Official Languages Committee on June 7th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

All right.

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

I'm going to ask my questions on the second round.

The community is troubled. It was not without reason that 700 people from across Canada met in Ottawa last weekend. I'm delivering a message in my comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Now we'll go to the Parliamentary Secretary, Ms. Sylvie Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Good morning, Mr. Fraser. It is an honour for us to have you here. That also applies to the people with you.

Commissioner, in my opinion, your 2006-2007 report is very well done. It presents very promising avenues for our committee's business. You mentioned a number of accomplishments made in the area of official languages.

Could you tell us which ones particularly drew your attention and explain to us why they deserved special mention in your report?

[Graham Fraser]

I'll give you two examples. In the context of the application of Part VII of the Act, local directors of federal institutions have shown innovation in very interesting ways.

For example, Parks Canada made a very interesting offer to the Francophone community in the Jasper region. It proposed an exchange. It offered the community premises free of charge, and, in exchange, the Francophone community was to offer French courses or French conservation courses to Parks Canada employees.

In my opinion, these kinds of very simple, very direct initiatives do not cost taxpayers a lot of money. They prove how very commonplace positive measures can be.

In one of my answers, I also talked about the progress that has been achieved in health and immigration. We've seen the creation of health networks for Francophones outside Quebec. Progress has also been made in Quebec regarding the training of health sector employees so that they can offer services. In the immigration sector, the government has decided to support programs for Francophones to immigrate to communities outside Quebec.

I would also like to point out that nearly 90% of designated bilingual positions are filled with persons who have appropriate bilingualism levels.

There are still problems, and maintaining training is a constant challenge. I have raised some concerns, but it must also be noted that progress has been constantly made in this area.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

In our travels, we were sometimes told that it was hard to keep people in their communities.

Do you have an idea of the best way to counter that and to make it so that Francophones stay in their communities? Do you see any avenues or ways of doing this that might help these communities? In some Francophone communities outside Quebec that we visited, we were often told that it is hard to retain people who are there and who work there.

[Graham Fraser]

I think there are two parts to that problem. The first is not connected to the language issue. It is the rural exodus. That's happening across the country. Francophones are leaving the small municipalities in Manitoba to go to the cities. Anglophones are doing it as well. It's not just for linguistic reasons; it's a universal phenomenon that is not limited to Canada. It is a global phenomenon. People are leaving small municipalities to go to the cities around the world.

The second factor is the following. I would say that three aspects of the act concern the retention issue. First is the community's vitality. Are there cultural resources? Is education of good quality? Are there health services? In addition, is the federal government able to provide services in both languages? And do employees have the right to work in French?

In a way, there is a triangular effect. At one point, I met someone from the Department of Justice who told me that, in some cases outside Quebec, they needed lawyers who could practise in both languages. That requires quite an intense level of professionalism and bilingualism. He also told me that they knew where to find those lawyers, but that, if they arrived in a city where the minority community did not have enough cultural vitality, their families wouldn't want to live there. If there are no possible jobs for their husbands or wives, they won't want to stay. So they go back home. Those communities have to be welcoming for people who arrive. It's also essential that people want to live there. So there's this triangular element. I don't think we should just dwell on the question whether the post office can sell its stamps in French. You also have to consider the question of community life as a whole.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

We are now starting our second round. This time, the period will be slightly shorter. We have five minutes for questions, comments and answers. Without further ado, I turn the floor over to Mr. D'Amours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here this morning. Since I only have five minutes, I'm going to ask you questions that I think you can answer quite quickly. You'll see.

Commissioner, you may say, or some may think, that I am digressing somewhat, but I'd nevertheless like you to answer with a yes or no. Imagine some jewellery, for example. A gold-plated piece of jewellery looks good, but does not necessarily have the same value as one that is solid gold. Do we agree on that?

[Graham Fraser]

I'm not an expert on jewellery.

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

You may not be an expert, but you understand me. I'm going to give you my interpretation. I was listening to you speak at the start of your address, and I said to myself that was comparable to what the Prime Minister does. He starts his speeches in French, but what does his government do? It looks good, it's gold-plated at the start, but ultimately it's not gold, it's only gold-plated. That's a serious problem. People can have gold plate and you would say they really want to move forward, but that doesn't necessarily mean the results are there.

Let's consider the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program, the elimination of the obligation for senior National Defence officers to be bilingual and the appointment of a unilingual Anglophone chair to the head of the National Capital Commission. These are actual facts. Do you believe that these items that I've just referred to are measures that could be characterized as positive?

[Graham Fraser]

I'd like to qualify some of your statements. For example, I wouldn't say that National Defence's plans represent a way of shirking obligations under the act or of making it so that senior officers are no longer required to be bilingual.

