Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 12 - Evidence - Meeting of October 29, 2012
OTTAWA, Monday, October 29, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:00 p.m. to conduct a study on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, with the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages 2011-2012 as our topic; as well as a study on CBC/Radio-Canada's obligations under the Official Languages Act and some aspects of the Broadcasting Act.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am Senator Maria Chaput from Manitoba, chair of this committee. Before I introduce the witnesses who are appearing today, I would invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair to my left.
Senator Champagne: Good afternoon, I am Senator Andrée Champagne, from Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec.
Senator Poirier: Good afternoon, I am Senator Rose-May Poirier, from New Brunswick.
Senator McIntyre: Good afternoon, I am Senator Paul McIntyre, from New Brunswick.
Senator Tardif: Good afternoon, I am Senator Claudette Tardif, from Alberta.
Senator Robichaud: Good afternoon, I am Senator Fernand Robichaud, from Saint-Louis-de-Kent, New Brunswick.
The Chair: Today we welcome Mr. Graham Fraser, the Commissioner of Official Languages, who is here to present the main conclusions of the Annual Report on Official Languages recently published by his office. His appearance is also an opportunity for senators to ask questions as part of our ongoing study of CBC/Radio-Canada's obligations under the Official Languages Act and certain specific aspects of the Broadcasting Act.
Mr. Fraser, on behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for taking the time to present your report to us and to answer our questions.
You now have the floor, and senators will follow with questions.
Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Thank you, Madam Chair, honourable senators, members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I am here to present the findings of my 2011-2012 annual report. I am accompanied today by Lise Cloutier, Assistant Commissioner of Corporate Management; Ghislaine Charlebois, Assistant Commissioner of Compliance Assurance; Sylvain Giguère, Assistant Commissioner of Policy and Communications; and Johane Tremblay, General Counsel, Legal Affairs Branch.
[English]
Last week I tabled my 2011-12 annual report in Parliament. This is my sixth annual report. I tabled the report within the context of the restructuring of the public service workforce and the streamlining of federal organizations following the budget cuts announced in the last federal budget.
[Translation]
Despite the fact that the Official Languages Act is now into its fifth decade, Canada's linguistic duality too often goes unnoticed. When everything runs smoothly, bilingual services are just a part of normal, everyday life. Only in their absence do they attract attention. Failure is obvious, success is invisible.
[English]
This year, I want to emphasize successes, and my report focuses on being pragmatic and encouraging. I make some recommendations, and I mention the importance of actions that need to be taken now to prepare for Confederation's one hundred and fiftieth anniversary in 2017. Canada's linguistic duality should always be visible and audible, even more so when we celebrate our history.
[Translation]
I also present the findings of our observations in the National Capital Region that caused a media stir in August 2011. The observations sought to recreate the experience of English- and French-speaking visitors in the National Capital Region, and proved to be very encouraging.
[English]
I looked at the approach business has have chosen to promote linguistic duality in their business practices. I also discussed the complaints filed with my office and the results of some of our investigations.
As I mentioned, it is important that linguistic duality be visible when Canada celebrates the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Confederation in 2017. Giving young Canadians more opportunities to experience the other official language is an excellent way to help Canada celebrate its shared heritage.
[Translation]
According to the numbers published yesterday by Statistics Canada, the bilingualism rate of the Canadian population edged up from 17.4 per cent in 2006 to 17.5 per cent in 2011. Despite the various initiatives proposed by the Government of Canada to promote English and French second-language learning, the proportion of bilingual Canadians remains low. Canadians are very interested in becoming bilingual. However, in some regions, the availability of programs in the second official language cannot keep up with the demand. Every year, 20,000 young people want to take part in exchange programs, but only 8,000 spaces are available.
[English]
Therefore, in my 2011-12 annual report I make two recommendations to promote second-language learning in order to increase the number of Canadians who speak our two official languages. I recommend that the Prime Minister take the necessary measures to double the number of young Canadians who participate each year in short- and long-term language exchanges at the high school and post-secondary school levels.
[Translation]
I also recommend that the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages work together with provincial and territorial governments as well as post-secondary institutions to increase the number of programs in which students can take courses in their second official language.
[English]
This year, Ottawa takes centre stage in my report. In the preamble to the Official Languages Act, the Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the bilingual character of the National Capital Region and encouraging the business community, labour organizations and voluntary organizations in Canada to foster the recognition and use of English and French.
The act also mentions that it is the commissioner's duty to take all actions and measures within his authority with a view to ensuring recognition of the status of each of the official languages.
[Translation]
With these aspects of the act in mind, my office conducted a number of observations to find out whether linguistic duality is truly a fundamental value in the nation's capital. We recreated a typical visitor's experience in the National Capital Region, on the Ottawa side as well as the Gatineau side. The objective was to determine whether it was possible to be served in French at various businesses in Ottawa and in English at various businesses in Gatineau.
[English]
Our observations show that there is substantial bilingual capacity for visitors but that it is often invisible. The bilingualism of businesses and tourist areas is Ottawa's best kept secret. Few employees of these businesses used the "hello, bonjour" bilingual greeting to show customers that they were able to provide service in both official languages. Employees of federal institutions, for whom bilingual greetings are a legal obligation, are doing better.
[Translation]
In Gatineau, on the Quebec side of the National Capital Region, almost all of the businesses were able to serve visitors in English, but only 10 per cent of them made an active offer. In general, most hotels and restaurants in Gatineau set an example that businesses in other Canadian cities should follow. My office is interested in the private sector because linguistic duality is everybody's business. Although they are not subject to the Official Languages Act, businesses operating in Canada are more competitive when they use both English and French in their approaches with clients.
[English]
For example, Rogers Communications and Mountain Equipment Co-op have chosen to incorporate the principles of linguistic duality into their management models. Both offer services in Canada's two official languages. This is why it is important for the Government of Canada to continue to encourage the use of both official languages among Canadian businesses and international businesses located in Canada. I therefore recommend that the Minister of Industry create a support mechanism to encourage Canadian businesses to develop their capacity to operate and provide services in both official languages.
[Translation]
The high-profile appointments of two unilingual Canadians — one to the Supreme Court of Canada and the other to the position of Auditor General of Canada — had a substantial impact on public opinion throughout Canada. The controversy surrounding the appointments has shown that both English- and French-speaking Canadians have greater expectations when it comes to the bilingualism of senior public officials. Unfortunately, these setbacks have obscured a number of successes.
[English]
As the preface in my annual report says, failure is obvious; success is invisible. It is important to focus on the successes of Canadian language policy that go unnoticed, including the fact that many top government officials from Western Canada are bilingual, that the majority of provincial premiers are bilingual, and that a great number of ministers and parliamentarians from all parties, from across Canada, are bilingual.
