Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 2 - Evidence - Meeting of March 29, 2010
OTTAWA, Monday, March 29, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:07 p.m. to conduct a study on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it. Topic: Study on Part VII and other issues.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I see a quorum and I call the meeting to order.
Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am Senator Maria Chaput from Manitoba, chair of the committee.
To begin, I would like to introduce the members of the committee present today: Senators Mockler, Fortin Duplessis, Boisvenu, Champagne, Deputy Chair of the committee, Seidman, Losier-Cool and Tardif.
During the 39th Parliament, the Senate committee began a study on the application of Part VII of the Official Languages Act for the purpose of reviewing the action taken by federal institutions since the amendments made to the act in November 2005.
During the last session, we heard testimony from representatives of 11 federal departments and agencies, organizations representing francophone and anglophone communities, the Commissioner of Official Languages, and a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Senate committee's goal was to learn more about the progress observed and the new initiatives implemented to foster the development of official-language minority communities and the promotion of linguistic duality.
To further its study, the Senate committee asked a group of students from the Faculty of Law of the University of Ottawa to appear before the committee to give testimony on a research project dealing with the analysis of the implementation of Part VII.
This project was carried out under the supervision of Assistant Professor Mark Power who has contributed to over 15 cases brought before the Supreme Court of Canada, many of which dealt with language rights.
The committee is pleased to welcome four students from the Faculty of Law, French Common Law Section of the University of Ottawa, who will be presenting their research project. First we have Mr. Richard Léger, a third-year student in the program, who is from Caraquet, New Brunswick. He holds a B.A. in political science and economics from the Université de Moncton. Next we have Matthew Létourneau, who is from St. Paul, Alberta. Mr. Létourneau completed his B.A. in French at the University of Alberta's Campus Saint-Jean. He is completing his second year of studies in the French Common Law Program at the University of Ottawa. Next, we have Ms. Monick Corriveau, who is from East Angus, Quebec. After working for nine years as a print, radio and television journalist, including eight years with the CBC, she entered law school at the University of Ottawa. She is now in second year and is part of the first cohort in the Programme de droit canadien, the Canadian Law Program, and will have a diploma in common law and civil law when she completes her studies.
Last, we have Ms. Mélanie Roy, who was born in Timmins in northern Ontario. She received a B.A. in psychology and political science from the University of Alberta. She is completing her third year in the French Common Law Program at the University of Ottawa.
I would now ask the students to go ahead with their presentation and then the senators will follow with questions.
Richard Léger, student, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section: Madam Chair, members of the committee, I would like to thank you on behalf of our group for welcoming us here this evening. It is an honour that very few students have and we are very grateful to be among the prestigious witnesses that the committee hears from.
The report we have written seeks to respond to the committee's mandate, which it received in 2006, shortly after the amendment to Part VII supported by the late Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier. The mandate is to study the application of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
As concerns this mandate, our report seeks to respond to it taking into account recent developments in the area of language rights. It interprets and applies sections 41(1) and 41(2) of Part VII, and examines the binding authority of Part VII, in the context of three major themes: the beneficiaries of Part VII of the Official Languages Act; commitment by federal institutions, namely by determining whether they should place greater emphasis on the community aspect; and how Part VII of the Official Languages Act could be applied by federal institutions and courts.
I believe that a copy of our report and its English translation was distributed to you. It contains biographical notes already mentioned on page 2, an executive summary on page 5, and analytical tables at the very end, which we will come back to later.
I will now read you the wording of section 41 of Part VII, which will be discussed today and which can be found on page 7 of our report.
Section 41(1) states that:
The Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development, and fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.
Section 41(2) states:
That every federal institution has the duty to ensure that positive measures are taken for the implementation of the commitments under subsection 1.
Before going to the heart of the matter, I would also just like to say that we have chosen to make our presentation in French, but obviously we will be very happy to answer your questions in both English and French.
As concerns the persons entitled to benefits under Part VII, we have proposed a more inclusive definition that helps to determine the situations in which a federal institution must take positive measures. When a federal institution identifies beneficiaries under Part VII too narrowly, it is countering that commitment and undermining the interests of linguistic minority communities in Canada, the development of which is one of the objectives of Part VII.
Given the diversity and dynamism of these minority communities, it is difficult to identify all beneficiaries under Part VII using a mathematical formula.
The Supreme Court of Canada has held that beneficiaries of language rights must be identified using qualitative rather than quantitative criteria. The basic criterion for identifying beneficiaries that applies in language law is simply the ability to speak or use the language, even at a rudimentary level.
Therefore, to identify what community is affected by a federal institution's decision, the linguistic majority and minority must be considered to be two substantively equal communities and they must be served based on their respective needs.
In the same vein, a federal institution may violate its obligation to take positive measures by failing to fully play its supportive institutional role with regard to minority communities. Federal institutions enable the minority language communities of Canada to affirm their existence, to come together and to control their destiny. This is a legal principle drawn from the Montfort case.
Part VII could also require that a federal institution provide services to official-language minority communities that are threatened by assimilation, or ignored by recent immigrants, or that would be considerably larger if exogamous households were taken into account.
Here, I am referring to services, and there is a link with Part IV that deals expressly with services and that has its own method of identifying beneficiaries.
I will close here, but that is just a brief overview of the topic. I invite you to broach the question in greater detail.
Matthew Létourneau, student, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section: Madam Chair, it is a great honour for me as well to speak before you today, and I would like to thank you for the opportunity.
I am a Franco-Albertan and my hometown, St. Paul, is 200 kilometres northeast of Edmonton. My village is historically a francophone one, and my family has lived there for five generations. In that area, all federal institutions are important to protect the French language, post offices, for instance, and all other institutions.
I studied in French in Edmonton at the Saint-Jean campus, where Senator Tardif was dean a few years ago.
I would first like to speak to you about the concepts of "significant demand" and "nature of the office," which can be found in section 21 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in Part IV of the Official Languages Act and its regulations.
Today, these concepts use mathematical calculations and thresholds to identify persons who are entitled to benefits under the Official Languages Act. We live alongside those seeking to amend these concepts in order to make them more compliant with the government's commitment to Canada's linguistic minorities.
We would argue that "significant demand" must be assessed by referring more to the context, that is, demand for services such as those offered by Canada Post, for example. The demand would be considered to be significant in communities that have linguistic minority institutions, such as cultural centres or schools.
In addition, "significant demand" would be considered to exist in minority language communities that are threatened by assimilation, especially since this threat may increase where there is a failure to act, insufficient action or the taking of negative measures by a federal institution with regard to the minority.
We further argue that the concept "nature of the office" should identify offices that support the development of minority language communities in a beneficial, lasting and tangible way.
This identification reflects the reality that some federal institutions are truly points of first contact for minority language communities and encourages the use of the minority language, particularly in rural regions.
For example, any military recruiting office in Canada that offers services in both official languages enhances the vitality of the minority community by considering it as being substantively equal to the majority community.
This is how a federal office serves communities according to their respective needs. This example complies with our definition of beneficiaries under the Official Languages Act, as well as with the legal principle of substantive equality. Finally, we support the concept that the government should engage with minority language communities by collaborating more with the communities and minority language institutions in order to meet their specific needs, and especially to effectively counter assimilation. Federal institutions must collaborate with minority language institutions that already do this and do it well. Minority language communities are best suited to identify the mechanisms that are most likely to counter assimilation. There are many examples of this, and I would be pleased to mention a few of them during the question period.
Progress toward substantive equality must include collaboration with minority language communities. We believe that any federal institution that interacts with minority language communities should redirect its policy to adopt a duty to collaborate with the community.
Monick Corriveau, student, University of Ottawa, Faulty of Law, Common Law Section: Madam Chair, good evening. I am from East Angus, Quebec. If we compare the Official Languages Act to a tool box, then Part VII represents a new tool that is essential to enhancing the vitality of official languages. I must point out though, that Part VII is not just any tool. It is a special, fundamental, and indispensable tool that we must use, but we must know how to use it. So what we are offering you tonight is rather like an instruction booklet.
