Official Languages Committee on March 3rd, 2009

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for coming here today.

I am not very familiar with this subject and I am glad to hear it being discussed. Let me put a fundamental question to you. How do you go about writing in braille? Does it take a machine? Who can write in braille?

[Jacques Côté]

We have a device for writing our personal notes. The device is like a typewriter, but it only has six keys to correspond to the six points in braille. Moreover, thanks to electronics, we have braille printers. These printers can transcribe large quantities of texts into braille at a very high speed.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

How do people learn to write in braille with these devices? Does it take very special training?

[Jacques Côté]

I would say that braille is learned the same way children learn to read at school. When a blind child goes to school, we will teach that child its ABCs in braille instead of showing the child how to write with a pencil.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

If a person wants one of those computers at home, would that be very expensive?

[Jacques Côté]

The computers are relatively expensive. There are two reasons for this. First, the research and development for this type of electronic equipment is extremely expensive. Second, these computers are only useful to blind children, so their price is exorbitant.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you.

[Jasmine Gallant]

I will add a few words with regard to learning braille. Ms. Landry trains teaching assistants and teachers who in turn teach braille to blind students. So we teach people how to read braille.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Is this the same type of device which is used in Quebec, outside Quebec and outside of Canada?

[Jacques Côté]

Yes, and for a very simple reason: braille, whether it is in English, French, Spanish, or in another language, is a reading system based on six points. This means that a Spanish-speaking person will use the six points to transcribe his reality, and an anglophone will use the same six points to describe her reality, and so on.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I'm a little surprised by what you have said regarding the standardization of braille, because the premise was that standardization was a good thing. We are certainly not experts, but we wanted to know why braille was not standardized and so we want to study the subject. Your point of view is very interesting because we heard the exact opposite position last week.

I don't really know what to think. Is standardization a good thing or not? Several of my colleagues probably feel the same way I do today.

Mr. Côté, you said that standardization was a good thing because that way books could be exchanged with other countries, but in the field of education, it would not be useful, since the programs are different. I don't think that one excludes the other. We don't have the same programs, but it's the main thing for the regular program. The books are not the same. If we could standardize braille and provide access to French books, be they from France, Belgium or elsewhere, wouldn't that already represent progress, even if the school programs are not the same?

[Jacques Côté]

The standardized code was accepted in France last year. Before 2008, novels were transcribed on each side of the Atlantic. Even if there are some differences, novels, when they only contain words, are just as accessible on one side or the other of the Atlantic, without any changes. So the novels can be read just as well as if you or a person from France could read novels written in Quebec, despite some differences in the vocabulary. Texts in braille only have small differences. We wanted to standardize these differences, and in my opinion, we missed the mark.

A little earlier I provided the example of the standardized code for the Quebec edition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

We will continue with Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Ms. Gallant, Mr. Côté and Ms. Mitchell.

I do not have very much knowledge about this issue, but if I understand you correctly, your fundamental premise is that it is better to standardize. If I am completely off-base, Mr. Côté, you could provide me with some explanations. We sighted people use a 26-letter alphabet, which is the same in French, English and in Spanish, in particular. If I understand you correctly, it is not necessarily true that braille, prior to standardization, had a similar or equivalent alphabet. Is that correct? That means that there were differences between the French used in Europe and that used in America.

Has standardization upset the applecart for us? France does have the critical mass of citizens in the world who use French the most. If we do not agree to this standardization, that France has just adopted, will we not be indirectly affected by this situation?

[Jacques Côté]

You have hit on an important issue. I will try to explain all of this as simply as possible.

Earlier, I explained that Louis Braille had suggested a way of writing the number 12. The standardized code is now suggesting another way of writing this number. As an example, it's as if we were now suggesting that you use Roman numerals rather than the Arabic figures that you have been used to seeing in any book. You would immediately try to ascertain why we wanted to make this change and why it was advantageous.

This question was dealt with earlier. We wanted to standardize our braille with that of France, something that Quebec had never done beforehand. Quebec had never changed its way of writing numbers, we were still using the numbers that had been suggested by Louis Braille. Moreover, these same numbers are used throughout Canada, including in anglophone communities and in the United States. From now on, in Quebec and only in Quebec, figures will be written differently. Consequently, a child from New Brunswick or Manitoba who has not learned the new numbers may find himself trying to read a document which, in many cases, may be illegible to him.

To conclude, I would draw your attention to the fact that there are not many numbers, they go from 0 to 9. But that is not what is complicated. If you change the figures, you're also going to change the mathematical and scientific codes. You will no longer be writing "12 + 14" in the same way, because the addition sign has changed its code as well.

I do not want to give you a lesson, but I can simply explain that the code, which will have a Quebec version, will marginalize much more than it will standardize.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Côté.

We will now give the floor to the New Democrats. Mr. Gravelle, the floor is yours.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And good morning to the witnesses.

There are some things that I don't understand, perhaps because I am not a regular member of this committee. I would like to understand why we want to change the braille system.

[Jacques Côté]

Why? That is a difficult question.

In 2001, an agreement was signed in Casablanca, Morocco, between the countries that I referred to earlier, namely Quebec, France, Switzerland and Africa. At that time, the parties discussed the possibility of standardization.

I am going to throw an idea out, but I don't really want to start a debate. Take the political situation in Quebec. Some people—and this is my personal opinion—have political leanings, and standardization ties into certain objectives or dreams to standardize francophone Quebec within the francophonie. I would repeat that this is my own position, but I would be able to defend it. Ms. Gravelle, the somewhat secret objectives of standardization are much more political than realistic.

[Jasmine Gallant]

Ms. Landry emphasized, as Mr. Côté mentioned, that ideally, this committee's objective, which is a standard code, was a praiseworthy objective at the outset. Nevertheless, a very specific tangent developed, and it surprised us in New Brunswick. At the outset, the committee wanted to establish a universal formula, but suddenly, the situation has become very specific.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have another minute, Mr. Gravelle.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Why are francophones outside Quebec not represented here?

[Jacques Côté]

Let me add another "why", because you also seem to be quite ready to do that.

Why, as this work on standardization was going on, were all those people who did not share the same orientation systematically set aside?

Today, those who originated this maintain that they consulted others, but they set aside all those who might have had a different point of view. I did not answer that question "why", but I will now answer your question. They wanted to divide things into sectors. You certainly saw the document earlier. In Quebec, this document, this code has been given priority. It is only usable on Quebec territory. Why is that? I told you earlier that the objective of standardization was perhaps more political than real. Possibly, it was easier to divide things into geographical sectors than to include francophones outside Quebec, although it would have been reasonable to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Unfortunately, I must leave you because of an emergency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you for having come, Mr. Gravelle.