LANG Committee Meeting

    Welcome to the 27^th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages on this Tuesday, February 28, 2012. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), on the agenda today we have our study on the evaluation of the roadmap: improving programs and service delivery.

    We will be hearing from three groups of witnesses: Ms. DuPont and Ms. Duchesne, from the Department of Justice; Ms. Beresford-Green and Mr. Farley, from Health Canada; and Mr. Corbeil and Mr. Nault, from Statistics Canada.

    Welcome to all our witnesses. We will begin with the representatives of the Department of Justice.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    My name is Andrée Duchesne, Senior Counsel and Manager of the Justice in Official Languages Unit within Justice Canada's Office of la Francophonie, Justice in Official Languages and Legal Dualism. I am here with my colleague, Linda DuPont, Legal Counsel within the same unit.

    As you know, Justice Canada is one of the partners of the roadmap. Our office, together with the department’s Programs Branch, manages the programs identified in the roadmap, including the Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund and the Contraventions Act Fund. Under the roadmap, justice is one of five priority service sectors for official language minority communities.

     The justice sector, traditionally considered to be concerned mainly with judges, lawyers, and the court system, is in fact much broader in scope. It is first and foremost a sector that provides services to the population, which involves many levels of interaction. Think only of social workers, police officers, probation officers, mediators, or community organizations that provide education and guidance to seniors, new immigrants, at-risk youth, and other groups.

    More and more Canadians faced with a legal problem choose to defend their own rights and interests, putting additional pressure on the system for easy-to-understand and accessible legal information services in both official languages. Departmental data supports this: Canadians are increasingly looking for relevant legal information to help them take care of a problem quickly at the lowest cost possible, both to the justice system and to their own wallet.

    Allow me first to provide you with some background to the consultation mechanism that Justice Canada established nearly 10 years ago and that enables us to work closely with our government and non-government partners. We co-chair the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Access to Justice in Both Official Languages, and we chair the Advisory Committee on Access to Justice in Both Official Languages. Both groups meet on a yearly basis. The FPT working group’s meeting took place on February 16 and 17, 2012, and the advisory committee will meet on March 15 and 16. The advisory committee includes our non-government partners. Beyond these formal mechanisms, we also maintain ongoing ties with all our partners.

    Justice Canada has received $93 million over five years under the road map, and this sum was allocated as follows: $49.5 million to secure agreements with the provinces for the implementation of the Contraventions Act, $41 million to improve access to justice in both official languages, and $2.5 million for the accountability and coordination framework.

    The Contraventions Act provides an alternative to the summary conviction procedure of the Criminal Code for the prosecution of certain offences under federal statutes and regulations. It allows certain federal offences to be prosecuted, using provincial court processes, by means of a ticketing scheme.

    The Contraventions Act Fund was established to support the implementation of the Contraventions Act in a manner consistent with all applicable constitutional and legislative language rights. The fund provides financial assistance to the provinces and territories that have implemented the Contraventions Act in order to increase their capacity to offer justice services. To date, five provinces have signed contribution agreements to this effect, that is British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. These provinces, in addition to New Brunswick and Quebec, are able to provide services in both official languages for proceedings brought under the Contraventions Act. Discussions with the other jurisdictions are ongoing.

     The principles that led to the creation of the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund were improving access to justice services and knowledge and understanding of language rights by Canadian citizens and the legal community, and developing a training initiative to help justice system stakeholders provide services to Canadians in the official language of their choice, especially in the area of criminal matters.

    Since its creation the support fund has helped make the justice system more accessible, more relevant, and better able to meet the needs of Canadians.

    Now I will hand the floor over to my colleague Linda, who will explain certain roadmap projects to you in greater depth.

    The roadmap shows the amount indicated by my colleague, that is $41 million, and an additional investment of $20 million that was allocated specifically for training to improve the language skills of people working in the justice system and to recruit and train young bilingual Canadians considering a career in justice.

    In order to properly allocate this investment, the Justice Department commissioned an analysis, which was conducted in 2008 and 2009, with the participation, contribution and collaboration of all provinces and territories. The report, entitled Canada-Wide Analysis of Official Language Training Needs in the Area of Justice, has provided Justice Canada with strategic information and avenues to help consolidate the training activities already undertaken and focus efforts in areas where needs are only partially met.

    Thus new funding applicants for projects and initiatives designed to address the needs identified are being added to the department's long list of partners.

    In the last few months new projects have been received from universities and non-governmental organizations that provide direct services to the population. We wish to present a few specific examples.

    The Centre canadien de français juridique offers legal training to justice system stakeholders, including crown prosecutors, probation officers and court clerks. The centre is currently helping develop and design a specialized training program adapted to the needs and realities of criminal court judges. It is also developing electronic tools and resources for continuing education and skills maintenance. The centre makes a positive and concrete contribution to the number of justice stakeholders who are able to provide services in both official languages, which corresponds exactly to the areas for government action identified in the roadmap.

    The Canada-wide analysis suggested that the law schools of the Canadian universities offer courses specifically on the practice of law in both official languages. The University of Manitoba and the University of Alberta have decided to improve their law program by offering courses to help students learn French legal terminology and acquire knowledge and skills in the practice of law in French.

    The University of Alberta has developed partnerships with English-speaking organizations for the creation of a community justice centre whose objective is to promote access to justice by serving as a one-stop resource for information, support, and guidance for citizens dealing with a law issue. This project is developed jointly with the Centre for Public Legal Education of Alberta, which also receives a contribution from the support fund to develop tools and resources to inform the English-speaking community of the linguistic rights of the francophone minority, and to provide simplified, accessible, and adapted information on access to justice in both official languages.

    These projects, like many others funded by the support fund, aim the services directly at Canadians without going through the more traditional forums, such as courts and lawyers.

    Éducaloi has been active in the area of legal education and information in Quebec for many years. The support fund contributes financially to Éducaloi's activities as part of its offer of services to Quebec's anglophone community, more specifically in the development of its website.

    Éducaloi's work is based on an approach that is adapted to the needs of this clientele rather than one based on translation. This enables Éducaloi to reach Quebec's anglophone and allophone communities whose first official language spoken is English.

    The Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario, better known by the acronym AJEFO, is recognized as an organization serving not only Ontario's francophone community, but all French-speaking citizens outside Quebec. AJEFO launched its website, www.cliquezjustice.ca, on February 22.

That constitutes a portal for French legal information for the general public. It targets the needs not only of Ontario's French-speaking population but also of francophones in all the other provinces as well. The component related to other provinces will be operational later this year, as the process is currently being validated with provincial partners. What is different about this portal and the information it contains is its target clientele. It's specifically aimed at elementary and high school students and their teachers and counsellors. It offers games and learning resources for students and tools specifically designed for teachers.

    The general public will also have access to legal informational matters of law in clear and simplified language. Once the information from the other provinces is validated, the French-speaking population in these provinces will also have access to the same information the Franco-Ontarian population has. This step is expected to be completed in the coming months.

    We now come to the conclusion.

    These projects are the tangible and concrete results of concerted efforts from different justice system stakeholders to help improve access to justice.

    We believe that the work accomplished by our department helps improve access to justice for the two million Canadians in minority language situations. Our department will soon complete the summative evaluation of the support fund and the Contraventions Act fund so that the data can be used to document the road map's horizontal evaluation.

    We thank you for your attention and will be happy to answer your questions.

    Thank you.

    I invite the representative from Health Canada to take the floor. You have 10 minutes, please.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    My name is Debbie Beresford-Green. I am Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Regions and Programs Branch, at Health Canada. I am here today with Roger Farley, Acting Director General of Health Canada's Programs Directorate.

    First of all, I would like to thank you for inviting us and for giving us this opportunity to come before the committee and testify to the support that Health Canada provides to official language minority communities across the country. Mr. Farley will be able to answer your questions about Health Canada initiatives that were funded under the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013.

    As assistant deputy minister, I am responsible for the implementation of part VII of the Official Languages Act at Health Canada. It is also my branch that manages the Official Languages Health Contribution Program, which was funded under the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality.