The wording of Part VII stipulates that several institutions have the duty to implement positive measures to enhance the vitality of the English and French minority language communities in Canada. Many people wonder what a positive measure is within the meaning of Part VII. It is a measure taken and implemented by a federal institution, the effects of which are beneficial, long-term and tangible for official language minority communities. The role of Part VII is to ensure that in their operations, federal institutions take into account both of the linguistic communities they must serve.
Since 2005, there has been a legal remedy for violations of Part VII, and that is the tool that I was telling you about. How should it be used? First, two things: the federal institution in question must comply with the definition stipulated in the Official Languages Act. Next, it must be determined that the government's action has a negative effect on the vitality of minority language communities. What happens if a federal institution takes a negative measure? A negative measure is the very opposite of the definition that I am just giving you. Basically, it is when a federal institution harms the vitality of minority language communities. When it does so, in our opinion it must justify its action, and to do so, it should answer three questions.
Is the objective sufficiently important to justify a negative measure? The objective of the federal institution will be sufficiently important if it relates to a pressing or substantial concern. It should be noted that a federal institution's budgetary considerations alone should not justify violation of the commitment to enhancing the vitality of linguistic minority communities, but we do have to be realistic.
Let us use the image of a scale, which can swing from one side to another. Ideally, we seek to balance the scale. One could imagine that a financial crisis might be so severe that federal institutions would be forced to take remedial measures, even if those measures violated the commitment to support the vitality of minority language communities, as codified in Part VII.
The condition here is that the measures taken must be proportional both to the financial crisis and to their impact on the rights guaranteed by Part VII.
Second question: Is there a rational connection between the negative measure taken by the federal institution and the sufficiently important objective of the negative measure? This means that the negative measure used must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations to achieve the objective. At the very least, Part VII should provide a mechanism for reducing the impact of decisions that are arbitrary or unfair to minority language communities.
Third question: Does the negative measure constitute minimum impairment of the vitality of minority language communities? A negative measure should not impair the vitality of minority language communities unless, and to the extent that, such a consequence is necessary for the achievement of the federal institution's objective. In other words, a federal institution should use the least harmful means of achieving its objective. However, if the negative measure harms the vitality of the minority, then it cannot be considered minimal.
In closing, if the federal institution fails to show that a decision is of such significance as to justify a breach of Part VII in this case, the Federal Court may grant such remedy that it considers appropriate and just in the circumstances, as provided in section 77.4 of the Official Languages Act. Conversely, an application made by the official language minority before the Federal Court that failed to meet the three standards I have just set out would be simply disallowed.
The objective is to provide federal officials and judges with a concrete measure to weigh — and this gets back to my image of the scales — on the one hand the need for federal institutions to govern, and on the other, the importance of the commitment to foster the development of minorities. This is why Part VII is a special instrument which is fundamental and indispensable in our view, and which we should be making use of.
I will briefly explain the origins of our analysis. It draws inspiration from an analysis that has been used by the Supreme Court since 1986. These are new tests which no one has raised in matters of official languages. I will not expound upon the analysis, although I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have on the matter. In fact, we have prepared concrete examples of the enforcement I am suggesting this evening. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mélanie Roy, student, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section: Madam Chair, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for inviting us this evening. The subject we wish to address relates directly to this committee's mandate as we are addressing concrete ways in which judges or officials may ensure the application of Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
Federal institutions may be required to take positive measures if they take insufficient action or fail to take positive measures. These failures to act or this insufficient action would arise for a number of reasons. Some are well-founded whereas others are not. But what would be insufficient action? We would suggest insufficient action occurs when a federal institution, which is already involved in a particular area, is unable to provide equal services in the minority and majority languages. What do we refer to as a failure to act? We suggest that federal institutions which are not involved in a particular area fail to act when they blatantly fail to take measures which enhance the vitality of official language minority communities. For the purposes of our opening statement, we will focus solely on the explanation of insufficient action. Nevertheless, if you do have any questions as to how to develop an analysis on the failure to act, we would be pleased to discuss the matter in further detail.
So, if you refer to page 38 of our report, table G.1.2 provides a schematical analysis of what we suggest.
The Official Languages Act applies in the case of federal institutions when the action on the part of the federal institution is harmful to the vitality of official language minority communities. However, in cases where there is insufficient action, the following two questions would also be warranted. The first question is to determine whether the federal institution is already involved in a particular area. If it is, then it would be deemed insufficient action. It would be easier for an official or a judge to find that the federal institution in question is required to take positive measures if this given institution is already involved in a particular area as it would then simply be required to make changes to programs it already delivers.
The second question is to determine whether the effect or purpose of the insufficient action on the part of the institution significantly harms the vitality of official language minority communities so as to justify intervention under Part VII.
When the effect or purpose of the insufficient action will not significantly harm the vitality of official language minority communities, no violation of Part VII will be established. However where the effect or purpose of the insufficient action significantly harms the vitality of official language minority communities, Part VII has been violated and the Federal Court may make the order it considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
As Monick mentioned, we have developed examples to further illustrate the three situations we outlined in this analysis. So we are referring to negative measures, insufficient action and failure to act.
Again, we want to thank the members of this committee. It is both an honour and a privilege to testify before you.
I would like to remind members of the committee that we are prepared to answer questions in both official languages. We would invite you to ask questions on the content of our report and on our opening statement.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will immediately move to questions; I already have a number of senators who have indicated they have questions to ask. So rest assured, there are a number of questions that will be put to you.
The first question is from the deputy chair of our committee, Senator Champagne.
Senator Champagne: Welcome to the four of you. I thank you for being here, but I mainly thank you for having taken up the challenge we gave you in asking you to prepare this report. I have been a member of this committee for five years now. Each time we meet with people from the various departments or institutions and try to discuss positive measures, it is as though there was a question mark on each person's face as to what a positive measure is.
I read your report from cover to cover. I spent my Sunday afternoon on it because I had to reread some parts to make sure I had understood correctly.
Ultimately, when we look at the official wording of the act, I believe it is easier to determine what a positive measure is. There is a negative measure, insufficient action or failure to act, as you have eloquently stated, and positive measures, which are beneficial, tangible and sustainable.
In the end, if we refer to the text, departments should ask the following: In acting in this way, are we helping to enhance the vitality of this minority? Or are we harming the minority or having no effect on it? If we must find positive measures, it is in order to enhance the vitality of these communities.
You focus greatly on communities, on the community's side of things, on how people should. . . In fact, I will get back to that, I will keep a second question for the second round.
Clearly, in an ideal world, we would strive for genuine equality between the communities, be they minority communities or anything else. Do you think we will reach this goal? I think you are providing us with some good solutions. I find your report extraordinary and we did not have to deal with lofty legal terminology. Those of us who are not lawyers appreciate that. Do you believe that if we can ensure that officials in departments and institutions read, understand and act as you suggest, we will one day reach full equality? Come on, be optimistic!
Mr. Léger: I would like to be. I do not want to say that I am a pessimist either, but we were pondering the subject and we determined that what is important in the end is knowing we are headed in the right direction. If we are headed towards genuine equality, we know that we are making the right decisions. That is essentially what we find in Part VII; not every decision must absolutely lead to genuine equality forthwith, and it does not have to be the sole concern of each institution to reach this goal as soon as possible, but it is important to know whether the decisions that are being made lead us toward genuine equality or not, and if they do, those are the right decisions.
Mr. Létourneau: I personally am optimistic. I think it requires a change in mindset and that is exactly what Part VII provides. I believe minorities experience this, they know what this mindset is. This change involves seeking out all resources, working together and building things because nobody else will do it for us.
In extreme minority settings, that is often the only option. If you need a music club, community members are those who will come together to build it.
So, that is the mindset. What positive effect will my actions have? Are they beneficial, tangible, sustainable? Yes. But the real focus is on the fact that the things we do are not simply procedural, calculated, they are not part of government operations, but they have a genuine effect on the minority and can enhance it.
