:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If memory serves me, it was the former Commissioner of Official Languages, Ms. Dyane Adam, who was one of the first to have the idea--
I will be reading a statement in English because I know that if I start to improvise, I will go beyond the 10 minutes I am allowed.
[English]
She had the idea of attracting francophone immigrants to bolster francophone minorities outside of Quebec. If one examines the studies upon which Madame Adam based her policy, they raise doubts as to the soundness of that policy.
[Translation]
The paper I am summarizing for you now appeared in the publication INROADS in 2008. I have copies, if you are interested. An earlier version also appeared in the publication Francophonies d'Amérique in French. I will be making my opening comments in English, but of course, during the question period, anything goes.
[English]
One of the studies that underlie Madame Adam's enthusiasm for the subject was prepared by Jack Jedwab, who will be with us later, I suppose. It shows that the adoption of English as the main home language reaches 50% among francophone immigrants, so French mother tongue immigrants from abroad, after only 10 years of residence in a province outside Quebec....
Jedwab also showed that Quebec's share of francophone immigration was lower than the relative weight of Quebec's francophone population within the total population of the francophone population of Canada. So right off the bat, if francophone immigrants outside Quebec assimilate so rapidly to English, while at the same time Quebec's francophone population doesn't receive its fair share of francophone immigrants to Canada, a policy encouraging even more francophones to immigrate outside Quebec doesn't look like such a good idea.
In my research, Jedwab worked with the 1996 census data. I had access to 2001 data for my French paper and 2006 data for my most recent paper in English. I found, first of all, that of the 48,000 francophones who had immigrated to Canada between 2001 and 2006, 80% were enumerated in Quebec at the 2006 census and 20% were in the rest of Canada.
Since Quebec's francophones currently weigh in at 86% of the total francophone population of Canada, as far as Quebec's share of recent francophone immigration to Canada is concerned, Quebec thus appears shortchanged indeed. In other words, the rest of Canada is already doing better than Quebec in terms of francophone immigration. This corroborates what Jedwab found using 1996 data.
I also found that within a given province outside of Quebec, the power of assimilation of English is approximately of the same order among francophones from abroad as among those born in Canada. With the exception of New Brunswick, anglicization rates of immigrant francophones are, as a rule, higher than 50%. This means that right from the very first generation, francophones from abroad contribute more to the rest of Canada's English-speaking population than to its French-speaking population. This basically corroborates Jedwab's other finding.
I examined this second point more closely by looking at the situation in several key census metropolitan areas. I found that by the age of 45, francophones from abroad contribute more to the English-speaking population than to the French-speaking population in all the metropolitan areas outside the bilingual belt. The bilingual belt runs basically from Moncton to Sault Ste. Marie, and it essentially comprises the Acadian part of New Brunswick as well as eastern and northern Ontario. It's a concept we became aware of at the time of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission. It's the neighbouring areas outside the province of Quebec that have a high percentage of francophones.
So in all the CMAs outside the bilingual belt, I repeat, by the age of 45, the assimilation of francophones to English is over 50%. In this regard, the three CMAs that stand out as exceptions to this rule are in the bilingual belt; namely, Moncton, Ottawa, and Sudbury are the only large urban centres outside Quebec where francophone newcomers are more than just a flash in the pan.
If the contribution of immigration to the francophone populations outside Quebec is to be optimized, the bilingual belt stands out as the obvious destination to favour.
Like allophones, francophones who immigrate beyond the belt are evidently more bent on bettering their lot by shifting to English than on bolstering the floundering demographics of the flimsier French-speaking minorities.
Shortly after the 2006 census, Statistics Canada carried out a survey on the linguistic vitality of francophones outside of Quebec. Statistics Canada found that a distinctly francophone identity remains well rooted solely in the bilingual belt portions of the rest of Canada. Their francophone populations are the only ones to offer a sound enough stock upon which francophone immigration can be viably grafted.
Actually, the picture was clear right from the start. At the time of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, when the reality of the bilingual belt was first recognized, it has simply become clearer, with the passage of time and the accumulation of evidence outside Quebec, that it is only within the bilingual belt--regions of New Brunswick and Ontario--that the retention of French as the main home language remains reasonably high, that francophones retain a sufficiently distinct identity, and that French still pays off enough in the workplace.
The national unity imperative has no doubt clouded the perception of this reality. Saving face vis-à-vis public opinion in Quebec has led, among other things, to the giddy concept of sustainable assimilation. This is the concept that is developed at Canadian Heritage. Presumably even an assimilation rate of 90% can be sustained if a sufficiently large stream of francophones or francophone immigrants is steadily poured into the linguistic melting pot. The problem with a contrivance of this kind is that it does nothing to enhance the long-term viability of French in Canada as a whole. The contribution of immigration to the francophone populations beyond the bilingual belt is ephemeral.