[Translation]
Part of my mandate is to ensure that federal institutions respect the language rights of their employees and of the general public. Sometimes, I do this proactively — for example, by intervening with institutions to help them comply with the Official Languages Act — and other times my office conducts investigations following complaints that were brought to my attention.
[English]
In 2011-12, my office received a total of 643 complaints, 518 of which were deemed to be admissible, or 81 per cent. Out of these complaints, 341 involved communications with and services to the public, 79 pertained to language of work, 45 were related to the advancement of English and French, and 42 concerned the language requirements of positions.
[Translation]
My office investigated the federal institutions against which these complaints were filed. Some institutions reacted positively and took advantage of the opportunity to make changes.
The Canadian Army corrected many shortcomings regarding the balance of English and French content on its websites, and ensuring the equality of English and French has become a higher priority for Canadian Army websites.
The Passport Canada office in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, which is not required by law to serve the public in both official languages, went beyond its obligations by officially designating the office as bilingual in order to better serve the more than 2,000 Franco-Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
[English]
Our investigations revealed an important truth: Many of our federal institutions have an ongoing commitment to official bilingualism. This positive engagement deserves special mention.
Now let us look at the audits.
In September 2011, Air Canada published its Linguistic Action Plan at about the same time as the public release of our audit report. Since my office continues to receive complaints about Air Canada, it is important for the carrier to address all of the recommendations in the audit report as quickly as possible.
[Translation]
In 2011-2012, my office conducted an audit to determine how well Parks Canada was providing services of equal quality in English and French to visitors. Although there are a number of shortcomings that need to be addressed, Parks Canada has many strengths with regard to official languages.
In 2011, my office conducted an audit of Industry Canada. In the audit report, I made six recommendations to help Industry Canada improve its performance under Part VII of the act.
[English]
I have been closely monitoring the testimony that has been presented to you during the course of your study on CBC/Radio-Canada, in particular so that I could prepare for my appearance before the CRTC at the end of November for the Crown corporation's licence renewal hearings. The Official Languages Act imposes certain obligations on CBC/ Radio-Canada with regard to English and French services provided to Canadians and with regard to supporting official language communities.
[Translation]
These obligations apply to all federal institutions, and it is my responsibility as Commissioner of Official Languages to make sure that they are met. I submitted my written observations and concerns to the CRTC at the beginning of this month, and I hope that you take the time to read them, as they may prove useful to your deliberations.
[English]
My intervention in the public hearings concerns the budget cuts to CBEF Windsor's programming. These cuts are the reason I am currently in Federal Court litigation with CBC/Radio-Canada. My appearance at the hearings also has to do with several other aspects of broadcasting services that have a significant impact on linguistic duality in Canada and on official language communities throughout the country.
[Translation]
I have also read the report your committee published last week on the use of the Internet, new media and social media. I would like to congratulate you. This is an important reference document that I have read and that my office will be analyzing carefully.
[English]
Before I answer your questions, I would like to add one more thing. Even though I am focusing on successes this year, we have to remember that success can be fleeting. If we are not steadfast in continuing to protect and promote language rights, the situation can degenerate rapidly. Some organizations have chosen to centralize services outside of regions designated as bilingual for language of work purposes.
[Translation]
We have already received complaints about the impact of government cutbacks, including the closing of an experimental farm located in a rural francophone area, the closing of nine scientific libraries, two of which served French- speaking Canadians, and the termination of the Co-operative Development Initiative, the only federal program dedicated to cooperatives.
We have also heard from public servants who are worried about losing their right to work in the official language of their choice. Other public servants are afraid to exercise their right to work in their preferred language because they do not want to be singled out in attrition exercises.
[English]
At a time when language issues are re-emerging on the Canadian political landscape, it is especially important to remember that the future of Canada's linguistic duality depends on our ability to foster a unified linguistic environment. English and French both have a place in every region of the country.
Thank you for your attention. I would now like to take the remaining time to answer any questions you may have.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
Senator Tardif: Welcome, Mr. Commissioner, to you and your team. We are always pleased to see you. Before asking my questions, I would like to have your comments on the figures that Statistics Canada published last week. Most of the media paint a very negative picture of the state of bilingualism in Canada. Why do you believe the media do that and do you agree with them?
Mr. Fraser: I do not agree with that interpretation. I believe it stems from an almost obsessive interest in percentages. They tend to overlook the fact that there are more francophones, more people who speak French outside Quebec. There are now more than one million francophones outside Quebec, and more people in Quebec speak French now, 7.7 million inhabitants.
I believe this idea of decline is based on the proportional question of the relative weight of francophones, but we as a society cannot take in 250,000 people from other countries, which is something I approve of — I believe it is one of our values as a country to be a host society — but we cannot take in 250,000 people a year, 80 per cent of whom have neither English nor French as their mother tongue, and maintain the same proportion.
No one notices that a larger percentage of people speak French in Montreal than speak English in Toronto. Toronto and Montreal are both host cities. In mathematical terms, we cannot take in 1,025,000 people, as we have done since the last census, and maintain the same percentage of people who have English or French as their mother tongue. I believe there is a positive idea that runs counter to this idea of decline that I find unfortunate.
Senator Tardif: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. I hope you will make your opinion known in the newspapers. People too often seem to forget that the figure of 10 million people who understand French, who can communicate in French in Canada, is indicative of a very positive situation. In addition, a number of provinces have experienced increases in their francophone populations, in Alberta, for example.
Mr. Fraser: It is striking in Alberta.
Senator Tardif: In Yukon as well.
Mr. Fraser: That will reinforce the education system and community institutions. I believe these are very positive factors, and I have been giving interviews since last week, since those figures came out. I had a long interview with MacLean's today, and I am meeting with the editorial boards of the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail tomorrow. I constantly convey this message. I find it unfortunate that people like this idea of decline so much, Quebec nationalists, who want to use it for their own purposes to criticize the nature of the country, or some English Canadian observers, columnists and analysts, who say that this is the beginning of the end and that we will not have to deal with the French fact any longer because it is going to disappear.
Another factor that should not be overlooked: I find it interesting to see foreign languages increasingly used in Canada, but the long-term trend is that those languages will not survive more than three generations. In 1951, 450,000 people spoke Ukrainian in the home, and, 30 years later, only 45,000 of that 450,000 still do. That is a natural trend.
We are seeing an increase in the number of people speaking French, and even a net increase — although a very small one; we should not necessarily applaud this — of 0.9 per cent in the number of unilingual francophones in Canada.