The simple fact of going to a Canada Post outlet and mailing a letter in French can sometimes be extraordinary. And the more often it is done, the more other people do it and that is how we will reach our goals. I know many immigrants and majority group members who like to define themselves this way or speak the minority language.
It is a change in mindset, I believe.
Ms. Corriveau: Actually, the only thing I wanted to add to that, and you were mentioning positive measures earlier on, is that Part VII is proving that it works. The Federal Court recently gave us an example of this in Picard. You are already aware of the Picard case, but to summarize briefly, it is the case of an engineer who wanted to ask for a patent, and the patent application form was only available in the language of the application. In other words, if the application is in English, the information on the patent is in English. The Picard decision changed things somewhat, in application of Part VII. They said that from now on, all patent requests will be translated in both languages or at the very least, the essential information will be, in other words, a summary of the patents will be available in both languages. That is evidence of a positive measure, we believe, and proof that it is working.
So once again, as Richard was saying, I think it is a step towards genuine equality.
Senator Champagne: We want people to do this in a positive way, not because they may incur legal action.
The Chair: Ms. Roy, did you have anything to add in response to Senator Champagne's question?
Ms. Roy: Personally, as an optimist, I share Matthew's opinion. It is true that Part VII is a step in the right direction. My colleagues have accurately expressed the feelings we all share.
Senator Tardif: I want to congratulate you, dear students, for this excellent work and for your excellent presentation. I also want to acknowledge the work and important part your professor, Professor Power, played in supporting you and providing you with such good direction. This is an excellent initiative.
I would also like to tell you that I find it heartwarming to see you expressing yourselves in French with such ease and eloquence on a subject relating to fostering the development of official language minority communities in Canada. Bravo! It is really heartwarming.
You have shown us a document which quite clearly identifies positive measures, negative measures and situations we could consider omissions; very concrete examples. You discussed the scope of Part VII and its relation with other parts of the Official Languages Act quite clearly.
I have a number of comments and questions. I know our time is limited. You have indicated, on a number of occasions in your document that negative measures could undermine the development of official language minorities. In which way? What would be the criteria?
Ms. Corriveau: We developed a concrete example of the application of a negative measure in the criteria I referred to earlier on. If you will allow me, I can give you an example of what that could be.
In Forum des maires de la péninsule acadienne canadienne v. Canada (Food Inspection Agency), you have one example. In New Brunswick, the Food Inspection Agency transferred four seasonal inspector positions from its office in Shippagan, northeastern New Brunswick to Shediac, in southeastern New Brunswick, but staff management was transferred to the Blacks Harbour office in southwestern New Brunswick. The agency claimed that the transfer was needed first of all because of a decline in fisheries and the moving of fish products to processing plants in southeastern New Brunswick.
If I refer to the initial analysis, briefly, the agency is considered a federal institution within the meaning of the Official Languages Act. Does the decision to transfer human resources undermine the development of the minority in the Acadian Peninsula? Yes. The agency's decision to eliminate bilingual positions in the Acadian Peninsula has a negative effect because job opportunities are particularly precarious in the Acadian Peninsula because of its weak economy.
The decision therefore infringes upon the status and use of both official languages in the peninsula and therefore undermines the development of minorities.
Is the agency's goal important enough to justify negative measures? Yes. The agency's decision is related to a genuine or urgent concern, that of the decline in the fisheries sector and of the change in location of processing plants. It is indeed a genuine concern because the federal institution must be able to govern and enjoy discretionary authority to fulfil its mandate.
Is there a rational link between the agency's decision to transfer its staff and its consideration of the decline in fisheries and the fact that processors had to move? No. And this is why.
It is normal and rational for the agency to want to consider the decline in fisheries because the agency wants to maximize its human resources according to its needs. Nevertheless, the number of positions is not changing. It is simply a transfer from one region to the next. The bilingual nature of these positions does not change either. Managers in Blacks Harbour must travel to oversee the staff that was transferred. At what cost?
The decision to transfer employees to one region rather than another is not rational because the agency was unable to demonstrate that there would be savings.
Is the prejudice caused to the minority in the Acadian Peninsula of minimal significance? No. The agency did not consider the number of remaining bilingual staff in its decision so as to continue offering services in both official languages pursuant to Part IV of the act. Four jobs were lost in the peninsula, one of the most economically disadvantaged regions in the country. The outcome of the transfer is very significant and the agency could have, at the very least, transferred positions to another region, in Shediac or to the peninsula where the needs were high. The agency should have at least consulted with the minority before making its decision.
Senator Tardif: Thank you. Yes, I had read that example. Would the criteria then be consulting with the community before making a decision? What is the relationship between Part IV and Part VII of the act? Where do you find that Part VII must enhance the requirements of Part IV?
Mr. Létourneau: If you look at both parts, it is clear that Part VII will have an impact on Part IV. In this example, it goes beyond the issue of offering services in the Acadian Peninsula or in New Brunswick. For procedural reasons, Part VII must enhance Part IV. We believe that to be the case because, as we have just shown, the government's commitment is that it will consult because it has an obligation to do so under section 41(3). We believe this commitment goes a little further. It will deal with this institution considering its interests and the general context and will ask to work more directly with it to find a beneficial solution which is tangible and sustainable for these francophones who may lose their jobs and feel the effects of this negative measure, not only economically, but also from a language standpoint. This negative measure will strike a blow against the language, its development and obligations under Part VII. We believe that according to the calculations in Part IV, it would not be sufficient to deal with this commitment. So both work together.
Mr. Léger: Part IV itself refers to services. It deals with services more coldly than Part VII would. The concern is simply whether there is significant demand that the office or federal institution in question should meet, or it refers to the office's nature. But it is still somewhat limited. Furthermore, courts have found the regulations identifying the beneficiaries under Part IV to not be aggressive enough.
On some occasions, the regulations under Part IV, identifying the beneficiaries, did not meet their objectives.
Part VII not only addresses situations where there is significant demand, it also refers to situations where these services could be used for the development of minorities, in other words to accomplish the purpose of Part VII. So, here is an additional consideration. The services are not simply there to play nice, but rather to contribute to the development of minority communities. This principle is recognized in law and in sociology. For them to develop, minorities need the support of strong institutions. In my opinion, that is how Part VII can enhance Part IV.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I join with other committee members to extend a warm welcome to you all. I want to commend you on your diligent work.
You say in paragraph 35, page 16, of your excellent brief, that federal institutions allow official language minorities in Canada to affirm their existence, to come together, to control their own destiny. Part VII must meet these goals in concert with Part IV, dealing with communications.
My question is somewhat more philosophical in nature, but it goes right to the crux of the issue. As you know, the Official Languages Act will turn 41 this year. These last 40 years have indeed shown that the demands made by francophone community leaders of their members, their base, to ask for services in French, have led to the assimilation of many francophones in a minority setting. Receiving government services in French is simply a small part of daily life for the vast majority of francophones who do not work in providing these services. Yet, that is the focus of the vast majority of the demands made by advocacy groups.
We have also noticed that the media we deal with have a huge effect on a daily basis. These media lag woefully behind when it comes to francophones and are not feeling the pressure brought to bear by our advocacy groups, which fact allows them to continue with the status quo. Asking for French services on an up-to-date website does not count for much.
This action leads to the same results. Should we not change the frame of reference for francophones to keep their gains and make progress? Perhaps we should think outside the box and focus more on promoting French than bilingualism. What do you think?
Mr. Léger: With all due respect, I disagree with the premise according to which federal institutions have a minimal role to play in fostering the development of minority language communities. This principle comes from the Montfort decision where it was determined that the hospital had a major role to play in the francophone community. There was discussion of the image that the community related to and around which it came together. It went beyond simply service delivery, it had to do with key turning points in the course of people's lives where they felt recognized by an institution having enormous weight.
I would go even further. For a minority community, ultimate acknowledgement would be the fact that its government belongs to it and that it belongs to the government as well.
The fact that on a daily basis individuals can receive services from all federal institutions in French, in their own language, strengthens this feeling. People then feel a sense of belonging towards their government, rather than a feeling of being second-class citizens. People sense that there is no need for them to be assimilated in order to work, to educate their children or to travel throughout the country. People can say "it is my country too." To me federal institutions can meet this goal.
