Official Languages Committee on Sept. 28th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

I would like to start by welcoming our witness for this morning, Mr. Graham Fraser.

I want to welcome Mr. Graham Fraser.

Here is how we will proceed. We will start with a 10 to 15 minute speech by Mr. Fraser. We will then move on to a period of questions from the representatives of the various parties. Just prior to concluding our meeting, we will move to in camera for 15 minutes in order the discuss the committee's future business.

Welcome, Mr. Fraser. Feel free to start whenever you are ready.

[Graham Fraser, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of Parliament,

good morning.

I am honoured to be before you to discuss my nomination to be Commissioner of Official Languages.

While this is far from the first meeting of your committee that I've attended, it's the first time I've done so in this chair. I'm reminded of an appearance I made before a neighbourhood working committee that was engaged in the planning of urban renewal for the Treffan Court neighbourhood in Toronto. I wanted the approval of the committee to write a book about the process and was very aware of the tensions that existed between the homeowners, the tenants, and the businessmen, so I was very nervous. I made my presentation. The committee gave its approval. I went on to write the book. But after the meeting one of the homeowners said to a community worker, “If he writes like he talks, it's not going to be much of a book.”

It is a particular honour to be considered for the position of Commissioner of Official Languages. I have followed the careers of the previous commissioners, read their reports, gone to their press conferences and committee hearings, met most of them, interviewed several of them for my own work, and I have a great deal of respect for all of them. It is a challenging and important position.

Let me introduce myself. I was born in Ottawa and moved to Toronto as an adolescent with my family. I attended the University of Toronto, where I did a BA and later an MA in history. I became a journalist in 1968, and with a few breaks to travel, study, or write books, I've worked in Canadian journalism since then--for the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, Maclean's, and The Gazette--in Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Washington, and Ottawa.

I've spent a significant part of my career writing about Quebec for the rest of Canada and, in a column for Le Devoir between 1995 and 2000, about the rest of Canada for Quebec. But the critical experience that made that career possible occurred when I was a unilingual English-speaking university student. In 1965 I went to work on an archeological dig at Fort Lennox on Île aux Noix on the Richelieu River, south of Montreal. That summer I not only learned French, I discovered how little I had known or understood my own country. I developed a deep interest in and affection for Quebec that has lasted ever since.

It was also, paradoxically, an experience that helped me to understand both the difficulty of learning a second language and something of the immigrant experience, for learning another language and culture makes one more empathetic to those who have moved here from other countries.

At one point a bilingual fellow student said to me, “You're very different in French than you are in English”. “Of course I'm different”, I snapped, “I am stupid, I am inarticulate, and I have no sense of humour.”

Ever since, I have always thought that linguistic duality and cultural diversity are not contradictory, as some would have us believe, but deeply linked. In fact, without the recognition — conscious or unconscious — that Canada comprises two language communities, the very notion of multiculturalism would be difficult to accept.

And while this link between linguistic duality and cultural diversity is a close one, it strikes me as poorly understood — even to this day.

To my mind, one of the key tasks of the next commissioner will be to continue explaining this important relationship — not only for the majority language communities, but for the minority communities as well. Canada's French-speaking communities are now welcoming large numbers of immigrants, in much the same way as the English-speaking communities are doing.

And I might just add at this point that I think there are already examples of immigrants who have come to Canada and become part of one or the other linguistic community. Not only have they become competent in the second official language, they are also quite eloquent. There are examples of this both within this committee and in Parliament in general. So to anybody who says these notions are contradictory, I say, here are some living examples of the contrary.

Since my nomination I've been asked several times to articulate my vision for the commissioner. I felt I should wait until meeting with you to do so.

The first most important point is my belief in the importance of linguistic duality in Canada. I think it is one of the central defining characteristics of the country.

As you know, the commissioner has six roles or functions in the enforcement of the Official Languages Act: a promotion and education role, a monitoring role in terms of the impact of government initiatives, a liaison role with minority communities, an ombudsman role dealing with complaints, an auditing function in terms of the public service, and a judicial intervention function.

