Official Languages Committee on March 5th, 2009

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

I want to simplify. I don't understand this process, probably just like everybody else in this room.

You said a while ago that you don't like change. And I don't blame you, as I don't like change either. But wouldn't it make common sense to have the number four in English and French the same?

[Jen Goulden]

They are right now.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

It would take a generation to get used to these changes in numbers and letters, but at the end of the day, wouldn't it benefit everyone if Braille were standardized?

[Jen Goulden]

I would think so, but I'm just presenting what I do know. I use French Braille, but I don't teach it, unfortunately. So I don't deal with that side of it. Sometimes I hear comments along the lines of, oh, students are going to have such a hard time with this, and then I think, I didn't. So it's a bit hard for me to understand.

I do agree with you, but my understanding is that I am just here to talk about the effects, or some of the issues around it. So I'm not an expert in the new European standard of French Braille, because we don't use it at work. I do know about it, but I'm just presenting the issues of which I am aware. That's just for all of your information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I think we have completed two rounds of questions. A couple of members said they wanted to follow up on some issues.

Would you like to go to a third round? Would anyone like to speak?

Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Goulden, I did not have enough time earlier. I would now like to ask you a second question.

Regarding standardization, the French do not want to impose it, but would rather like to see Quebec accept it, that is, the Antoine Code, for everyone who reads braille.

This is my question. To compare, the Abraham Nemeth system, which is currently used, uses Arabic numerals, whereas the Antoine Code uses Roman numerals. That's just one example. They are both very different. The symbols mean the same thing, but they are not the same.

Anglophones also read braille. Naturally, what you read with your hands in braille can be translated into your mother tongue, which is English. However, you cannot forget that the same symbols are used in English and French. It is the same alphabet featuring the letters a to z.

But now we have a new system: the Antoine system. Take someone who wants to become a scientist, but who has a serious accident at 15 or 16 years of age. Not only will this person have to learn braille to finish his or her studies, but this person will basically be forced to use the Antoine Code after the Quebec and New Brunswick codes are standardized, and so that person will be incapable of communicating with another scientist living in an anglophone province.

But there are no books available in the Antoine Code yet. Most science books for people who can see are in English. So reading scientific books will be a problem, since the codes will be different. When two blind scientists will have to work together on a scientific project, one will read the Antoine Code with his fingers, and the other one will read the Nemeth Code. They won't be reading the same language. That will be a huge problem and things will not be able to move ahead.

When Ms. Guay raised the issue, I wasn't sure what she was getting at, but there seems to be a problem. I understand that you are not mandated to talk about standardization, but the implications are profound. Standardization might isolate francophones who currently use the Abraham Nemeth system, but who might have to convert to the Antoine system, which will be implemented in Quebec, New Brunswick and in other francophone areas. Furthermore, francophones from other provinces who keep the old system will not be able to communicate with other francophones in Canada, because of the two different systems.

That's how I understand the situation. Could that be a potential problem, that is, that francophones will not be able to communicate with each other any more since there will be different systems in place in Canada?

[Jen Goulden]

I see what you're saying, that it would be...in order for them to access things that are in English in the scientific world. That makes complete sense to me. It's like what you were saying along the lines that there shouldn't be two different systems being used, and I agree with that.

And I agree that everybody, or each province, or people, should have a say in this, because what you're raising is a good point. People need to have a say in this process because a lot of people have different points of view. For example, I wouldn't necessarily have a certain point of view because I haven't had a certain experience. So I think that with standardization or any real issue with Braille literacy, a lot of different input needs to be obtained.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Ms. Goulden.

I think we've completed the round of questions. I'd like to thank our two witnesses. Mr. Loyd, in addition to your presentation being succinct, it was very clear about the federal government's responsibilities in this area.

Ms. Goulden, the clerk has informed me that you got yourself here this morning without any assistance. That is to your credit and I'd like to thank you on behalf of all members of the committee for having come to our meeting on such short notice. It's very inspiring to have you here with us this morning. Thank you for your attendance.

While the witnesses leave the room, we'll move ahead with committee business. We have a couple of housekeeping motions to deal with, the first of which concerns the adoption of our budget for the post-secondary institutions study. That's what we did for the Braille standardization study.

The motion states:

That the proposed budget of $26,950 for the study on federal government support for post-secondary institutions' efforts in promoting bilingualism in Canada be adopted.

For those that want it, I have the breakdown of the $26,950 budget. The bulk of this, $24,000, is witnesses' expenses; $950 is for videoconferences; and $2,000 covers other costs.

Is it agreed? We are going to have copies made and distributed.

From what I understand, Ms. Guay's initial concerns are about access to Braille services. I think we got a lot of information on this issue. And along the way, our attention was drawn to the issue of standardization. We are aware that Quebec is going to adopt a different code in September.

Minority communities are probably going to keep the existing code, which seems easier to transfer into English and anything that's science-based.

As far as we're concerned, that's essentially the crux of the issue. Our awareness of the issue has been raised and we can now move on.

Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I'd like to talk about the problem Ms. Monique Guay raised, and which in some ways concerns us. I started to make contacts, but I still haven't been successful in getting a meeting. I asked the woman representing Mr. Fraser to meet with him, but I'd also like the committee to have this opportunity.