An excellent way to uphold Part VII is to have concern for the services offered in official languages throughout Canada.
Mr. Létourneau: I would like to add a few words.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I do have a small comment to make.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Perhaps I will allow Mr. Létourneau to speak first.
Mr. Létourneau: I understand what you are saying and I share your views. Federal institutions are not alone in playing this part. However, each and every opportunity to express themselves in their own language is precious to minorities. As my colleague pointed out, it is important to feel that one's language is valued. Part VII, in fact, aims to value the minority language.
I agree with the fact that there needs to be a change in the frame of reference. We note that some francophone communities are more subject to assimilation than others. I would not hesitate, particularly in the presence of Senator Tardif, to refer to the success of the Saint-Jean campus in Edmonton. The Saint-Jean campus works very well thanks to its community. Federal institutions like post offices, census offices and Statistics Canada offices play a part in this community, but its success goes even further. Every time measures are taken people cooperate and examine the situation.
In our document we referred to an example of a government project to promote French teaching in Alberta. The project targeted the Saint-Jean campus to have it play an active role.
The focus was on linguistic duality rather than on bilingualism. All that it takes is to create well-integrated spaces, that operate and allow the minority language to flourish.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I had a short answer for Mr. Léger. You have given us a good example. Clearly, you do not have to agree with my comments.
Mr. Léger: I am not saying that I disagree.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: You know, the situation differs from one part of the country to another. In small communities where there are not enough francophones, there are no French services. There is a great deal of inequality throughout the country and the situation is not always rosy.
Mr. Léger: Indeed, the option to go further with the services would be ideal. Matthew in fact referred to some interesting examples of this.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: These examples are very positive.
Senator Losier-Cool: My question follows up on your responses. You have provided a number of examples and mentioned the Montfort Hospital. In your thought process, your research and the discussions you had, have you realized to what extent the strides we have made are due to the fact that we have gone before the courts? We had to go before the courts and fight for everything we got. In fact, you yourselves bear witness to that. I remember having to fight for French schools, for us to have our own schools and our own educational system, you may have learnt that in your French classes. Did this issue arise for you?
Mr. Léger: Yes, at first we were taking Professor Power's language rights course, then there was the evolution of language rights from the start, and then there was a session with Justice Bastarache who told us about his personal experience. Obviously, we did not experience this ourselves, but we are aware of the difficult fight for language rights. The process before the courts took a long time. A great many changes took place over the last 25 years and more. Part VII may even be the end result of all that and may be a paradox in the sense that it asks officials to be responsible for taking positive measures before we need to go before the courts to ask for them, and at the same time, it is a powerful tool for legal action if they do not do this.
Senator Losier-Cool: That was the context behind my question, leading me to Part VII. I will get back to you with another question later on. Ms. Corriveau, you had something to add?
Ms. Corriveau: My colleague summarized everything, in fact. Part VII is a way to proceed while avoiding having to go before the courts. If it does not work, the option to go before the Federal Court ultimately exists, but the purpose is to provide officials with the tools they need to make enlightened decisions with some consideration for the impact these decisions may have on communities. Part VII is mainly about that, always remaining conscious of the impact decisions have on communities.
Senator Boisvenu: Congratulation to our witnesses and welcome, specifically to Ms. Corriveau, who lives in the most beautiful part of Canada. She does a wonderful job of protecting the rights of the anglophone minority, in fact, and should be held up as an example.
Legislation is important if what it serves to protect is important. Your study is not a sociological or psychological study on the human behaviour of federal officials.
My first question is the following: In the work that you have undertaken, have you met with some of these officials? My second question: Did you sense that these federal officials were sensitive to minorities or to the thrust of your project? My third question: Are we moving ahead or moving backwards in terms of our federal officials' sensitivity to carrying out their mandate to protect cultural and linguistic minorities in the context of their organization's mission?
Ms. Corriveau: To respond to your first question, it was not necessarily our objective to meet with officials. That said, it could have been interesting indeed. As to whether we are moving forward or backwards, we maintain a positive outlook. I do not feel the government is close-minded in terms of the provision of French services. Sometimes you have a goal but you do not know how to go about achieving it. Sometimes people simply need an additional tool. Perhaps this additional tool is Part VII in that it asks that one consider the real needs of the two communities we have to serve.
Mr. Létourneau: Through my research I noticed that a number of initiatives had already been taken within many institutions. There is the Bulletin 4142, and analytical grids which were created to help with the implementation of Part VII. What we are suggesting today goes beyond that. We are proposing a change in mindset, not simply an additional procedure. Things need to change so there may be progress everywhere. In some communities, progress has been made in a number of areas. I have also seen how the effects of assimilation are being felt in St. Paul. The culture is still there, in my family we are still singing the same beautiful songs, but less and less French is being spoken. Honestly, there have been improvements in some areas and setbacks in others.
Mr. Léger: It is true that we did not meet with the managers. Ultimately it was legal work of which we will spare you the details, but the focus would be on the work of managers. It is not about burdening them with tons of obligations regarding concern for minorities. First we establish requirements, then as Monick expressed earlier on, there comes a point where there is an obligation to act. It is not so much about the manager's other obligations, but rather about taking these things into account when making decisions. In some cases, managers will have to set aside a positive measure that could be taken because there are other considerations they must contend with. We did not meet with managers, but we know their work is very complex and they have many obligations to weigh, something we are not disregarding. It would not be advisable to disregard that.
Are managers aware of the issue? Part VII is brand new. I would imagine they would like to have a tool at their disposal to weigh these considerations.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you for the thoughtfulness and scholarship with which you addressed the subject this evening in your report.
When Justice Bastarache appeared before us, he spoke eloquently about these issues. He concluded with the suggestion that perhaps there should be less regulation and more emphasis on the culture of the communities and community education and acceptance.
In paragraph 5 of section A.1 of the executive summary of your report, you suggest a "new direction for the commitment by federal institutions by encouraging greater emphasis on the community aspect." Could you explain what you mean by that?
Mr. Létourneau: I think what is meant may also relate to Senator Boisvenu's question. The promotion of the French language or the English language in a minority setting works well where government institutions learn from the community, which is faced with, confronts and works hard to address challenges daily. We listed some examples, especially in part E of our report. I will draw your attention to paragraph 97. We list a few examples; there are not many, but they might help explain what we are proposing.
For example, I would like to talk about École Sainte-Anne, which I believe is in Nova Scotia. There is a promotion aspect in the act creating this school that links it to the federal institution. This allows it to become a cultural centre that has an influence directly on the federal institution. The institution will learn from and relay what is happening and can have a positive impact, while at the same time respecting provincial education obligations. Campus Saint Jean, the example I gave at paragraph 37, citation 32, began as an accord signed between Canada and Alberta to help promote French.
The promotion aspect is directly linked to Part VII of the Official Languages Act: seek out the communities where it is working and do what they can with that in place. That is the community aspect because, personally, I have seen that it has worked best.
The Chair: Is the Saint-Jean agreement an example of a positive measure?
[Translation]
Mr. Létourneau: Absolutely. It meets the tests.
Senator Mockler: You have made a wonderful presentation and I encourage you to continue with your work. I must say that I am quite pleased to hear your comments. Our communities are in good hands. However, we must constantly fight for our rights, as they cannot be sold.
When I was a minister in New Brunswick, I took part in updating the Official Languages Act, an act which, in 1988, allowed us to manage our own French schools in New Brunswick.
What do you think of the "inclusive" definition of the francophonie, as set out by Ontario's French Language Services Commissioner? Do you believe it would be possible to apply this definition? There are governments at the provincial and federal level that have various constitutional responsibilities; do you believe this definition would apply to services offered by the federal government to all official language minority communities in the country?
Mr. Léger: I do not know the Ontario Official Languages Act in detail, but if I recall, based on a presentation from Commissioner Bilodeau, one of the main concerns was exogamous households, in other words mixed marriages, and the inability to account for their numbers before the change was made. Obviously, the test for Part IV regulations in the federal Official Languages Act is the language spoken at home. I think there was something similar in the Ontario act, I believe.
