Official Languages Committee on May 28th, 2009

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chair, we have had talks with the Canada Border Services Agency so that the service can be improved. However, I should point out that under the act, the linguistic obligation to serve the citizen is not an individual one, but rather an institutional one. So what is important is that the Canadian Border Services Agency serves the citizen in the language of his choice.

In response to the question by the member regarding airports and the Olympics, it was precisely to point out that challenge, in terms of the Olympics, that we conducted this horizontal study. We started with a study that we made public in December, followed by an awareness campaign for about 20 federal departments and institutions, precisely to tell these institutions that this is a global event. One of the responses we got and that I was quite concerned about was that it was business as usual. And yet it is not business as usual; this is a global event where the whole world will be watching and where expectations of Canada will be very high.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

All the stakeholders we met with about the Olympic Games expressed concerns regarding bilingualism. No stakeholder told us that everything was fine, that there was no problem, and this was true even when it came to broadcasting and on-site services to direct people. I am not particularly worried about the athletes; I think that the athletes will have access to services. However, when it comes to the people coming to see the games, I am very worried. I am worried about signage. It is not true that everything will be ready by 2010. People have told us this here in committee.

I would like to know what you could do to bring about some progress on this front.

[Graham Fraser]

I continue to have talks with the organizers and with the government. I have continued to point out the importance of this event. As I mentioned earlier, we did have an awareness campaign for institutions. We are using this annual report to signal problems that exist in our airports. We will do a more targeted follow-up of the report that we issued in December.

One of the things I said both to organizers and my organization is that we will not be waiting for the publication of the report in September to table an analysis of the problems. As soon as we identify a persistent problem, we will send our finding to the organizers. We continue to monitor this very vigilantly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

[Graham Fraser]

I do not want to tell them what they should have been doing after the fact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

It is a matter of being proactive. Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, Ms. Guay.

We will continue with Mr. Lemieux.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today.

Mr. Godin made some comments about Supreme Court judges. I would also like to make some. Obviously, as far as I can see, bilingualism is very important when the government chooses Supreme Court judges. This standard is so important that eight out of the nine Supreme Court judges sitting today are bilingual. This is a great achievement, not only by our government, but also by former governments.

But there are other important criteria as well, of course, when it comes to Supreme Court judges. For example, it's important to have judges from across the country to represent the different regions. I don't think any Canadian would be comfortable with having all Supreme Court judges come from only one region of Canada, but it's not mandated in law. For example, it's also important to have men and women as Supreme Court judges, but it's not mandated in law. It's important to have bilingual judges as well, but it's not mandated in law. If the government starts mandating everything—percentage of women, exactly which regions Supreme Court judges must come from, all these different criteria—you can image this would make quite a difficult situation.

However, in my opinion, the greatest concern is that if Mr. Godin's bill is passed, we are not promoting both official languages, because a crucial element of the Official Languages Act states that Canadians have the right to be unilingual, francophone or anglophone, or to be bilingual. This is a choice that every Canadian can make. According to Mr. Godin, if the best candidate is well qualified, an expert in legal matters and very competent, but he is a unilingual francophone, he is not acceptable.

And it's the same for anglophones. If you have a unilingual anglophone judge who is truly the best qualified candidate—he has the best legal experience—this law would say he need not apply. He's not acceptable to Monsieur Godin if this law passes. That's my concern, Commissioner. You're the Commissioner of Official Languages. I'd like to know what you would say to unilingual francophone judge candidates

... unilingual francophones who want to become judges—

and what you would say to unilingual anglophone judge candidates who are no longer acceptable to the government if his law applies.

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chairman, I have already spoken to judges and former judges of the Supreme Court, who, in their interviews of clerks for the Supreme Court, have made it clear they feel they cannot be sufficiently supported by clerks who are not able to read the documentation in both official languages. That's meant that at some universities, some law schools in Quebec, their students are no longer being interviewed, because judges have come to the conclusion that the students are not graduating from that law school with a sufficient mastery of both official languages.

I guess my response to you and to this committee would be that I think the ability to read the jurisprudence that comes up from lower courts in both languages is a critical quality for any judge of the Supreme Court. Any person who had ambitions to be on the Supreme Court would, I think, from an early age, decide they would have to have some familiarity with the jurisprudence in both official languages.

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

I'm not sure all judges from an early age have the desire to be a Supreme Court judge. It's something that develops throughout their career. For example, in British Columbia,

the francophones account for 1.4%. Thus, if we need a bilingual judge who practices in French, there are a few candidates, but we would prefer having more of a choice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much.

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

We want candidates with extensive experience.

I'm disappointed with your reply, because I don't believe it shows respect

toward unilingual people in Canada, francophones and anglophones.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.

Mr. Godin, I think that you would like to have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to lose all my time on this. The bill was passed last night. But just for the record, the information I got from the last time they looked at judges for the Supreme Court is that there were four candidates who were totally capable of doing the job, and the four of them were bilingual. The next appointment will be five years from now.

The representative from the University of Toronto who was here a week or two ago said it would be a good signal to send to the university, so they could start to train their people. The only reason they're not giving the training is because they don't need to do it. The minute they get the message that they need to do it, they will be happy to do it.

I don't think what Mr. Lemieux is bringing up is a problem. I think it's the principle of whether the court is made for the judge and the appointment or made for the citizens. Is it for the justice of the citizen, or is it to have a judge be appointed? We have judges in the smaller courts, provincial courts, or the Federal Court. You're not going to tell me that at that point they won't start to be qualified to be a Supreme Court judge. We have many judges in our country, and I trust our system on that.

