Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 5 - Evidence - Meeting of June 6, 2016
OTTAWA, Monday, June 6, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:31 p.m., to continue its study on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the act.
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening. My name is Claudette Tardif, and I am a senator from Alberta. I am the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
Before we hear from the witnesses, I invite the committee members to introduce themselves.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre, a senator from New Brunswick.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Rivard: Michel Rivard from Quebec.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
The Chair: The committee is continuing its special study on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the act. We will be discussing the research of the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities on recent issues in research on education within francophone minority communities. We also expect to receive comments on certain aspects of the study the committee will carry out next fall on the challenges related to the access to francophone schools and French immersion programs in British Columbia.
This evening, it is our pleasure to welcome Professor Rodrigue Landry, Associate Researcher at the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities.
Rodrigue — I call him Rodrigue because I have known Mr. Landry for many years, as he was a researcher with whom I had the great pleasure of working, and we have often been inspired by his writings — on behalf of the committee members, I thank you for participating in this evening's meeting. I know that you have prepared an opening statement. Following your presentation, the senators will put some questions to you.
Rodrigue Landry, Associate Researcher, Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities: Thank you very much for your invitation. At the Canadian Institute for Research, we have made it our duty to present our research, especially when it may have a positive impact. The institute was created by the federal government to inspire public policies, as well as actions and interventions in communities.
I wanted to make a PowerPoint presentation this evening, and I used colours in it, but they turned out rather grey. So I made the French darker, and I believe that the English, which is green in my document, is grey in yours.
If you skip to the second page, you will see an overview of my presentation. I will begin by talking to you about a few demolinguistic trends that I would qualify as disturbing, in the sense of showing a fragile vitality of francophones outside Quebec. I will make a quick presentation on that to give you some context and to follow up on the discussion on education. Then, owing to the major trends observed, I suggest in my document that one of the essential priorities should be early childhood and school enrolment. In addition, to encourage the implementation of that priority, I will propose something of a national awareness campaign, which I will explain when we get to it.
I will begin with the trends on page 4. The first observation is that Canada's francophone proportion of the population is decreasing. That decrease of the francophone population has been observed for a while. For example, in 1951, francophones accounted for 29 per cent of the country's population. That proportion is now 21.7 per cent. Official language minorities accounted for 7.3 per cent of the population outside Quebec in 1951, but that proportion is now 4 per cent.
The second trend is that, outside Quebec, French is a low linguistic attraction. Statistics Canada uses linguistic continuity to arrive at a very similar measure; it is sort of the opposite of assimilation. There is a slight difference here. We use the total of those who speak French most often at home and establish a ratio against the total of those whose mother tongue is French. The same can be done with other languages. For francophones outside Quebec, in 1971, the ratio was 0.73, meaning that there were fewer people speaking French at home, even when all the responses were combined. Therefore, allophones who speak French at home were taken into account. In addition, that ratio of 0.73 in 1971 dropped by more than 10 points in 2011 and is now at 0.6.
I would like to highlight the contrast with Quebec's anglophone population. I am not trying to show that anglophones, who account for 8.3 per cent of Quebec's population, are assimilating allophones, but rather that English, as a very strong global language, is highly attractive. In 1971, the ratio was already above 1, so there were more people speaking French at home than there were anglophones whose first language was English. In 2011, the ratio was 1.29, meaning that there were nearly 30 per cent more individuals in Quebec speaking English at home than people whose mother tongue was English.
I am now moving on to another trend, on page 6. In the past, the number of children, which was relatively high in francophone communities, compensated somewhat for the assimilation. Now, the situation has changed a lot. The birth rate is now below the replacement threshold, which demographers are placing at 2.1 children per family to replace the two parents and account for infant mortality. You can see that, in the late 1950s, there were nearly 5 children per family, and we are now at 1.5 children per family. That is a huge change. So the francophone population is decreasing simply because the replacement threshold is not being reached, and that is even without taking into consideration the fact that French is not the mother tongue of many of those children.
Another trend is the weak contribution of immigration and allophones to the francophone community. Those who live in certain regions with many immigrants who adopt French may say that this can't be right, since they see a lot of contribution. However, I am talking about the overall trend, as immigrants mostly tend to live in major cities.
There is a very simple way to consider this contribution. There are two ways to measure populations in Canada: by their mother tongue — which you are familiar with — and also by the first official language spoken, FOLS.
That measure is used by the commissioner of official languages, for instance. It is much more inclusive of all Canadians. In fact, if the calculation is done based on the mother tongue, we end up with French and English, and non-official languages spoken by allophones. However, according to the calculations done using the first official language spoken, we can classify 98 per cent of Canada's population in terms of official languages.