So what we should note is that the idea that this is the beginning of the end, that the francophonie is disappearing in Canada, is false, and this is proven by these figures.
Senator Tardif: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Commissioner. As they say, we have to change the channel. It is very important to take action now because a very negative image of the state of bilingualism in Canada is being projected by too much written material and too many comments.
Now, with regard to your annual report, you decided this year not to evaluate the performance of a number of federal institutions. Why, Mr. Commissioner?
Mr. Fraser: This time we decided that it would be a good idea to try encouragement, to identify best practices, to target institutions with model practices. This is the first time we have done that. This is not a habit that we will necessarily adopt in future, but we thought it would be a good idea to focus on best practices, best performances, and to show that there are institutions in the private and public sectors that have adopted this behaviour as part of their organization's recruitment, training, information and culture. In short, we decided that, for once, we would drop the formal evaluation and see what impact another approach would have.
Senator Tardif: So it is not because you feel this tool is not important any more.
Mr. Fraser: On the contrary, some institutions complained that, since we were starting the following year's evaluation a few weeks after announcing our findings, they had little time to improve. We still conduct follow-ups to our audits, and we will come back with the evaluations for certain institutions, but we adopted a much more targeted approach; we very carefully selected institutions based on the themes for the annual report, but that is definitely not an approach we have abandoned at all.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. First of all, welcome, Mr. Fraser; it is always a great pleasure to have you with us.
Before asking my question, I would like to make a comment to you. I saw in the media that you now have a website and that the Canadian public can communicate easily with you. When we heard from the senior officials of the various departments, they were so pleased to come and tell us about the progress they had achieved. The percentage of francophones using new media really was consistent with the percentage of francophones across Canada. We cannot say whether there were more or less, but it was consistent. Since they were so pleased to tell us about the progress they had made, I thought that I should make a side comment on the subject because it is so positive.
Mr. Fraser: Indeed. By the way, I found your figures on the initiatives and innovations of the various institutions in the study you have just published particularly interesting.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: My question concerns Air Canada. On page 39 of your report — I am summarizing here — you say, for example, that the bilingual capacity of Air Canada agents is insufficient in many airports and that Air Canada has not established monitoring mechanisms to measure Jazz's performance in the delivery of bilingual services. Then, in the third last paragraph on page 39, you state: "Because the Office of the Commissioner continues to receive complaints about Air Canada, it is important for the carrier to address all of the recommendations in the audit report as quickly as possible."
I believe you had to make at least 12 recommendations in an attempt to improve the situation. As regards the number of complaints, were there more or fewer than previously?
Mr. Fraser: The number of complaints about Air Canada is declining. Ghislaine, do you want to add more details?
Ghislaine Charlebois, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: We are seeing a decline in the number of complaints at Air Canada. We went from approximately 80 complaints in 2007-08 to roughly 20 last year. So there has been a reduction in the number of complaints.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Have you managed to see whether they have followed your recommendations?
Mr. Fraser: The follow-up audit is conducted two years later. Consequently, we do not yet have any findings. However, we discovered — and this was very useful — that certain employees had understood that our recommendations had to be applied only during the Olympic Games. When we submitted the results of those interviews to Air Canada's board of directors, they told us that that was not the message they had intended to send. We therefore learned from the audit process that sometimes management messages are misinterpreted by employees. That is one of the very useful aspects of the audit process.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner.
Senator Champagne: Good afternoon, Mr. Commissioner. It is a pleasure to see you again. I have read your report, which is excellent as usual, but I want to point out one absolutely extraordinary thing, its title: Failure is Obvious, Success is Invisible. That can apply virtually anywhere in everyday life and to anyone. It is a sentence that we should bear in mind when we talk about politicians, our children or anything else. I am going to print it out and put it on display in my office so I never forget it.
You talk at length about the importance of bilingualism among youth and how it is important that more of them be able to take part in discussions.
I am going to tell you a brief anecdote, which may make you smile, about when my family and I moved from a completely francophone neighbourhood. My husband and I used to speak English at home all the time, but I spoke French to the children, who also went to French school. On the day of the move, I was putting things away in the closets in the new house when my five-year-old daughter came to me whining and said, "I want to go back home; everyone speaks English here." I said, "Listen, you have heard English at home since the day you were born because your father has not learned French yet. Listen properly and you will learn."
And there were people in the new neighbourhood who spoke English, French and other languages. Six months later, my children's friends had also become bilingual; they had played and seen shows together.
What really bothers me in our cities is that, when immigrants arrive, they create ghettos for some reason I am still unaware of. Italians, Greeks and Portuguese, for example, live in their own areas, as a result of which their children learn French at school because they have to go to French school when they settle in Quebec, or they learn English because the school is English. They do not mix or have any opportunity to learn the two languages equally easily because they create ghettos where they speak the language they spoke in their country.
The same is true of people who come from Arabic-speaking countries. They all seem to wind up in the same neighbourhood. Consequently, they retain their original language and find it more difficult to learn either one of our two languages. How do we prevent these ghettos from forming?
Mr. Fraser: I am reluctant to call them ghettos. It is an entirely natural phenomenon because, when people move to Canada, whether it be Montreal, Toronto or elsewhere, they naturally tend to follow their families, their friends, and to settle as close to them as possible. The formation of neighbourhoods or communities where people speak Italian, Greek or Arabic is an entirely normal part of the migration process, but it does not last more than a generation, and even less. Once settled, when they become more prosperous, they move to other neighbourhoods. What is important is to ensure that language training is possible, that there are receptive institutions to assist them in making the transition from their community to society.
Senator Champagne: They know someone who immigrated before them and automatically live in the same place where that individual settled. There are currently large Asian and Arabic-speaking communities on the South Shore of Montreal. I used the word ghetto in that sense. I was not using it in a negative way. We find it hard to determine whether they are Vietnamese, Chinese or Japanese. They recognize each other, but that is difficult for us. Even if we know how to say hello and thank you, we often mistake the language, but they all gather together. At the Brossard library, there are as many books in Chinese, in China's two main languages, as in Vietnamese. We are in Brossard, Quebec, in Canada. It still surprises me. If these children spent more time with young Quebec francophones and anglophones, perhaps we would have more Quebecers who speak Mandarin, for example, and those young people would learn more English or French.
Mr. Fraser: Some neighbourhoods in Toronto are virtual mirrors of certain Italian villages. I once walked down College Street during a World Cup soccer match, and I could tell when I was leaving the Portuguese neighbourhood and entering the Italian neighbourhood from the foreign flags I saw on the buildings. That phenomenon is not unique to Brossard.
Senator Champagne: The same is true of Little Italy in Montreal.