I described the role of the commissioner recently as part cheerleader, part nag. And in looking more closely at those six functions, three fall into the cheerleading category and three into the nagging category. These are also related. The more successful the commissioner is in promoting, educating, monitoring, and carrying on the liaison function, the fewer complaints and court actions there will be.

The commissioner is an agent of Parliament — something that takes on special importance now that there have been amendments to the act. For these amendments have not been instigated by the government — neither the current government nor the previous one. Rather, it is thanks to you, Canada's parliamentarians, that this act has been amended for the first time since 1988. This has been a lengthy endeavour, and I commend you for your perseverance.

Last spring, I was impressed to hear Minister Josée Verner, before the same committee, express her commitment and that of her government to these changes. As you know full well, these amendments give the minority communities some very powerful instruments to ensure that the government takes their interests into account. I believe that the top priority of the next commissioner will be to ensure the successful implementation of part VII of the act.

Unfortunately, when one talks about governance in French, there is a concept that gets lost in the translation, so to speak. The phrase in English is “the public service”, whereas in French, one talks about “la fonction publique.” The concept of “service” is very important: the machinery of government must serve citizens, and not just function. And if citizens are not served in the official language of their choice, a crucial link between citizen and state is broken.

Addressing you today, I find myself in a rather interesting situation. Six months ago, I published a book on language policy called Sorry, I Don't Speak French. My aim in writing this book was to remind Canadian anglophones that the language issue remains of the utmost importance for our country.

With your indulgence, I would like to share with you a few of the key points I tried to stress in my book, which form part of my perception of Canada's linguistic duality.

First, I made the observation that language policy does not exist to protect, or even promote bilingualism, even though it cannot succeed without a certain number of people being bilingual. It exists to protect those who speak but one language. There are 4 million unilingual francophones in this country — and 20 million unilingual anglophones.

The act is there to guarantee that the 7 million francophones, and more specifically these 4 million unilingual francophones, are provided with federal services as effectively and efficiently as the 20 million unilingual anglophones are — including the minority anglophone community in Quebec. The act is not there to force people to learn another language, nor to create a country where everyone is bilingual.

When people talk about language policy, they often refer to it as “a dream”, as though it were unrealistic or unfeasible. Well, if I believed that, I would not be here today. Something I tried to get across in my book — and this may strike you as prosaic — is that English and French are Canadian languages. French is not some private code, nor is it the private property of Quebeckers. The French language belongs to all Canadians, just as the English language belongs to all Canadians. It is a legacy — and an opportunity.

Over the last two years, I've spoken about language, language rights, and the history of language legislation in a variety of platforms across the country, in lectures, interviews, and on open-line radio shows from Vancouver to Halifax. As a result, I can tell you from personal experience what a recent poll for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages confirmed recently. There's an enormous pool of goodwill towards linguistic duality in Canada. There are concerns about access to immersion education, about the effectiveness of federal regulations, but the hostility to the goal of linguistic duality is now marginal.

But there are other broader challenges that face the next commissioner beyond the amendments to the law. Immigration is transforming Canada's cities, and it will be a continuing challenge to convey the importance of linguistic duality to those newcomers. Immigration, cultural diversity, and economic and technological change have been constant factors in Canada, not only over the last four decades when the Official Languages Act has been in force, but throughout our history.

The next commissioner will have to respond to those changes, just as the previous commissioners have done, but the fundamental question, in my view, remains the one that the late André Laurendeau and the late Davidson Dunton would ask at the beginning of the public hearings of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism four decades ago: Can English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians live together, and do they want to do so? I believe an official language policy that works is essential if the answer to those questions continues to be affirmative.

Thank you. I'd be glad to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fraser.

Now we will start our first round. We have questions from each party for a seven-minute period.

Mr. Rodriguez, the floor is yours.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, all. Good morning, Mr. Fraser.

[Graham Fraser]

Good morning.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you for being here with us today. I would like to say right from the outset that I have a lot of respect for the work you have done over the years, both as a journalist and as an author. You see, I had the opportunity to read your book on a beach in Mexico.

