English. There is no denying, then, that the imbalance between the English-speaking and French-speaking populations is growing.
Senator Chaput: Is it fair to say that this imbalance is worrisome for francophone minority communities and that people are becoming aware of the negative impact it will have on the vitality and development of these communities?
Mr. Corbeil: All I can do is repeat what all of our partners have been telling us. That is the argument being made by everyone who turns to Statistics Canada for data.
[English]
Senator Seidman: You, Mr. Corbeil, presented refinements to the definition that's used to calculate the first official language spoken, if I understand correctly. It was a very detailed refinement with an addition of three more questions; is that correct?
Mr. Corbeil: Actually what I said is that the objective in adding these questions was not to refine the notion of first official language spoken. The reason why these questions have been added was mainly, when we look at the information available for the languages spoken at home, people were really willing to jump to conclusions when they only had the information on the language spoken most often at home.
Many of our stakeholders mentioned that having the information on the languages that are spoken on a regular basis, even though it's not the predominant language, still provide information on the language dynamic at home.
We know, for instance, that quite a few young Canadians have English as their first official language spoken but attend French school or French immersion programs, and they speak French on a regular basis with their parents at home.
The other two questions were added because the only information that was available was the information whether in the private domain that is at home or the language that had been learned in childhood. We didn't have any information on the use of languages outside the home, and we know that the use of these languages at work, where we see at least two thirds of the population working on an everyday basis, the languages that are used at work are also a very good indicator of the status of a language within the public sphere.
Senator Seidman: Help me to understand. There's a departmental standard, if I understand correctly, in defining first official language spoken. It's derived from a series of rules that take into account knowledge of the two official languages, an individual's mother tongue and the language spoken at home; is that correct?
Mr. Corbeil: The language spoken most often at home.
Senator Seidman: Most often at home, okay.
What about immigrants who have a mother tongue other than English and French and who might speak another language at home; how does that definition allow for that?
Mr. Corbeil: As I mentioned, that was the main reason why some people started to think about developing a new variable to take into account those specifically who do not have English or French as their mother tongue. For instance, someone who speaks both English and French, has Punjabi as his or her mother tongue and speaks, let's say, English most often at home, this person would have been considered as having English as the first official language spoken. It's the same for someone who has Arabic as their mother tongue but speaks French most often at home, they would be considered as having French as the first official language spoken.
Senator Seidman: The question that I'm getting to is this: Do you think that the method of derivation that Statistics Canada uses to determine first official language spoken is accurate and do you think it is fair?
Mr. Corbeil: Certainly we have to think about what it means when we say ''accurate.'' The idea is really to use three variables that were available in 1986, as I said, and looked at for the first time by Treasury Board in 1991 for the implementation of the regulation.
This being said, I think we have to ask the question, if we want to talk about relevance or accuracy, what are we trying to measure here? If we're trying to measure an individual's main language or the language in which this person is more likely to ask for services, well, you know, we had to use the available information at Statistics Canada. The method we have used up to now, because this is the method that has been chosen by Treasury Board, is the method of first official language spoken.
This being said, as I mentioned, things have evolved over the last 20 years. Now the question is whether it is still the best method to estimate the potential demand for services. It's not up to us to answer this question but, as I said, there are other variables now in the census and National Household Survey.
Senator Seidman: That makes it more relevant I suppose is what you're saying?
Mr. Corbeil: The thing would have to be looked at and examined. But for now it's not up to StatsCan to establish whether this method is appropriate or if it needs to be looked at again.
Senator Seidman: Okay, thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Charette-Poulin: My question is a follow-up to Senator McIntyre's.
We have heard from numerous witnesses. Many of them have made a point to tell us that Canada has two official languages. Some groups could not understand why they had to fight so hard to access services in an official language within a minority community. Why does that challenge exist? It has been around for decades. Even though they live in a country that has two official languages, the members of minority communities have to fight to obtain services in an official language.
Would you describe the data you collect as quantitative or qualitative in nature?
Mr. Corbeil: Would you be so kind as to clarify your question? I have a vague idea of what you are asking, but would you mind explaining what you mean by ''qualitative'' data?
Senator Charette-Poulin: Let's consider the quality of French spoken in an entirely English-speaking environment. In other words, do the questions allow you to evaluate the ability to access a cultural and social francophone environment, precisely to enhance the quality of French? A good example would be access to the services of CBC/Radio-Canada, which gives individuals and groups the opportunity to listen, watch or have Internet access to products, programs and news in French in certain provinces, and in English in Quebec. Such services go a long way towards improving people's ear for the language, as well as language quality and even enjoyment. Can you assess the quality of the language environment using your data?
Mr. Corbeil: The current data could probably be used to do a lot more than people think. Census data has its limits, of course. That is why, in 2006, ten federal departments and agencies joined forces to produce this detailed and thorough survey on official language minority communities.