Mr. Fraser: The same is true in New York, London, Paris, Toronto and Montreal. What is important is to ensure that there are meeting places.
You mentioned libraries. According to something I recently read, immigrants are the biggest users of Montreal's libraries. Public libraries are an extraordinary resource for integrating newcomers.
There are also community centres, social centres. There are many ways for society to integrate immigrants, one of which is to offer evening language training courses and courses on the values of Canadian society.
Senator Champagne: Between soccer and football, perhaps that is where we will ultimately come together.
Senator Poirier: Welcome to the committee, Mr. Fraser. Last week, we finally tabled our report on the Internet, new media and social media. The first two recommendations concern young Canadians who are limited to exchange programs and suggest that they be offered courses in their second official language.
For what reasons do your recommendations not explore the integration of new technology such as social media, where young people meet. In New Brunswick, for example, one teacher is using the Internet to create a "classroom beyond walls". I wanted to get your comments on that subject.
Mr. Fraser: That is the follow-up we did in our study on learning opportunities at the post-secondary level. I even have the honour of announcing to you that we have now been on Facebook and Twitter for about one month.
As noted in our report, we had to self-finance the change in our IMIT system. But increasingly, this is a transformation that will be made, before those systems themselves are transformed and we have to find other ways to use new media that have not yet been invented. We are still interested in the new media question, and perhaps we will go into that in greater detail in a future annual report, but this is obviously an extremely important issue in any case. As I said in my remarks, I found your report very useful and we will be using it ourselves as part of our work.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
My second question concerns the investigation conducted in the National Capital Region. How do you intend to use your findings to improve practices and promote best practices, not only in the National Capital Region, but also across Canada? Do you intend to repeat this exercise in other bilingual regions of Canada?
Mr. Fraser: We have not made any decision on that matter. My interest was specific to Ottawa, which is the capital. This is an interest I had had for a long time. I always thought that, as Commissioner of Official Languages, I had to take a look at Ottawa, the national capital.
In preparing to present our 2011-12 annual report, I had meetings with the mayors of Ottawa, Gatineau and Chelsea and with representatives of the business associations. I already have an appointment with Ottawa's Regroupement des gens d'affaires. I hope to be able to use those findings to speak more with business associations, hotel operators, merchants and associations such as the Rideau Centre, the Byward Market, the Sparks Street Mall and others that were the subject of our observations. When I told those people that we were going to report those observations, many of them told me they hoped I could subsequently go and talk to their members about them. I hope I will be able to do so.
Senator Poirier: Do you intend to share those best practices, or the measures that will be changed to adapt to those best practices, with others in bilingual parts of Canada?
Mr. Fraser: Yes, because every time I conduct a regional visit, I make an effort to meet with institutions. I was recently in Calgary and tried to organize a meeting with some WestJet people, for example. Unfortunately, I chose the wrong time for my visit because they were in the middle of reflecting on the situation, but they were very interested in the idea of receiving me. I have previously spoken with the Manitoba Business Council, and that was one of the components I intended to pursue after completing this chapter in the 2011-12 annual report.
Senator Poirier: Do you think the findings of our study on the National Capital Region, of Ottawa and Gatineau, form the picture that you see find virtually anywhere in other bilingual, or somewhat bilingual, regions of Canada?
Mr. Fraser: It is highly likely that they do, but I cannot draw any direct comparisons. Moncton has the advantage of being an officially bilingual city. Together with the city of Ottawa and the Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute, we have previously organized an international colloquium on bilingual cities to which we invited people from Helsinki, Switzerland, Barcelona, Moncton and Ottawa to talk about the various challenges facing bilingual cities.
However, I suspect there is a common element; that is to say that it is entirely possible there is more capacity than is visible. This is a phenomenon that struck me. I knew that the environment — what some call the linguistic landscape — was strongly anglophone in Ottawa. There are very few signs in businesses telling people they can be served in French. What surprised me in that study was the number of meetings that proved to be positive; that is to say that there was a linguistic capacity that one would not have suspected based on the signs and reception by staff.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator Robichaud: Thank you, Madam Chair. It is always a pleasure to read the reports that you and your team prepare. Like Senator Champagne, I think your foreword is entirely appropriate. You indicate various places where efforts are being made; you talk about the Delta Beauséjour Hotel in Moncton. I think that is good because we need to point out things like that so that people see it is really worth the trouble to make an effort. You finish your chapter on the Delta Hotel by saying, "This is a great example of a business that considers bilingualism to be a corporate value." You also discuss two other examples: Rogers and Mountain Equipment Co-op.
Mr. Fraser: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: Is this a trend that is rising sharply? Or will we have to wait?
Your third recommendation is for the Minister of Industry and suggests that a support mechanism be created. Do we need that support for this trend to take off?
Mr. Fraser: I do not believe it will get done on its own. First of all, there are many businesses, companies and corporations that would like to serve their customers better but that do not know how to do it, what the mechanisms are, what the framework is, what kind of employment training is needed or what mechanisms should be put in place for a non-bilingual employee to know how to have a customer served by someone else. Everything depends on the organization. What struck me is that, in the case of Rogers, for example, there is a joint committee of managers and employees on linguistic duality. Those people meet very regularly and think about these issues.
To make a connection with your study, I also think that there are ways to use new technologies. For example, one reason that we identified for reducing the number of service complaints was that, with 1-800 numbers, it was increasingly easier to connect people with someone who could serve them in French, which used to be less feasible. That can also be done with websites, with interactivity.
So I think there is increasing potential for private corporations to provide better service to their customers in the language of their choice, but that often requires information. There is a Canadian Heritage website that provides information to companies that want to serve their customers better.
I also believe there is room for a "mechanism". There used to be a fund through which Canadian Heritage financed an Ottawa support program for merchants who wanted to provide better service to their customers in English and French. That program is now managed by the Regroupement des gens d'affaires. There are a number of examples like that for which a quite vague term such as "mechanism" has been intentionally used to avoid being too specific.
There is also another possibility. When I presented this annual report to one of the party leaders, he asked me, "Why the Minister of Industry? Why not the Minister of Finance, with certain tax mechanisms to encourage organizations to spend money and to generate tax benefits by doing that?" We had not thought of that, but I believe that is another example and that the word "mechanism" covers all kinds of possibilities.
Senator Robichaud: So stay tuned?
Mr. Fraser: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: You talked about budget cuts and the closing of an experimental farm. I know of one in Bouctouche, New Brunswick, that in fact served the province's population in French. I am sure they could serve it in English as well, and now it is simply being closed. An effort is being made to maintain some of its activities. Will you consider, or have you already considered, the possibility that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada might provide those services in French to the same population?