It was very interesting, Mr. Chair. What is more, I would recommend that all members of the committee get a copy of the book.

There is a plug for you, sir.

There is no getting around the fact that you have big shoes to fill. I am sure you will agree that Dyane Adam, the Commissioner of Official Languages, adopted a very proactive and engaged approach when it came to official languages. And I am convinced, based on what I know, that you will make this role yours and do what needs to be done.

I have two questions I would like to ask you, the first of which is rather general. You referred to the six elements which make up the role of commissioner. When you get to the office tomorrow morning, what will your number one priority be? What do you intend to do?

[Graham Fraser]

I think that my number one priority will be to focus on the amendments to the act. We will need to determine what the impact of these amendments will be, how they will change the relationship between the office of the Commissioner and minority communities, that is between government and minority communities.

I believe that the amendments to the act will have a bearing on the six elements I referred to. My role will be to promote, to educate, and to liaise. This may lead to complaints concerning the commissioner's role as ombudsman. My role will also involve monitoring any action the government takes and may also include legal action.

My number one priority will be to understand what these changes will mean. The name of the bill has been used for a long time in reference to these changes. I myself avoid any reference to the bill, because we are no longer dealing with a bill, this is the law. It is my responsibility, therefore, to understand this new act in its entirety.

I have observed in the past that when legislation is amended, it takes time for the machinery of government to absorb the effects of such changes. Right from the beginning of my term in office, I would make a point of understanding this particular dynamic.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Especially since, as you said, this new legislation will have a horizontal component to it. In other words, each and every department will be involved and will not only have to understand its new role but also be able to, and want to, play this role in the future.

You said that Bill S-3 has now become law. And I agree. Its implementation is also one of our top priorities. We would be interested in knowing how the government intends to implement the new act.

This week's cutbacks have struck us as quite paradoxical. It is my personal opinion that they were ideologically based, since there was no need for them in the first place. They were made, however, because they were considered necessary. The Court Challenges Program was cut, and that, in my opinion, is quite a paradox. Once upon a time, the Conservatives voted in favour of Bill S-3 enabling communities to take the government to court should it fail to fulfil its obligations. This important bill, which was used in many court cases, was also left to die. I cannot help but think about the francophone schools and Montfort Hospital, which, obviously, suggests the following question, albeit a slightly sensitive one for you to have to answer.

What do you think about the elimination of the Court Challenges Program?

[Graham Fraser]

I am in a bit of an awkward position. First of all, Ms. Adam is still the commissioner and has made a statement on this matter. I do not want in any way to minimize the importance of her statement nor those of the community organizations which have taken a stand.

I just got here and I am between a rock and a hard place, if you will. I do not want to answer you with my journalist's hat on, but I cannot speak as if I were already the commissioner either. But I have questions of my own: how can that decision be reconciled with statements the Minister made in the spring? What will the impact of this decision be on the act and on its enforcement? How many cases are currently before the courts? Could this decision have an impact on the outcome of cases already before the courts? Would the commissioner perhaps have to respond to complaints?

Giving responses to this question now may, I think, compromise the role any future commissioner will have to play when faced with certain situations, especially since I do not have all the necessary information in hand.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I understand the position you are currently in. However, I also understand that you have made a commitment, to some extent, and that once in office, you will make it your business to consider this issue.

[Graham Fraser]

Of course, this is a matter which concerns me and which is of great concern to minority communities. I will be focusing very seriously on these concerns.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

In conclusion, I would simply like to stress what a good choice Mr. Fraser is for this position, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to wish him every success.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.

Ms. Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Congratulations, Mr. Fraser. I would like to thank you for being here. I am very glad you were nominated. I think that we will really benefit from the services, in the full sense of the word, of somebody who is thoroughly dedicated to the cause of official languages. And I think that is important.

You mentioned in your presentation that you learned French, which gave you an understanding of what immigrants experience when they come here from another country. Indeed, this is an important factor in relation to learning a second language.