    Health Canada's initiatives help to provide official language minority communities with increased access to health care in their language of choice. These initiatives are designed to reduce the language barriers faced by English and French linguistic minority communities. There is growing evidence that presents below average health status for Canada's official language minority communities. These communities also experience significant difficulty obtaining services in their language.

    When we need health care, we inevitably need to revert to our mother tongue no matter how well we speak our second official language. Access to health care in the official language of one's choice should be available, no matter which province or region we live in.

    Since 2003 Health Canada has funded initiatives that are targeted to the needs of official language minority communities. From 2003 to 2008 Health Canada received $119 million through the action plan for official languages, and for the period 2008 to 2013 the department was allocated $174.3 million under the road map for Canada's linguistic duality. Each year Health Canada has invested its full allocation in initiatives under those programs.

    Since 2008 the department has delivered the official languages community health program under the road map, consisting of three key components: health networks; support for training and retention of health professionals; and health projects that facilitate access in communities. For 2010-2011, $36.8 million was spent under the program.

    I'm also pleased to say that the Commissioner of Official Languages has highlighted on a number of occasions in his annual report the positive results achieved in the area of health. For example, in his annual report of 2010-2011, he points out that “members of French-speaking communities outside of Quebec often have difficulty obtaining health care services in their language”, but that “the situation is improving”, and that is thanks in part to initiatives managed by Health Canada.

    The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages recently reported on progress in improving health services in its report entitled “The Vitality of Quebec's English-Speaking Communities: From Myth to Reality”. According to the report, the progress that has been made is a source of inspiration in strengthening Quebec's English-speaking communities in other areas that affect their development. Again, this progress has been attributed in part to the programming delivered by Health Canada.

    Now I will hand the floor over to Mr. Farley, who will talk to you about Health Canada's contributions program in a little more detail.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

    As we mentioned, the Official Languages Health Contribution Program is made up of three components: health networking, training and retention of health professionals, and health projects for communities.

    The first component of the program supports health networks, through the Société Santé en français for francophones outside Quebec, and through the Community Health and Social Services Network for Quebec's English-speaking communities.

    These networks engage health care stakeholders to enable improvements to health care services access in the minority official language. These stakeholders include provincial and territorial government representatives, health care administrators and health care professionals. The work of the networks is meant to leverage the introduction of new services in the communities they serve.

    An example of this is the creation of the Saint-Thomas health centre, which is the first francophone community health centre in Alberta. Another example is the establishment of a bilingual health services centre in Halifax's regional municipality.

     In Quebec, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages has highlighted the work of the Community Health and Social Services Network. This network has signed an implementation framework with the Quebec Health and Social Services System in order to improve access to health and social services for Quebec's English-speaking communities.

     The second component, training and retention of health professionals, is piloted by the Consortium national de formation en santé and its member institutions outside of Quebec and by McGill University in Quebec. The consortium's members--that is, the francophone universities and colleges outside Quebec--receive funding from Health Canada to increase the number of positions available in their training programs in areas of health. Since 2008, 1,530 graduates of these training programs have joined the pool of health care workers available to provide services in various regions of Canada in the minority official language.

    According to a study carried out with the 2008-2009 batch of graduates, not less than 86% of them are now practising a health-care profession in official language minority communities, be it as nurses, doctors, physiotherapists, speech-language pathologists, and so on.

    Thanks to the family medicine training program at the Centre de formation médicale du Nouveau-Brunswick, which is funded in part by Health Canada, the first batch of 14 students obtained their degrees in 2010. Before that, francophone medical students had to go to the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec to complete their schooling.

    In Quebec an entirely different approach was adopted to ensure that the English-speaking communities have access to health care services in English regardless of the region they live in. As the Standing Committee on Official Languages recently reminded us, the availability of English-language health care services varies greatly, depending on whether you are in the Montreal region or the Côte-Nord region.

    To ensure that a large number of health care professionals are able to provide health care in English, particularly in regions where access is restricted, McGill University offers language training to health professionals who are already members of the workforce. From 2008 to 2011, McGill trained 3,766 health care professionals through its language-training project.

    Lastly, the third component of the program, health projects for official language minority communities is intended to favour the integration of services and improve access to care in minority languages. In Quebec these projects are essentially aimed at promoting health or adopting existing services.

    Outside Quebec there are projects aimed at improving access to services for the elderly, children and youth, as well as health promotion projects. In total, 151 projects have received funding from Health Canada under the roadmap. An example of these projects is the creation in Vancouver of a multidisciplinary mental health team that provides support for disadvantaged francophones suffering from addiction.

    Société Santé en français has also partly funded a health promotion and disease prevention project in the Ottawa area for French-speaking newcomers to Canada.

    In the fall of 2011, an evaluation was launched to examine the program's suitability and performance in accordance with the Government of Canada's evaluation policy. Data is currently being collected so that the final report can be completed, as scheduled, for the summer of 2012.

    I will now give the floor to Ms. Beresford-Green.

    Thank you.

    In conclusion, I would like to mention that, in 2011, we consulted representatives of French-speaking communities outside Quebec and English-speaking communities in Quebec. The aim of these consultations was to learn their views on the evolving health care needs of communities over the 2013-2018 horizon. For French-speaking communities, a consultation forum was organized on March 22 and 23, 2011, in Ottawa, and a summary report of the consultation was then made public.

     In Quebec, the Quebec Community Groups Network was tasked with seeking input from English-speaking communities in each region of Quebec. A report on these consultations has recently been submitted to Health Canada.

    We will continue to work with our partners across the country to promote access to health care in the official language minority communities in conjunction with provinces and territories.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'd be pleased to respond to any questions.

    Thank you.

    We will now move on to the presentation by the Statistics Canada representative.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    My name is Jean-Pierre Corbeil. I am responsible for the Language Statistics Section, and I am here with my colleague, François Nault, who is director of the Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division.

    I want to thank the members of the committee for inviting Statistics Canada to appear and offer input into their discussions on evaluating the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality and, possibly, on the direction of a future Government of Canada horizontal initiative on official languages. Although Statistics Canada is not directly targeted by the roadmap, the agency plays a special role because of its liaison with a number of federal departments to whom the roadmap is directed, people in the research community, and, above all, many representatives of official language minority communities.

    In my speech, I will try to briefly present a few of the key findings that emerge from the various studies conducted by Statistics Canada's Language Statistics Section in support of the roadmap and the official language minority communities in Canada.

    For the past 30 years, or since 1981, the number of people outside Quebec with French as their first official language spoken has increased from one census to the next. Between 1996 and 2006, this francophone population grew by approximately 26,500. However, its demographic weight within the Canadian population outside Quebec declined from 4.5% to 4.2%. In this regard, the demographic reality is unrelenting. In any given year, Canada receives between 240,000 and 265,000 new immigrants, 80% of whom settle outside Quebec and among all these immigrants settling outside Quebec, slightly less than 2% have French as their first official language spoken.

    With regard to education, a remarkable progress among the youngest generations of francophones has been observed, as they are generally more likely to hold a university degree and to have an income equal to or greater than that of their English-speaking counterparts. The demographic forces at work are such that since the Dunton-Laurendeau Commission, the socio-economic situation of French-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec has greatly improved. However, this improvement has not necessarily benefited the vitality of the French language, as evidenced by the anglicization of many francophones. In fact, we know that almost 4 in 10 francophones outside Quebec live in municipalities where they represent less than 10% of the population. This situation directly affects the opportunities for francophones to use French outside the home and receive services in French.

    Data from the Survey on the Vitality of Official-Language Minorities, conducted by Statistics Canada in 2006 in partnership with 10 federal departments and agencies, show that 89% of francophones living outside Quebec consider it important that linguistic rights be respected in their province and 84% state that it's important to them that government services be provided in French.