This is not a census measure; it is a variable derived from three census questions that consolidates the following criteria: knowledge of the language — which is the ability to carry on a conversation in the language — mother tongue, and the language most often spoken at home.
For example, if I only speak French, French is my first official language spoken. If I speak both official languages, French and English, I select the mother tongue, and that is what determines my first official language spoken. If it is French, I am placed in the group with French as the first official language spoken. If both French and English are mother tongues, as in the case of some children, the language most spoken at home is selected.
That measure leads to a loss for francophones. All those whose mother tongue is French, but who can no longer carry on a conversation in that language, are counted as anglophones.
The ratio helps us see to what extent those losses are compensated for and, even, whether that adds other francophones. The ratio for the francophone population outside Quebec is 0.9997, so we may as well say 1. That helps balance out the losses, but it does not bring in additional French speakers.
You can see the major attraction of English in Quebec. I give that as an example, as it is striking how attractive English can be, even in Quebec with Bill 101 and all that. If we measure the proportion of anglophones according to the first language spoken, the ratio is 1.63. That means that 63 per cent of English speakers are added to Quebec's population, or 410,000 people. That data is on page 7.
Let's now move on to page 8. If we use the same ratios for the total Canadian population, we note that the ratio is 1.07 for French in Canada. That means an additional 519,000 people for the francophone population or those whose first official language spoken is French.
As for English, the ratio is 1.30 across Canada. That means another 5,525,000 people are added. We see the huge difference between what allophones bring to French compared with what they bring to English. This means that, in the long term, French will continue to decline as a proportion of the population.
Let's go to page 9. When a population is in a minority and is highly dispersed over a territory, one of the completely normal phenomena that occur is exogamy, or mixed marriages, provided there are no social barriers. For instance, when I was growing up in Cap-Pelé, I remember that we saw francophones as Catholics and anglophones as Protestants. Religion was enough to prevent many marriages. Today, that social barrier is practically non-existent. The exogamy rate tends to be high, especially in francophone communities that form a very small minority. We can see that the average rate is 45 per cent — 39.6 per cent of francophones have an anglophone partner, and 5.3 per cent have an allophone partner, so a speaker of a non-official language. This data is from 2006, as I do not have the data from 2011.
Exogamy covers both the couples of 90 years and those of 20 years. That is why I prefer to focus on data on couples with children who are rights holders, so as to determine what proportion of children are parented by exogamous couples. Still on page 9, we see that 66 per cent of children of rights holders, under paragraph 23(1)(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — the provision that grants the right to education in French based on the parents' mother tongue — are born to exogamous couples. That figure varies from 32 per cent in New Brunswick to 95 per cent in Yukon. Now, the majority of children born to exogamous couples can attend French school.
Let's move on to page 10. Exogamy is also associated with a low transmission of French as a mother tongue. I put the word "increase'' in red; I will come back to that in a few moments. For example, if both parents are francophones — that's called endogamy — 93 per cent of the children have French as their mother tongue. However, if only one parent is a francophone, the proportion drops to 25 per cent. We see that the mother is more successful than the father, as the proportion is 39 per cent when the mother is a francophone, compared with 18 per cent when it's the father. You remember that exogamous couples account for 66 per cent of that population and are, therefore, in the majority, and that has an impact on the average, which has dropped to 52 per cent for all francophones when it comes to transmission of French.
Another interesting thing is noted. Most of the research shows that, when the rate of exogamy is high in ethnolinguistic groups, it is a sign that the group is well integrated into society and is even assimilated. However, the trend is reversed for francophones; the rate of transmission is growing. In other words, in the relatively successful cases I mentioned earlier where the mother is a francophone, in 1971, she transmitted the mother tongue to only 13.4 per cent of the children, while that proportion in 2006 was 39 per cent. I will come back to this important aspect later, when I discuss the national campaign.
Let's now move on to page 11. We mention a low birth rate and a fairly high cumulative assimilation rate. The fact that there is a lot of exogamy leads to a declining school clientele for the francophonie outside Quebec. Here, it is calculated based on paragraph 23(1)(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as Statistics Canada cannot provide us with other criteria related to parents' and children's education. So I am using only the mother tongue criterion. Nevertheless, I was able to determine that there was a drop of 26 per cent from 1986 to 2006. That figure varies depending on the province or territory, but we are talking about a decrease of 26 per cent in the number of children who can enrol in a French school.
I am now going to page 12. Enrolment in French language schools among the children of rights holders is also low. At the primary level, 55 per cent of children are enrolled in French language schools. At the secondary level, that proportion drops to 44 per cent, for a total of 49 per cent if we establish an average from kindergarten to year 12.
Once again, you see exogamy's impact, as 88 per cent of children enrol in a French school if both parents are francophones, but that proportion drops to 34 per cent if only one parent is a francophone.