Nor should the needs of Quebec be ignored. As we have seen, Quebec is not receiving its fair share of francophone immigration to Canada, and Quebec francophones have just been jolted by a sharp drop in their share of the population in Montreal as well as in the whole of the province of Quebec. In fact, anglophone immigration to Quebec has helped the anglophone share of Quebec's population to remain stable during the 2001-2006 period. Despite Quebec's continued efforts to recruit more francophone immigrants, the recent contribution of international immigration to the province's anglophone minority was, proportionally speaking, more than double its contribution to the francophone majority.
Furthermore, francization of anglophone immigrants in Quebec is non-existent, so that anglophone immigration contributes, in full measure, to the English-speaking population of the province. Indeed, the growth rate of the English-speaking population of Quebec between 2001 and 2006 was higher in Montreal and in the whole of the province than that of the French-speaking population. Given this new state of affairs--and this is a first in Canadian census history; we have never seen this before. The relative weight of English as a mother-tongue population--those are the statistics for which we have the longest series of historical data--has always decreased since Confederation. Given this new state of affairs, it is conceivable that more may be actually done to foster Canadian unity and to allay francophone fears of becoming a minority in the only province where they are a majority. More may be conceivably done to foster Canadian unity by encouraging francophone immigration to Quebec rather than to massively English-speaking destinations outside the bilingual belt.
The overarching objective of any policy on francophone immigration should be to sustain a viable francophone population in Canada as a whole. Since francophone immigrants are in relatively short supply, they should be guided toward the francophone populations that have the highest linguistic vitality. This means towards Quebec and the bilingual belt portions of New Brunswick and Ontario.
The cosmetic use of francophone immigration to maintain the illusion of viable francophone minorities, coast to coast to coast, boils down to wasting a precious resource. It's high time Canadian language policy faces up to reality.
:
Can you hear me better now? Perfect.
So, I had the opportunity, in response to an invitation by Dyane Adam, who was the Commissioner of Official Languages at the time, to carry out a study on immigration and the vitality of linguistic minorities—the one that Mr. Castonguay referred to. I would just like to mention that, as part of that study I was commissioned to carry out, I also had the opportunity to meet with many leaders of Francophone communities outside Quebec, as well as the Anglophone community leadership in Quebec.
It should also be acknowledged that, at the time, an asymmetric approach was used by decision-makers at Citizenship and Immigration Canada with respect to Quebec, as opposed to the rest of Canada. I would just like to explain what I mean by “asymmetric”. In the case of Quebec, I was told quite clearly during the discussions that there was the McDougall-Gagnon-Tremblay agreement—an agreement relating to resources for immigrant integration—as well as another agreement signed in 1978 dealing with the immigration selection process, responsibility for which had been transferred to Quebec, except in cases involving humanitarian immigrants, or refugees.
Therefore, I was asked to respect that agreement. That is advice that I consider to be very wise and that I want to emphasize here today—in other words, the need to respect Quebec jurisdiction with respect to immigration, while at the same time considering the fact that, outside Montreal, there were communities whose demographic situation was not so positive, and which were even fragile or vulnerable in some cases. I also had to evaluate ways of cooperating with the Government of Quebec to see whether resources could be provided to English-speaking immigrants wanting to move to regions outside Montreal.
Therefore, the mandate I was given, in terms of examining the situation in Quebec based on that premise, was somewhat limited.
[English]
That was just to give you a recapitulation of the approach to Quebec vis-à-vis this issue. I'll say rather summarily that, as I said before, going forward in terms of the situation of English speakers living in Quebec, it's very important to respect the two agreements that have been struck with that province in terms of immigrant selection and the resources accorded to immigrants who choose to settle in Quebec whose primary language is English.
That said, I think there are opportunities or other means to honour the commitment the federal government has to the vitality of linguistic minorities, which includes a commitment that extends quite obviously to Quebec with respect to the English language community, in terms of its vitality. Some of you may be aware that the federal government definition of an English speaker in Quebec is based on a derived census variable: first official language spoken. With that variable, or indicator, if you like, the population of English speakers in Quebec is anywhere between 900,000 and one million persons.
The indicator that the Government of Quebec uses is mother tongue. Based on that dimension of the census, you're looking at a population of somewhere around 600,000. So there's a vast gap between the federal definition of who's an anglophone in Quebec and the Quebec definition, if you do the simple math, a gap of about 300,000. Within that gap of 300,000, you'll find a very substantial number of people who were not born in Canada.
So under the federal definition, the English-speaking community looks a lot more vital from the standpoint of numbers, if you're going to measure the quality of the experience of the community on the basis of its numbers, as opposed to the Quebec definition, which will have far less immigration built into the number that it estimates constitutes the English-speaking population.