    International immigration has a major impact on the current and evolving situation of francophone minority communities. With the aging of the francophone population, along with its interprovincial migratory exchanges that favour Quebec, francophone minority communities rely heavily on international immigration as a factor to ensure their future. This reliance is not without its pitfalls. Many challenges face immigrants who settle in francophone minority communities, especially as regards economic and social integration. Our consultations with representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada shed light on the importance of better understanding those challenges, as well as the needs, obstacles and dynamics that favour or impede the integration of immigrants.

    In this respect, community stakeholders have expressed great interest in having Statistics Canada conduct a survey of the roughly 150,000 French-speaking immigrants outside Quebec so that they can be better equipped to face the challenges of the coming decades.

     For their part, anglophone communities in Quebec face different challenges. The difference is notably due to the fact that, unlike the situation observed among francophones living outside Quebec, the use of English by anglophones in Quebec is much less dependent on the size and share of their population in the municipalities where they live. Thus, almost 85% of them reported using English alone or together with French in the public sphere.

    Among francophones living outside Quebec, 42% reported using French outside the home. This proportion is less than 30% in the provinces east of New Brunswick and less than 10% in those west of Manitoba.

    Statistics Canada data have shown that in Quebec immigrants account for nearly one-third of the English-speaking population, compared with 7% of the French-speaking population. Despite the fact that Quebec anglophones generally have a high education level, some of them, especially those who have recently immigrated, have trouble fully integrating into the labour market.

    While a larger proportion of anglophones than francophones in Quebec have an annual income exceeding $100,000, paradoxically a larger proportion of them also live below the low-income threshold. Additionally, our analyses have shown that Quebec anglophones, among others, are substantially under-represented in the provincial civil service. Furthermore, because of their high mobility, young people in these minority communities are also more likely to move to other provinces or outside Canada, a situation that poses considerable challenges for those concerned with the vitality of their communities.

    The road map on linguistic duality mainly emphasizes official language minorities. However, 2011 census results released on February 8 highlight the growing importance of international immigration as a driver of Canada's population growth. Yet Quebec's demographic share within the Canadian federation has declined by approximately one percentage point every ten years since 1961. This decline is due to the fact that Quebec has received fewer immigrants over the years than its demographic weight would warrant within the Canadian federation and also due to the sizeable population growth in the provinces west of Ontario.

    The concept of Canada's linguistic duality should therefore take into consideration the fact that of the roughly 9.6 million Canadians who speak French, 73% live in Quebec. This is also the case for 86% of Canadians for whom French is the first official language spoken.

    Another aspect of linguistic duality is the learning of French as a second language. The data collected by Statistics Canada reveal major challenges on the horizon in this regard. For example, we know that between 1996 and 2006, the proportion of young anglophones aged 15 to 19 able to conduct a conversation in French fell three percentage points, from 16.3% to 13%. Furthermore, this ability to speak French declines in the years after leaving the school environment.

    This being said, statistics on school attendance show both a setback and an improvement: the setback regards decreased numbers of enrolments in regular French as a second language programs, down by 225,000 over the last decade. In terms of improvement, the number of youths attending a French immersion program has increased by 51,000 during the same period. Despite this progress, the total proportion of students outside Quebec who are being exposed at school to learning French as a second language has fallen from 53% to 44% in the past 20 years. Moreover, it is important to note that since education is a provincial jurisdiction, the teaching of French as a second language is not compulsory in the provinces west of Ontario. These are, of course, only a few of the findings emerging from our analyses.

    I would like to stress that our partners—especially those in community organizations—have often told us how important it is for them to have access to the wealth of information produced by Statistics Canada. Despite important advances, there are many challenges. It should be recognized that very different realities exist depending on whether one lives in northern New Brunswick, Toronto, Saskatchewan, Yukon or the Gaspé region of Quebec. These differences are clearly shown in the various studies conducted by Statistics Canada since the start of the period covered by the current roadmap. The studies include 11 highly-detailed provincial and territorial portraits of official language minorities in Canada. Each portrait provides considerable information on topics that include the roadmap's five priority sectors as well as education and the communities' demographic vitality.

    Since the start of the roadmap, Statistics Canada has found innovative ways to meet the needs of Canadians for language statistics. Many of our partners told us of their needs for information on such varied topics as access to health care in their language of choice, immigration into a minority environment, French immersion programs, literacy and adult skills or economic development, to name a few.

    Statistics Canada responded to many of these needs by publishing a major monograph entitled Languages in Canada: 2006 Census, an analytical report on the French-speaking immigrant population outside Quebec, a report on health care professionals and official language minorities in Canada, as well as a conceptual study on the economic development of official language minority communities.

    In closing, Statistics Canada, in its efforts to implement section 41 of the Official Languages Act, has taken a number of positive measures that provide minority language community members with statistical and analytical information. Along these lines, Statistics Canada enables these communities to benefit from its expertise so that they can have the tools they need to better develop their programs and services. This need is reflected in the many requests for data and consultation that Statistics Canada receives from these communities. Based on the future needs and interests of its community and government partners, Statistics Canada intends to continue supporting their actions in promoting the development of official language communities and Canada's linguistic duality.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, everyone.

    We have about an hour and a half for questions and comments.

    Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    First, I would like to ask the Statistics Canada representative a question.

    In 2007, you conducted a survey on the vitality of the official language minorities at the end of the Action Plan for Official Languages.

    Are you going to conduct the same survey for the roadmap? These figures are essential in evaluating the performance of the roadmap and in making comparisons. Will you do that or have you been asked to do it?

    My answer will be brief. As I mentioned, that survey was conducted through a partnership involving 10 federal government departments and agencies. As you mentioned, it was done in the context of the first action plan. That survey cost $7.5 million. For the moment, no interest has been expressed in conducting another survey of that kind.

    You mean that we spent $7 million to determine how far we'd come?

    Do you think that was a good survey by Statistics Canada? Did it provide the government with good data so that it could adopt a better approach to the roadmap?

    It was definitely an excellent survey to the extent that it was the first time there had been one of that scope. It should be pointed out that the survey specifically targeted 15,000 parents who were interviewed and 19,000 minority francophones and anglophones. So the 11 theme portraits that we produced, totalling nearly 1,200 pages of analysis, of course provided us with an extreme wealth of information on the subject.

    However, as we know, to measure progress, you obviously have to be able to measure it over time, a little later, after an initial survey.

    Your sector is responsible for official languages, and that is why you are here this morning. The government intended to use the report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages almost for the purpose of official consultation. It's a report on which we spent approximately two months in camera.

    Do you think that would provide good statistics for the next roadmap?

    I really can't venture an opinion on that.

    You can do it as an individual, if you can't do it officially.

    In fact, I am not really familiar with that work. All I can tell you is that the survey on the vitality of the official language minorities was conducted in accordance with highly scientific criteria.

    Are you at Statistics Canada familiar with the mandatory document that had to be completed?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Corbeil: The census?

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, the census. Do you think you have lost any data?

    I would say that we achieved 100% coverage of the population with the four linguistic questions in the census. In fact, the response rate was 98%. So we expect to have a very good estimate of the numbers and proportions in the various municipalities across Canada.

    Do you at Statistics Canada think that a priority should be set for official languages?

    As I mentioned—

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Are official languages a priority?

    Mr. Jean-Pierre Corbeil: At Statistics Canada, absolutely.

    Our action plan and our report on the results of the implementation of section 41, which is on the Statistics Canada website, outline numerous actions and positive measures that we have implemented precisely to assist official language minorities. Statistics Canada has done a lot of work in that area in partnership with the various departments and agencies to study the situation of minorities.

    Are official languages a priority at the Department of Justice?

    At Justice Canada, the answer is yes.

    If you'll let me respond, we have demonstrated that. We have a unit at our office that is dedicated to access to justice in both official languages. Our unit also manages the implementation of section 41 at the Department of Justice.

    Some 23 or 24 years ago, legislation was passed stipulating that people who appeared before Federal Court judges could do so in the language of their choice. The same was true of the Court of Appeal. Now, 24 years later, we see that the Supreme Court has not yet reached that point.