Mr. Fraser: You know, we received a complaint on that subject; it is an admissible complaint, and we are investigating. I cannot comment in this kind of case because it is an ongoing complaint process. This is a special situation. I can talk about situations before a complaint is filed and after the situation is resolved, but, unless I am mistaken, I cannot comment between the two.
Senator Robichaud: You say you can talk about the situation before the complaint is filed?
Mr. Fraser: That is correct. Sometimes it is paradoxical, but, from the moment a complaint is filed, I cannot comment on the situation.
Senator Robichaud: That means it will take some time before there is an investigation and findings are reached, does it not?
Mr. Fraser: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: What result could those findings have? Findings may tend to one side or the other.
Mr. Fraser: I cannot absolutely anticipate the nature of the investigation or the recommendations that will result from an investigation that is not yet complete. Everything depends on the nature of the investigation and the recommendations I decide to make.
The process is as follows: we conduct the investigation and a preliminary report goes to the complainant and the institution; then there is a time period for receiving comments from the complainant or complainants and from the institution. We take note of those comments and we prepare a final report. I must tell you as well that, during the entire process, I am bound by confidentiality, but the complainant is not. Consequently, a preliminary report often becomes public because the complainant has decided to make it public; and the complainant may agree or disagree with the recommendations or with what we have discovered during the investigation. However, when you see articles in the newspapers or reports on television concerning our preliminary investigations, I can assure you that I have not made them public.
Senator Robichaud: If I say that the findings could seriously affect services in French for farmers in our region, am I right? Whether it goes one way or the other?
Mr. Fraser: I cannot really comment on an ongoing investigation. I believe there is a legal saying: what the law forbids to be done directly cannot be done indirectly. I do not want to comment indirectly on what the rules forbid me from saying directly.
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Commissioner, I did not want to push you in that direction. Thank you very much.
The Chair: But the complaint you mentioned is admissible, is it not, Mr. Commissioner?
Mr. Fraser: Yes. That means that the investigation is under way.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: Mr. Fraser, thank you very much for your presentation, which I found very interesting and pleasant. I am just starting out here on the Official Languages Committee. That said, in the news release you stated the following:
Despite the fact that the Official Languages Act is now into its fifth decade, it is still a challenge for some to recognize linguistic duality as a Canadian value and as a key element in Canada's identity.
Are we to conclude from that statement that, for a number of Canadians, Canada's linguistic duality is a myth, a reality that is foreign to them, a luxury that Canada could do without?
Mr. Fraser: Unfortunately, some people think like that. I get emails from people who think like that, probably the members of your committee as well.
I found the discrepancy between certain interpretations of the census figures interesting. As Senator Tardif mentioned, some people claimed, with some satisfaction, that this was proof of the decline of French, that the first ministers would no longer have any obligation to speak French because the French fact was clearly in decline.
I conclude from those analyses that some people still view and have always viewed linguistic duality and official bilingualism as a necessary evil. The surveys we cite in chapter 1 of our annual report indicate that these are very much minority opinions but that they are still held. What strikes me in these figures is the extent to which public opinion has turned in favour of language policy in Canada from government to government over the more than 40 years that the Official Languages Act has been in existence. Prime Minister Pearson stated the principles in 1955. Prime Minister Trudeau introduced the Official Languages Act. Prime Minister Mulroney amended it in 1988. The Action Plan for Linguistic Duality was introduced under the Chrétien government, and that action plan was enhanced and transformed into the Roadmap under the Harper government.
Linguistic duality has been recognized as a value from government to government. When a policy is not only endorsed, but also enhanced by successive governments of various parties, I believe that is proof that it represents a majority sentiment in the country.
Senator McIntyre: You talk about court cases in your brief. As I am a lawyer by profession, that chapter naturally drew my attention.
In Thibodeau v. Air Canada, the air carrier decided to appeal the Federal Court's decision in September 2011. If I understand correctly, the Court of Appeal should decide the matter or render its judgment by the end of 2012.
Are you surprised that Air Canada decided to appeal that decision? Are we to conclude that Air Canada's problem is its corporate culture?
Mr. Fraser: We are dealing with two issues here. First of all, there is the whole debate about the issue of corporate culture. The trial judge held very clearly that there was a systemic problem and also that the corporation's statutory obligations prevailed over the Montreal Convention, an international legal agreement on the use of English as the language of aviation. That decision by the Court of Appeal, to which we referred in the report, came after March 31. Now the Court of Appeal has accepted Air Canada's interpretation in a new decision.
We are therefore dealing with two decisions. One states that the Official Languages Act takes precedence over the Montreal Convention. The other holds that the Montreal Convention prevails over the Official Languages Act and challenges the idea that there is a systemic problem. Consequently, we will appeal to the Supreme Court to decide these matters once and for all.
However, if I have forgotten some details, I will ask Ms. Tremblay to speak.
Johane Tremblay, General Counsel, Legal Affairs Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: The commissioner has summarized the issues very clearly. There is perhaps the second part of the question, which is whether the fact that Air Canada appealed to the Court of Appeal is linked to Air Canada's culture.
Mr. Fraser: One thing I have learned is that, when institutions are not satisfied with a judgment when they go to court, they appeal. That is the nature of our legal system.
In these cases, I try not to personalize the issue, but rather to treat it as follows: certain jurisdictional matters must be decided. If there is a disagreement about the information or responsibilities of an institution, that disagreement must be resolved before the courts. The same is true of CBC/Radio-Canada. They claim they have an obligation solely to the CRTC and that we have no jurisdiction over their decision. We claim that, as a Crown corporation, it has certain obligations under Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
As they say, I do not take it personally. However, the courts must decide at some point, and Judge Martineau held that, yes, we have a shared jurisdiction with the CRTC. However, he suspended the case so that other matters could be submitted to the CRTC during its CBC/Radio-Canada licence renewal hearings. That will be the next stage, and then we will see.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Commissioner, I would like to talk to you about three topics. Earlier you discussed Ottawa's linguistic face. We heard from an associate deputy minister of Foreign Affairs a few years ago. I pointed out to him that, now that the Constitution of Canada provided that the country had two official languages, it was not normal for the department not to remind the various chancelleries in Ottawa that their signs should appear in both languages, and the deputy minister in question answered me, saying "That is a distraction; we will deal with that." Note that some of them, such as the U.S. embassy, post signs in both languages. However, for a number of others, English and the country's national language are posted. The least those chancelleries could do would be to abide by the supreme law of the land.
I wonder whether you, who are interested in Ottawa's linguistic face, could gently remind the department to continue to use its good offices with the various chancelleries in Ottawa to have them respect linguistic equality here. That is the first point I would like to discuss with you.