That said, it is clear that, as long as individuals are living in an environment where they are by far a minority, the likelihood of them coming into contact with French in their daily interactions outside Quebec is quite low. We know full well that those people can also have access to various media and to Radio-Canada. So there are tools for transmitting French culture and language. When it comes to individuals with very little contact with the minority language, the probability of them maintaining that language over time and transmitting it to their children is fairly low. The most concrete example comes from situations where a language is not at all used at home. In such cases, the likelihood of the language being transmitted to the children is very low. This is also observed when people leave the family environment and don't have an opportunity to use the language.
It is more difficult to assess qualitative elements. There was a much more subjective question in the survey I mentioned on the vitality of minorities. People were asked whether they felt that their minority community's vitality of was high or low. People who were living in an environment where they were by far a minority were more likely to be pessimistic about their language's future.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Are the following questions asked in such research projects: ''Do you have access to news in French? Do you have access to programs? Do you have access to newspapers? Do you have access to books? Do you have access to music?'' Are those questions being asked?
Mr. Corbeil: Those questions clearly cannot be asked in a census. We understand very well that the response burden would be extremely high.
The survey conducted in 2006 had different modules, including one on culture and various services. People were asked the following questions: ''Are you able to use the minority language in your interactions, be it with the federal government or the provincial government, to obtain health care and use cultural products?'' If the answer was no, we would ask why. So we have an idea of what factors could impede or enhance access to those services.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Are you planning to conduct a similar study in maybe 10 years, so in 2016? Are you planning on updating your study to reflect the influence of social media?
Mr. Corbeil: As you know, we really like data. That said, this survey did cost us almost $7 million dollars. So it is not up to Statistics Canada to decide. If someone comes knocking on our door and asks us to carry out another survey, we will do so.
Senator Maltais: Mr. Corbeil, Mr. Nault, I would like to discuss a topic we haven't covered so far. We have two official languages in Canada. I am not talking about immigrants, but about Canadians. Are there any Canadians who don't speak either official language at all?
Mr. Corbeil: If you don't mind, I would like to add something to what you just said. Nearly one out of five Canadians is an immigrant. Even though those people are born outside Canada, they are still Canadian. I think I understand what you are trying to say. You are talking about people born in Canada. The proportion of people born in Canada who do not speak French or English is extremely low. There are only a handful of such individuals.
Senator Maltais: I would like to discuss something else. I know that their numbers are low, but Canadians who do not speak French or English do exist. I will give you a very concrete example.
When I was a member of another parliament, I was in charge of Indian reserves. Some Cree and Montagnais people spoke both languages. Among the Montagnais, some spoke French, and others spoke English. Most of the Crees were anglophones. However, the Atikamekw did not speak either official language. We needed interpreters to communicate with them.
Is this a common occurrence or is it rather rare? Are there small communities in other parts of Canada where people do not speak either of the two official languages?
Mr. Corbeil: Do you want me to exclude immigrants?
Senator Maltais: Yes, you can exclude them. I am talking about Aboriginals and First Nations.
Mr. Corbeil: Yes, there are some Aboriginals who don't speak either language.
Senator Maltais: Jacques Cartier was an immigrant.
Mr. Corbeil: I could provide you with information upon request, but, yes, a certain number of Aboriginals cannot converse in English or in French. Just over 200,000 individuals stated, in 2011, that their mother tongue was an Aboriginal language. I could provide you with the exact number of those who said that they could not speak English or French. They do not account for a large proportion. By comparison, it is clear that this proportion is much higher among recent immigrants. There are basically 600,000 Canadians who came to this country as immigrants and who cannot speak English or French.
Senator Maltais: Are those people asked to have a certain knowledge of one of the two languages when they immigrate to Canada?
Mr. Corbeil: It all depends on the admission category. These people come under the family reunification category, for obvious reasons. The main applicant — who was accepted under the economic immigrant category — must know one of the two official languages. It is normal for family members not to be able to converse in French or in English.
Senator Mockler: You have extensive experience in the government. One of the provincial objectives of Bill S-205 is to strengthen the link between service delivery and the development of official language minority communities. Do we agree on that?
Mr. Corbeil: Yes.
Senator Mockler: Here is my second observation. Bill S-205 also aims to modernize the Official Languages Act to reflect the changes that have marked Canadian society since 1988. Do we agree on that?
Mr. Corbeil: Yes.
Senator Mockler: So here is my question. Given the amount of experience you have acquired within government, can you tell us why the Official Languages Act needs to be modernized? What societal changes should be taken into account while modernizing the legislation? Finally, in light of your experience in the machinery of government, what does the census data tell us about the needs related to the modernization of the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Corbeil: As you know, since I represent Statistics Canada, I am certainly not in a position — given my responsibilities and obligations — to tell you that the Official Languages Act needs modernizing. This question should be put to someone else.