Most often exogamous homes are not accounted for under this test. Studies that have been published on the subject point to the fact that exogamous homes tend to use the majority language. That does not prevent the children or one of the two spouses from speaking the minority language. We also know that the legal principle indicates that even if there is limited capacity to speak the language, individuals should benefit from language rights as provided in the act, be it in Ontario or at the federal level.
So yes, it is a good idea to draw inspiration from what is done elsewhere. Failures have been pinpointed in Canadian case law when it comes to the federal Official Languages Act. What is done in Ontario is a possible source of inspiration, and we should also take into consideration recent immigrants who may not yet have chosen a language or who may be members of one community or the other. There are a number of factors that need to be considered, and they are sometimes difficult to predict.
The biggest problem may be that the regulations are too technical or static. They attempt to identify rights holders once and for all and for everyone, something which is not obvious. I would say that to focus on exogamous homes is already a step in the right direction.
The Chair: I would like to point out, honourable senators, that we have barely 15 minutes left.
Senator Losier-Cool: I would also like to congratulate you. I applaud you for your vision. I remember all the battles we have fought and I believe they may have served a purpose. You are living proof of that.
I would like to get back to paragraphs 16 and 17 seeking to identify positive and negative measures. You said that the purpose of a positive measure is for it to be beneficial, lasting and tangible. During a past meeting of our committee, we discussed the issue of impact and you referred to linguistic impact.
Let us consider Environment Canada; like an environmental impact, there could be a linguistic impact that is felt. But at that point, how do we measure it, as to whether it would be beneficial, lasting and tangible? Can linguistic impacts be measured in the same way as environmental impacts can?
Ms. Corriveau: I believe so; and the most concrete example of that arose a number of years ago when the government decided to abolish or limit the scope of the Court Challenges Program. That has a linguistic impact and, according to us, amounts to a negative measure in the development of official language minority groups. If this situation had been assessed in light of the criteria set out earlier, we could have clearly determined that the linguistic impact was commensurate with what communities could feel in terms of an environmental impact. The fact that communities have lost the resources they need to uphold fundamental rights amounts to a linguistic impact.
Senator Losier-Cool: You are answering my next question, because I wanted to ask you for an example of this type of impact.
Ms. Roy: We could indeed develop methods to measure the linguistic impacts on our official language minority communities.
Historically, we know what the effects of assimilation have been. Minorities, to use case law terms, are in the best position to identify ways to address the challenges of assimilation and therefore to develop methods to measure linguistic impact. We should refer to history, knowing that some situations are more likely to cause lasting problems for minorities.
Senator Losier-Cool: I would like to get back to your three tests to determine whether a measure is positive: it has to be beneficial, lasting and tangible. Lasting to what extent? Take for instance some seasonal activity. It could be something to encourage the participation of language groups, it is tangible, we can see it. It could be a bilingual mosquito festival. It would be beneficial and it would sting. But to what extent would it be lasting? Must it always be lasting for it to be positive?
Ms. Roy: I do not believe so, no. I do not think things need to last eternally. Language rights are quite malleable and flexible. It is impossible to predict whether something could last forever. In our analysis, the lasting aspect of our definition of positive measures had to do with knowing that in some way, the minorities benefiting from the positive measure initiated by the federal institution would be able to enjoy it over the long term.
The Chair: We only have a few minutes left for the second round of questions. I would ask honourable senators to ask specific questions of one specific person. I would also ask witnesses to respond as concisely as possible.
Senator Champagne: Mr. Létourneau, you were referring to Sainte-Anne University in Nova Scotia. They really are playing their part for the French language. Every year they welcome young people from Louisiana who come to study in French.
In your document you refer to the duty to consult in light of the principle of substantive equality. You focus greatly on the importance of the community aspect. Maybe that would mean that cities like Kootenay, British Columbia, where there are two French-language schools and a French cultural centre, would be given special status as a bilingual area, something it does not have today.
You were referring to working with hospitals. That causes a conflict in terms of areas of jurisdiction, because health is provincial, but it would seem to me that if we were to speak to those people who established these schools and this francophone community centre, we could take a positive step and give that area bilingual status, be it at the post office or elsewhere. What does focusing on the community side of things mean to you?
Mr. Létourneau: You have completely understood what we are proposing. Where there are institutions, there are schools. There will be students, and also teachers who work in French. If there is a post office, other people can work bilingually. We need to use our imagination and think for a moment that perhaps francophone immigrants might want to move to British Columbia, if you take Kootenay as an example, so why not direct them to the areas where there are francophone schools? So, yes, building the community, perhaps even helping them, but not preventing these attempts, that is what Part VII does.
Senator Champagne: Enhancing the vitality. You are quite right.
Senator Tardif: The Commissioner of Official Languages stated that he was not impressed with the way in which the government is managing the implementation of this part of the act. The response has been slow and minimalistic according to him.
What would it take for federal institutions and the government to ensure the implementation of your suggestions? You indicated that it was a handbook, with guidelines. What is needed? What is preventing us from ensuring full implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act?
Ms. Corriveau: Not meaning to sound trite, but a dialogue, a consensus on the way in which to proceed before making decisions, a way of thinking, things to think of automatically before making decisions. That would already be a step in the right direction.
Mr. Léger: I think we agree on the same point. It would have to do with the way in which things are done. The main focus is a change in attitude, a new way of proceeding, asking questions before making decisions. Just as is the case for environmental impact studies, linguistic impact studies should be carried out to see what can be done to enhance the vitality of minority communities. We need to change our way of thinking and acting in the decision-making process. It needs to be as fundamental as that.
Senator Tardif: How can we ensure change in attitudes with regard to bureaucracy and the machinery of government?
Mr. Létourneau: Unfortunately, we do not have public management training. However, a website identifies the offices providing French-language services to the community. An example that I thought of during research, would be to have a data base of communities able to collaborate and develop policies more focused on specific needs, a more attractive data base, to identify the institutions that are doing a good job, so as to help federal institutions dealing with the same issues.
The Chair: If you have other ideas or other answers to Senator Tardif's question, you could send them to our committee clerk who will then distribute them to the committee members.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Mélanie, could you summarize for us the main conclusions of your research project?
Ms. Roy: The main findings of our research are that Part VII plays a much larger role in the Official Languages Act and consequently, in order to take into consideration the objectives of the Official Languages Act, Part VII must be applied in all parts, particularly with regard to the provision of services. The first conclusion is that Part VII plays a much broader role, to the extent that it is important to identify the rights holders in a more flexible, more inclusive fashion that is less mathematical.
Another conclusion is to provide an assessment model, so, not only a model that could be used for legal purposes, but before we even get there, a public servant or a federal institution should be able to obtain information on what we are trying to provide, so as to be able to ensure the implementation of Part VII.
A third conclusion, and I would add this in response to Senator Tardif's question, is that I believe, in order to be more efficient and faster, that there needs to be collaboration among federal institutions, not only with minority language organizations, but also amongst themselves; they must open a communications network among federal institutions to ensure the implementation of Part VII as efficiently as possible.
Senator Mockler: On the topic of positive measures, could you share your comments on the new Language Rights Support Program — I myself believe in modernizing our institutions — which is replacing the Court Challenges Program. Is this a positive measure?
Mr. Létourneau: That is a somewhat difficult question, it has changed extensively since the last version, some things have been changed. With regard to positive measures, it is not really a step further than what was already in place. It has also changed in order to look at model cases. There is a very good part of the program, which is to seek out alternative ways of resolving problems, which is encouraging. But with regard to looking at model cases, although we want to avoid as much as possible having to go to the courts and to ensure a positive culture under Part VII, I am not convinced that we can talk about positive measures yet.
Senator Mockler: Perhaps it is a matter of having the tools to ensure a balance.
Ms. Corriveau: Exactly.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Mockler, for having kept your comments brief.