Mr. Fraser: That is a very good point. Obviously, they are not subject to the act, but I could do what I do when I receive a complaint about a private business. In those cases, if customers complain that the private business did not serve them in the language of their choice, I send a letter telling the company: I know perfectly well you are not subject to the act, but I assume you would like to serve your customers better. I suggest this, while acknowledging that I do not have formal authority to conduct investigations or make recommendations, because embassies have no obligations to post signs in both languages. They may post signs in their language if they wish to do so.
Senator De Bané: Perhaps I was not clear. It is not up to you to speak to those embassies, but, since they are in contact with the department every day, I believe they would listen if the department told them to make an effort to abide by Canadian law. It is not up to the Commissioner of Official Languages to contact them, but I know that they at the department agree that we have two official languages and that those embassies should take that fact into account. You do not need to be an expert to know that they will be sensitive to the wishes expressed by the department. They deal with protocol every day, and they need the department in order to operate in this country. They would listen if they were asked.
Again with regard to linguistic face, I am thinking of large Quebec businesses whose identity is French, whose origin is French, whose DNA is French, that are located a two-minute walk from Parliament, in Ottawa, and that post signs only in English. These are Quebec businesses whose DNA is French, but here they adopt a line based on a certain political ideology: since we are outside Quebec here, we will post signs in English only. I assume that is a problem you have examined.
When you talk about those large Quebec businesses that operate in retail, in contact with citizens, how do they respond and explain to you how they behave?
Mr. Fraser: I have not had any contact, but I can report what people from the Acadian Peninsula have told me when branch offices of large American corporations decide to settle in the region. They conduct a market study that takes into account the linguistic needs of their clientele and they post signs based on the market study they have done. I am thinking of companies like McDonald's, for example. However, Quebec companies tend to think that there is no salvation outside Quebec; it is English and that is all.
There have been pressures and protests, and people on the Acadian Peninsula have been urged to make certain Quebec companies understand that they should post signs in both languages and that French is spoken outside Quebec.
I am not making any judgment on the reason why those Quebec companies adopt that attitude. However, I note that that was the case with banks until a number of years ago. Bank branches in Ottawa posted signs in English, whereas in Gatineau, which was Hull at the time, it was in French. One minister telephoned the head of the Canadian Bankers Association, who himself was a former deputy minister, to tell him that made no sense. Now we see that the bank branches along Sparks and Bank Streets post signs in both languages.
Senator De Bané: That is what troubles me, seeing that a Quebec financial business two minutes away from here is the only one posting signs in English only.
Mr. Fraser: Have you contacted them?
Senator De Bané: With the Mouvement Desjardins, no. They are the ones that are two minutes away from Parliament and that post signs in English only.
There is another topic that I would like to discuss with you. I am familiar with Statistics Canada's 2006 census data. Based on that data, 10 million people in Canada were able to speak and communicate in French in 2006. That is also the figure that appears on the official website of the Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie. Do you agree with that figure?
Mr. Fraser: Yes, and there has been an increase in that figure, not a major one, but it is approximately 10 million according to the last census results that appeared last week.
Senator De Bané: Out of that 10 million, obviously 6.5 million Quebec inhabitants have French as their mother tongue. There are also one million French-mother-tongue speakers outside Quebec, and if you add to that those who can communicate in French, you come up with approximately 10 million. I was recently very surprised to learn from a Radio-Canada executive, the director of regional services, who testified before us, that she was perfectly aware there were one million French-mother-tongue speakers living outside Quebec. However, when I asked how many other people outside Quebec spoke French because they come from a francophone country or, like Mr. Moore, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, because they learned it, she said she did not know how many there were and that all she knew was that there were one million French-mother-tongue speakers. There were no doubt others who spoke French, but how many were there? She told me, "I do not know." I obviously knew why she said that because there are certain obligations under the Official Languages Act that take mother tongue into account.
We were talking about CBC/Radio-Canada's French-language service, which is there for everyone who can understand French. We have an official transcript of that meeting, where she told us that, no, she did not know. She knew how many French-mother-tongue speakers there were, but not that there were others.
Our chair put the question directly, "The one million, who is that?" She said, "Mother tongue, that is the only figure we have."
I would like you to be able to make them aware of the fact that Radio-Canada is the vehicle for the presence, defence and illustration of the French language and that 26.7 per cent of those 10 million people who can speak French do not live in Quebec. More than one-quarter live outside it, in all the Canadian provinces. And, no, they clearly take into account only French-mother-tongue speakers.
This is the first time that we have seen a broadcasting business deliberately limit its potential market. I have seen a lot of things in my life, but to go that far, not to wonder what their potential market is — it is obviously those who speak French, who understand French, who can converse in French — that does not seem to interest them.
I would like you to see to what extent you can make them aware of that.
I would like to close with one point, Madam Chair. You know that it is extremely important for French-speaking communities across the country, for their own development, to see and hear themselves on Radio-Canada's airwaves, not only in what goes on in their province, but on the Canadian national network. It is extremely important for their morale. They themselves have told me, "When we see ourselves on the national network, that gives us assurance." And as you know, they are so invisible on the network, from sea to sea, that they have decided to file an application with the CRTC to establish their own national network so that they can see and hear themselves.
The first objective of the Broadcasting Act is to enable Canadians to see and hear themselves. I would like you to consider to what extent you can put pressure on Radio-Canada. I understand that you have problems with that — you are taking them to court — but this is a very important topic.
Mr. Fraser: Very briefly, Madam Chair, yes, we are in court because we believe that CBC/Radio-Canada has specific obligations respecting the vitality of the official language minority communities, particularly in the dramatic reduction of services in the Windsor area, which was done before the court case, virtually without consulting the communities.
What I can say however, is that Ms. Pleszczynska, the executive to whom you refer, organized meetings with community members in Sudbury and Toronto to trigger discussion about the communities' broadcasting needs.
I wrote an article for the National Post on the extremely important role that Radio-Canada plays in the communities and about my admiration for those radio and television hosts who play a role not only in front of a microphone or on screen, but also as hosts of social events in their communities. They play an extremely important role. That is a message that I have previously tried to put before the courts and that I will repeat when I appear before the CRTC.
Senator Mockler: I congratulate you, Mr. Commissioner. You are dedicated and you are transparent when we look at your recommendations and the work your office does. You no doubt monitor very closely what we read in the English-language newspapers in New Brunswick about the current modernization of official languages. That is a concern for me. I thought your table on bilingualism on page 4 was excellent. I used it at Tim Horton's and at the McDonald's in Saint-Léonard on the weekend.