From 14 per cent to 15 per cent of students are enrolled in immersion programs. They have access to education in French, but they are rather enrolled in an immersion program, and from 31 per cent to 40 per cent of students are enrolled in a regular English language program.
Let's now turn to page 13. It is a continuation of the part on low enrolment in French language schools, and we can see data related to the percentage of parents whose child is enrolled in the English school system. About 30 per cent of students are enrolled in an immersion program, but here is the figure I find the most interesting: 41 per cent of parents — and these figures come from the post-census survey conducted by Statistics Canada in 2006 — would have preferred a French language school for their children. Is that an indication that the demand seems to be higher than the offer? That aspect would be worth looking into.
I will provide one last trend. Given all this, English has a gravitational pull on all other languages. It is a worldwide phenomenon that I call the "globalization force.'' What stands out with young francophones and even young allophones who live in Canada is that they are all very close to the epicentre of this "globalization force.'' More and more, English dominates the economy, the public space, the linguistic landscape, mass media and science. Therefore, francophones in Canada are under enormous social pressure to use English everywhere in society.
I will now move on to the second part of my presentation.
The Chair: Mr. Landry, could you please pick up the pace so that the senators can ask you questions.
Mr. Landry: I did not want to speak too quickly for the interpretation.
The Chair: Perhaps you could shorten your presentation a little.
Mr. Landry: This is an essential priority. We can see the attraction of the English language differently when we look at the school enrollment statistics.
At the bottom of page 16, you will see the percentage of students who attend the minority school for each school level. The rate is 62 per cent for kindergarten, and it gradually decreases to 40 per cent for post-secondary.
The opposite is true for anglophones in Quebec. They start by doing a lot of studies in French and end strongly in English. The closer children get to starting their career, the greater the trend toward believing that English will be necessary, and studies are done mainly in English.
Another effect of the linguistic attraction of English is that enrollment in official language minority schools is limited in Quebec. For example, Bill 101 requires allophones and anglophones who are non-rights holders to attend French-language school. In addition, section 23(1)(a) of the Canadian Charter does not apply in Quebec. Students in Quebec cannot simply claim that English is their mother tongue; there are other criteria. However, even with all the rights that minority francophones have, only half attend French-language school. Therefore, there is a need to promote this aspect more, while in Quebec, measures should instead be limited because there is a strong attraction to English.
This is directly related to the subject your committee is studying. According to our research, no action of the federal government in pursuance of its obligations under Part VIII, and section 41 in particular, of the Official Languages Act would have more impact on the vitality of the francophone communities than promoting the transfer of French as a mother tongue and the enrollment of children in their minority schools.
I am thinking of the 2003 Dion Plan, the first Action Plan for Official Languages and the last to set clear education objectives. For example, it proposed increasing enrollment of children of rights holders in French-language schools to 80 per cent and to increase access to post-secondary studies.
No action plan on official languages since then has given any importance to early childhood. The Senate drafted an excellent report in 2005 entitled French-language education in a minority setting: a continuum from early childhood to the postsecondary level. I mention it because it really is an excellent report.
I also read the 2015 report of the Senate committee entitled Aiming higher: increasing bilingualism of our Canadian youth. This is another excellent report, but I find that it speaks very little about bilingualism within the Francophonie, which is the highest in Canada.
I am proposing a very simple principle that would provide the conditions for additive bilingualism for both majority and minority groups. It involves simply emphasizing linguistic development in the language with the lowest vitality. Simply respecting this concept would greatly increase bilingualism.
On pages 22 and 23, I provide a model that explains this concept. A child has three living milieux: the family milieu, the school milieu and the socio-institutional milieu. The more a child is in a low vitality context, the more emphasis is placed on French or on the minority language within the family and at school. If the child can be given some experiences within the socio-institutional milieu, the better the bilingualism will be.
Conversely, for the majority, the family and socio-institutional milieux have already tipped the balance on their side, and through strong education in the minority language and through experiences in the socio-institutional milieu, a good level of bilingualism can be ensured.
I am now on page 24. For the francophone group in a minority setting, children experiencing an optimal level of French in the home and at school have the highest level of bilingualism. In grade 12, children of exogamous couples, when they respect this principle — meaning that the francophone parent speaks French to the child and the child attends French-language school — there is no statistical difference in the competency and identity of those students compared with those who have two francophone parents.
Moving on to page 25, children of exogamous couples have a strong anglophone identity and have competency scores in English that are very similar to anglophones. In other words, this ensures great success in English. For both categories — children of exogamous parents and children of endogamous parents — I would suggest that French- language school constitutes the best bilingual program in Canada, even though the focus is on only one language.
In the last section of my presentation, I propose a national awareness campaign. Why? Because francophone parents tend to be misinformed about the conditions favouring additive bilingualism for their children. According to our research, when we ask parents what they think would be best for their child, if they were free to select the school program of their choice, half if not almost two-thirds of parents think it would be 50-50, so half of the courses would be in English and the other half in French.