Within that group, I think my advice again, in the limited amount of time I have and to the extent that I'm treating that issue, is that there are pockets of vulnerability within the group of individuals that the federal government will designate as English speakers and that the provincial government may not designate as English speakers.
There are a lot of statistics to show, for example, that immigrants originating from South Asia, which is primarily English speaking—even if their mother tongue may be Punjabi or various other languages—often find themselves in situations of economic vulnerability. They're disproportionately greater. As much as Quebec has authority over integration—except for humanitarian cases, as I mentioned earlier—and it also has a manpower agreement with the federal government, to the extent that there are opportunities to support those groups that are making an adjustment to Quebec's reality, that would be a useful way in which the federal government could play some role. It would have to do that in a collaborative fashion with the Government of Quebec, given the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction in that regard.
I think that's also true to the extent that outside of Montreal, where again the immigration plays out differently than in Montreal, the federal government can provide the support to those communities, as it has traditionally, and look at the type of support it provides so that those people choosing to become part of the English-speaking community in the Eastern Townships or in Quebec City can access those resources and permit them to be part of the community experience.
All the while, I think it's incumbent on the English-speaking community of Quebec to support the need for the acquisition of the French language,
[Translation]
and the need for all immigrants to learn the French language.
I think it is also important, for the Government of Quebec, that the Anglophone community be involved in delivering that message to immigrants, in terms of the need to learn French. I think that Anglophones in Quebec, particularly the young generation, are very interested in learning French. I want my own children and the children of my colleagues to learn French and, naturally, they speak it better than I do.
So, there is a need to involve Anglophones in Quebec in the process of promoting French in Quebec as well as diversity, particularly within the Montreal community, and to ensure that no contradiction between the two emerges. We often hear this idea that there is a contradiction between belonging to an ethnic community, whatever it may be, and the desire to learn French or English. We see this kind of debate taking place in Quebec, as well as outside Quebec. But I think that if we include all groups in the process, and if they have the sense that they are truly involved in the process, that will better serve immigrants, the Government of Quebec and the federal government's goal of preserving the communities' vitality. So, that is my short speech on Quebec.
As for the rest of Canada… Mr. Castonguay quoted me earlier and said that he agreed with me—which is very rare, so I am not sure quite what to say. Even though he agrees with the figures I published at the time, we each draw very different conclusions.
I agree that we have to work hard to create the conditions, outside Quebec, that will support Francophone communities which, at the time I conducted the study, expressed the desire to receive immigrants. Although there are some issues, as Mr. Castonguay clearly pointed out, in terms of preserving the French language among these immigrants, we also know that there are more general issues of anglicisation within the same communities. We have to work very hard to support these communities and the efforts they are making, rather than criticizing them for being unable to progress or even maintain themselves.
I think we made an historic mistake in the 1960s with the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. We opened up our society to diversity, within our duality, but we did not really consider what direction might be taken by immigrants settling outside Quebec, without the necessary resources to support existing Francophone communities. Had we looked at that issue more closely, we might have discovered that there was an opportunity to attract more Francophones to areas outside Quebec and provide resources to these communities. We made some historic errors.
I would not like to see us taking the same approach as back then. I hope that we can make more resources available to these communities, so that they are able to receive immigrants in French. I know there are community groups here in Canada that have that same desire. I also know, based on the experience of civil society, NGOs and my own community experience, that it is not possible, using numbers alone, to measure the landing experience for immigrants coming to this country. That must also be considered.
Despite policies put in place to promote increased immigration outside Quebec… This morning, when I was on the train, I was looking at Citizenship and Immigration Canada's figures on the number of Francophones, which they define, in this case, as individuals who speak French when they arrive here, as well as people who speak French and English when they arrive. I do not think we have seen any significant increases. We have seen increases in actual numbers, but they reflect an increase in total actual numbers of immigrants in recent years. In percentage terms, however, it is not very significant.
By way of conclusion, I would like to touch on one final point. Last night, I was looking at figures from the U.S. census—the “American Community Survey”. I had nothing to do. It was during the second intermission of the hockey game. I needed some distraction, because I was a little nervous, as you noticed.
It shows that 154,000 French nationals emigrated to the United States. Between the years 2000 and 2008, 42,000 French immigrants settled in the United States.
As you know, the United States does not have a program which supports Francophone linguistic minorities. That does not include Haitians: 522,000 Haitian immigrants currently live in the United States. A significant proportion of them arrived in the U.S. between 2000 and 2008, before the terrible disaster which occurred in Haiti less than a year ago.