    You say this is a priority at Justice Canada. I know you are not the minister, but it is a priority. I'm going to say it before you do. It is a priority for Justice Canada. It is a priority to go into the universities and tell people to learn both official languages. At the time of the last appointment, five out of six candidates were bilingual, but the government decided to appoint a unilingual person to the Supreme Court. Do you think that makes sense?

    I really have no comment to make on that subject, Mr. Godin. We represent the Department of Justice as a federal institution.

    However, based on that decision by the government, do you think this is a priority for the government?

    I am telling you that official languages are currently a priority for the federal Department of Justice.

    Explain something to me and I will give you an example.

    A francophone in Alberta is arrested by police and put in prison for four years. I asked the Commissioner of Official Languages to conduct an investigation into the matter. A female francophone officer told the accused that she could not speak to him in French because the people there did not like anyone speaking French. That happened in 2011.

    Is Justice Canada having trouble with Alberta with respect to official languages? Since it was four years in prison, I don't think it was a minor crime.

    I really can't comment on the details of that matter. As regards Alberta—

    Ms. Duchesne, I am not asking you to discuss that case in particular since I did not even give the name of the person concerned. I am speaking generally.

    You are asking me whether official languages are a priority for Justice Canada. I repeat that they are.

    How can these kinds of things still happen today?

    I don't want to get into the division of powers or the administration of justice. Some matters are under provincial jurisdiction and others are under federal jurisdiction. The RCMP does the work it has to do in Alberta, as it does in New Brunswick and elsewhere.

    Let's consider a criminal case, which falls under federal jurisdiction.

    The RCMP has to do its job. Do you think an individual in Alberta at least has the right to a trial in French? That individual should also have access to police officers who speak French during the investigation.

    I am not in a position to comment on the case. I don't know the details.

    I'm talking about language, not about the case. Would a person who is charged have a right to a trial in the language of his or her choice?

    The linguistic provisions of the Criminal Code are very clear on that point.

    Thank you, Mr. Godin. Thank you, Ms. Duchesne.

    Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I want to thank the witnesses for being here this morning and for your presentations, which were highly appropriate and very refined. My question is for the representatives of the three departments.

    You have worked with the roadmap in recent years. Do you have any recommendations to make? Has it worked well? Do you have any recommendations on the subject, considering that we are conducting a study on the future?

    Thank you for your question.

    I believe we have definitely had some successes under the roadmap. I know that many representatives of other departments have come before the committee. The fact that we are all here shows that we are working together to improve the situation and to put the emphasis on the priorities of the roadmap. This allows us to discuss issues with other federal departments, which is more important under the roadmap than under the previous program.

     So the fact that we have the opportunity to work together has certainly been an advantage under the road map.

    On behalf of the Department of Justice, allow me to say that we tried in our presentation to outline the department's approach to access to justice in both official languages, not only since the roadmap was adopted, but also in the past 10 years.

    We are particularly interested in continuing the work begun under the roadmap to improve services to the public. There is currently significant pressure on the justice system. Canadians are seeking legal information so that they know where they must go. Even if they do not have to deal with the courts, this remains a costly exercise, mainly for citizens, but also in terms of lost productivity in Canadian society.

    This is the direction we would like to keep going in if the roadmap is continued.

    Mr. Corbeil, would you like to add something on that point?

    As you know, Statistics Canada is not affected by the roadmap, and Statistics Canada is of course making no recommendations.

    Having said that, I would like to give you one observation. As I mentioned in my remarks, we have a lot of contact with various federal and community partners. It is quite clear that, in the context of the roadmap, Statistics Canada has received many requests for data and information for the purpose of gaining a clearer understanding of what is going on.

    I talked about immigration, which is definitely a very special case. Statistics Canada has a key role to play with its partners.

    Mr. Corbeil, the immigration statistics you mentioned earlier were included in your report. I believe you have done a good job.

    With regard to the province of Quebec, the francophone reality in Quebec and the immigration system, which also has its Quebec counterpart, do you have any more data on Quebec? Are more francophone immigrants coming to Quebec? Are more anglophones coming to Quebec but leaving a few years later?

    Quebec's immigration policy seems to be working very well. Of the total number of immigrants who arrived in the five years preceding a census, 70% can speak French. Of course, that is not what we are seeing outside Quebec. However, interprovincial migration will always be a factor. That's an important issue. Some immigrants tend to migrate to Toronto or Ottawa. The period from 2001 to 2006 was the first time the number of anglophones leaving Quebec was so low. In fact, many of them who were outside Quebec returned to the province where they were born.

    As I previously mentioned, a third of Quebec's anglophone population is made up of immigrants. So immigration is definitely a very important factor in the anglophone minority community.

    Ms. Duchesne, you pay special attention to the fact that francophones outside Quebec must have access to justice in their language. Do anglophones in Quebec have virtually the same problem as francophones outside Quebec?

    In Quebec—and my colleague can confirm this—the justice system is very bilingual. I told you a little earlier about the Contraventions Act. Our agreement with Quebec does not include a contribution agreement for English-language services in view of the fact that all those services are already offered there, both in French and in English. The needs of the anglophone population in Quebec are different; although they are similar to those of the francophone population outside Quebec in terms of the importance of having access to simplified legal information in an easy-to-understand language. The problem is the same as for all people living in French outside Quebec. Their needs are currently very much in that area.

    Together with the people from Quebec, we examined the province's main legal tools, particularly for the purpose of making the Civil Code of Quebec accessible in an English form that is legally consistent and acceptable. The fact remains that Quebec anglophones have different needs when it comes to access to justice.

    My next question concerns health.

    Of course, when you have a health problem and go to the hospital, you are vulnerable. However, it is easier when you can obtain care in your mother tongue. You can explain your problems to the doctor, and it is better when you can do that in your mother tongue.

    On that subject, I would like to know whether the roadmap has enabled you to increase the number of francophone health professionals in the francophone communities outside Quebec.

    Thank you for the question.

    The short answer is yes, because one of the three components of this program, under the roadmap, is training health professionals and retaining them in both the francophone minority communities outside Quebec and the anglophone communities in Quebec.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Bélanger, you have the floor.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. I don't know why, but it's like we were about to start a square dance: the women on one side, the men on the other.

    I will ask my questions quite quickly as I will be speaking only once.

    First, I want to tell my colleague Mr. Godin that I very much enjoyed his first question. As for the $7.5 million that was used to conduct the survey, I was behind that, Mr. Godin. As we did not have those funds, we had to involve 10 departments and agencies. The fact remains that it was done because it was important. I believe it would also be important to do it again. We will put the question to the minister when he appears.

    As Canadian Heritage decided that we would be doing its work, I am going to put a question to the Health Canada and Justice Canada representatives so that we can get some information. I don't expect to get it immediately. And if you are unable to submit it to us, I ask you to inform us of that fact.

    First, I would like to know whether the summative evaluation that you must conduct under the roadmap has been completed? Who does it in your department? Incidentally, it would be good for the Department of Justice representative to provide us with an organization chart. The Health Canada people have identified themselves, but we do not know where you stand in your organization. Who conducts your summative study? Who did you consult? When, where and how did you do it? Was it done by telephone or mail, for example? What questions did you ask? What answers did you receive? When can we expect to receive all that information? Of that information, is there any that you are unable to pass on to us?

    I may not cover all your questions this morning.

    Is there anything that you cannot tell us?

    Not at this time, since our summative evaluation is almost complete.

    I'll wait for the information. I don't want it immediately.

    Perfect. I will give it to you in writing.

    Thank you very much.

    Thanks very much to the Health Canada representatives. They have done a good job.

    Ms. Beresford-Green, you mentioned growing evidence—that is the term you used. That evidence indicates below average health status for linguistic minorities. Can you share that evidence or give us the references? It would be useful to consult it.

    Mr. Farley, during the same period of time, McGill University apparently trained twice as many professionals as were trained on the francophone side.

    How do you explain that? I ask you to answer that question immediately.

    Thank you. I can easily answer it.