Do you have any comments on the debate taking place back home on the modernization of official languages? How could we inform our population more, given that New Brunswick is the only bilingual province in Canada?
Mr. Fraser: I have a great deal of esteem for my counterpart Michel Carrier, who is doing an exemplary job as New Brunswick's Commissioner of Official Languages, and who, in his report, made some specifically targeted recommendations on language of work. One of the only differences, roughly speaking, between the federal Official Languages Act and New Brunswick's legislation is that New Brunswick officials do not have the same guarantee that they will be able to work in the language of their choice. I know that is an issue that still triggers a great deal of emotion in New Brunswick today, and I know there are some places where I should not venture without having a solid grasp of the language issues because the issues are very complex, in New Brunswick particularly, and there is often an argument over the difference between official bilingualism and linguistic duality, as well as the rights attaching to the community.
Although I do not have any material support to offer my counterpart Mr. Carrier, I am in regular contact with him, and I give him as much moral support as I can in often very delicate situations.
Senator Mockler: No doubt what you said about Mr. Carrier will help us further increase the awareness of the population of New Brunswick, and his recommendations are exact and specific.
When I look at recommendations 1 and 2, every government certainly wants to protect its fiefdom, that is to say its provincial responsibilities relative to federal responsibilities.
Mr. Fraser: Yes.
Senator Mockler: I know there is some concern across the country with certain changes in provincial governments, without wanting to name them. How could the federal government encourage an increase in the number of school programs as a way of further promoting bilingualism without interfering in provincial jurisdictions?
Mr. Fraser: My interpretation of this very important role that the federal government could play is that it can do so through its role as an employer. The federal government is the largest employer in Canada and, as an employer, has needs. The federal government needs bilingual employees. Just as some engineering firms send very clear messages to engineering faculties, saying, "We need graduates who master such and such a speciality," or certain architectural firms will tell architecture faculties, "Here is the kind of training we need," I believe it is very important for the federal government to tell the universities and the provinces, "We have needs as an employer; how can you and your universities provide the learning opportunities?"
Because the polls show that, not only is the federal government the largest employer, but it is also a preferred employer. In many fields, it is surprising to see just how much students would like to work for the federal government.
The old language training model, under which the employer waited until employees were about to become managers or senior managers before sending them on weeks or months of language training until they could reach the required level to meet linguistic obligations, is a model that is far too expensive and far too burdensome.
The government has decided, first of all, to privatize language training and then to transfer that responsibility to the departments. Consequently, language learning should be part of every federal government employees' training plan. In the current circumstances, however, it is quite understandable for a manager to tell one of his or her employees, "I know it is very important for you to pass your language tests, but, before that, to do your present job, there are other courses that you should take, on human resources, staffing, on all kinds of other professional aspects of the public service."
Consequently, I believe, and all the studies show, that the younger you are when you learn a second language, the easier it is. I believe it is very important for the federal government to send the universities that message. We have not yet seen the results, but there was a pilot project at 11 universities in which students were able to take language training courses to reach their language level before entering the public service. As a result, they have their CBC or BBB levels before they are hired. That is more efficient and less expensive, and this is a professional skill that the federal government needs.
The issue is not to interfere in the nature of that training, but I believe that the federal government has not only responsibilities but also the right as an employer to send the same kind of message as other employers send to post- secondary institutions.
Let us be clear on this: the idea here is not for the federal government to say that they should read Marie-Claire Blais in second year and Proust in third year. Language training issues are the responsibility of the universities, but I believe we should have enough cooperation so that the Canadian employer, which has the greatest need for bilingual employees, can have a say by stating: "We have this need."
Senator Mockler: The problem is that, when you go into those institutions, the department of education wants to protect its fiefdom, saying, "We are the ones who will make the decisions in our backyard." However, I entirely agree with you.
There is another issue that I am sure you are following, and I also have other questions, but I am going to write a letter so that I can get an answer.
My last question is this: we are talking about the Roadmap, and we see that a consultation on the subject is currently under way in which Canadians are taking part. Based on your extensive experience with the Roadmap, have we managed to help our communities in New Brunswick move forward? If so, and without wanting to put you on the spot because I have too much respect for you and your office, can we score it and express it on a scale of 1 to 10?
I would like to have results that I can present to the people I deal with. I would like to be able to say, as a senator today, a member of the government party, or as a result of other government responsibilities that I used to have, that if the program does not work, we must correct it.
Mr. Fraser: I believe there have been successes with the Roadmap. The biggest success, in my opinion, was the expansion of the French health care networks. Some very significant advances were made. I cannot score that specifically for New Brunswick, but perhaps my associate Sylvain Giguère can provide you with more details on New Brunswick.
Sylvain Giguère, Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: I may not be able to provide any details, but we have had some major successes in New Brunswick. Consider the Accent program, for example, which was funded by ACOA; that was money from the Roadmap. They started their work a number of years ago, but they also managed to work with some 50 organizations, private organizations that managed to improve service in both official languages. We have seen some major achievements.
Could we have seen more? Yes, probably. Did they take several steps forward? Yes. Consequently, although I cannot give you any more details, we are seeing improvements; that much is clear.
Senator Mockler: If you will allow me one final comment, the Société Santé en français will be holding its annual meeting here from November 21 to 23. There are more than 450 participants, and it has been in existence for only a few years.
Senator Tardif: This is their tenth year.
Senator Mockler: The Santé en français programs in recent years have been made possible as a result of their leadership.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Mockler. The commissioner has graciously agreed to stay with us until 7 o'clock. We have 20 minutes left, and four senators have indicated that they have questions for the second round. I would ask you to make your questions very specific; the question and answer should not take more than five minutes if we want everyone to be able to ask a question.
Senator Champagne: Currently, and in recent years, some Toronto high schools, aware that francophones are attending the University of Toronto, have invited university students from various faculties to come and engage in French conversation in the secondary schools. It is marvelous for these students to have the opportunity to discuss the previous night's hockey game or current affairs with a francophone. It is also a good opportunity for young university students to be able to earn some money that they will need to put gas in their car. That may be a suggestion that you could pass on to others some time.
Earlier you talked about the importance of the visibility of the bilingual landscape in the national capital, particularly with 2017 approaching. You met with the mayor of Gatineau and Mayor Watson of Ottawa, particularly since we have a francophile mayor in Ottawa right now. There must be a way for those two mayors to suggest to merchants a way of posting certain information. We see signs saying habla español everywhere. However, we are bilingual here. I believe that if the two mayors set to it, we might have slightly stronger bilingual children.