The numbers we found are really very small. That does have quite an impact on communities outside Quebec. In terms of their vision of the future, that also gives them a little hope. I understand why Mr. Castonguay says that this is false hope, but I do not want to criticize them. That is pretty well what--
:
First of all, I want to extend my sincere thanks for your invitation to appear. This is the first time I have appeared before a committee. I must apologize; I did not realize I was expected to make opening comments. I thought it was a round table, where people would be asking questions and there would be a general discussion. At the same time, I do not think this will be a problem. I can easily use the 10 minutes I have been allocated, as I always have something to say.
I work at the Centre for Ethnic Studies at the Université de Montréal. At the Centre, we focus on immigration and the integration of newcomers to Montreal and Quebec in a number of areas, including the workplace and school. I represent neither the Francophone nor the Anglophone communities. My life experience has taken me all across Canada. I have lived in both Anglophone and Francophone communities. To which group do I belong? Well, the answer to that is not clear. Was I part of a minority or a majority? I was born in Quebec City, of a Francophone father and an Anglophone immigrant mother. I went to French school, but at home, we spoke English. When I was asked, for statistical purposes, what my mother tongue was, I would answer that it was English. If I am asked what language I use in the social or school context, I say that it is French. If I am asked what my language of work is, I say that they are both French and English. If I am asked what language I love most, I say, both. I guess I consider myself to be a “Franglophone”. However, in the statistical data, I do not exist. So, it is on behalf of people in the same situation as myself that I would like to speak to you today. There are many of us. Our language practices on a daily basis are not considered—perhaps because they are too complex for the purposes of statistics, that aim to measure a linguistic reality by placing individuals in groups. When you do that, though, what are you actually doing? You are squeezing out or losing the reality for a great many Canadians, Quebeckers and immigrants.
Today I will be questioning a number of ideas. In my opinion, we are at the end of a period of accommodations between two well-defined linguistic communities. I have sensed that for a good 10 years now—since I began a research program at the University of Montreal. We are at the end of a period during which we arrived at solutions and political accommodations—the 1960s and the 1970s. That approach involves duality, the duality of two communities. Linguistic diversity is separate—it is someone else's reality, that of allophones. Eventually they will become integrated into something which is still perceived as being tightly closed—the Francophone and Anglophone communities.
The fact is, however, that these communities are transforming themselves from within. Let us take the example of the Anglophone community in Quebec. It is very multicultural, very multilingual and very bilingual. The same applies to schools that are located in Anglophone areas of Quebec. There are schools with large numbers of Francophone rights holders and large numbers of bilingual, trilingual or unilingual rights holders who are in French immersion to become bilingual in order to survive, to feel comfortable, be mobile and be able to participate in the life of Quebec.
As regards immigrants to Quebec, we have noted a marked improvement in their proficiency in French. The figures speak for themselves. In terms of the status of the French language, we can look at daily use of the language in the workplace and long-term practices in the home. They show that French is establishing itself. However, it is doing so in a context where there are other languages, including an interest in English on the part of both Francophones and immigrants. Therefore, the context is one of duality.
I lived outside Quebec for 10 years, in the Acadian community in Nova Scotia.
I witnessed the emergence of French-language school boards in British Columbia. We are not serving Francophones outside Quebec who use only that language; we are serving Francophones who want to maintain their French and their Francophone identity, while at the same time using English, and possibly other languages. We see small French-language schools in British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta taking in immigrants who are welcome there, because they help to maintain what is in place. Those small schools need a clientele. Communities outside Quebec are very happy to welcome immigrants, but what does that require them to do? It requires a redefinition of Canadian Francophonie, Quebec Francophonie and what it is to be a Francophone.
Are we going to say that a Francophone is someone who identifies very closely with the language, or will we say that a Francophone is someone who is proficient in French? In order to define this kind of social reality, which evolves quickly… We all know that the 20th century was a period of rapid transformation; in the 21st century, that transformation is occurring even more rapidly. Canada developed the concepts of linguistic duality and multiculturalism in the 1960s and 1970s. There is a need to reflect on and clarify what we are now and where we are going in the future. That means we need to change our indicators. Here I am talking to the language experts. They measured one reality in the 1960s and 1970s, based on a model of linguistic assimilation. They looked at the language spoken at home.
And yet, if we engage more with the people who speak different languages at home and ask them, not what the dominant language is at home, but rather, what languages are spoken in the home, we discover a completely different reality. There are people who speak several languages at home and want to preserve those languages, because they see those language skills as resources that are beneficial for their children's future.
Now it is up to us, in government, to see those resources and those skills as future assets that will take us a long way. We have to stop thinking in terms of language dominance. We need indicators—data and census analysis—that are more sophisticated and nuanced. We also need to consider ethnography. There are good ethnographers here in Canada. If you want to learn more about the educational realities of small French-language schools outside Quebec, talk to ethnographers. There are some. They are here in Ottawa, this week, for a symposium which is being held at the University of Ottawa. You can hear what they have to say this afternoon.