    Health Canada's approach in this area is really different. In the francophone communities, the department has an agreement with 11 francophone colleges and universities, including the Université de Moncton, Université Sainte-Anne, in Nova Scotia, the University of Ottawa and Collège Boréal. On the francophone side, Health Canada funds additional spots to train professionals: physicians, speech therapists and nurses. That's initial training. That training lasts one to two years, depending on the college programs, and longer in the university programs.

    Health Canada takes a different approach on the anglophone side in Quebec. With McGill University, at the community's request, the department gives language training to professionals who are already in the labour market.

    You don't train professionals; you only offer language training.

    It is indeed language training. For example, we give language training to working nurses so they can offer services in English.

    I understand. That's fine. Thank you.

    You mentioned the health centre in Edmonton. I recently visited it. Mr. Farley, I can't help but point out that only 5 or 6 of the 138 "DAS" beds, that is to say daily assisted beds, are occupied by francophones. The other beds are occupied by anglophones. And yet the centre is a francophone community initiative funded in part by the francophone community and the Government of Canada.

    How do you explain that? I know the answer. I know that the province assigns the beds. Couldn't the federal government get involved in this to some degree? It could ensure that the francophone community, which made a major effort for the centre to be built, can serve francophones.

    The francophone community manages 62 other beds, which are not "DAS", or daily assistance, beds. Believe it or not, those beds are all occupied by francophones. There appears to be a minor injustice here.

    I just wanted to raise that point with you. I don't expect an immediate response. That finding troubled me a little and it is a particular concern to the community. I hope a solution is found in this matter. I leave it in your hands.

    Now I turn to the representatives of the Department of Justice.

    With all due respect, I am a bit disappointed by your presentation. You offered some facts without providing an overview.

    Why have you spent only about 30% of the funds? At this point, you should have gone well past 60%, since this is the fourth year. By comparison, Health Canada is at 60%, and that's all to its credit.

    The statistics for the three years completed to date show that Health Canada is at 60%. As there are two years left, that's perfect. You are only at 30%, 33% and 36%. Why?

    I don't know what figures you are referring to. I don't have them in front of me. Having said that, I can give you one reason for the situation. As I mentioned to you, the department received $49.5 million over five years for the Contraventions Act Fund. Those agreements are arranged with the provinces and take an enormous amount of time to be negotiated.

    Madam, allow me to interrupt you.

    I agree with you about the Contraventions Act Fund. However, for the initiatives in support of access to justice in both official languages and for justice training, you were at 33% at the end of fiscal 2010-2011, whereas you should be at 60%.

    With your permission, for the first year of the roadmap, we had vote 5 for the roadmap, respecting the training initiative, carried over to years 2, 3 and 4.

    All right.

    In year 3, you did not even spend 10%. The same is true of years 2 and 3. So something is wrong with this program. It would be helpful to know why.

    I could provide you with an explanation in writing, with your permission.

    Thank you, Madam.

    Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

    I have one minute left. Thank you.

     One moment, please.

    Madame Duchesne, could you give the information to the clerk of the committee so I can have it distributed to all members?

    You have time left for one brief question. Go ahead.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    You said that matters were improving. I would like to have some proof of that. I don't have your text, but I will send you some comments when I find it.

    Let's talk about the Beaulac case. That was a decision in which the Supreme Court held that the federal courts must have the institutional capacity to serve the public in the official language of their choice. Madam, could you give us some statistics on the bilingual capability of judges appointed since 2006?

    As you know, Mr. Bélanger, those matters are mainly the responsibility of the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs. I do not have those figures. You must check with the commissioner's office on that.

    We'll look into that. Thank you.

    Monsieur Trottier.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thanks to the witnesses for being with us today. You are here this morning to answer questions concerning the long term and to discuss the future of the country's linguistic communities. The fundamental question for this committee is whether the roadmap has been a success.

    As you know, it was implemented in 2008 and met two major needs of the linguistic communities: long-term funding and support. Some programs lasted one year or perhaps two, but there was no long-term support. There was also a lack of coordination among the various departments. With that in mind, would you say that the roadmap has been successful in solving these two major problems in the linguistic communities? Perhaps we can start with the Health Canada representatives.

    Thank you for your question.

    I believe those are two important questions that we will address once we have the results of the assessment currently under way. However, there have definitely been successes. I am talking only about Health Canada, our program and our investments. We have built on the successes of the former program because we can see the long-term improvements, particularly in health. Is any work left to be done? Yes, because, as I mentioned, with regard to health indicators, it takes time to improve the situation.

    As my Statistics Canada colleagues and I have mentioned, the work and cooperation among the departments is an advantage. It enables us to share priorities and to work together toward the same goals.

    Ms. Duchesne, would you say that the roadmap has, by and large, been a success?

    Like my Health Canada colleagues, I would say that the summative evaluation that we are completing should provide some relatively specific information on that question. Beyond that, I would say that access to justice is quite a new area for official language minority communities.

    We have been working in it for 10 years. We had to establish our capabilities and bring in other stakeholders to work with us. We are particularly pleased with our achievements funded under the roadmap. We also think we should go a little further for those investments to be sustainable. For the moment, based on our results and our partnerships, we can say that the actions our department has taken have nevertheless helped improve matters.

    You talked about creating capacity. That capacity often depends on the provinces, which provide minority language services. Could we say that a new roadmap may not be essential as a result of this new capacity? A program achieves results when we no longer need it. Have we reached that point?

    I hesitate to say categorically that we have reached it. However, we should not view that finding as a sign of failure. The justice system as we know it also requires that we maintain what we have. As you may know, provincial court judges try 99% of criminal cases in this country.

    The Criminal Code contains language provisions that guarantee the accused's right to a trial in his or her language. Based on the successes we have achieved—and my colleague Linda could talk about training, because we have put a lot of effort into that area—we believe that this capacity is being built with the support of the provinces. However, as you will agree, federal support in this area is absolutely important. That is why we have to continue the work we have started.

    Thank you.

    I have a question for the Statistics Canada representatives.

    We are conducting a mid-term evaluation of the roadmap. Are there any performance indicators we can use to assess yearly whether the situation of the country's linguistic communities is improving and if government services are providing those communities with tools? Can we assess those things in the country's linguistic communities based on performance measures?

    Yes, there are those kinds of indicators, absolutely. As we mentioned, those indicators are based on certain sources of information that must be available. The question that arises is always comparability over time. Just considering the example of economic development, we can clearly use a number of indicators at least to monitor, over the various censuses, what has improved and what has deteriorated. So this information is available. We have already started. Moreover, the portraits we mentioned have used various pieces of information and indicators to educate us about various themes, including the five priority areas of the roadmap.

    Thank you very much.

    We'll take a little break.

     We'll take a brief health break for a couple of minutes. I've been asked to do that by some members of the committee.

    We'll just be a couple of minutes. You can stretch, take a break at the facilities, or get a coffee.

    I'll suspend for a couple of minutes.

    Welcome back to meeting 27 of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

    We'll continue our interventions with Mr. Weston.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you so cordially invited us to take a health break, I will take this opportunity to invite my colleagues to take part in a "parliamentary health" initiative. We run at 6:45 on Tuesday mornings and swim at 6:45 on Thursday mornings. That is for my friend Mr. Bélanger in particular.

    Thanks to our guests. Your comments were relevant and very interesting.

    My first question is for you, Ms. Duchesne. I am a lawyer. I come from British Columbia and have dealt with constitutional affairs in British Columbia and Quebec as well in the course of my career. So I am very much interested in the subject addressed by my friend Mr. Godin, that is to say the bilingualism of Supreme Court judges. I agree with him. It is a priority that the judges be able to speak both languages. Do you believe that other priorities, such as the integrity of candidates, Canada's legal capacity and also regional representation on the Supreme Court, may perhaps conflict with this priority of bilingualism in candidates to the Supreme Court?

    As you will understand, I am not in a position to answer that question. Like questions concerning judicial appointments, it is very much a question for the Office of the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs. They are also the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice. I would like to remind committee members that my colleague and I are here to represent the Department of Justice as a federal institution.

