Official Languages Committee on May 10th, 2012

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That must have been a chaplain who was entitled to be unilingual. That's still the Conservative government's philosophy.

Commissioner, I want to go back to the $6.4 million allocated over the next four years. How do you intend to find the money you need, since your funding has not been increased, but rather frozen? Can you send the committee a breakdown of the $6.4 million by the end of the parliamentary session? That will show us how those funds will be spent.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes. I won't ask my colleagues to give you all the details here on how we intend to manage that, but we will be able to send them to you in writing.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

All right.

Commissioner, I want to thank you for starting a study on transfers to the provinces. I am simply a bit concerned about certain parts of the letter you sent me, at my request. You mentioned that certain ministers in the provinces had told you they had decided to forward the transfers made to the provinces elsewhere once they received them. However, part VII of the Official Languages Act—I believe it's sections 41, 42 and 43—is very clear on that point.

You say in your letter: "I am confident you will understand that this audit will be conducted in accordance with my responsibilities and the resources at my disposal." The first part of the sentence does not trouble me, but I would like to understand what you mean by "resources at my disposal". Is that related to the budget? Does that mean you won't have enough money? What resources are you talking about? What is the problem?

[Graham Fraser]

I don't see any problem.

The topic is so broad. That's the reason why we are conducting a horizontal audit. It isn't a financial audit. In any case, that kind of audit is not within our authority. That was one way of saying it was not an unlimited audit. Some audits almost seem like criminal investigations, and we hear—

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

What is criminal is that this money should go to the minorities. It's as simple as that, and it is your responsibility, as Commissioner of Official Languages, to see to it.

[Graham Fraser]

Absolutely. We are trying to do that as effectively as possible.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Let's go back to the officers of Parliament. You said very clearly, and I agree with you, that we don't want to personalize this. We want to consider the person's responsibility. I am pleased to hear you say that. It's about the way we respond to the public, about treating both official language groups equally. Have I clearly understood what you said, commissioner?

[Graham Fraser]

Yes.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Now I'm going to talk about the Supreme Court judges.

The Supreme Court's responsibility is to achieve justice for citizens. You agree with me, don't you? The Supreme Court was not established for a lawyer appointed judge to feel he has a right not to speak both official languages. Let's be serious. Who is most important? Isn't it Canadians and Quebeckers? Isn't the idea to ensure equal treatment for the Canadian people and for officers of Parliament? Citizens want to be treated equally, to be heard in their language, to be able to speak with the officer of Parliament. Commissioner, I cannot see how you, as Commissioner of Official Languages, could not speak both languages. Let's get serious. That would be the most ridiculous thing imaginable.

[Graham Fraser]

Let's say I have always thought that my ability to speak to you in your language was an essential skill for me in discharging my responsibilities.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

We are talking about 10 officers of Parliament who perform appreciably the same duties as you. We call them the watchdogs of democracy. We are not talking here about a right to a promotion. You say that citizens should be treated equally. That is the question. Do you agree with me?

[Graham Fraser]

With regard to the importance of a bilingualism policy, I have always based on my analysis on the right of citizens to be understood by the state, not on a privilege—

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

What you are saying, commissioner, although you haven't said it that way, is that, if a signal were sent out in advance to the effect that the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada must be bilingual under the act, people would be trained accordingly. And the training institutions, the universities, have said so themselves. They would be given training in advance. If you want to become a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, you have to learn both languages. So the message would be sent. You currently don't need to be bilingual to become a judge. That is a bad message being sent to our people who are studying and who want those positions.