It is an interesting mathematic formula, but they forget that there is a society that takes care of the dominant language. A program taught entirely in French, except for English of course, provides the best outcome.
In addition, many parents are not aware of two simple principles that I explained. There is the principle of one parent, one language, for exogamous couples, where each parent speaks his or her language to the child. In this case, the minority language is consciously and intentionally supported, meaning the language for which vitality is less sustained by society in language activities, such as choosing a francophone daycare, for instance, and enrolling the child in French-language school. This provides excellent results.
The purpose of the national campaign I am proposing is to inform parents and raise their awareness. Of course, it is not a propaganda campaign because parents are free to make their choices, but we want to inform them. I am proposing two steps. The first would be national and would involve raising attention and curiosity. This is what I call social marketing. It would draw attention to the fact that French-language schooling creates the best bilingualism. The second step would involve providing personalized information at the local or provincial level.
I am now on page 30. I would like to give you some information that would be relevant to the campaign. Graduates of French-language schools in minority settings are the most bilingual in the country. In Nova Scotia, for instance, all courses are given in French, but English is taught as if the students were anglophone. These students score better in English on Department of Education tests than students in English-language schools, and they are greatly improving their French. Therefore, French-language schools produce high competencies in French and in English, and the two identities are strong in children of exogamous couples.
I am continuing with page 31. In terms of the two principles that are relatively easy to understand, but are not always easy to apply, bilingualism is available to all children. I find it interesting to present exogamous parents as a kind of microcosm of Canada's linguistic duality. Both official languages are present within their family, so what should they do? Some say that it would be better if half of them turn toward the francophone side and the other half to the anglophone side. Personally, I think it would be better, for the human potential of the children and the respect for their dual heritage, for all of them to learn both languages because children are capable of doing so.
On page 32, it is important to understand that exogamy is not the cause of assimilation, even though they are closely associated. According to our statistics, if we control the language dynamic of parents, the degree to which they use French, exogamy is not a significant factor statistically.
Now on to page 33, and I am winding down. Exogamy is a factor associated with the loss of the minority language. We have seen it, but it also has significant demographic potential. Very few people realize it, but this is not always good for the transmission of the mother tongue. There is one aspect that compensates to some extent. If all francophones were exogamous, there would be twice the number of children who are rights holders than if nobody was. It is simple to understand. With the same number of children per family, that is what would happen.
Outside Quebec, the percentage of the potential school population is higher than the representation in the provincial population. In Manitoba, for example, with 2 per cent of the population, at one time, there was a potential of 4 per cent of the school population, namely, double its representation.
The transmission of French as a mother tongue is low for exogamous couples but increasing. Let me repeat that, because this increase is showing that we can continue to grow. Two factors explain this: increasingly, anglophone spouses are bilingual, and there are a growing number of French-language schools. You indicated that in your 2015 report, and numerous advantages of bilingualism could be communicated as part of the campaign.
Increasing the transmission of French to children, as a first and as a second language, would strengthen Canada's linguistic duality and actualize the human capital and identity of these children.
On page 36, I focus on the fact that promoting the French-language school does not mean diminishing the quality of the immersion program. Some people believe that because a lot of people are enrolling their children in an immersion program, it will diminish the quality of the program. For children of exogamous couples, the French-language school fosters the maintenance of two mother tongues and two strong identities. For children of endogamous French couples, the French-language school supports the development of their mother tongue and their identity. It also fosters a high degree of bilingualism.
To conclude, I refer to the 2005 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages on the continuum from early childhood to the post-secondary level. The first recommendation in the report is exactly what I recommended to your committee. You kept the idea that a national campaign might help more rights holders have a better understanding of their reality, their rights and the advantages of additive bilingualism.
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you for your comprehensive and very interesting presentation.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your presentation, and welcome to the committee. Our committee is considering studying the challenges of access to French-language schools in British Columbia in the fall. Would you be able to tell us about the difficult situation in British Columbia compared with the other Canadian provinces?
Mr. Landry: It is a very interesting province. I think I can talk about this now, since the trial is over. I testified at a trial in which 27 schools and the school board sued the Government of British Columbia. I argued that there is still a very small percentage of rights holders who attend French-language school. It varies between 25 and 30 per cent.
So there is still enormous potential and, when we know that a very large proportion of francophones in British Columbia are from Quebec, it is difficult to believe that they are all assimilated. The parents should be able to speak French to their children and enroll them in French-language school.
I collaborated on a study with the Association for Canadian Studies. We asked French-speaking Quebecois parents the following question: "If you had to move to a province where English is the dominant language, what school would you send your children to?'' Close to one-third of parents answered that they would send their children to an English- language school.