    All right. Thank you.

    Mr. Corbeil, I found your comments very interesting.

    We can imagine that bilingualism entails two factors: what encourages people to study their second language and what prevents people from doing so.

    You said that, in education, we have also observed remarkable progress in the youngest generations of francophones, as a result of which a larger percentage of that group hold university degrees. They also have incomes equal to or greater than those of their anglophone counterparts. You also said that more young people are currently registered in French immersion programs, 50,000 more than 10 years ago.

    Do you think there is a connection between the two? What makes parents want their young children to enrol in French immersion programs outside Quebec?

    Thank you for the question.

    As you know, second language instruction is an extremely broad field of study. There has been phenomenal growth in the number of schools offering French-language immersion programs outside Quebec, particularly since 1975. What is clear is that many parents are interested in ensuring that their children can converse in both official languages.

    However, I would like to go back to what you said in your first statement regarding the higher level of education and socio-economic status. You have to understand that many francophones outside Quebec come from Quebec. There has been interprovincial migration, as a result of which these young people have gone and settled in the west, like many other Canadians. They are contributing to the vitality of the francophone communities.

    However, there is a challenge surrounding the issue of French-language immersion. There has indeed been an increase in the number of students attending immersion programs, as we have seen. What is more, studies have shown that, after finishing school, those individuals retain their second language for a longer period of time than students who have gone through the regular French second language instruction programs. In that sense, that is a very important asset. The only problem is that many of these young people wonder why they should speak French when no one around them does the same. A lot of francophones think the same thing. So there is a void. There are clearly significant issues in this area. We see it in Toronto, where 435,000 persons speak French, but where there are only 100,000 francophones. There is also that void.

    All right, thank you.

    Mr. Aubin, go ahead, please.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Good morning to all of you. Thank you for being here.

    I will be putting my questions more to Mr. Corbeil and Mr. Nault. We evaluated this roadmap a number of months ago, and I am finally getting the chance to speak to some evaluation specialists. And I have four and a half minutes left to do so.

    I know that you are not an official roadmap partner, but you said in your opening presentation that you were a partner of several departments and communities that call you for information. Do they consult you to obtain statistics, to get information, or have they also taken advantage of your knowledge and technical know-how to develop an evaluation method?

    My answer will be brief.

    It is essentially to provide statistics. Obviously, we do not conduct summative evaluations. However, sometimes it is just about statistics; at other times, it is to try to understand, based on the statistics we have or that exist, certain phenomena for which we have no specific questions.

    I would say that it's essentially to obtain statistics.

    Perfect. Thank you.

    I will take advantage of your expertise to ask you whether you think that conducting a horizontal evaluation involving 14 partners with, ultimately, 14 different evaluation methods, can ultimately result in a credible and comprehensible report.

    As you may suspect, I absolutely cannot venture an opinion on that subject. Statistics Canada stands apart from the evaluations that are conducted in the context of programs and interventions of policy-oriented departments. Consequently, I cannot at all venture an opinion on that point.

    We're just talking about methodology. Can one use 14 different methodologies and wind up with a single report?

    As I've already told you, the methodological elements that Statistics Canada uses are essentially based on statistics. That is not necessarily the case of the departments directly concerned by the roadmap. That's all I can say on that point.

    For a number of months now, week after week, we have heard from a lot of people who come and testify about their experience in the various communities. It appears that this testimony, gathered over months, will constitute a significant portion of the report, indeed the entire final report.

    How could we make the report, which the committee must produce at the end of its proceedings, credible with regard to the actual evaluations? Do you have any suggestions to give us for drafting purposes?

    I'll give you two examples. This morning, we received a report from Health Canada. The approaches it contains are quite clearly established. In one column, there are the expected results, in a second column the performance indicators and details on those indicators. I get the impression that it is easy to navigate. There is a happy mixture of statistics and hard facts.

    As the Standing Committee on Official Languages has heard witnesses, what would our report be lacking in order for it to be relevant?

    The only answer I can give you to that question is that we at Statistics Canada measure progress over time in the conventional way. We conduct an initial survey, then we conduct a second. This enables us to see what has improved, what has declined, what has increased and so on. My colleagues from the other departments clearly operate in accordance with a logic that is either a hybrid or very different from ours.

    In short, I can't really offer an opinion on the subject.

    Mr. Corbeil, if I go back to Mr. Godin's first question, you are telling us that the second survey is tantamount to finding $15 million, $16 million or $17 million to conduct another study further to the first conducted in 2006.

    The first was conducted at a cost of $7.5 million.

    Pardon me for adding a little. The cost of living being what it is, it may be $15 million the next time.

    So that study would be absolutely essential. In any case, in the methodology, it is—

    It of course becomes difficult to monitor things over time, to see them progress or how they evolve. That is how we operate at Statistics Canada when we try to measure progress or regression.

    Mr. Chair, do I have a little time left?

    Enough to ask a very brief question.

    That would take too long. I'll keep it for another time.

    Thank you. Mr. Williamson has the floor.

    My question is for the Statistics Canada representatives.

    You write that 42% of francophones living outside Quebec report that they use French outside the home. The figure is less than 30% in the provinces east of New Brunswick and less than 10% in those west of Manitoba.

    How did you arrive at those percentages? What is going on? What are the percentages for Ontario and New Brunswick? There is no doubt a reason for that, but I don't see it here.

    I will try to be brief. These results are directly related to the Survey on the Vitality of Official-Language Minorities. In that survey, we asked a number of questions in a module on the language used in public. We asked people what languages they used outside the home in various areas, whether it be the media, various work activities and so on. We very clearly observed—you won't be surprised—that the languages used outside the home are directly related to the percentage representation of the minority groups in their living environment.

    In the Ontario regions bordering on Quebec, Franco-Ontarians use French much more than those living Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia.

    Is the situation the same in New Brunswick?

    Of course, in northern New Brunswick, it is clear that francophones mainly use their language, whereas the situation is different in the south.

    It said that 85% of Quebec anglophones use English in public. Is that simply because most of them are in Montreal or near the Ottawa area?

    Nearly 80% of Quebec anglophones live in Montreal or near Ottawa. In Montreal, they are essentially concentrated on the West Island. Consequently, they use English much more in their everyday lives.

    Are there any figures that show us how and what happens for anglophones in Quebec when they live elsewhere in the province?

    Would that be comparable to what happens to francophones in other locations in Canada?

    One element clearly stands out, and I mentioned it. Following the vitality survey, we established a concentration indicator. We have observed that even anglophones who live in regions such as the Eastern Townships or in Gaspésie live in quite dense concentrations. Consequently, they use their language much more frequently than what we observe among anglophones outside Quebec.

    Thank you.

     I'm going to take this from the English text.

    It talks about some of the demographics and the shift. You write, “the socioeconomic situation of French-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec has greatly improved”. That's good news, I would think. That was my comment; it wasn't in the text. I'll continue: “However, this improvement has not necessarily benefited the vitality of the French language, as evidenced by the anglicization of many francophones.”

    Can you explain that last line? The first two paragraphs seem to talk about a fairly.... It sounds robust. It sounds positive. There's growth. Incomes are up. That last line, “the anglicization of many francophones”, what do you mean by that?

    One of the key elements is that, as I mentioned earlier, 40% of francophones outside Quebec live in municipalities where they represent less than 10% of the population. In fact, getting a university degree and getting a good job doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be able to work in French, or that you will be able to live in French. This is clearly shown in our studies. Furthermore, what's interesting is that depending on whether you live in the urban or rural areas, there is a large impact on the languages that you are going to use. Often, francophones who work in urban environments have a higher tendency to use English at work or in their everyday lives.

    Okay, thank you.

