Official Languages Committee on May 8th, 2014

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Fraser, good morning. It's good to see you and your colleagues.

Good morning everyone.

This is not where I wanted to go, but how much money was taken out of the CBC budget by the Government of Canada? They receive $1.1 billion a year, and the head of the CBC has been in recently to say that the loss of hockey has been problematic, but as well it's the problem of producing shows that people just aren't watching, and declining viewership.

[Graham Fraser]

If you look at public broadcasters around the world, out of 18 public broadcasters, CBC is 16th in terms of the amount of support it receives from the public.

For many years, the CBC was able to paper over that hole by delivering hockey on the English network. Now that is no longer there as a revenue source. Having stripped away the fig leaf, if you like, that Hockey Night in Canada represented for the CBC in terms of the private sector providing support for public broadcasting, it then becomes a question for the government to say, “What is our commitment to public broadcasting?”

There has been, if you like, a natural disaster in terms of.... When there is a serious impact—if there's a flood in Calgary—the federal government by and large doesn't say, well, Calgary is still getting the same amount of money it always has for water control from the federal government; they say that there is actually a specific crisis here: what do we think the citizens of Calgary deserve in terms of a response to a particular crisis? And this is a crisis for public broadcasting.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

I think that's a fair comment in terms of the impact the hockey is having. I concede, actually, that CBC/Radio-Canada does a good job transmitting news and ideas from one part of the country to the other, particularly Radio-Canada as it relates to news in other parts of the country into Quebec. And if my colleagues on the other side ever want to propose that the CBC or Radio-Canada, instead of cutting jobs in the regions, start with the national capital in Ottawa, I'd be happy to support that.

For example, when the Liberals cut program spending in the mid-1990s, they cut the regions before they cut Ottawa. Mr. Godin's not here today, but if it meant moving the job from Ottawa to Moncton, for example, I'd support him on that.

But I actually want to come back to an issue you have talked to me about before, and others. I know it's one you are interested in, perhaps even passionate about. It's something Monsieur Godin brought up earlier, and that is the question of bilingual Supreme Court judges, which I know you support. I do not, but let's not get into a discussion on the issue.

But I'm curious to know; in light of the recent Supreme Court decision on the Senate and amending the Senate and making change to the Senate, whereby the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Parliament could not make a unilateral change to the makeup of the Senate, would you concede that, with reference to the Senate, to make a change to the bilingual Supreme Court judges, as a federal institution, would require the consent of the provinces? We don't need to get into it—seven of 10 or a unanimous number of provinces—but that provincial consent would be required to change the makeup of the courts so judges had to be bilingual in order to be appointed.

[Graham Fraser]

I have not had a legal opinion on the impact of the government's reference on the Senate case, but I think, and my sense from the coverage in La Presse this morning is that, there is a substantial legal debate under way as to whether this would represent a significant change to the nomination process. Looking at the fundamental principles—and let me stress that I am not a lawyer, so I would await clearer legal decisions or legal advice on this before making a....

But if you look at the Official Languages Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the clear statement that French and English have equal status in this country, and you look at the degree to which various Supreme Court decisions have been made to repair damage done in the past so as to ensure equal status, I think you could make the argument that there is an obligation to ensure that there is equal status. And certainly we have heard and you have heard a series of complaints that equality is not now the case before the Supreme Court. I've given a number of examples in the past of how that equality....

Now when the Official Languages Act was being amended in 1988, the Minister of Justice at the time, Ramon Hnatyshyn, was asked about the fact that there was a specific exemption for the Supreme Court. He said he didn't think there was at that point a sufficient pool of judges to allow that exemption to be removed, but this would be something that could be examined in the future, which, to my mind, if you were looking at the intention of the legislator, at the point that the Official Languages Act was amended, certainly did not exclude the idea that this requirement could be introduced in the future.

Parliament has voted last night on one approach, but I think there are other approaches that could be examined that would not necessarily involve a constitutional amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fraser and Mr. Williamson.

The bells are ringing for votes, which will take place in 20 minutes. The committee has two options. We can adjourn immediately so you can get down the hall to the votes or we can continue for another 10 minutes. What would the committee like to do?

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Ten minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

I move that the committee adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay. Because there is no consensus, we'll adjourn.

I want to thank Mr. Fraser and the other members of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages for their appearance in front our committee today both on the estimates and on our study, although I think we tangentially touched on the study in our questions and comments.

I appreciate everyone's questions and comments.

Without further ado, this meeting is adjourned.