I think that Quebecers, the French from France, compared with minority francophones, are not immune to assimilation. They are used to being the majority. They want to learn English, so they have a bit of the same 50/50 logic.
I spent a week interviewing parents in Alberta about this, and I was flabbergasted by their reasoning. They believe that if their children attend English-language school while speaking French at home, they would become perfectly bilingual. I have seen mothers cry because their 10-year-old child could no longer speak a single word of French.
Parents are not sociolinguists, and they do not always know what is best for their child when it comes to bilingualism. Many Quebecois parents move to an English-speaking province for a year or two and, in that sense, English immersion might be a good decision. However, if they stay longer, they are not taking into account that if they had enrolled their children in French-language school, they would have maintained their French, and their English would still be very good.
Senator Poirier: Does this situation not happen in other provinces too?
Mr. Landry: I mentioned British Columbia because close to half of the francophones are from Quebec.
Senator Poirier: Does this not happen elsewhere?
Mr. Landry: There are French-speaking Quebecers in all the provinces, including New Brunswick, but not as many as in British Columbia.
Senator Poirier: My second question is about New Brunswick. For years now, our young people, especially those in the north, have been moving to Moncton or Dieppe for work or school. Others go west, to Ontario or Ottawa. The challenge occurs not just in Acadia, but all over New Brunswick. We are losing a lot of our young people, regardless of the language they speak. Can you recommend a provincial strategy to curb the exodus of young people?
Mr. Landry: There are two factors at play as regards the exodus: education and work. It is about economics. To solution to the exodus is to create jobs in the province. It's not my area of expertise, but it is obviously about economics.
If people move to another province then, if they have even the minimum awareness, they know that they can assert their rights in New Brunswick, Alberta, British Columbia or elsewhere. Once again, it is a question of being well- informed.
As to the exodus itself, I think most experts agree that it is primarily a question of economics. So if jobs are created, our young people will stay. I am not saying that no one would leave, but New Brunswick's net migration for francophones has been negative for a number of years. So there are more francophones leaving than coming into the province.
Senator Poirier: I completely agree with your statistics regarding families with one francophone parent and one anglophone one. That is the case of my eldest daughter, and my grandchildren have two first languages. Since they started talking, they have jumped from one language to the other. They attend French school, but they are completely bilingual orally and in the written language, and that makes a big difference.
Mr. Landry: It is the same situation in my family.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you for your very interesting presentation, Mr. Landry. What are your research priorities for the coming months and years?
Mr. Landry: I am retired but I have a few priorities because there are things I wanted to do before retiring that I was not able to do.
The timing is good as I gave the following statistic: 88 per cent of children who have two francophone parents attend French school, as compared to 34 per cent for exogamous families. I would like to conduct multivariate studies and control many factors. I would take the Statistics Canada data and analyze it using the most sophisticated methods. In multivariate studies, several factors are considered at the same time rather than simply giving a description.
I strongly believe that exogamy is not as negative a factor as one might think, as long as the parents are well- informed. We must also remember that some exogamous families are assimilated, in the sense that French was their first language. For example, they moved from New Brunswick to Ontario and did not attend French school. So they lost their French. It is hard for them to teach their children French even though some of them use school to reconnect with the francophonie. I am getting a bit off track.
Senator McIntyre: No, that's fine, but I would like to follow up on what you said. I understand there are research projects ongoing. You discussed the issue of school enrolment in British Columbia with Senator Poirier. I understand there are other research projects, such as access to justice in minority francophone communities and new media. Could you give us some information on this briefly?
Mr. Landry: The institute conducts a wide range of research. I specialize in education. The colleague who replaced me in the institute's management focuses a lot at economic issues and migration. I have been away from all of that for four years, but there is still a wide range of projects. There are four researchers and we also study anglophones in Quebec. There is a variety of perspectives, although not necessarily from the same person. Moreover, we hire specialized researchers on contract to do other kinds of research, but I would like to know what you think is the most urgent.
Senator McIntyre: Access to justice would be a priority, I think.
Mr. Landry: Lawyers such Michel Doucet of the International Observatory on Language Rights are interested in that. That field is really of greater interest to lawyers, whereas we are sociologists and psychologists, but it is an interesting issue.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Doucet is very active in this field. To what extent does the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities collaborate with other organizations, such as the University of Moncton, with official language minority communities, with universities or federal institutions such as the Treasury Board Secretariat, Canadian Heritage, Health Canada, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the research council, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and many others?
Mr. Landry: I would not want to mislead you, but I think we have worked on projects with three quarters of the organizations you mentioned. It goes both ways. Sometimes we see an interesting issue and suggest it to a department and sometimes they approach us with a topic to study. We also work at the community level a great deal. For example, a good many of the statistics that I presented to you are from analyses we conducted for the Commission nationale des parents francophones.