    Monsieur Harris.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    That actually provides a decent segue into what I wanted to say. With 85% of anglophones in Quebec being able to live their lives more in English, and certainly more than in other provinces, it brings up a question with respect to justice. The road map did allocate $38 million for program funding. However, it only allocated $900,000 to Canada's English linguistic minority communities in support of access to justice in both official languages in Quebec. Could you please explain to the committee why the English-speaking community in Quebec received only 2% of the funds from this program?

    One of the reasons, and the main reason, is because the funds are not distributed according to regions, provinces, or communities. The funds are attributed depending on the merits of the projects submitted to us. The English community of Quebec has benefited from the access to the justice support fund as much as any other, depending on the project they submitted to us. That is the main reason.

    We do not allocate funds on a regional basis.

    Thank you.

    You said on the basis of merit. Could you please, if you have the information, explain which community sector organizations supporting Canada's English linguistic minority communities Justice Canada does contribute to with program or project funding?

     We have worked with the Quebec Community Groups Network. We have regular discussions with this network. We have also worked with the joint committee of the Quebec bar and the Chambre des notaires to help maintain a lot of work related to the English version of the Civil Code of Quebec, because according to the English legal community, the English version of the Civil Code of Quebec was not written in an acceptable manner for English-speaking lawyers and the English-speaking community. So we've helped a lot with that particular project.

    We've also funded other projects with McGill University, the centre for private and comparative law, and we have also done a tremendous amount of work with Éducaloi. As my colleague Linda was explaining, we have done extensive work with Éducaloi to provide the English community of Quebec with legal information that is written in an English language that they fully understand, that is written in clear language.

     So those are the main areas we have worked with so far with the English community in Quebec.

    Thank you.

    We may have follow-up questions down the road.

    Then I will quickly use up the little time I have left.

    Do you believe that Statistics Canada should be one of the key post-roadmap institutions?

    I can answer that question.

    Statistics Canada has clearly developed a number of partnerships with the various departments and agencies precisely because it does not necessarily have the resources to respond to as many requests from the various partners.

    Consequently, the efficiency achieved by being directly funded clearly enables us to target issues more specifically and perhaps to respond more efficiently to members of the official language minority communities. I would say, and my colleagues from the justice and health departments are proof of that, that it is thanks to these kinds of partnerships that we can provide information to the official language minority communities. Otherwise, it would be much more difficult to do so.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Boughen, would you like the floor?

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Let me add my voice to that of my colleagues welcoming the panel here this morning.

    The question I have is one of your drawing on your own background to help answer the question, and what I'm referring to is French being spoken outside of Ontario.

    Once you start heading west there's very little French, outside of immersion schools that teach some French programs and some core French. But as you move farther west...in fact, in B.C. I've been given to understand the second language is now Mandarin. That's the one chosen by most of the young people who are attending secondary school.

     I would invite the panel to share with us on the committee here how we will change that around. What can we do to increase the probability of young people taking French? Moms and dads basically don't take French; it's the young people who are going to school who elect to take the French program. The parents may support that, but it's still up to the kids to make that decision. What do you see that we can do to again increase the probability of French being introduced more and taught more in secondary schools in the western part of Canada?

     Do any members of the panel care to comment on that?

     If I may, just to give you a little quick information, 60,000 of B.C.'s population in 2006 had French as their mother tongue. And when we look at the number of people who can speak French, we're close to 300,000, so it's five times larger, actually.

    You're absolutely right. French is only one of six languages, because there is in B.C. this requirement to learn a second language. What is interesting is that in our discussions with many of our stakeholders, a leading idea was to develop a sense of the importance of learning a second language. In Quebec, it's interesting to note that 55% of those who don't have French or English as their mother tongue can speak three languages.

    Actually, in Canada, close to two million people can speak more than three languages, which is interesting.

    Even the Commissioner of Official Languages has mentioned that French is sometimes considered a foreign language in some parts of Canada. The knowledge of languages and this love, I would say, of learning languages is not satisfied with knowing only one language.

    I know we've identified immigration sometimes as a factor in explaining this reduction in the number of youth who can speak French. But it's interesting that in B.C. many Asian parents make it a priority for their children to learn French and English. They want to make sure that they fully integrate into Canadian society.

    I will give you an example. One of things we are funding is the training of health professionals. In Alberta there is the Campus Saint-Jean at the University of Alberta. They are training health professionals in French. And in their nursing program, the majority of students come from immersion schools.

    Thank you.

    We'll go to Madame Michaud.

    Thank you very much for your presentations. They will be of considerable help in evaluating the roadmap and in gaining a clearer understanding of the issues you face.

    My first questions will be for Ms. DuPont and Ms. Duchesne.

    Under the roadmap, you had to implement a new justice training initiative to encourage young bilingual Canadians to make a career in those fields. Can you give us a brief update and tell us where you stand in that regard?

    I told you about the CliquezJustice.ca portal in my presentation. There we present a number of justice careers. It was created by AJEFO and picked up by seven associations of French-language legal practitioners in Canada. The goal is to make people aware of the available jobs in the field of justice that are not jurist or lawyer jobs. These are fields we discussed earlier, such as social work, police work, translation, interpretation and so on. A lot of work has been done in this area.

    In a number of projects funded by the support fund, there is always a justice careers component. We want to make young people and older people aware of justice careers in French.

    Thank you very much.

    My question is also for you.

    Under the previous action plan, you received approximately $27 million that was allocated to your legal obligations. However, under the current roadmap, that is no longer the case. No further amounts are allocated to that area.

    Has this had any major consequences for your operation? Has it interfered with your ability to discharge your legal obligations with respect to official languages?

    No.

    I believe that what you were referring to was perhaps the matter of legal obligations. Obviously, everything pertaining to the implementation of the Contraventions Act represented a lot of work. However, I also link that to the implementation of the linguistic provisions of the Criminal Code, which also required a significant amount of work with the provinces to ensure that Canadians have access to their justice system in the language of their choice when they are charged with criminal offences.

    That was a concern of our department at that time, and that is still the case, with respect to the roadmap, even though you may not have found that wording.

    Thank you very much.

    My next question is more for the Health Canada representatives.

    The issue of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research piques my curiosity a little. A research initiative on the health of the official language minority communities has been cancelled. Could you tell me how Health Canada was targeted by that decision?

    All right, thank you, Ms. Michaud.

    I hope someone will take over.

    Thank you for your question.

    Unfortunately, I cannot comment directly on the decision made by another member of our health portfolio. However, even though the program as such has changed, there is still access in the context of their broader contribution programs. I am not an expert on the program, but, with that access, the impact on Health Canada's programs is minimal.

    All right, thank you.

    Mr. Menegakis, you have the floor.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Good morning again to all.

    Thank you very much for your presentations. I found them to be very informative. It's actually quite nice to hear from partners in the road map about the progress that's been made. I commend you for the work you've done in your departments.

     The Canadian government is making an investment of about $1 billion in the road map for linguistic duality, so it's very important for us to hear how it's working. This is why we're studying it mid-term, if you will, or maybe 60% of the way into it, to see how we can improve it and to see what will happen in the post-road-map era.

    I was interested to hear that progress has been made. I'd like to hear your comments about what it was like before the road map and how the road map has facilitated your work in your departments. If you could give us a comparison of the situation before road map versus road map, that would be very useful.

    I must say that before the road map there was of course an action plan from the government. We did a fairly good amount of work there, as I said, on building capacity, on stabilizing things, as well as on allowing some community organizations to concentrate on projects and to work with their communities as well.

    The road map consolidated that, but it also allowed us to get further in the system. I'm referring here to the training initiative, which my colleague knows a lot better than I do. The training initiative allows us to get into the system to make sure that people who are in the system are able to work with a community organization but also to work with ordinary citizens to make sure they understand fully what is happening.

    It's the same situation as the one for health. When you face the legal system, you do seem vulnerable. You do not necessarily understand what is being said. We had to make sure that people in the system could also communicate this information. So the road map has definitely allowed us to work with the system and to work with our colleagues from the provinces and territories as well.

    Thank you.

    Would you care to comment, Ms. Green?