My question is about Air Canada. Is Air Canada violating the Official Languages Act? I want to discuss the current prevailing situation at the Ottawa airport. In your report, you specifically referred to it, and you even emphasized it. Is it only because you are not satisfied with their way of doing things, or do you feel that the law has been violated? I know that journalists have asked why other airlines are not targeted by this legislation. However, let us remember that Air Canada is a company that was previously owned by the government; it was a public company. And when the current owners purchased it, they also purchased the obligation to respect the Official Languages Act. Therefore, they have an obligation in this respect.

I would like to hear your comments on this because I think that it is an important matter. This is a persistent problem that did not just arise last year.

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chair, there have already been court cases involving Air Canada, when it challenged its language obligations with regard to service. After Air Canada appealed, the court decided that Air Canada is obliged to deliver results, that it was not enough for this company to say that it is making efforts, providing courses, etc. As far as language is concerned, Air Canada must deliver results. Therefore, when there are no results in terms of bilingual services, it is clear in my mind that Air Canada is not abiding by the law.

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

Mr. Fraser, if there are no results when the court decided that there had to be results, what is the next step? If I have no result because I am speeding on a highway, I get a ticket. Then, should we say that the government, which claims to be very proactive, very good and kind with respect to official languages, should adopt legislation whereby fines are imposed for non-compliance? What is the solution?

This is no longer an issue of goodwill: goodwill is not working.

[Graham Fraser]

In fact, one of our recommendations is that the government should come back to the House with a new bill that would cover the entire Air Canada family, because we noticed, among other things, that the federal government has tried three times, I believe, to table new legislative measures regarding Air Canada, and every time, the company was reorganized, with the result that suddenly, one of the parts of the Air Canada family was no longer covered by the legislation.

One of my recommendations this year, which I discussed with the minister, who said he was ready to consider or discuss it, is that we need legislation that covers the entire Air Canada family.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Now let us continue with Mrs. Mendes. Welcome to the committee, Mrs. Mendes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Fraser, and good morning to the members of your team.

In the presentation you just made, you invited new stakeholders to get involved in developing official languages policy. I deeply believe that we must respect all the provincial mandates; that is clear. However, do you not think that the time has come to try to negotiate with the ministries of education throughout Canada to obtain a policy whereby bilingualism begins with primary school? I think that this is the best way to create a pool of people who are sufficiently trained in both languages.

Take me, for example. I was educated in three languages, and I speak all three of them; I read them, and I write them. I think that this is the best way to supply the federal public service with people who will eventually be able to carry out their duties adequately in both official languages. Ms. Giguère could perhaps give us some of the legal details of this and tell us what negotiations we should eventually hold with provincial governments. The time has come for the provincial governments to participate in the negotiations to develop official languages in Canada. I would like to hear

your thoughts on the subject.

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chair, when we decided to discuss the importance of calling upon new stakeholders, we were intentionally a bit vague regarding the way we should identify or appoint these new players. Nonetheless, I see that some provinces, universities, municipal institutions and school boards are showing an interest. This seems to show promise for the future. For example, last year in Quebec City, during the meeting of provincial ministers in charge of francophone matters, they adopted a resolution whereby they wanted more cooperation with the federal government. Thus, the door is open.

A huge amount of federal funding is already going to the provinces for education in a second language or for education in minority communities. Each time I raised the problem of accountability and transparency regarding these funds, I was told that the federation did not work that way, that we did not require the provinces to identify exactly how they spend the money that they get from the federal government. It is not easy to follow up and to require full accounts. Nonetheless, I think that there is an opening. The Council of Ministers of Education in Canada is currently discussing the possibility of developing a voluntary test on commonly spoken French so that students can know what their level of spoken French is. They could be compared not only with the students in their class, but also with themselves, and their parents could find out what level their child has been able to achieve, nationally or internationally. These are promising signs, and they call for a will to cooperate.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

In closing, I would like to address the issue of the Olympic Games. In your opinion, given the short amount of time remaining before the opening date in 2010, what would be the most urgent recommendations to make to ensure bilingual services for these games? It seems to me that we need to act immediately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mrs. Mendes, you have 30 seconds left.

[Graham Fraser]

We have identified a number of problems. There are a great many documents to translate. Some of them, such as the biographies of the athletes, which will be arriving in December, have not been translated yet. There are disputes between VANOC and the Translation Bureau. I am told that VANOC has not made an explicit request to the Translation Bureau. I think that there are problems with translation, interpretation, signage and recruiting volunteers. In addition, we continue to highlight the importance of French-language content in cultural events.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

For example, the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympic Games are some of these cultural events.

Thank you very much.

Let's now go to Mr. Petit.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Fraser.

I simply want to make one comment. I come from the province of Quebec. The Official Languages Act was created by the Liberals in 1969, that is, 40 years ago. Since then, what has happened? First, there was the passing of Bill 101. Second, there was the creation of a separatist party that opposes the other parties in Canada because it is difficult to have our language recognized by the other provinces. Third, the Montreal area went from being Canada's metropolis to a regional metropolis, as they call it. Fourth, we currently have one of the lowest immigration rates of all the provinces, even when the immigrants come from French-speaking countries. Fifth, the French language is used in business settings, but people speak another language at home in the evenings, because the culture of the non-francophones in question is not an old-stock culture, as it is called. That is what I want you to understand.

I do not want to be hard on you, but I want to understand. Earlier, you mentioned something that caught my attention. When answering a question and when making your own opening remarks, you stated that assimilation is a sure thing. That means two things. Look at your notes, you said that when you answered a question—I apologize, it was not in your opening remarks. If assimilation is a sure thing, then isn't Mr. Nadeau's theory valid realistically, that is, that we should separate from the rest of Canada?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Your membership card is in the mail, Mr. Petit.