In addition, Parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada are not schools; they are institutions. The schools are the universities and training institutions. Once you are there, it's no longer the time to come and learn a second language. It should be learned before that, when you want to obtain that kind of position. There are 31 million people in Canada; I can't believe that we cannot find a bilingual auditor general among them. When the Auditor General submitted his report on the F-35s, for example, the francophone community did not hear him speak French. It was all well and good, but he spoke English on Radio-Canada, and the francophone community was unable to understand him. That's the situation. The goal is not determine who will get the position, but rather who will benefit from it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Trottier, go ahead, please.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I have some questions and comments. I admit I am not a legal expert, but it seems to me that it isn't citizens who plead before the Supreme Court of Canada. All arguments are in writing. I believe that, of all the courts, the Supreme Court is the one where there is the least need for language skills. In fact, it is not like a lower court. That's how it operates; that is to say that we have translation services. I'll say it once again: I am not a legal expert and I have never appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada, but that is how it operates.

The question I would like to ask—

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chair, may I respond?

There are two points to bear in mind in this debate. First, one-third of appeals from the provinces come from Quebec, and all the argumentation, all the decisions, all the briefs are in French. They are not translated. So a unilingual judge has only the little brief written by his clerk to assist him in understanding a lot of files.

Second, the Official Languages Act was passed in order to make the public service, which was operating in English, aware of the fact that that was discriminatory toward francophones, who were required to work in their second language. People said at the time that the introduction of linguistic obligations would discriminate against everyone from the west. Now we see that the Chief of Defence Staff, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Clerk of the Privy Council all come from the west and they are all bilingual.

We are now hearing exactly the same arguments against the bilingualism requirement in the Supreme Court of Canada as we heard 40 years ago about mandatory bilingualism for public servants. Under the bill that I have supported before parliamentary committees, a lower level of bilingualism would be required of judges than that required for public servants.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you for your comments, but that was more in a broader context. In fact, it was for public servants, for access to federal government jobs. I learned both languages when I was young, but I am an exception in this country. It must be said that most people in the country are not bilingual. People want to prevent these positions from being awarded to people who come from bilingual places in the country, that is to say Montreal, Ottawa and New Brunswick. From the standpoint of equality, whether for unilingual francophones or unilingual anglophones, can those people have access to these positions even if they have not had the opportunity, in their training or from their experience, to learn both languages?

[Graham Fraser]

In fact, 60% of federal public servants do not have any linguistic obligations; that's the majority. In British Columbia, where there are 15,000 or 16,000 federal government employees, only a few hundred of them have linguistic obligations. That's less than 3% of federal government employees.

I think it's important to ensure that people who want to have a career in the federal government or on the national stage have access to quality training. That is why, when I began my term, I conducted a study on learning opportunities. We did a follow-up study—that is one of my messages—in the federal government and the institutions that are major recruiters. We told them to go into the universities to let people know they needed bilingual employees and that it was their responsibility to offer learning opportunities to their students.

Public administration schools are increasingly starting to see a need to offer courses in French. Dalhousie University is considering offering some courses in French, and Glendon College has just introduced a French-language master's degree in public administration. The University of Windsor has realized that many students in the French system cannot stay in the region and is therefore considering introducing a bachelor's degree that can be taken completely in French. It is important for young people to have access to quality language training across the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Dion, you have the floor.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

I would like to continue along this line, commissioner. You have courageously said that officers of Parliament must be bilingual, not just their offices, but they themselves.

[Graham Fraser]

That's our interpretation of the act, since the officers are really the public face of their office.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

You have made quite similar remarks concerning Supreme Court judges.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

All right.

What do you think of the difficult situation we are in? One of the duties of the parliamentary secretary for official languages is to assist the minister in building relations with all the official language communities. If, after one year, that parliamentary secretary apparently refuses to meet one of the official language groups,

saying, “I don't handle the language enough”, is it acceptable?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Dion, I'm going to rule that question out of order.

First of all, it doesn't pertain in any way, shape, or form to the estimates we're examining today. Secondly, it references another member on this committee in a very personal way that is not in any way, shape, or form consistent with government policy or law.

If you could rephrase your question in a more general way, I'll allow it, but I don't want questions referencing specific members' language capacities on this committee.