On behalf of honourable senators, I would like to thank you for your excellent work, for your excellent presentations and the rigour you brought to your comments and your answers.
As you can tell, the honourable senators would continue asking you questions, but we are short of time. So, on their behalf, I want to thank you very much and I want to particularly thank your professor, Mr. Mark Power, who in my opinion guided you quite aptly, because you have made a very personal contribution, a contribution about your life experience as well as a group contribution.
So, thank you very much and good luck in the future. We will suspend the meeting for a few minutes and we will resume with the next witness.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, we will continue our meeting. As you know, the committee is currently studying the implementation of Part VII of the Official Languages Act and various federal institutions. We now have with us a representative of Statistics Canada, Mr. Réjean Lachapelle, Special Advisor on demolinguistics, who will speak to us about the status of the implementation of Part VII within his organization, in addition to telling us about the results of various studies recently published in by Statistics Canada on official languages.
Sir, the committee thanks you for having accepted our invitation to appear. I now invite you to begin your remarks and senators will then ask questions.
Réjean Lachapelle, Special Advisor, Statistics Canada: Madam Chair, I would like to thank you for having invited us. I am appearing before you as an official on demolinguistics at Statistics Canada, where I have been since 1984. That is a long time. I will be retiring tomorrow. So if I testify before the committee in the future it will be wearing a different hat.
Senator Losier-Cool: This is a wonderful way to end your career.
Mr. Lachapelle: As part of its activities, Statistics Canada works actively to inform Canadians about the situation of official languages in Canada. In cooperation with representatives of the Official Language Secretariat of Canadian Heritage and other key federal departments and agencies, we regularly consult the users of our data, in official language minority communities and in universities, as well as in federal, provincial and territorial departments and agencies.
[English]
Statistics Canada is actively involved in collecting and disseminating statistics on official language minorities. Thanks to the census and case surveys of interest to official language minorities, such as the post-censal survey on the vitality of official language minorities, we provide useful information for evaluating and developing official language programs and policy in Canada. We do this notably for the implementation and evaluation of the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality. We take advantage of numerous forums to which we are invited to inform users about available sources of data and to promote the use of quantitative data and research on official languages. We offer users our support and cooperation.
The champions of official languages at Statistics Canada send an annual message to all staff to raise their awareness of the needs of official language minorities communities and to invite them to help achieve the objective of the agency action plan that you have received.
Last July, the new Chief Statistician, Mr. Munir Sheikh, sent a message on the advancement of English and French in Canadian society. Among other things, he invited employees to increase emphasis on the linguistic dimension when gathering data in surveys and also to increase sample size, with the support of our partners, in surveys important for minorities to enable a refined analysis from an official language lens.
In 2008, Statistics Canada updated information in its brochure on language that has been widely disseminated. I will provide copies of this brochure to the clerk. The brochure offers general information on the availability and use of data about official language minorities. We also regularly publish short articles on subjects of interest to minority communities in Canadian Heritage Bulletin 41-42. The DVD entitled Portrait of Official-language Communities in Canada is a compilation of data from the 2006 Census of interest to official language minority groups. It was released in March 2009 following consultation with the main users of previous editions on how to improve the product to make it easier to use and to increase its analytical potential. For specialized users of databases, in August 2009, we released a document entitled Statistics Canada Data Sources on Official-Language Minorities.
[Translation]
In January 2008, Canadian Heritage organized a national symposium on official languages research issues. Statistics Canada helped to organize it and contributed to its success through general presentations and active participation in the workshops. This was an opportunity to present the trends that emerged from the Census 2006 data and those from the postcensal survey on the vitality of official language minorities. Both sets of data were released in December 2007, both a month earlier.
I want to quote from one of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages' reports, a report that was released a year and a half ago:
This survey is a positive measure in itself. It was made possible thanks to the support and assistance of the Official Languages Secretariat and several federal departments and agencies, including the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
In addition to the initial publication Minorities Speak Up: Results of the 2006 Survey on the Vitality of Official- Language Minorities, released in December 2007, there have been many presentations dealing with its various aspects in meetings or scientific conferences.
Statistics Canada does not receive funding for its official languages activities out of the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality. We have nevertheless been provided with long-term funding from Canadian Heritage's Official Languages Secretariat to support it in its analysis, planning and evaluation activities.
For specific projects, like the survey on the vitality of official-language minorities, we require financial assistance from interested federal departments and agencies. The same applies to in-depth analytical studies. For example, at the request of Health Canada and thanks to the financial assistance that department provided, we conducted a study entitled Health Care Professionals and Official-Language Minorities in Canada, 2001 and 2006. This was released in April 2009.
Statistics Canada's proactive contribution to the implementation of section 41 of the Official Languages Act therefore depends on the financial support of federal departments and agencies that are funded by the Roadmap. We have always been able to count on their support, particularly that of the Official Languages Secretariat of Canadian Heritage. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lachapelle. We will now begin our round of questions with Senator Tardif.
Senator Tardif: Mr. Lachapelle, thank you for being here today and I want to wish you a wonderful retirement.
I also want to congratulate you because I see that the Official Languages Commissioner assessed Statistics Canada based on your performance with regard to the implementation of the Official Languages Act and in general, you have received a rating from good to exemplary, particularly with regard to Part VII. I see too that the fact that you conducted surveys of the official language communities could be a sign of positive measures and support for those communities.
Could you tell me if you have a relationship with the provincial governments and if so, how you relate to the provincial governments to ensure the implementation of Part VII?
Mr. Lachapelle: In fact, there are annual meetings with the provincial ministers responsible for promoting the official languages, and in particular for francophone minorities outside Quebec. In general, when we are asked to make presentations on national trends based on our data, we are very happy to do so. It is a way that we can hear a number of suggestions. In my opinion, these meetings where we are presented with results are a very effective way of operating. We have closer ties with Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. Sometimes, organizations call us and we speak with them to try to better understand their concerns. In Ontario, in particular, we have followed the situation closely. We have provided them with the data they need to be able to put in place what they call an inclusive definition of the francophonie.
Senator Tardif: I fully recognize how important your work is. With regard to this inclusive definition of the francophonie, do you believe there is a connection between Part VII and Part IV, in the sense that Part VII could be used to improve Part IV of the Official Languages Act with regard to communications and services?
Mr. Lachapelle: At Statistics Canada, we must remain as neutral as possible with regard to policy. We cannot either directly or indirectly comment on any policies at any level of government. Nearly all statistics offices act similarly. Since we are responsible for collecting data from all Canadians, we must have the support of all Canadians, particularly when we are conducting a census. Everyone believes that our organization must remain neutral in this regard. This does not prevent us however from helping to clarify the situation. For example, with regard to Part IV, immediately after the act was passed in 1988, I remember personally meeting with Treasury Board, which was looking for information on how, quantitatively, a new definition of the word francophone could be found. Because, at that time, the old act from 1969 defined francophones as individuals whose mother tongue was French. This was based on the recommendations of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission.
At the time, the federal government was concerned about expanding the definition of francophone and anglophone to take into consideration the fact that there was an increase in the number of people whose mother tongue was neither French nor English, what we often call allophones, in order to determine whether this subpopulation would seek services in French or English. Based on the idea of adopting a new definition, which became the first language spoken, Statistics Canada prepared a publication that Treasury Board used during consultations. But, in that publication, we had presented a range of definitions in order to be certain that Treasury Board would pick one that was not Statistics Canada's definition.
That is how the first language spoken was defined in general by us through the data available at that time. To that end, it was used in the regulations on the implementation of Part IV.
With regard to Part VII, some people said that a different definition than the one used for official languages could be considered for beneficiaries. Our role is to say what data we have and how we can group that data, what are the advantages and disadvantages of doing things differently and also highlighting the fact that Canadian censuses are by far the ones with the most linguistic data in the world. There are seven questions on language. In many countries there is only one. At the UN, countries that so wish are usually encouraged to include one question on language, a range of three options. In model surveys, we have one question, sometimes two, sometimes three and sometimes four.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Welcome, Mr. Lachapelle.