No research was conducted in 2011, however, because there was no funding. I am not embarrassed to say that I am not very impressed by the last government as regards research. For example, there was a collection of books dating back to the 1980s, pertaining to languages, New Canadian Perspectives, but it was cancelled. It no longer exists. We published the last books in that collection. I hope to see renewed interest in funding for research because there are still burning issues that need to be studied.
Senator Fraser: Please accept my apologies for being late. I am coming from another meeting.
Your research is fascinating. On page 16 of your presentation, you mention the percentage of enrollment at minority institutions, whether French or English. You say for example that, for English schools in Quebec, 24 per cent of children are enrolled in kindergarten and 44 per cent are enrolled in primary school. What does the 24 per cent represent?
Mr. Landry: That's an excellent question because I did not have the time to provide details. I mentioned it briefly, but rights holders in Quebec are not defined the same way as francophone rights holders. So it was very hard to draw comparisons since the criteria are different. I am very familiar with the Statistics Canada study because I chaired the Statistics Canada advisory committee. We considered all francophones outside Quebec whose first language was French and whose first spoken language was French. We did the same thing in Quebec.
Senator Fraser: So their first language, the first language learned?
Mr. Landry: Not the first language learned but the first official language spoken. I'm not sure if you were here when I defined this variable; it is the variable related to three census questions.
Senator Fraser: We know it excludes a certain number of anglophones.
Mr. Landry: Yes, because some of them are not eligible. There are legal factors that explain these low percentages. We thought it would be better to compare two similar populations. So it is very interesting to see — and there is other research that I cannot quote now but that is referenced in my publications — that Anglophone parents want their children to learn French in Quebec, but the closer they get to high school and university, the higher the percentage of enrollment in English-language schools.
Senator Fraser: Bill 101 does not apply to postsecondary education.
Mr. Landry: Exactly.
Senator Gagné: I had the opportunity, the pleasure and the privilege of sitting on the board of the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities, and I handed in my resignation letter at the end of March when I accepted my appointment to the Senate. I am very aware of the challenges the institute is facing to stimulate knowledge and research in education and in all sectors of activity of minority communities in Canada.
We will soon be starting a consultation on the next official languages action plan. As the former executive director of the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities, what would you like to see in this plan as regards research on minority communities?
Mr. Landry: I think research should be given more importance than it has in recent years. Above all, I think we have to do the right research. We should perhaps use the first action plan on official languages of 2003 as a model. I say that for two reasons: as a researcher, I thought that plan provided the best analysis of the situation of francophone and anglophone communities in Quebec at the time. I also think it was perhaps one of the first federal reports that identified a degree of asymmetry between the two official language minorities.
Previously, what helped one minority helped the other. In the 2003 action plan on official languages report, however, the objectives for anglophones in Quebec are not the same as for francophones outside Quebec. They had different needs. The analysis was very careful and clearly identified the issues.
When establishing priorities based on a thorough analysis, the most valuable research addresses those needs. It is very hard to say simply that we should conduct research here and there. If we focus clearly on the priorities and needs, the research needs practically define themselves.
Senator Gagné: Where should the research funding be allocated? Should there be a specific envelope for research focussing on linguistic minorities within granting agencies or should the departments provide than funding?
Mr. Landry: I would like to see all departments have research funding. For our part, we get most of our funding from Canadian Heritage, perhaps because of the nature of the department. Of course, Canadian Heritage focussed on the needs that it considered most important.
If the funding is distributed among various departments, we would conduct research on justice, citizenship, immigration and so forth. I think the ideal would be for each department to have research funds, but above all the importance of research has to be recognized.
High-quality research is also needed. I make no secret of the fact that we have good researchers at the institute, but there are not many of them. Under our approach, when an interesting issue is submitted to us as a research project, we look for the specialists in the field among the wider community of researchers, and give them the contract. If you look at our annual reports, you will see that we have many research associates. Our research is not conducted solely by the four people directly associated with the institute.
Senator Maltais: Thank you, Mr. Landry, for being here today. Let me play the devil's advocate, and I have no trouble doing that because it is in my nature, as Ms. Fraser can confirm.
Young Canadians, like young people around the world, have gone global. Whether you like it or not, English is the international language. Consider Europe, for example: the Council of Europe and the European Parliament. First of all, they could not agree to form a single parliament so they have one in Strasburg and one in Brussels. Each sits for six months of the year. The only thing they agree on is the common language, English.
At NATO, English is the language used, as it is at the United Nations. At the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the language is English. For all international groups, the language is English. That is the reality.