    From the point of view of Health Canada, there is a key difference in the level of funding that we now receive under the road map, which is significantly more than we received under the previous action plan. There are obviously opportunities for investment that come with that, which have allowed us to build on some of the successes and some of the platforms that I think were developed through the action plan.

    There are a number of areas in which we have strengthened, for one thing, the accountability, in terms of the framework and logic model that have been developed as partners together under the road map. That has certainly allowed us to better understand the results focus and to be able to demonstrate some of the results.

    I think there's another piece that has been fundamental for Health Canada. We've talked a little bit about working in partnership with our federal colleagues, but we have also been able to further build partnerships with key community organizations. I'm thinking in particular of three that regroup a number of the local community organizations. They are the Community Health and Social Services Network in Quebec, la Consortium national de formation en santé, and la Société Santé en français, which have been key partners with us in a model that I think has allowed us to really understand, consult with communities, and use their expertise to help us set priorities, and therefore be able to target the investments to those priorities.

     Okay.

    Mr. Menegakis, you have time for a very short question.

    Okay, this is a very short question for Health Canada.

    You mentioned that McGill University offers training to working professionals and over 3,700 have availed themselves of that opportunity. Do you know of any other universities across the country that would offer the same, in the west in particular?

    Mr. Farley.

    The approach is very different from that of the other universities. I mentioned the Campus Saint-Jean at the University of Alberta. They do not offer language training to health professionals in the market, but they do offer initial training for nurses and other health professionals. These are different approaches based on the needs that were identified by the committees themselves.

    Thank you very much.

    Monsieur Godin.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    My question is for the Statistics Canada representatives.

    A little earlier you talked about immigrants. My colleague Ray Boughen said that, once you start heading west from Ontario, French gets lost. I didn't say that; it was the Conservative member sitting on the other side of the room. When you start heading west from Ontario, it is as though French was being lost. The further west you go, the more people speak Chinese or Mandarin. Has Statistics Canada conducted any studies or research in western Canada on the language spoken by workers? I will explain to you why I am asking that question.

    I get telephone calls from people in my constituency. They come from Acadie, which is in northeastern New Brunswick and eastern Ontario. Beyond Ontario is Quebec, and then it's the Acadian Peninsula. I say that to give you some background. I got a telephone call from Alberta, and my caller told me he had been fired because he couldn't take tests in English. He's stuck in Edmonton without any money and can't return to Shippagan. I don't need to explain the situation to you in any greater detail. This is a francophone who went out west to work. The companies asked him to take some written tests in English. He couldn't do it. He's stuck there without money. It will costs money for him to get back home. Our country is big and travel is slow. It's easier to leave Acadie to go to Paris than to go to Alberta.

    Today, the Conservative member confirms that there are more Chinese in western Canada, and my voters tell me that workers from other countries are transported by aircraft directly to a landing strip in Alberta. However, a voter from my constituency loses his job because he can't take a test in English. Other voters tell me they will be taking security tests in Miramichi so that they can work in Alberta and that those tests are in English. If they don't know English, they won't get a job. Are we really promoting bilingualism in our country, which has two official languages? I don't want you to comment, but has Statistics Canada conducted any studies on that subject? If not, should the government request that you compile statistics?

    We are conducting more and more studies on that subject. As you know, in 2001, the Canadian census, for the first time, included two questions on languages used at work. We are currently studying—

    I'll interrupt you because I want to add a brief question. How do you go about reaching people who are on job sites? They arrive by aircraft on a landing strip in Fort McMurray, Alberta. They have no telephone. How can the Statistics Canada people determine the language spoken by those workers? How do they take their tests?

    If we can't reach people by telephone, we nevertheless have census officers in the field. We identify all the places where people are. We can count people even in Fort McMurray.

    You say that Statistics Canada people go onto the job sites in Fort McMurray to see what people work there, whereas women from my constituency can't get cleaning jobs in Alberta. And yet people from other countries who speak neither English or nor French have cleaning jobs because they don't need to speak either of those languages. They are there, but the others are not. Are you going to check on the job sites what language is being spoken by the workers?

    The purpose of the census is to enumerate the entire Canadian population. In every census, of course, there is undercoverage or overcoverage. However, the aim is to enumerate all Canadians, regardless of where they work in the country.

    These aren't Canadians; they are foreign workers and they aren't registered.

    These are people who are in our country. We are therefore in a position—

    Could you give us the statistics on the camps in Fort McMurray, Alberta.

    We will try to see what we can do about that.

     Okay, thank you. You can give it to the clerk, as I've asked the other departments to do.

    Monsieur Bélanger.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Corbeil, thank you for your presentation and its rigorous approach.

    My first questions concern the Department of Canadian Heritage. Representatives from that department appeared before us a few weeks ago, and they told us once again that we were doing their job. They also said they could not give us any vital statistics for the purpose of evaluating the action plan or roadmap. In fact, the issue of education was central to those two government initiatives. That concerned francophones and second-language learning.

    When I asked them what the percentage of rights holders was after nine years of the action plan and roadmap, they did not have any statistics.

    Are there any at Statistics Canada?

    As you are no doubt aware, the only statistics we have on that subject are taken from the Survey on the Vitality of Official-Language Minorities. In the fall of 2006, we observed that 56% of children of rights holder parents were attending a French-language school and that 15% were in an immersion program at an English-language school, which yielded a total of 71%. That's what we had in the fall of 2006.

    As for the data we have on bilingualism among young Canadians, we do not have the 2011 figures. They will be released on October 24. We also found that, between 2001 and 2006, there was an increase of 78,000 young people who were able to speak both languages in Canada.

    We'll see where we stand in October.

    You troubled me a little this morning. You said there was a three-percentage-point decline in French second language learning, from 16.3% to 13% for youths 15 to 19 years of age. That is a three-point drop, but a 30% drop. The roadmap was supposed to double the number of youths. We are not doubling; we are declining. You are confirming all that for us.

    That is correct.

    In fact, it is interesting to see that there is a decline. We observed that there had been a decline since 1996. The calculation is done for a 10-year period. Indeed, among youths 15 to 19 years of age, whose mother tongue is English—

    I believe we've just answered Mr. Trottier's question in which he insinuated that we do not need another roadmap.

    On Mr. Williamson's questions on the immigration aspect—and I thank him for raising them—would you, sir, agree with the statement that tendencies in a population, be it migration or immigration, have to be evaluated over a fairly lengthy period of time in order to establish if it's a real trend or not?

    Thank you very much, Mr. Bélanger.

    That's it?

    Yes.

    You can go ahead and answer the question.

    I thought I had five minutes, Mr. Chairman.

    Well, we're running up against—

    You promised me five minutes.

    I did promise you five minutes, but unfortunately I miscalculated the time.

    So I'm the victim of your miscalculation.

    Unfortunately, you are. But I will allow Mr. Corbeil to answer the question.

    My answer will be quick.

    Every year Canada receives something slightly under twice the population of P.E.I. in terms of immigration. Obviously, over a five-year period we're talking about one million people. So for sure we need over—

    I would like to conclude the thought, if I may.

    Go ahead.

    I would encourage Mr. Williamson and other new members of the committee to read the immigration report that this committee prepared in the previous Parliament. It was a very probing document, and I think it's one we need to look at again in terms of the gradual polarization of Canada along linguistic lines, and the consequences of that.

    Thank you.

    Thank you very much to all our witnesses for your opening statements and your testimony. It's very much valued. We'll be sure to incorporate it in our report as we conclude it sometime this spring.

    We're going to suspend for one minute so we can consider the motion that Mr. Gourde will move.

    We're coming out of suspension to continue the 27th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

    The chair of the committee was given notice of motion from Monsieur Gourde.

    Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

    Can you introduce your motion?

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Since the motion concerns future business, I ask that we go in camera, please.

    I've got to call a vote on this.

    Do you wish to have it—

    Hold it, hold it.

    Did he move to go in camera?

    Yes, he did.

    A recorded division, please.

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

     I declare the motion adopted to go in camera. I will ask members of the public to leave the premises.

    Thank you.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]