My question concerns projections. In its study on the diversity of the Canadian population by 2031, Statistics Canada missed an opportunity to shed more light on the linguistic evolution of the country over the next 20 years. It refers to ethnicities, allophones, visible minorities, religious beliefs, but why not then extrapolate projections on the evolution of French and English as a mother tongue? Perhaps nobody asked for it.
Let us not forget that, during the last census, those with French as a mother tongue represented no more than 22 per cent of Canadians, approximately 21 per cent if we use the definition of language most often spoken at home. However, this proportion has been falling for decades. In 1961, more than 28 per cent of Canadians identified French as their mother tongue. Then, over 26 per cent identified French as the language most often spoken at home in 1961. We can expect another drop in 2011. This situation is, to say the least, a great concern and it warrants projections to be made to 2031. I would like to hear your comments on the lack of projections for the evolution of French and English as the mother tongues of Canadians by 2031.
Mr. Lachapelle: The reason that we did not compile projections on mother tongues is that many people would have criticized them. Mother tongues are considered an imperfect indicator of what makes up official language minorities, official language groups. We also need to consider that the first official language spoken, a more complex variable used by the federal government that distributes allophones between French and English, better reflects the use of languages in the public sphere.
It is important to remember the drop in the ratio of French as a mother tongue. This drop has long been identified and anticipated. In the late 1970s, I wrote a major publication with Jacques Henripin in which we predicted in a very simple way that the ratio of French as a mother tongue as a proportion would continue to decrease for one simple reason.
We have seen a very major change in Canadian demographics since the early 1960s. We have seen a major drop in the fertility rate.
This situation is not unique to Canada. This is occurring throughout the world; in developed countries and now even elsewhere. And this drop is very significant, for francophones even more than for anglophones.
For example, for francophones outside Quebec, women had on average 5 children at the end of the 1950s. In 15 years, this went to less than 2. It is now 1.5. Furthermore, outside Quebec, approximately 70 per cent of women pass their mother tongue to their children; so, on top of the 1.5, that is far below the generation replacement threshold. The strong fertility rate was the only factor that heavily favoured French speakers.
International migration has never been a factor, since the proportion of immigrants speaking French as a mother tongue has always been low and language transfers and displacements among third languages are often much higher towards English; this was even more true in the past.
So we expected this drop and we also expect that the numbers will drop in the future. That is not the challenge. The challenge is saying that when a country like Canada has been receiving a very high number of immigrants since the end of the 1980s, some 20 years, we are seeing an increase both in the numbers and the proportion of allophones.
As proof, even the proportion of mother-tongue speakers of English is quickly dropping. This is what happens to majorities when migration becomes the main growth factor and migrants have neither French nor English as a mother tongue. It is almost a given. I remember writing pages on this subject 30 years ago.
But that is not the challenge. The challenge is trying to understand how not only mother tongue populations and language spoken at home populations will evolve — this is the information we have — but also how it will evolve in the public sphere. And in the public sphere, we see this when we look at the first language spoken and we try to distribute the allophones into English or French.
For example, English around the country or outside Quebec has not dropped. With regard to French in Quebec, there is a traditional competition between French and English. Those are the two major factors: the drop in the fertility rate starting at the end of the 1950s, which changed the landscape, and the new transformation driven by international immigration starting at the end of the 1980s.
There is perhaps a third element, one that helps to better understand the situation in Quebec: there was a huge drop in the anglophone population due to migrational losses between approximately 1966 and 2001. But this phenomenon really slowed down between 2001 and 2006. All this needs to be examined and it requires in-depth studies that have yet to be done. We could have done something very simple, but we would have been subject to very harsh criticism. We need to put in place a very specialized research team, either inside or outside Statistics Canada.
That is an issue I find particularly interesting. You are right in the sense that we are seeing a considerable increase in the number of allophones. Their numbers today have reached 20 per cent, and we expect that the proportion will exceed 30 per cent by 2031. Of course, the size of the two other groups will decrease.
That does not mean that the use of French and English will decrease in public life, in our interactions with government, because our institutions basically offer services in French and English.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: That concerns me. I read an article that stated that only 15 per cent of newcomers choose French. The others all choose English: in the rest of the country — particularly in the western provinces — many immigrants do not even bother to learn either French or English. I am concerned by that. If you are worried, then so am I.
Mr. Lachapelle: It is not so much that I am worried; the issue is of interest to me as the subject of projection work, in order to clearly see and better understand the consequences of large-scale immigration as a way to alleviate demographic decline.
Senator Boisvenu: I have a question that will probably be the most difficult of your career — no doubt, the latest in a series — but I do have to ask it because every decline leads to an end.
No decline observed over long periods, say 30 or 40 years, fails to come to an end. At some point, there is an end somewhere, especially with regard to languages and minorities.
On page 8 of the report that we were given, the latest census data do not seem to be very good news for francophone communities in minority situations. I think that is true particularly for western Canada. New Brunswick is still quite vibrant; because of its close proximity to Quebec, but also because the francophone community in New Brunswick is very dynamic, although it has a very weak growth rate and its members are less and less inclined to use French in the home.
When do you forecast that the census figures for francophones in western Canada will reach zero?
Mr. Lachapelle: We do not see declines that reach zero.
Senator Boisvenu: Or the point of insignificance?
Mr. Lachapelle: There is only statistical significance. I am a demographer; I think it is an important field of study that deals with significant phenomena. However, there are other ways to look at reality. I am generally open-minded.
Senator Boisvenu: Aside from the folkloric element that those communities will eventually represent, the time will come when, if we do not find ways to revitalize and protect those communities, with the support of government officials who will make it their mission to do so, the number of francophones will eventually dwindle to next to nothing, even in everyday reality.
Mr. Lachapelle: British Columbia and Alberta have seen their numbers of francophones increase through significant immigration. Clearly, the times when French Canadians left Quebec to settle the West and create entire francophone villages are over. Those structures gradually eroded. Francophones today are living in the major cities. But when you visit those places, you see activities taking place, there is a definite vitality. We mentioned the Saint-Jean campus here. You have to look at what is being done; efforts are being made to try and create a neighbourhood around the campus that is francophone, or at least more francophone than normal. Efforts are being made everywhere.
You are correct, there are also marked trends, but we have to try to bring them together. Statistics Canada has produced data.
It is true that, in demographic terms — and I am used to this — the data is not always encouraging. And not only for francophone communities. As to the drop in birth rates that we see around the world, you know, there are a number of developed countries such as Italy or Spain, or parts of them, where the birth rates are so low, much lower than ours, that they actually have negative growth. How do they deal with that? Think of the Basque Country or Catalonia. It does not only affect language. In that sense, this is a challenge that all developed countries must overcome: dealing with an aging population. For minorities, the challenge is often greater.
I will give you a pertinent example. It is not up to me or to Statistics Canada to tell you how to meet this challenge, but it is a challenge nonetheless. According to the 2006 census, there were almost three times more Canadians aged 45 to 49, born in the late 1960s, than Canadians aged 0 to 4. So there has been a massive decline because of the drop in the birth rate. The challenge in the coming years will be to cope with this aging population. Quebec is facing this challenge to a lesser extent than many European countries and Japan. So it is not a phenomenon that is specific to minorities. It is a broader phenomenon, but it remains a challenge and we must experiment with different solutions and be open to what is being done elsewhere to try and find some inspiration.
As I said, our job is to try and provide an overview and also to be open to other viewpoints.
Senator Boisvenu: But you are not optimistic.
Mr. Lachapelle: You have no idea how very optimistic I am by nature!
Senator Boisvenu: You have to be when you are about to retire!
Senator Champagne: Good evening, Mr. Lachapelle. I am also a great optimist and I must say that I have a good deal of difficulty with the statements made by my colleague earlier. I am also wondering about the questions that Statistics Canada asks. You state that no country asks as many different questions about the language spoken. But right now in Alberta or British Columbia, there are a great many immersion schools where young people go to learn French. I am concerned about the francophones in Quebec who are not learning English and who are going to have problems because they do not speak both languages.