If I understand correctly, that represents an effort to be more targeted and to adopt a model that is somewhat similar to that of the public service, where there are unilingual French regions, bilingual regions and unilingual English regions for administrative functions and with respect to the right to work in one's language.

As regards appointments, I believe that's really in order to play a national leadership role. I think it's very important to be able to communicate with all Canadians in both official languages. I haven't concealed my views on that subject.

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

But, sir—

[Graham Fraser]

In my report, I expressed my concerns about certain trends in the government's decisions.

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

Commissioner, if we take the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program, for example, that's definitely not a positive measure. Do we agree on that?

[Graham Fraser]

Indeed.

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

We'll take at least that one.

[Graham Fraser]

That's the finding of a report that has been detailed in depth. That's indeed the finding we made.

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

So it's not a positive measure.

Commissioner, if it isn't a positive measure, do you think that eliminating a program that is a positive measure is double talk? What the government did wasn't a positive measure. At the same time, it is that same party that now forms the government, which voted in favour of Bill S-3. Furthermore, the purpose of part of Bill S-3 was to put positive measures in place for the official language communities. They're talking out of both sides of their mouth.

I ask myself the following question. In that situation, under Bill S-3, which is now an act, the government has an obligation to put positive measures in place. However, it has not taken a positive measure by cancelling the Court Challenges Program. Could we conclude that the government was breaching Bill S-3 in certain respects, that it has not complied with one aspect of Bill S-3, because the measures it took were negative?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Perhaps you can provide a very quick answer.

[Graham Fraser]

I have two points to mention. In our report on the complaints we've received with regard to the government's conduct, we concluded that there was a lack of compliance with the act.

Second, I'm making an effort to stop referring to Bill S-3 because it is as though that amendment to the act were part of the act. The act has been amended. We're talking about compliance with the act. The amendments are not asterisks. It is not beside the act, it's not something separate; it's the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

Now we go to the government side. Mr. Chong, please go ahead.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here today, Mr. Fraser. Thanks as well to the members of your office.

In your report, you say, and I quote:

During the design process, the federal government must carefully consider expanding the scope of the Action Plan to include, in particular, arts and culture, youth initiatives and new measures for promoting linguistic duality.

As many of those topics were addressed in the study on the vitality of the official language minority communities and those topics have an excellent chance of being among our future concerns in the context of our work as the government, could you give us more details on your vision for that expansion? For example, what do you think of a trilinguilism policy?

On replacement for the government's action plan on official languages, you mentioned that there should be consideration to enlarge it. What do you think about the federal government using its spending power to get the provinces to adopt a policy of trilingualism? Each high school student, each CÉGEP student--each graduate from those institutions--would be required to know three languages, two of which would be Canada's official languages, of course, and the third would be

their choice.

You would create a situation that exists largely in western Europe today.

Many people might say this is not feasible, but my ancestry is half European; my mother was European. After the Second World War--only 50 years ago--there wasn't a person who could speak another language other than their native tongue. Today in western Europe it's almost impossible not to speak English. People speak to you in English if they hear your accent. They've done it over there.

It would be a great way to address the challenges of national unity and compliance with the Official Languages Act. It would be great for diversity. Let's say you're an aboriginal Canadian; it would be a great way to preserve some of those languages. If you're a Canadian of Chinese descent, it would be a great way to preserve your language. If you're a Canadian of Italian or Hispanic descent, it would be the same.

And it's good for international commerce. We talk about being a trading nation--the Phoenicians of the modern world--yet we are remarkably unilingual compared to many other countries.

The reason I ask this question is because we are often myopic on this committee. We focus on very specific things. We often don't take a step back, as you do, to take a look at the broader picture and to ask these questions. I often wonder whether something like this, while ambitious, might not be something to be considered.

Have you thought about this and the potential costs and challenges of implementing something like this?

[Graham Fraser]

I haven't. I certainly haven't looked at costs. You're right that the European community has adopted a slogan; I think it's “mother tongue plus two”. It's the idea that Europeans should learn not just a second but a third language.

The one thing I would observe is that learning a second official language is not a barrier to learning a third language; it's a bridge. Where I became most aware.... I guess there are two anecdotal experiences I've had in this regard. One was when, as a journalist, I went on one of the Team Canada trips to China. The federal government pulled together all the Chinese speakers in the region from various embassies. They also hired Canadians in China to work as guides and translators for what seemed like the hundreds of Canadians who were on that trip. What struck me about these very impressive young Canadians, some of whom had been studying in China or working in other parts of Asia--and I couldn't evaluate the quality of their Chinese--was that they were able to explain to the bus driver where we wanted to go and what time we needed to be picked up and so on. They were able to carry on quite vigorous conversations with people and explain things to us. Also, they were all bilingual in both Canadian official languages. Clearly, learning French for the English Canadians and English for the French Canadians was not a barrier to their learning Chinese; it was part of what led them to learning other languages.