Official Languages Committee on Nov. 27th, 2007

[Johane Tremblay, Director, Legal Affairs Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

It was tabled with the court. We could...

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Would you like the document to be distributed to committee members? Is it available for public consumption?

[Johane Tremblay]

It is now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Would it be possible to send a copy to our researcher or clerk, so that he can distribute it to committee members?

[Graham Fraser]

It would be my pleasure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

We will now move on to Mr. Pierre Lemieux.

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

Thank you very much for being here today.

I would like to talk about the notion of positive measures. In your last report, you said that for a measure to be considered positive, it would have to involve concrete action.

It is one that is designed to yield positive results. That's a good definition. I understand that.

I think some of the interpretation comes into what's a positive result. I'll give you an example. If a program is funding certain organizations and the expectation is they will provide results A, B, C, and D, that's the expectation. Instead, they're only delivering results A. They are not realizing their full potential or they're not delivering the full results. This can come down to money. The government would like to see $10 worth of results for their investment and they're getting $2 worth of results for their investment, for the investment of taxpayers. If you talk to the organizations that were receiving that money, they will complain because they just lost funding. They will say they were achieving result A. They will forget the fact that A, B, C, and D were what was anticipated.

The question of positive results has a macro and a micro view, I think. On the micro view, as I said, the organization or organizations will complain they've lost funding and that even that modest result of A is now going to go away because they don't have funding any more. However, from the macro point of view, if the program is not managed well or if it's inefficient or it's not delivering the full results package for the money that's being invested, that money could be better used to serve, for example, official language communities with programs that are delivering a full suite of results, ones that are meeting expectations.

As the commissioner, how do you incorporate that into your understanding of positive measures, the micro versus the macro in terms of results? How would you respond to that?

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chairman, when we undertook our study or our investigation, one of the key things we wanted to find out was precisely whether that kind of analysis had been done, and we found no evidence it had.

Our interpretation of the obligations the government has is, effectively, that it should take positive measures and take into account the impact of decisions in terms of the.... Now, the very process of doing that analysis is critical to evaluating whether in fact a measure does have—

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Order, please.

If you want to have a conversation, I would invite you to step out of the room so that everybody can hear the witness.

Carry on please, Commissioner.

[Graham Fraser]

I certainly don't challenge the right of the government to govern and make decisions concerning programs, as I stressed in the report I made. However, the government does have the obligation to respect the law, and we had no evidence that was done. We had no evidence that the kind of process the member is referring to was undertaken.

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

Just to follow up on this, how do you deal with the transition time? What I mean by a transition time is that sometimes, for example, there is a funding cut to a particular program and the program has to reorient itself, or the funding perhaps has to show up again under a slightly different form later on, but it's better applied. And there is definitely a transition period.

We saw that, for example, with alphabétisation. Under the action plan, there was no funding touched for official language communities under

literacy. In general, with regard to literacy,

there were some funding cuts, but we now have a much more focused program; it's actually delivering better results. But there's a transition period in there. It might take six or nine months while organizations reorient themselves and the government makes clear what its expectations are.

In that six-month or nine-month window, or one-year window, whatever that window happens to be, how does the commissioner handle it, because you need time to transition and organizations need time to transition? If the government is heavily criticized by the third month or in the initial stages of the transition, we're not at the end of the process yet. So I'm wondering how you view that process and how you deal with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

My apologies, Mr. Lemieux, but you are out of time. We will have to ask the commissioner to give his answer at a later date.

Mr. Gravel.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you for being here, Mr. Fraser.

I am new to the official languages committee, but I know that the committee travelled across Quebec and Canada to meet with official language minority communities. The English-language community in Quebec seems to be doing well. It is not at risk of being assimilated, is it?

[Graham Fraser]

The problem in Quebec is that there are some very specific issues concerning services such as, for example, medical services. The survival of English-language schools is also a problem. Indeed, particularly in the regions, the issue is somewhat paradoxical. The concentration of the English-speaking population means that the problem is less evident in Montreal. Let me explain the paradox that is affecting schools in Estrie, Quebec and Trois-Rivières. English-speaking parents often send their children to French-language school to allow them to learn French and become fully bilingual. This undermines the vitality of a key institution for the English-language community, that is to say their school.

Furthermore, a lot of exogamous families who speak French in the home but who have the right to send their children to English-language school avail themselves of this right. In the communities such as Granby, Sherbrooke and Trois-Rivières, there is a shortage of anglophone children who speak English at home in English-language schools because their parents want them to learn French. However, on top of that, these English-language schools also have to provide additional support to children who come to school with no English but who are entitled to go to school in English. It is a little bit like what is happening in French-language schools outside Quebec.

There is also a problem with regard to health services. I would like to underscore the importance of the Quebec government having signed an agreement to participate in the Official Languages Action Plan. Thanks to this agreement, 4,000 Quebec healthcare workers have undergone specialist English training so that they can provide healthcare services to Quebec's anglophones.

However, an English speaker from a small town in Estrie explained to me that there is a world of difference between learning English to help a child who presents with a broken arm and helping somebody with a problem such as the onset symptoms of Alzheimer. A higher level of linguistic ability is needed to meet the needs of an aging community.

Generally speaking, the English-language community is nowadays far more bilingual than the French-language minority community, there is no disputing that. The linguistic capacity of Quebec's English-speaking community has changed, but we cannot forget that one demographic group, those aged over 65, grew up and worked in Quebec at a time when people did not need to speak French in order to have a successful career. These people have now retired. They need social services and healthcare services, and it is a lot harder for them to function in the Quebec of today than it was 20 or 30 years ago.

The English-language community in Quebec experiences real difficulty in having its right to receive health services in English upheld. The education system is also vulnerable. I am not saying that it is all doom and gloom. The Quebec government offers significant cooperation, but the problems are real.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have less than a minute remaining, Mr. Gravel.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You recently decided to intervene in favour of the Court Challenges Program. Could you give us an overview of your position on the program?

[Graham Fraser]

I believe that the program has played an extremely important role. We carried out an in-depth inquiry into the decisions that were made, decisions regarding not only the abolition of the Court Challenges Program, but other programs that affect Canada's linguistic minorities as well. Our inquiry did not allow us to say that the government had complied with the act. We published our final report on October 9, and we were faced with four options. We could have reported to the governor in council, we could have reported...

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser. I like the way that you bring up issues, not much gets by you...

[Graham Fraser]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can come back to that, if you want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

We will move on to Mr. Godin.

Do you have a document for us this time, Mr. Godin?

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

You want another document? Here goes part two...

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fraser, I would like you to clarify something that you said earlier. In answer to a question from a Conservative member, I believe, you said that funding is provided, but not until the financial year is underway. For example, funding is provided in January or in February, leaving only a short period of time for it to be spent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is not the case. The Canadian Press said, and I quote:

In addition to underfunding, a number of organizations complain that Canadian Heritage funding often arrives three or four months late.

That means that the problem is not that the funding comes through in January and has to be spent by the following January.

[Graham Fraser]

No, that is not what I said.

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

That is what I understood.