You also referred to your fondness for Quebec, which I myself have developed. This is something we have in common. I think it is also important to stress how language is not dissociable from culture. Culture and language are intrinsically linked. That is not generally understood. This is an important notion to me because what is behind language, at the end of the day, contributes greatly to who we are and what we do.

For example, you compared the terms “public service” in English, and “fonction publique” in French. There is a fundamental difference in what is meant by these two terms. These notions are intrinsic to the relationship between the two languages and between the two communities. What does all this mean? It means that language is not just words, but what lies beneath them.

You also referred to multiculturalism and said that people had trouble accepting such a notion. I think it is because they misunderstand it. I would like you to tell us what you think multiculturalism is and, particularly, what your understanding is of the two concepts of linguistic duality and cultural diversity, in a Canadian context.

[Graham Fraser]

For 40 years, the francophone communities inside and outside Quebec have been transformed, not just psychologically but also economically, from the status of a minority into an integrative society.

I think that at the moment, immigrants to Canada have a genuine choice about integrating into the francophone community, obviously in Quebec, but also in a place like Toronto, for example, where more and more francophones who arrive from other countries send their children to French schools.

For the first time, minority communities outside Quebec, which have always defined themselves as traditional French-Canadian communities, are seeing newcomers from other countries and other cultures. This can be somewhat of a challenge for communities that have always defined themselves as independent and hermetic to some extent; they have to open up their institutions, their schools to people who are not descendants of the original French settlers. That is a change that has been happening in Quebec since the introduction of Bill 101 in the 70s. And now it is a challenge facing minority communities in the rest of the country.

I know that the Acadian community has made some efforts to encourage immigrants to come to New Brunswick. Now that we have a network of French schools not just in Quebec but throughout the country, the challenge is to welcome these francophones who arrive from other countries.

I have always been struck by the fact that with the changes to the language law in Quebec, in 25 years, that province managed to do what it took English-speaking America 150 years to do: namely, to accept that their language would be spoken, with an accent, by others.

When I came to Quebec in the 60s, as soon as people heard my accent, they spoke to me in English. Now, it is accepted that people can speak French with an accent. It is accepted that French is a public language, and not just a private code used by a minority. I think that this a very important evolution of society, and it has not happened just in Quebec.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

I would like to hear your views on linguistic duality and cultural diversity, because there is a tendency to confuse the two concepts.

[Graham Fraser]

As I said, I think these two concepts do come together. Being a francophone no longer means what it meant 40 or 50 years ago. In the past, there was total identification between the French language and the French-Canadian community. It was really unusual for immigrants to come to Canada and to be integrated into the French-speaking community as others always had been in English.

I see the following connection. Rather than having an integrative, welcoming society in English and a traditional, hermetic society, the French-Canadian society, we have two dynamic societies that welcome others into their two linguistic communities. Therefore I see a dynamic at play in both languages and both language communities. That is my view of the situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser and Ms. Barbot.

I will now give the floor to Ms. Savoie.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you for your presentation, Mr. Fraser. I am going to make a plug for your book as well. I very much enjoyed the excerpt I read from Sorry, I Don't Speak French. I have two questions.

My family and I have been living in British Columbia for many years now. I tried very hard to ensure that my children, who are now adults, would speak French. And now I have grandchildren. My question may be somewhat sensitive, but I do think that it is very important for children to learn French when they are very young. The cutbacks made by the Conservative government to childcare and other services for young children jeopardize the opportunity to learn and develop in French that francophone children had in the past in provinces outside of Quebec.

Can you comment on this?

[Graham Fraser]

Without commenting directly on a decision of the current government, and without considering all the ramifications, I would like to make this point. One of the things I have been struck by is the growing interest for French in British Columbia. There are 30,000 students in immersion programs alone. The number is limited by the funds available. I looked at the trends in the eighties, and had funds not been limited, there would have been a million students in immersion programs in Canada, rather than 300,000. That shows the commitment that exists regarding language.