What you need is a study that captures the complexity of identity-related connections to language and of language and identity-related practices. Thank you.
:
It was wonderful, what we just heard! And that includes everyone.
I may surprise you, Mr. Castonguay. We must not be indifferent to the alarm you raised quite some time ago, in my opinion. I agree with you on that.
I am very disappointed to have only five minutes for my questions, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Mr. Castonguay, I would say that your approach is an extremely mathematical one. That goes without saying, since you are a professor of mathematics. It is a very statistical and—I hope you will not mind my making a somewhat critical comment—very cold approach.
These statistics, whether they are from 1996 or 2001, may present a true picture of a new reality, to use Ms. Lamarre's expression. They do not include the impact, however minimal, of the emergence of Francophone school boards across the country, outside the infamous bilingual belt you referred to. I am talking about the die-hards in Zenon Park, in St-Boniface, at the Campus Saint-Jean in Edmonton, as well as those in British Columbia, and Whitehorse, in the Yukon. In Whitehorse, Yukon, they now have schools and a day care service that did not exist when the statistics were compiled in 1996—statistics which do not reflect the impact of these schools.
Do you take that in consideration, Mr. Castonguay? That is my first question.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning to you all.
My heart starts beating wildly when we come to this topic. By that I mean the daily reality, what is actually going on on the ground, in real life, in terms of the French fact in North America as a whole, and particularly Canada and Quebec—for some fundamental reasons. Like Mauril, I am from Ontario, but from that part of Ontario which is right next to Quebec. I am from Hawkesbury and I am the member of Parliament for Gatineau. So we are still talking about the Ottawa Valley. I thank heaven that we were right next to Quebec. I am talking about Eastern Ontario. Things were different elsewhere in Ontario. I have cousins who are called Lalande instead of Lalonde, and others who go by the name of Nadal, rather than Nadeau, because at one point their parents moved, and at that time Francophones did not have the right to manage their own schools.
I lived in Saskatchewan and I worked to secure the right to school management. As you know, the Conservatives in Saskatchewan abolished French-language schools in 1931. The New Democrats only brought them back in 1995, some 64 years later. I arrived at the end of that lengthy period, in the early 1990s. I will always remember the day I went to Willow Bunch. It is a small Franco-Saskatchewanian village that used to be called Hart-Rouge, which then became Talle-de-Saules, and eventually, Willow Bunch. Most of the people who live there have names like Duperreault—a name which is no longer pronounced that way—Granger, a name that is also no longer pronounced that way—or Boisvert—an another name that is no longer pronounced that way. When we got to the village, we needed the signatures of 10 parents to have the right to establish a French-language school there. But we were unable to collect those 10 signatures, even though we spent a week there. Some of the grandparents were in favour, but not the parents.
Now we are asking immigrants who come to Canada to do the work in these communities where assimilation has occurred—not because Francophones wanted it, but because of the social pressure associated with the Canadian reality. Think of it: Francophones in Saskatchewan went for 64 years without any rights; that destroys communities that already have a minority status. In 1931, there were 63 French-language schools, but we were only able to reopen eight of them—not because people were no longer there, but because the communities had been assimilated. There are only 6,000 people for whom French is the language spoken at home. I say it is the language spoken at home, but that does not mean they do not speak English.
Given that reality, do you not think that we are asking that immigration… Quebec only represents 2% of the North American population. There is a critical mass there. Assimilation is certainly quite possible, as we can see in the Pontiac region and Montreal, where 47% of Quebec's population lives. But to be perfectly frank, when I go to Montreal, I am really not sure that I am in a French-speaking city.
Why not direct our energy towards what should be our focus, rather than asking Francophone immigrants to maintain the French fact in communities which are having a terrible time trying to do that on their own? Mr. Castonguay, Ms. Lamarre and Mr. Jedwab, I invite you to comment.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am replacing Yvon Godin, the member for , who is our usual representative on this Committee.
Mr. Castonguay, I would just like to say one thing. I do not agree with everything you have said, except with respect to your comments about Ottawa as the national capital. I think it is terrible that the City of Ottawa has no respect for the federal government or French-speaking taxpayers who built this city. It is not acceptable that the City of Ottawa has not been made officially bilingual. So, I fully agree with you on that.
However, in terms of the vitality of the communities, Ms. Lamarre's comments are a breath of fresh air. The reality in British Columbia, as I see it, is very similar to what she described. As you know, British Columbia is one of the only provinces where the Francophone population is on the rise. There is finally a school system in place. And when you visit these schools, you really see a Francophone rainbow. There are accents from Africa, Europe, Asia and the Caribbean. It is remarkable. It is something that I have never seen in Quebec when I have been there. I lived in Quebec for 14 years—in Chicoutimi, Sherbrooke and Montreal. Yet I never saw the kind of Francophone diversity in Quebec that I see now in British Columbia. The immersion schools are overflowing. Parents often line up for an entire weekend to register their children at an immersion school. What does that mean? It means that all of these people are consumers of Francophone products—Francophone cultural products such as films, magazines and books. That is what contributes to Quebec's vitality in a major way. When there is a network in place outside Quebec, that contributes to the vitality of Quebec and Acadian cultural products. I think it is important to maintain and enhance the Francophone presence outside of Quebec.