Mr. Fraser: Excellent suggestion. I already have an appointment with the Regroupement des gens d'affaires, an organization very committed to raising the profile of the two official languages in Ottawa businesses and that supports businesses that would like to raise their profiles. I have had very good meetings with both mayors. I will suggest a joint approach next time.
Senator Champagne: For things to really work, I think we have to work together on both sides of the bridge.
Senator Tardif: Mr. Commissioner, you made several recommendations to the government in your annual report from last year. However, you made no reference to them in this year's annual report. What follow-up action have you taken with the government? Can you tell us whether the government has taken measures in response to your recommendations?
Mr. Fraser: We are compiling all the recommendations we have made since I took up my position. Once that compilation is complete, I will be able to share the summary of recommendations with you.
Mr. Giguère: We are doing an update and made a first pass with the commissioner's first 39 recommendations in March 2012. We will be doing an update this fall. It is still possible to see where we stand. We will add the last 3 recommendations and will have reached 42. There has obviously been no follow-up to the last three because it is too soon. We will be able to send the committee the results.
Senator Tardif: That would be very much appreciated.
Mr. Giguère: It will take approximately two or three more weeks.
Senator Tardif: There has been a lot of talk in the past few days about budget cutbacks in the federal departments and agencies. Have you begun to measure the impact of those cuts on the official language minority communities?
Mr. Fraser: The cutbacks are still under way. In some institutions, for example, 40 individuals have received a letter to fill 20 positions. While that process is under way, it is very difficult to conduct a final impact assessment. We hope to be able to report on the impact of the cuts next year.
Incidentally, as I said in my statement, we have received complaints about some institutional closings. Some people are very concerned about the regionalization of certain institutions whereby operations are being transferred from one bilingual province or region to a unilingual region. So the situation is more difficult, and some fear they will no longer be able to continue working in the language of their choice.
Once again, incidentally, we hear that some people are afraid to use French in the workplace out of fear they may be targeted for position cuts. Although we try to reassure them by saying that, if they file complaints, the process is completely anonymous, those people really do not want to make waves in a situation in which positions are being cut.
Senator Tardif: The situation is very serious, Mr. Commissioner. You are not unaware that the official language communities are very concerned about future effects and impacts. They also wonder whether organizations will be able to meet their official language commitments.
Mr. Fraser: I would emphasize that I do not claim the government has decided to target official language programs. However, I fear the involuntary effects of the budget cutbacks on communities.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Commissioner, most of your report concerns the role of businesses in the promotion of Canada's linguistic duality. In your report, you cited bilingual businesses that have had major success. I would like to know where in Canada those businesses are located. What about businesses in the west?
I have three questions, but your answer does not have to be very long.
In addition, what is the private sector's share of responsibility in promoting the two official languages?
Mr. Fraser: First, the headquarters of the Mountain Equipment Co-op is in Vancouver. The headquarters of Rogers Communications is in Toronto. In both cases, they have decided to adopt linguistic duality as a value, even though, in proportional terms, their francophone clientele is a minority. Francophones represent only 8 per cent of Rogers' cable clientele in one of their markets. Nevertheless, they decided that this was a corporate value. I believe it is extremely important for the large corporations to adopt linguistic duality as a value.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: There are approximately 10 million francophones across the country, one-third of the population. What is the situation regarding small businesses? There are not just big businesses in Canada; there are also small ones. Are small businesses concerned about offering services in both official languages?
Mr. Fraser: That is hard to say. Some do, but it all depends. Small industries or companies usually start out with a local clientele. Consequently, their linguistic face will be based on the nature of their clientele.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: And how do you view the private sector's share of responsibility in promoting official languages?
Mr. Fraser: Let us say I have become quite interested in the linguistic landscape concept. What is striking is that a large part of the linguistic landscape in every Canadian city is under the private sector's control. Quebec and Nunavut have decided to regulate the private sector, whereas the federal government and the other provinces have decided not to do so. However, to ensure the linguistic landscape reflects the country's linguistic make-up, I believe the private sector has an important role to play given its significance in the linguistic landscape. We have seen that, during special events such as the Olympic Games, the sponsors of those games were very much engaged in the linguistic face in Vancouver.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I was very pleased that you devoted at least four pages of your brief to industries and performances. So I thank you very much.
Mr. Fraser: You are welcome.
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Commissioner, if you look around this table, would you agree with me that the official languages issue mainly concerns francophones?
Mr. Fraser: Obviously, when a linguistic group is in a minority position, that group is more engaged in defending and promoting language rights than the majority. The same is true in Finland, where the Swedes are more interested in the language rights issue than the Finns. I believe it is utterly normal for minority communities to be more interested in this issue than their majority counterparts.
Senator Robichaud: Do you not think that, if minority French speakers could make the official languages program a program that served all of Canada and all communities, we would nevertheless need English speakers?
Mr. Fraser: Yes, absolutely. That moreover is why one of our strategic focuses at the office is to reach the majority, because if linguistic duality is not accepted as a value by the majorities in Canada, it will be very difficult to achieve that ideal.
Senator Robichaud: Have we managed to reach the majority thus far and, if so, to what extent?
That has nothing to do with your report; this is entirely general.
Mr. Fraser: If we look at progress in support for official bilingualism as reflected in the surveys cited in the annual report, I believe the answer is there. The problem is that, if we are in a profoundly majority situation in which the French presence is not really felt, as in Toronto, for example, it is hard to be as aware of the importance of linguistic duality as people are in Moncton, Ottawa, Montreal, Sudbury or in communities such as Winnipeg, where Saint-Boniface is a city very much involved in the urban scene.
Looking at the editorial reaction to the appointment of a unilingual Auditor General, we saw that that decision was strongly criticized by the Edmonton Journal, the Calgary Herald and the Ottawa Citizen. Those were not the reactions I had expected from those newspapers. In my mind, that confirms that it is essential that positions of national importance be occupied by bilingual people. There is no longer even any argument over the need for political leaders to be bilingual. That has not been an argument for 25 years.
We increasingly see that bilingualism is an essential leadership skill in the country, whether it be in political parties, in the public service or in very public positions in the country.
Senator Robichaud: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner, and your team for coming to meet with us.
The Chair: Before concluding, Mr. Commissioner, you spoke briefly at the start of your presentation about the CBC/Radio-Canada study. As you are no doubt aware, we are currently conducting that study. You told us you had submitted your written observations to the CRTC at the beginning of this month. I would like to tell you that a copy of your intervention was distributed to committee members.
If at one point committee members feel they have any additional questions that they would like to ask you, would you be prepared to appear once again if necessary?
Mr. Fraser: Yes, absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner, and thanks to your team.
Honourable senators, this has been quite a long, but very productive meeting this afternoon. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)