With respect to francophone minorities, I agree 100%. If we look at the figures in the action plan and the resulting report, we see that assimilation is a serious problem. I think one of the ways of dealing with this is to start language training when children are very young.

I was lucky, I was able to learn French, but French is my second language, it is not my mother tongue. I think that when children are learning not just academic material but are also developing an identity, this is a very important issue. However, I do not have enough information at the moment about the details of the program to comment further. This issue is of concern to me.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Programs of this type would have enabled francophone groups to set up nursery schools where French would be offered much more frequently than it is at the moment. There are a few such institutions, but this type of program would have provided financial assistance.

I have a second question, if I have any time left.

A number of years ago, I worked for the Department of National Defence for quite a long period of time. Over the years, I noticed that young francophone recruits from Quebec who were starting their military career had to take courses in order to advance. Often, too often, the teaching materials were in English only. So young Quebeckers or francophones who were not that proficient in English had more trouble and failed more often that other students.

I am wondering what the federal government could do to ensure that teaching material is available in French regardless of the career — for mechanics and others, for example — because too often recruits adopt English, because in order to work in their trade, they have to learn the terms in English. And French suffers as a result of this.

[Graham Fraser]

I know that the history of the two official languages within the armed forces is not always glowing. In his memoirs, Jean-Victor Allard, who was the Chief of the Defence Staff, wrote that at one time joining the Canadian armed forces meant that francophones were headed toward assimilation and the losts of their culture. In an effort to counter that, the Collège militaire royal in Saint-Jean was established in 1952. That institution no longer exist, and I think it is increasingly difficult for the Canadian armed forces to meet the needs of francophones.

In the research I did for my book, I had an interview with General Roméo Dallaire. In his memoirs, he said that when he was an officer in an artillery regiment, he discovered that it was impossible for his regiment to achieve its full potential because of language limitations. So he had to work very hard to get materials in French. He saw an immediate effect on soldiers' morale and on their effectiveness.

I think that ultimately it is the question of effectiveness and operational considerations. It is not merely symbolic. I was struck by something he said to me in English. It was this:

To be a Canadian officer you must be able to communicate, not just talk but communicate, in the language of the soldier, because no longer will the soldier die in the language of the officers.

Now that we are asking these soldiers to risk their lives, I think the issue is becoming increasingly important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser and Ms. Savoie.

It is now the Conservative Party's turn. We will begin with Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I would like to start by thanking you for being here today. As the member of Parliament for a riding with a minority language community, I would like to congratulate you on your book Sorry, I Don't Speak French, which is very well researched and very interesting. I appreciate the comments you make in your book.

I am the Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, a riding that begins beside Orleans and extends right to the Quebec border. There are 65,000 Franco-Ontarians living in my riding. As you know, we are proud of our heritage as Franco-Ontarians. Our community is dynamic and vibrant. As a result, many organizations, associations and programs offer services in French to Franco-Ontarians, and our government supports those efforts.

I hope you will have an opportunity to visit my constituency. It would be a great honour to have you come to see us.

In your book, you suggested some ways of promoting bilingualism and the official languages in Canada. Recently, our government announced agreements on education with all the provinces and territories for a total of one billion dollars. And, two weeks ago, Minister Josée Verner and her colleague, Minister Monte Solberg, announced a strategic plan to encourage francophone immigration. This plan was well received by the official language minority communities.

I would like your views on this type of initiative and other similar initiatives that could strengthen the vitality of official language minority communities.

[Graham Fraser]

In principle, I think this type of initiative is very important. I must confess that I have not examined these particular initiatives in detail, but where official languages are concerned, all areas of education—primary, secondary, post-secondary and labour force training—are very important. I think that the issue of immigration is also very important for official language minority communities.

I do not wish to comment on these initiatives in detail, because I have not reviewed them, but in principle, I think that there have been programs in place for a long time to support education in the second language and in the minority language. I will follow this issue very closely to ensure that this support continues and that the programs work as well as possible. I will also be trying to see what can be done to improve them.