Mr. Castonguay, you mentioned that in areas where there are Francophone post-secondary institutions, such as Sudbury, Moncton and Ottawa, the rate of assimilation is lower. That is a fact. These immigrants expand the Francophone community, where such institutions exist.
I have three questions. I would like to begin by addressing one question to Ms. Lamarre. First of all, in terms of French as a Second Language programs, what do you think can be done to improve the quality and quantity of such programs? French is often the second language of French-speaking immigrants.
Second, how can we enhance access to Francophone post-secondary institutions? There is no doubt that the availability of a Francophone post-secondary institution increases the Francophone presence.
Third, what other programs could be offered in order to continue to expand the Francophone presence and consumption of Quebec and Acadian cultural products? That is very important to our future.
:
I would like to thank all three of you. I think you can see, by the length of the questions, that this topic is one that people feel passionate about. The comments I have heard today may be the most interesting ones I have heard since recently becoming a member of the Committee.
Ms. Lamarre, you just said that the numbers do not reflect people's reality. In English, there is an expression that goes:
[English]
“Figures lie and liars figure”. I mean no disrespect, mais
[Translation]
I am concerned that the figures you have given us, Professor Castonguay, may lead us to the wrong conclusions.
[English]
The problem I have is that your analysis leads us to a very stark and polarized anglophone-francophone reality, which would suggest perhaps that the existence of French would be stronger if we had only a Quebec and then a “Rest of Canada”.
What I'm hearing and feeling as a father of three kids in a French immersion school in B.C.--the lines are long, and it's hard to get into these French immersion schools--and what Mr. Julian was also saying is that in reality, French is so much stronger because of this large entity we call Canada, where the language is being promoted outside the province.
I have two questions that come from your evidence. First, we heard from you, Mr. Castonguay, that there's a squandering of a scarce resource if the francophone immigrants go outside the belt or outside Quebec. I would argue that this scarce resource is not only strengthening French but also encouraging other people who speak other languages to be sensitive to the importance and preciousness of French outside the belt.
Second, you said that anglo immigration to Quebec was proportionally double the francophone population, and I don't understand why that would be the case, given Quebec's unprecedented control over its own immigration.
I will first ask you, Madam Lamarre, to answer those two questions, and then perhaps Mr. Castonguay. I'm sorry we can't get everybody in because of time restraints.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank our witnesses for being with us this morning. I must admit that, just from the standpoint of statistics on immigrants' mother tongue, the only possible way of increasing the numbers in that area—it seems to me—is to only consider immigrant couples whose mother tongue is French.
Let us look at the situation around the world. In Belgium, as in many other countries, people do not only speak one language. In many cases, even if the mother tongue is not French, the family still speaks that language 90% of the time. So, if we do not want unilingual Francophone couples to emigrate, possibly from France, in order to start a family in Canada, then the percentages will undoubtedly change in the statistics on mother tongue.
Ms. Lamarre, you are evidence of that. You were able to speak French and live in French even though your parents were not necessarily both unilingual Francophones. If we limit ourselves to that, we will most certainly see a decline for the rest of our lives. I think we have to look a little further than that. We have to look beyond the traditional framework.
I would like to use Ms. Glover as an example. I have three nieces who attend school in Ms. Glover's riding, in Saint Boniface. Their mother tongue may not be designated as French, because they have one Anglophone parent and one Francophone parent. However, they live 75% of their life in French. It seems to me that if my sister had not moved to Saint Boniface, in Winnipeg, there would be four fewer people supporting the vitality of that Francophone community.
If we go no further than the traditional framework and leave it tightly closed, without ever opening it up, even slightly, there is no doubt that we will continue to see a problem in the statistics on mother tongue. We have to broaden our horizons. It is important to realize that immigrants coming to this country, even though they may have learned two, three, four or even five languages elsewhere before coming here and may not have French as their mother tongue, are still Francophones. Perhaps the method used is causing the problem. If we continue to do the same thing, we will continue to see problems and conclude that there is a decline happening across the country.
Ms. Lamarre, I would just like to know whether you think that what I just said may reflect the current reality, or whether you completely disagree with me.
:
Good morning, everyone. This is a very interesting discussion. And, of course, as soon as you talk about immigration and Francophonie, people become very passionate. I am from Quebec, I am also a Quebecker and I am a pure Francophone.