Now I'll tell you about another reality. I have three children and five grandchildren. My children went to university, to the master's level. We lived in Quebec for 10 years, during which our children were not allowed to learn English. Everything was fine up until CEGEP, but once they got to university — and these are very concrete examples — not a single medical textbook was available in French. In electrical engineering, none of the books are in French. In law, they are, since the civil code is in French. But if your daughter wants to be a lawyer and a tax specialist in particular, she has to go to Sherbrooke where all the tax books are in English. So in addition to paying her tuition, I had to pay for her English lessons. It is essential for that profession. That is crystal clear.
For a young person from Manitoba who wants to study medicine, should he go to a French school or an English one? I don't have the answer.
Mr. Landry: I can answer that question.
Senator Maltais: What would you say?
Mr. Landry: That is exactly what our research shows. People who attended only French schools in minority communities are as good in English as those who attended English schools. So for a child in Manitoba who is educated in French, I have no doubt that he could do medical school in English. But that is not the case in Quebec.
Senator Maltais: Can you give us another example?
Mr. Landry: That's what happens in minority communities. It is what we call "additive'' bilingualism. There is an additional language. There was a teacher who understood this very well and who did a round of conferences with me. She called me the scientist. At the end of the conference, she said, "I understood everything you said and I think I can summarize it in one sentence.'' It is a sentence that is now well-known in minority communities: "French is something you learn, whereas English you catch.''
If a child decides to attend an English-language high school in order to do better in medicine, he will lose his French and will not do any better at medical school than if he had stayed at the French school. That is what our research shows.
Senator Maltais: So anglophone doctors are not as good as francophone ones?
Mr. Landry: No, I didn't say they are not as good.
Senator Maltais: You said they have better academic success.
Mr. Landry: I didn't say they have better success. Their level of English is more or less equivalent to that of anglophones. I referred to Nova Scotia, where bilingual francophone students score even higher than anglophones on English tests. That's rare. Usually, they score a bit lower. However, their level of bilingualism is excellent, and they maintain their French proficiency. So you don't need to sell your soul to study in English.
Senator Maltais: I understand. You're a researcher and distinguished professor. I completely understand your reality, but there's also the universal reality that connects people. You can't escape it, whether you're anglophone or francophone. I experienced it in my own family, and I'm sure others here did too.
Take Simons stores, for example. The stores are not from St. James Street in England. They originated in Quebec City. The owners' children must attend French school. While surprising, that's the reality. Granted, Quebec is a special case.
Mr. Landry: It's a special case, and I want to make one thing clear. It's obviously excellent for a person to be bilingual and to learn three or four languages. However, when a society has reached a point where everyone is bilingual, there is one language too many.
Senator Maltais: I regularly watch Télévision française de l'Ontario, TFO. Many young francophones from every province are featured. A woman who was around 25 commented that French culture is mainly spread through music, books and so on. That's how people become attached to it. However, not enough attention is paid to this aspect. Two or three years ago, during the Acadian celebration — I don't know what it's called —
Mr. Landry: The World Acadian Congress?
Senator Maltais: Yes. I toured around New Brunswick, and I was very surprised at the artistic value found in all the small municipalities. The French language in minority communities must be spread in ways other than through education. It must be spread through culture.
Mr. Landry: That goes without saying.
Senator Maltais: Culture plays an important role. Some artists come from your neck of the woods, such as Mr. Lavoie, the singer-songwriter who has lived in Quebec for years. The culture and economic value, as you mentioned, cannot be overlooked.
What are young people's chances of finding a good job? Is knowing two languages an asset? I believe so.
Mr. Landry: Yes.
Senator Maltais: However, a job needs to exist.
Mr. Landry: The problem is sociolinguistic.
Senator Maltais: You have travelled a great deal across Canada. Can you tell me whether young francophones from New Brunswick and Ontario are moving to Quebec? You said that many young Quebecers are settling in British Columbia, and I understand why, because of the climate. Are young people moving?
Mr. Landry: Yes, many of them are moving.
Senator Maltais: What percentage? For example, New Brunswick has a population of 700,000.
Mr. Landry: That's not my area of expertise, but the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities has conducted studies on the subject.
Senator Maltais: People are moving?
Mr. Landry: Yes.
Senator Maltais: The declining birth rate is also a factor. You said in your report that 25 or 30 years ago, the average family had five children. Today, it has 1.5. That doesn't provide many replacements, or any really. With two children, the population balances out, but doesn't grow.
In the past six months, 25,000 immigrants have arrived. How many do you think will learn French in Canada?
Mr. Landry: Most will learn English. In fact, 98 per cent of allophones outside Quebec learn English. However, I was particularly surprised to learn that, in New Brunswick, at least a hundred allophone children attend French schools.
Senator Maltais: Excellent! That's good news.
Mr. Landry: It's a good strategy for allophones, meaning people who are neither anglophone nor francophone. As I said earlier, French is learned and English is picked up. If they attend French school, they're sure to pick up English.
