Official Languages Committee on June 8th, 2016

[Graham Fraser]

There have been two different letters. I sent one letter to the Prime Minister about the governor in council's appointment, and I sent another one to the President of the Treasury Board regarding the classification of positions within the public service.

I have not received a response in either case.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you.

Ms. Lapointe, go ahead for six minutes.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for joining us. Congratulations on the 10 years you have dedicated to official languages. Your work is greatly appreciated.

In Quebec, anglophones make up the linguistic minority. There are English-speaking minority communities in my riding. Should we apply the same principle, through the mirror effect, to anglophone communities in Quebec as part of the action plan on official languages in minority settings?

[Graham Fraser]

That's a pretty delicate issue.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I agree.

[Graham Fraser]

That issue is a concern for the anglophone minority, in part because that minority has already suffered from asymmetry in the Constitution.

In section 23 of the charter, which concerns minority language educational rights, paragraph 23(1)(a) stipulates that anyone “whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population” has the right to have their children receive instruction in that language. However, further on, in section 59, it is stated that paragraph 23(1)(a) shall come into force after a resolution of the National Assembly. That's an element of the Constitution. Anglophones who have not been educated in English in Canada don't have access to English schools in Quebec in the same way that francophones who settle elsewhere in Canada can have access to French schools.

Given that asymmetry, it's a matter of once bitten twice shy. On the one hand, there is considerable nervousness over the idea that there is no need to provide the anglophone minority with the same rights as those reserved for the francophone minority. On the other hand, if we broadly define what constitutes a minority community in Bill S-209, bilingual francophones may end up being considered as members of the minority community, when that is not really the case.

We sort of find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. I think that what's important is having a system that takes into account the community's real needs.

The mirror effect should in fact apply in some situations, and asymmetry may be more appropriate in others. I don't think we need to have a hard and fast rule that dictates how this should work, as the needs are so different in the country's minority communities.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you very much for your answer.

You said earlier that public servants in supervisor positions had to have a B level of bilingualism. I want to make sure I understand. Those who obtain an E are exempted indefinitely from further language testing. That's the highest level of proficiency, correct?

[Graham Fraser]

Yes.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Someone with an A level of proficiency is not bilingual. Someone with a B level is managing. Someone with a C level is getting there. There is no D. The last level is E.

Is that right?

[Graham Fraser]

That is right.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Those who want to become supervisors need a B level.

[Graham Fraser]

At the Treasury Board, we have a generic job description where we recommend a B level for supervisor positions, even for positions designated bilingual.

According to our experience, B level is not sufficient for managing people or conducting performance assessments.

You talked about the mirror effect. I was wondering whether there's not a difference between a francophone with a B level and an anglophone with a B level who both work in an environment where English is the language of the majority. For the anglophone, that would probably mean they passed their test, but that they do not use French. In that case, their French declines naturally after the test. However, for a francophone with a B level in the same situation, they probably speak English often, but poorly. Therefore, the mistakes become entrenched. It is difficult to pass the test even if that individual is fairly comfortable in English, since they repeat the same mistakes.

I think there is an injustice....

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I just want to close with a comment. My brother spent more than 20 years in the public service. He held an important position. He started at B level and ended up at E level. So you are correct. He then became exempted.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

Mr. Lefebvre, you have three minutes.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, Commissioner.

One of the statements from the document Protecting Language Rights: Overview of the Commissioner's Interventions in the Courts 2006-2016 is:

It is therefore perfectly understandable for any individuals or groups who feel that their language rights have not been upheld to turn to the courts for redress. What is not so easy to understand, however, is the number of cases relating to language rights that are still being filed nearly 35 years after adoption of the Charter, and almost 30 years after adoption of the 1988 Act.

I am a Franco-Ontarian, and I was able to get my education in French at the primary, secondary and university levels thanks to the court challenges program, which existed at the time.

Do you think that a reinstatement of the court challenges program would be relevant today?

[Graham Fraser]

Definitely.

One of the things I am proud of is having investigated the complaints we received about the abolition of the court challenges program at the very beginning of my term. Our investigation report was the only document before the courts when the FCFA instituted legal action. We were able to participate in an out-of-court settlement that led to the creation of the language rights support program.

We want the reinstatement of the court challenges program to lead to the broadening of the definition, so as to cover court cases related to our legislation, and not only constitutional cases.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Great.

In addition, you wrote that only a very small proportion of the legal proceedings instituted over the past quarter of a century, including under the court challenges program, had led to the adoption of legislation intended to clarify federal institutions' language obligations or to the development of guidelines for implementing decisions.

Could you give us examples of bills you promote or could suggest?

[Graham Fraser]

I'm a bit out of ideas. I will ask Pascale whether there are any examples of bills. She is telling me that there aren't. We will certainly talk about this in more detail.

There are four bills related to Air Canada that died on the Order Paper, but that does not concern the language rights support program.

Another element I mentioned in this report disappointed me a bit. I am talking about the number of times official language minority communities have instituted legal proceedings against a province or a territory and found that the Department of Justice was not on their side. I don't know whether we need a government decision, regulations or a bill, but I think it's unfortunate for the federal government to intervene in order to oppose the claims of official language minority communities.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you.

Mr. Généreux, you have three minutes.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fraser, on page 2 of your presentation, you mention the number of court cases in which you have intervened and the number of complaints your office has processed. This is the 18th time you have appeared before the committee. At the end of the paragraph, you noted:

Sometimes I get the impression that the attitude toward language policy is “it goes without saying.”

“It goes without saying” means that it is understood and that we don't need to talk about it any more. You have been the Commissioner for 10 years and have experienced many things over those years. You said you are worried that people think we no longer have to talk about the French fact, since it is a given. I would like to know, are you referring to parliamentarians or to Canadians?

This is a good opportunity to express your concerns as I am giving you the rest of my speaking time.

[Graham Fraser]

In a sense, I am led to believe this by what ministers and the Prime Minister have said. Since the new government has been in office, I have wondered whether this might not be an issue for the Prime Minister and for some of his ministers since they are perfectly bilingual.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

That's right.

[Graham Fraser]

To them, it is inherent, it is a reflex. They don't think about it since they have been bilingual since early childhood. They don't need personal discipline to think about it, unlike someone who has learned another language as an adult and must discipline themselves to think about it and to always be aware of it.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Like Mr. Boissonnault.

[Graham Fraser]

I mentioned that in my presentation to diplomatically point out that even ministers and members who are perfectly bilingual need to take the matter seriously.