When I arrived here in Ottawa, the only words I know were: yes, no, toaster. I learned to speak English, and I find now that there is a wonderful complicity between the two languages. I have never felt assimilated.
The fact is that our children are a lot more open to the rest of the world than we were. They have many more opportunities to be so, if only because of the Internet and everything else. I have daughters who speak French, English and Spanish. One of them is learning Italian, but that does not mean she is any less Francophone.
I find this debate very interesting. Often we have a certain idea in our mind. I am sorry, Mr. Castonguay, but I have a bit of a problem with the figures and the statistics. I am having trouble making sense of them. What I see on the ground is something different.
I have two questions. We often talk about Francophones, as opposed to Anglophones. I would like to begin with a question for Ms. Lamarre or Mr. Jedwab, if he would like to answer.
The criteria used to determine who is a Francophone or Anglophone immigrant vary, depending on the government. Everyone knows that.
Could you give us an overview of the various criteria that now apply? What impact do they have on the immigrant communities, your analysis and the results of your research? Are they a success in terms of immigration to OLMCs, or official language minority communities?
[Translation]
In North America, the situation is such that there is a melting pot—particularly in the United States, of course. In Canada, we have a government that is bilingual—that is to say that the public service is bilingual, but not the country. There is one province which is bilingual, on paper, and that is New Brunswick. Quebec has been a self-declared French-speaking province since Robert Bourassa introduced Bill 22, and the other provinces are English-speaking. That is the reality.
However, there is another reality as well, as I see it, and that is the reason I am in politics: there is a cancer there. It is a little like someone who has cancer, but will not acknowledge it. That cancer is ethnolinguistic assimilation—the loss of the French fact. Whether you call “flattened statistics”, negation or denial, there are certain views out there—I hear them. The fact remains that, ultimately, decade after decade, since 1951, since the censuses, the loss of the French fact has been giving an ever-increasing advantage to English. I am talking about Canada. That is the way it is in some regions of Quebec, but it is especially true for the overall picture in Canada.
I will always remember, when I went to Bellegarde, Saskatchewan, meeting a certain Mr. Cormier, who said to me—with a name like Cormier: “I'm proud to be French Canadian, even if I don't speak the language”.
My brother-in-law is a Quebecker of Irish extraction. His name is Terry Bowles. I will send him the “blues”. We have often argued. He would ask me why I was teaching French in Ontario. I asked him whether he was English, and he replied by saying that he was Irish. I asked him to speak to me in Gaelic, but he never did. He is entitled to his identity, and I, to mine. One thing is certain: our strength as a French-speaking people in North American can be attributed to the fact that we are still speaking our language. It is thanks to all of us and to our fight. It certainly is not thanks to the federal government, which allows certain provinces to shut down French-speaking schools, to assimilate people, and so on.
Louis Riel was not hanged for nothing; talk to Mr. Goldring about that. Let us not see the world through rose coloured glasses. It is important to know the facts and to face reality.
I have a question for Mr. Castonguay. What is the actual situation in terms of the loss of the French fact? In Saskatchewan, I taught at a French Canadian school. We tried to recruit students. At the time, there were 10,000 young Franco-Saskatchewanians. Of that number, we were able to recruit 1,000. But 9,000 other young Franco-Saskatchewanians were attending English schools. Even though they were rights holders, we did not have the full complement. Parents had to register their children at our school. We did not have the staff for that. This is a provincial responsibility. So, do not tell me the federal government can recruit students in French schools in order to help Franco-Saskatchewanians schools; that is just not true.
What is the situation with respect to assimilation, Mr. Castonguay?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to welcome our witnesses.
I had shivers up and down my spine as I was listening to you, Ms. Lamarre, because you were speaking for me. I was born an Anglophone, but at the same time, I am very proud to be a Francophone. I acknowledge that, if I am asked which language I am most attached to, I would have to say it really is both. And everything you said, Mr. Castonguay, just broke my heart. But my heart is very strong, and I think we have the potential to change your data.
When officials from Statistics Canada appeared before the Committee at the last meeting, we talked about the fact that the questions asked do not reflect reality. You also made that point, Ms. Lamarre. Rather than asking respondents what language they speak at home, we should be asking them which languages—in the plural—they speak, in order to truly reflect the current reality.
As Mr. D'Amours said, we are not taking a broader view of things. We are so focussed on excessively detailed questions that we are actually missing the reality.
I am sorry, Mr. Nadeau, but I do not see the situation in Canada as a cancer. It is a country that offers great opportunities to our immigrants. They helped me continue to perfect my French. It is thanks to people like Mr. D'Amours' sister, a Francophone who moved to Saint Boniface, that my children are bilingual. So, that is very important.