A few months ago, I was travelling to Victoria, on Vancouver Island, and the little plane I was on was full of young people who had just spent a month in France. I asked them some questions and they all spoke French very well. I would be curious to see — I have probably filled out your questionnaire at some time or other — how the questions are worded. For example, the first language spoken is one thing. But, for exogamous couples — that was my situation — I raised my two children with an anglophone father. I spoke French to them, their father spoke English to them, and he and I spoke English together, so my children were raised hearing both languages constantly. I do not know how my son would answer that question today: "What is the first language you spoke at home?", because we were constantly speaking both languages. I can tell you that I am very proud of the two perfectly bilingual adults who will be sitting at my table at Easter.
How do you count exogamous couples who speak both languages at home? Those young people may speak English, but today they speak French very well, so which category are they in, and which category will they be in when they start their own families?
I am concerned about questions that yield results that are so sad and depressing for anyone who cares about the survival and vitality of the French language in Canada.
Mr. Lachapelle: Until 1961, the Canadian census just asked two questions. They were by and large kept, and others were added. What were those two questions? They began with the 1901 census, and they have changed little since. The first question was: do you know French and English well enough to carry on a conversation? There was a choice of four answers: French only, English only, English and French, neither English nor French. By and large, that was the case in all censuses for a century; it was more or less the same question. It has changed a little since 1971. There was a question about comprehension and the ability to speak, what is often referred to as official bilingualism.
There is a traditional question, which is in section 23 of the Charter, and the definition of which was contained in the first Official Languages Act of 1969, which deals with what we call one's mother tongue. Canada has a bit of a strange definition compared with other countries, but it reflects our history. Each country has its own history. The question is: which language did you learn as a child at home and still understand? We accept multiple answers. This was not always the case, of course, because, when census officials went door to door, they had to make sure the respondent gave only one answer. But since the 1981 census, multiple answers are accepted and given. The analysts then break down the answers to establish comparisons over time.
The trends I am referring to are based on that information; the question has been included for a very long time. If the question was changed, there would have to be wide-ranging consultations beforehand, because we would not want to go against the definition in section 23 of the Charter.
Later, questions were added at the recommendation of the royal commission. The Laurendeau-Dunton commission recommended adding a question about the language spoken most frequently at home. Later, other questions were added at the recommendation of the commission and of minorities. For example, the commissioner and the minority groups said that some people — not Statistics Canada — had interpreted the answers as meaning that when French was not spoken at home, it had most often been abandoned. So another question was added in 2001: "What other languages do you regularly speak at home?", which gave a more complete picture of the situation. Two other questions were added to the 2001 census about the language spoken at work: the language spoken most often at work, and other languages spoken regularly at work.
All that provides a fairly general overview of the situation. As I have said, some questions have hardly changed in a century.
Senator Champagne: We will have to rethink some questions to find out how many francophones still speak French, and which parts of the country should be declared bilingual, to avoid situations like the one we discovered this week in Kootenay, where there are two French schools and a cultural centre, but where nothing happens in French.
It is unfortunate you are retiring. Given your experience, you could suggest questions and help government institutions and various departments find positive measures to adopt that would foster development and lead to genuine equality between French and English in our great and beautiful country.
Senator Losier-Cool: This is good timing because my question follows up on Senator Champagne's. Regarding the first official language spoken, I think that even the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Fédération des francophones would like to review this questionnaire.
Like Senator Champagne, I find it unfortunate that you are retiring. Perhaps, in the future, you could become a consultant and meet with those groups.
I would like to get back to the inclusive definition of francophones. You said earlier on that you have worked with Ontario. Could this definition apply elsewhere in Canada?
Mr. Lachapelle: Essentially, Ontario created a definition that they called inclusive and we provided data. In Ontario, some people were concerned by the fact that francophones were defined solely by the fact that they used their mother tongue.
They wanted to be inclusive and broaden the definition to include individuals whose mother tongue was neither French nor English and who have some knowledge and connection with French. What they did by bringing about this change is exactly what the federal government had done in the late 1980s.
They adopted our way of compiling data. How do we do it? Individuals are considered francophone as the result of three factors: a person would answer a question on knowledge of official languages by saying he or she could only speak French, only speak English and for those who state that they speak both French and English, there would be an assessment of the mother tongue.
So, a bilingual person whose mother tongue is French is always classified as a person who only speaks French. By that method, therefore, many people are not classified. Particularly individuals whose mother tongue is something other than French or English and who speak their own language at home.
First of all, if people speak English at home, they are put on the English side. If they speak French at home, they are put on the French side. If they always speak their third language but have a knowledge of French and English, they stay in that same category, either English or French. For the very specific group of allophones who speak a third language at home, these people have been compiled as half French, half English.
For households to be considered mixed, as people have mentioned, one of the members of a household must have identified French as the mother tongue. That person would be counted as a francophone, of course. The other, if the couple is mixed, would have English as a mother tongue, and belong to the anglophone community. As to the children, it essentially depends on their mother tongue.
The Chair: Our time is running out. I am originally from Western Canada, I have no intention of dying, nor do my children and grandchildren.
When you consider small official language minority communities, it would seem that two concepts play an even greater role in a census and have a stronger impact on small communities.
Could you tell me the significance of random rounding? What does that mean in concrete terms? Then there is the margin of error in calculations. These two concepts play a part. What is their impact? It must be more pronounced, right?
Mr. Lachapelle: Random rounding is not much of a factor. It was introduced in 1971 in order to maintain the confidentiality of the data. At that time, we had started responding to requests from people who wanted special compilations, complex tables.
If someone requests the population of a region and then asks for the population of that region less one village, if we do not use random rounding, that person can deduce all of the characteristics of the people in that village. So we use random rounding to avoid that sort of thing.
In general, the effect is straightforward because if one cell is less than ten, the figure, randomly, but taking into account its proximity to either ten or zero, is rounded to ten or to zero. It is independent. In one table, it can be ten and, in another, zero, except that if it truly is zero, it will always be zero.
All the other figures are randomly rounded. Let us assume that in one cell we have the number 18, which will be rounded to 15 or to 20. It will be rounded to 20 with a probability equal to three out of five and to 15 with a probability equal to two out of five. We ensure that it is done randomly and that, if we recompile the same table, there will be other variables to avoid problems of confidentiality.
The Chair: If I understand correctly, it is minimal. There is little impact.
Mr. Lachapelle: There is little impact.
The Chair: And what about the other factor, the margin of error?
Mr. Lachapelle: There is a margin of error for the simple reason that the linguistic questions are asked in what we call the long form which contains 50 questions. The long form is sent to one in five households.
This has been done for a long time. It is possible that some households have never received the long form. If you have received the long form, you will remember it because there are a number of complex questions on activities and on income.
The short form has very few questions and, as a result, it diminishes Canadians' respondent load. Studies have shown that normally, for most applications, one sample out of five is sufficient. In the United States, it is traditionally one sample out of six, but it varies from country to country according to their needs and traditions.
The Chair: Does the margin of error have very little impact?
Mr. Lachapelle: It depends. If you live in a small village, the margin of error exists. People have asked me about that.
We discussed this issue with them when they were drafting the regulations. As statisticians, we have ways of taking that into account, because we have a single piece of information. We use three in order to define the first official language spoken, but we nevertheless have important information in the short form. The question on mother tongue is always there. Linguistic issues are always very delicate subjects in Canada. We ask the same question but in two different contexts, and we get variations in the answers because people are aware. For example, we have many more multiple answers when our question on mother tongue is:What was the first language you learned within the family during childhood that you still understand? We get many more multiple responses when we ask that question alone, compared to when we ask it within a block of questions on languages.
The Chair: If there are no further questions, Mr. Lachapelle, I would like to thank you very sincerely. It is always very interesting to listen to you. Now, that does not necessarily mean that I understand everything you have said, and I will certainly reread the transcript of this committee meeting attentively.
Thank you very much, congratulations on your retirement, and good luck. I wish you every success, good health and thank you again.
Mr. Lachapelle: Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)