I want to make a clarification. What I'm saying does not apply to Quebec or northern New Brunswick. It applies more or less throughout Ontario and clearly applies to Western Canada. If French is learned and skills in French are transferred to English — For example, one of our studies focused specifically on Nova Scotia, where French secondary schools caused serious concern. People thought their children's skills would not be strong enough to attend university in English. However, the best indicator of English skills was the skills acquired in French.
Senator Maltais: I have a final question. Is it true that immigrants who speak Latin languages have a better chance of learning French than those who speak other languages and are naturally inclined to learn English?
Mr. Landry: It's both true and false. You made some excellent points on the strong appeal of English. A researcher has provided an interesting model. He calls English the hypercentral language. It's like a gravity model where languages are pulled into English's orbit. Bilingualism is vertical. People are always looking to learn a language that increases their chances of communicating.
These days, whether people are French, Spanish, Russian or Chinese, everyone wants to learn English as a second language. English is not expected to assimilate all languages. That will happen in Canada, because we live very close to the epicentre. Some will be assimilated. Researchers agree that, in other countries, English will no longer be a foreign language, but instead a second language used on a regular basis.
Senator Rivard: Mr. Landry, your presentation was very compelling.
Mr. Landry: Thank you.
Senator Rivard: Does this mean the statistics you presented are mostly from census answers? Has your own research generated these statistics using a more targeted approach?
Mr. Landry: To present an overall picture of French-speaking Canada, the census clearly provides the best representative samples. I conducted a great deal of research in schools in all provinces, and even in the territories. The questionnaires were much more detailed, which enabled us to look at the impact of variables that were more specific than the census variables.
Three experiences were measured: enculturation, which is contact with each language; personal autonomization, which leads to self-motivation; and social conscientization, which generates awareness of the reality of being a minority. Specific behaviours can be predicted based on each type of experience. This type of research enables us to go deeper than the census.
However, for an overall picture of French-speaking Canada, it's difficult to top the census. That said, Statistics Canada compared its results with survey firm results in the post-census survey it conducted in 2006. Statistics Canada can take a sample directly from the census and a sample from the Canadian population.
As I was telling Senator Fraser earlier, we were able to look specifically at francophone and French as-a-first- official-language-spoken populations, and so on, which was very valuable. The institute even tried to see whether another study could be conducted in 2016, but it was too late. The new government was elected just prior to the census. However, in five years, it would be very useful to conduct a study of that nature to determine the progress made from 2006 to 2021.
Senator Rivard: Do you find the federal government consults you enough regarding its official languages policies? Can you give an example in which your research results changed official languages policies?
Mr. Landry: The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages showed keen interest in our research. The committee prepared an excellent report and submitted it to the government, but no consequences resulted from the report. It's not easy to change policies when the will isn't there.
I think we've made an impact here and there because we've done specific work for provinces and communities. For example, today many more people and parents are aware of the reality of French schools, which not only produce francophones but also top-notch bilingual graduates. Our initial research showed that many parents believed half and half would be better. I am interested in knowing whether that number has now decreased. Parents seem to be informed, and they speak to each other. The information is passed on quickly.
Senator Rivard: I have a final comment. Mr. Landry, I feel privileged to be a member of the official languages committee. When people are born in a francophone community, and they study and work in that community, they have the chance to speak English about an hour a month. We don't think of the problems faced by francophones in other provinces. Here, around the table, we have representatives from Manitoba, Alberta and New Brunswick. We also have colleagues from Quebec whose first language is English. That helps me take stock of the current situation. I'm not saying French is in danger, but we need to keep fighting to ensure its place.
The Chair: That's well-said and appropriate, Senator Rivard.
To follow up on Senator Maltais's comments, I want to add that, in Alberta, for example, graduates of French high schools can keep studying in French at the University of Alberta's Campus Saint-Jean. They are also encouraged to study medicine or law, since special programs are available in French in those fields, at the Université de Moncton or the University of Ottawa. They can continue studying in French at those institutions. The young people then return to Alberta to practice in English, but they often have the chance to speak French. They work in English after completing all their studies in French. They also learn the work jargon very quickly.
Senator Maltais: You're telling me that a young person from Alberta can't take medical training in French?
The Chair: No. Neither Alberta nor Manitoba has a French-language medicine program. The options for francophones outside Quebec are the University of Ottawa and the Université de Moncton, in partnership with the Université de Sherbrooke. That's all.
Senator Maltais: But even in Quebec, the medical textbooks are in English.
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Maltais: And in electrical engineering.
The Chair: Senator Maltais, we can continue our discussion later.
The senators seem to have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Landry, for your excellent presentation. Your work has certainly made an impact on official language minority communities working in education. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)