Mr. Jedwab, in an article you wrote entitled “Where there is a will there is a way?”, you answered questions that are not necessarily asked by Statistics Canada. That answers one of my own questions. I would like to talk about your data. Mr. Castonguay is always talking about the decline of French in Francophone communities, but in your article, you talk about the number of Anglophones born here who use French at work. Statistics Canada puts the number at 400,000, but Mr. Castonguay seems to ignore all of that. It is important to point out that Francophones' influence over the rest of Canada helps us to increase the level of French.
Can you tell me in what ways Francophones in Canada influence and enhance the level of French throughout the official language minority communities?
:
Personally, I think that it is primarily in Quebec, New Brunswick and the National Capital Region that we have historically noted increased numbers of Anglophones who speak French in the workplace. And it is precisely because of the pressure to do so—something that is due in large part to the federal government, which has brought that pressure to bear in terms of job requirements, such as knowledge of the official languages—that we are seeing that increase.
Never, in the history of Quebec, have so many Anglophones and non-Francophones spoken French. That is equally true for New Brunswick and Ontario with respect to actual numbers of non-Francophones and Anglophones who speak French. There has been a progression. Even Mr. Castonguay cannot deny that increased numbers of Anglophones now speak French in Quebec. It is now at an historic level never seen before.
So, there is good news, and we have to continue to bring pressure to bear—not just by getting the message out that we would like people to speak French, or that it would be very nice or kind of them to do so. This is going to take pressure at the federal level, notably in communities where it is possible to encourage people to speak French through different means. Companies that deal with the federal government should also be encouraged to provide services in French. I know that that may be tough, tough measures are what is needed. Personally, I remain hopeful and optimistic about the future.
If you do not mind, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point. We have deviated from our initial topic, which was Francophone immigration. Mr. Weston raised a very important point. This idea of discouraging immigrants from settling outside Quebec conveys a message. The message may well be more important than the numbers. If our message is that Francophone immigrants should not settle anywhere else than Quebec, we may be sending the same message to Francophone Quebeckers who would like to move somewhere else in Canada. We could also talk about a scenario, if we follow the logic—a logic that I am sure neither Mr. Nadeau nor Mr. Castonguay share—where all Anglophones who live on the other side of the bridge--
Is it all right if I continue? Mr. Castonguay, I know that you like… Please allow me to finish; I have not spoken much today. I will be finished in a few seconds, Mr. Blaney.
Ms. Shelly Glover: Go ahead, Mr. Jedwab.
Mr. Jack Jedwab: The logic I refer to is one which says that all Anglophones should live on one side of the National Capital Region and that all Francophones should live on the other. I know that you do not share that vision, Ms. Glover, but by telling Francophone immigrants that they should not settle outside Quebec, we are sending them a somewhat broader message which is that, logically, ideally, all Francophones should be on one side, and all Anglophones, on the other. I could never tolerate or accept such a message. But that is sort of what we are saying. Beyond the numbers, be they good or bad, and beyond the indicators—good and bad—there is a message we are conveying to our society and our children—my children, Ms. Lamarre's children and many other children.
I am continuing with the question-and-answer approach. According to what Mauril was saying earlier, and what Mr. Castonguay also said,
[English]
“You also have to put your money where your mouth is.”
[Translation]
I remember a gentleman from La Broquerie, in Manitoba, whom I like very much, who now lives in the region and who used to be my boss. His name is Ronald Bisson, Executive Director of the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française. He had asked Roger Bernard, who, unfortunately, has departed this world, having passed away, to carry out a study entitled Vision d'avenir de la Francophonie. He said that this study in four volumes was an initial blueprint that would lead to zero assimilation and advanced “refrancisation”. When I was at the Fédération des Francophones de Saskatoon, I had proposed that this be a battleground for the Association culturelle franco-canadienne de Saskatchewan, as it was known at the time, its new name being the Association communautaire fransaskoise, but people laughed at me. I have no problem with people laughing at me. However, that is just the problem: there people were saying that nothing could be done. Imagine! These were people in Moose Jaw rethinking the future of Franco-Saskatchewanians. I continued to fight for that, however. We were demanding a bilingual province and that the actions of the Conservatives under Grant Devine be reversed: they had simply done away with things that affected Francophones, and we thought it was terrible. So, it is important that people know that.
You are right, Ms. Lamarre, that there are still communities out there, and I realize that we have to support them. However, it is also important to be aware of assimilation and acknowledge the fact that the Francophone critical mass in North America, in a specific region and forming a nation, is Quebec. We must not forget to focus on that. Because if Quebec suffers assimilation or shrinks, its influence… We must not weaken the strongest part. We should provide support to the weakest ones in this struggle, but we have to look at where is appropriate to devote our energies.
Mr. Chairman, could Mr. Castonguay table his two studies so that we could have them translated? That way we could have them eventually, once the translation is available.