Writing is language, our language. Ms. Goulden and the other witnesses made the point that in Quebec we're going to use the standardized French-language code. If we don't let blind people use standardized writing in French and in English so that they can work in both languages, and if we adopt a different code, francophones in minority communities both in New Brunswick and in the other provinces may no longer be able to communicate with each other. That's the danger.

Here is how I think we should tackle the issue. Perhaps we should ask...

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Excuse me, Mr. Petit, I'd like to recognize Mr. Nadeau on a point of order.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I understand what you're getting at, Mr. Petit, but when it comes to literature, they will be able to communicate. Now, that won't be the case for science and math. You need to make the distinction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Nadeau, we'll go back to Mr. Petit.

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

That's not a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I'm glad to have made the point, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Indeed, based on the scant information we've received, the Antoine Code could be used for the study and transfer of scientific concepts. The Abraham Nemeth Code is currently in use. And it can be used without too much difficulty in the transference of scientific texts in both English and in French as they both use the same signs, or the same language. Now, in this case, we'd have two different modes of writing. That would mean that francophones may be handicapped because they'd be incapable—unless they learnt the other code, because there would be two in effect—of interpreting data or discussing science. There are a lot of blind people who become blind after an accident and who teach, are scientists, are versed in the sciences, who work in various science-related fields—and God knows there are more and more fields of this type—and they'd become incapable of communicating and transferring their knowledge and wouldn't be able to discuss problems that affect them every day. These aren't necessarily the same problems we have.

So I'm concerned, Mr. Chair, that there's a problem there. We understand that all of the provinces are free to decide whether or not to standardize their code. However, if blind people in Quebec and New Brunswick are no longer able to communicate in a given subject area, the broad field of science in this case, then there's a problem. Right now it's a linguistic problem. Writing is a vehicle, but this is a linguistic problem. Don't you think it would be good to ask Mr. Fraser whether his mandate—and in any mandate, there's what is written and there's the spirit of the letter—would permit him to intervene. So that's the question and I think we need to think about it. And if we don't, it will mean that in September 2009, that's four or five months away, the standardized Antoine Code will be in effect in Quebec and it will create problems for francophones outside Quebec. Now, even though we're talking about a minority group within a broader minority group, I still think we need to do our job as parliamentarians and follow up on this. We need to ascertain whether or not we can help these people. There seems to be a problem here and I certainly don't want, at a later stage, for blind people in my province or in New Brunswick to have even more of a handicap.

So that's what I wanted to say, and I think that we need to ask ourselves these questions. We're good parliamentarians. Ms. Guay has raised an excellent matter and this is an opportunity for parliamentarians to demonstrate compassion. I think that this is very important and that the committee should ask Mr. Fraser to research this and take the time he needs to determine—provided that it is within his purview—whether writing, the representation of the two languages, should be standardized, with or without his approval. So that's the matter I submit to your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

While I was listening to you I thought of a suggestion I'd like to share with you, colleagues. Basically, we've dedicated three meetings to this subject and we do not intend to write a report as such. Now as far as your proposal is concerned, Mr. Petit, perhaps we could share our findings and the fruits of our labour with the official languages commissioner and he can determine whether or not it would be in his mandate to consider this matter. That's just a proposal. If you wish, as chair of the committee, I could inform the official languages commissioner of the testimony we've received and of the issues facing the minority language communities, and more specifically blind persons within those communities. Maybe that is a way of tying up the loose ends on this issue.

Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My intervention will be brief and to the point.

We don't have to do anything. Since the people from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages follow committee business closely, they are already aware of this information. If they deem it to be important, I am sure that they will be able to perform a follow-up. They are very qualified people, and we don't need to go any further in this respect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you for your opinion, Mr. D'Amours.

Mr. Lemieux.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to say pretty much the same thing. As you have already said, we have already held three meetings on this subject, and although it is important, we will not be preparing a report. The next time we hear from the commissioner, perhaps he could comment on the study we have just completed. However, it is not necessary to invite him to attend another meeting on this subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Fine.

Are there other comments?

Mr. Gravelle.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

I'm not sure. Maybe we should carry out a follow-up to help us make a decision about the standardization of Braille. We heard testimony at a few meetings. If we don't do anything, what use will it have been to have sat here for three meetings lasting two hours each, and not made any decision? If we disregard everything we have heard without doing anything, what will we have accomplished as parliamentarians?

I don't know who should do this follow-up, but someone should do something.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I would like to answer Mr. Gravelle. You probably already know this, but the minutes of each meeting are drawn up, so that those who are interested can see what is being discussed.

Generally speaking, we got an opportunity to explore the scope of the situation. In the end, it turns out that we don't have the skills necessary to legislate or to get involved in this area. However, we have gleaned a great deal of information.

As Mr. Petit said, the Commissioner of Official Languages will surely follow the discussions held by our committee, as his office usually does. I'm sure they will reflect on many things.

Now that we have been informed of the situation, it is up to the qualified authorities, for example, education stakeholders, to take action. During the first meeting, it was clearly explained that each province has a different viewpoint with regard to its education system. We compared the situation in Ontario with that in Quebec, in particular. These authorities are equipped to respond better.

It was not a waste of time, given that the minutes are available to everyone and that those concerned are aware of the situation. We don't have the required jurisdiction, but at least we will have made the people who do have that jurisdiction aware of certain data.

I think that we have covered the topic, and we can't do much more.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.

Ms. Zarac.