That said, it is clear that all surveys — including the census — have a double objective. They are supposed to help establish a historical comparison to enable us to keep pace with the evolution of Canadian society, but to simultaneously adapt to new needs and changes that arise over time. As you can well imagine, in the 1960s, there were no questions about same-sex couples. Today, this is a reality we have to consider. Similarly, we know that, in the 1960s, immigration mostly came from Europe. So the concerns were not the same in terms of determining those new immigrants' first language. However, immigrants come mainly from Asia nowadays.
The objective of data obtained through the census or various surveys is to reflect as well as possible the reality on the ground. Therefore, for the sake of historical comparability, gathering information on official language knowledge, as we have done since 1901, helps us monitor the evolution of that characteristic within the Canadian population. Similarly, we now ask a question about the language of work. It is clear that, given the issues concerning language use at work — be it in terms of non-official languages in a context of globalization, or the use of the minority language in Quebec or outside — those questions are asked to keep track of changes.
As I mentioned earlier, the data on the first official language spoken stems from a method implemented or derived by Statistics Canada more than 20 years ago. At that time, the objective was to use the available data to reflect the reality as well as possible.
Today, the question is the following: Does this variable enable us to gather information or measure that reality in the same way? I think this question is certainly open to debate.
Senator Mockler: Part IV of the Official Languages Act concerns communications with and services to the public. Does this part of the Official Languages Act, as drafted in 1988 — as you pointed out — help effectively counteract a concern over the linguistic and cultural assimilation of official language minority communities, based on the data you have gathered since 1988?
Mr. Corbeil: In 1989, when Statistics Canada derived that variable on the first official language spoken, the objective was not to protect francophones against anglicization or against factors that could hurt their development or vitality. It should be understood that this was a way to measure the potential demand for services in either language. A question that asks people what language they want to use to obtain their services would be very precise and clear. We could end up with results some people wouldn't like, but others would. There is no such question in the census for the time being.
The following question was asked in the 2006 survey: What language do you use in your communications with the federal government? Over two-thirds of francophones outside Quebec who live in a community or municipality where their demographic weight accounts for less than 10 per cent said they used English more than French, since they were most at ease speaking that language.
Senator Mockler: In light of your comments, Mr. Corbeil, would it be a good idea for your office to give more thought to this issue and to Bill S-205?
Mr. Corbeil: Statistics Canada has the mandate to gather information. A good number of our clients are federal departments and agencies. We also have a lot of stakeholders and partners in the provinces, including provincial and municipal governments.
Statistics Canada carries out projects according to the demand. We respond to the needs of Canadian society. That is why I gave you a very specific example earlier. I told you about the addition of a question on the language spoken regularly at home that stemmed from requests made by provincial partners and the federal government. Similarly, the question on the language of work was added in response to our partners' requests.
It is clearly not Statistics Canada's job to review the bill in order to determine whether the legislation is relevant and whether it is successfully measuring the reality. Statistics Canada is here to answer questions and to do the work if there is a need.
Senator Chaput: Mr. Corbeil, I don't know whether you are prepared to answer this question, but I will ask it anyway. You said that, in the census or another survey, francophones answered that they would ask for services in English, as they were more comfortable speaking that language.
I want to talk about services provided in federal institutions and about minority francophones who want to be served in French. It is not easy to find French services in places with no active offer.
We don't see that. The individual hesitates because, if they speak French, they might be told to wait for someone who can serve them in that language. They have to wait, they are in a hurry, everyone is watching them, and they end up asking for the service in English. Does my analysis make sense?
Mr. Corbeil: I have no statistics on this, but that is something we hear regularly. Many people have said that, if there is no sign indicating that both English and French are spoken, they will use the dominant language. That is something we hear regularly but cannot measure in our statistics.
The Chair: Senator Fortin-Duplessis, do you have another question?
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Senator Mockler asked my question.
The Chair: My question will be brief. We know that some offices lose their bilingual designation based on the census data. Do you have any data on that phenomenon's impact on communities?
Mr. Corbeil: We do not have any data on this, simply because the Treasury Board uses a very specific algorithm. I think that Marc Tremblay, one of your previous witnesses, mentioned this.
Therefore, it is clear that, if this algorithm produces figures that fall below a certain threshold — be it in terms of percentage or numbers — Statistics Canada cannot know what the repercussions might be, since that would imply conducting a study on the relationship between the service delivery or lack thereof and the vitality of the community and its French.
The Chair: That would make a good topic of study, wouldn't it?
Mr. Corbeil: As I said, we can certainly conduct studies if that's you want us to do, since that is what we are here for.
The Chair: We have to knock on the door. On behalf of the committee, Mr. Corbeil and Mr. Nault, I want to sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide us with information that will be very precious to the committee in the course of its study on this bill.
Mr. Corbeil: I would like to point out that you asked me for statistics, but I have provided you with only one chart on the provinces. We could send you an electronic document with information on some 5,000 Canadian municipalities, as well as the comparison between the 2001 and 2011 situations. That is already prepared, and we would just have to send you the information.
The Chair: We would greatly appreciate it if you could send us that information. Thank you very much.
Honourable members of the committee, the second topic we were meant to discuss will be covered in a future meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)