Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 3 - Evidence - Meeting of March 21, 2016
OTTAWA, Monday, March 21, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Official languages met this day at 5:30 p.m., to continue its study on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act.
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Claudette Tardif, a senator from Alberta, and I am pleased to chair this evening's meeting.
Before giving the floor to the witnesses, I would like to invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre, senator from New Brunswick.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier, senator from New Brunswick.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais, senator from Quebec.
Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer, senator from British Columbia.
Senator Rivard: Michel Rivard, senator from Quebec, from the riding of Laurentides.
The Chair: The committee is continuing its study on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act.
This evening, the discussions will be on the collaboration between Canada's linguistic commissioners and on the follow-up to be done on the study on CBC/Radio-Canada's linguistic obligations.
We are pleased to welcome Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages; Ghislaine Saikaley, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance Branch; Mary Donaghy, Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications Branch; and Pascale Giguère, Senior Counsel and Manager, Legal Affairs Branch.
Before we begin, I would like to add that Commissioner Fraser chairs the International Association of Language Commissioners, which was created three years ago. Its mission is to defend language equality and diversity around the world.
We will discuss the collaboration between the commissioners. I want to thank Mr. Fraser for joining our committee today as the president of that association. Mr. Fraser, you may begin by giving us a brief overview.
Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
[English]
Members of the committee, good evening. I am pleased to appear before this committee today for the first time since the beginning of this Parliament. Although I'm not sure how many more discussions we will have before my term as commissioner comes to an end in October, I would like to say that I am honoured to have been welcomed so frequently by your committee and to have had such productive exchanges with you.
[Translation]
The situation regarding CBC/Radio-Canada is, understandably, a topic that I wish to address and advance before leaving, and so your notice to appear arrived at a rather opportune time.
As you know, I filed proceedings in Federal Court against CBC/Radio-Canada in 2010. The decision to go to court was based on the fact that, for several years, CBC/Radio-Canada had refused to recognize its obligations as well as my jurisdiction to conduct investigations into anything that even vaguely resembles what it describes as programming.
[English]
After receiving 876 complaints from Canadians about the budget cuts CBC/Radio-Canada made to CBEF Windsor, I conducted an investigation that concluded that the national public broadcaster had not met its obligations under Part VII of the Official Languages Act because it had not taken into account the negative impact of its decision on the francophone minority community in southwestern Ontario.
CBC/Radio-Canada refused to participate in the investigation, arguing that its decision was related to programming activities, even though the issue was really about administrative decisions the like budget cuts and job losses.
[Translation]
By bringing the case to court, I wanted to confirm that I have jurisdiction to investigate CBC/Radio-Canada and to clarify its obligations under Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
On September 8, 2014 Justice Martineau of the Federal Court issued a decision that ruled in favour of my jurisdiction to investigate and dismissed CBC/Radio-Canada's position that the CRTC had exclusive jurisdiction. The court ruled unequivocally that CBC/Radio-Canada was subject to the act and to part VII, which includes not only the obligation to take positive measures to enhance the vitality and support the development of official language minority communities, but also the obligation to act in a manner that does not hinder the development or vitality of Canada's anglophone and francophone minorities.
[English]
CBC/Radio-Canada appealed this decision. On November 12, 2015, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the Federal Court's decision. It is important to note, however, that the Federal Court of Appeal did not rule on substantive issues but instead found that the trial judge had made procedural errors.
This is why I have not brought the case before the Supreme Court of Canada. Because the Federal Court of Appeal did not rule on merit, it would be difficult to argue before the Supreme Court that the Federal Court of Appeal made errors of national importance.
Although the Federal Court of Appeal did not rule specifically on my jurisdiction with respect to CBC/Radio- Canada, it did make it clear that the CRTC does not have the power to determine whether there has been a breach of the provisions of the Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
This may seem obvious, but CBC/Radio-Canada had argued that the CRTC was allowed to consider the principles and objectives of the act when carrying out its mandate and that Parliament presumably wished to let the CRTC be responsible for matters relating to official languages. However, the Federal Court of Appeal clearly stated that the CRTC cannot reach any conclusions regarding breaches of the act. In saying this, it reiterated — albeit indirectly — that the mandate given to me by Parliament authorizes me to investigate any matter related to the Official Languages Act. In practical terms, I must admit that after five years of litigation, we are back to square one.
[English]
Since the Federal Court of Appeal's decision, however, I have been in discussions with CBC/Radio-Canada and I hope that we will soon find a way to resolve this impasse.
Clearly, my role as Commissioner of Official Languages is not to dictate programming decisions to the national public broadcaster. I agree with CBC/Radio-Canada that journalistic independence is important. However, I maintain that CBC/Radio-Canada is subject to the Official Languages Act, including Part VII, and that I have full jurisdiction over any investigation into allegations from the public that CBC/Radio-Canada is not meeting its obligations under the act.
On a related point, I am interested, as you are, in the digital shift currently under way at CBC/Radio-Canada and how the various regions across the country are being served. It appears to me that the same principles apply to this new structure: The national public broadcaster must reflect all of Canada's English- and French-speaking communities while connecting Canadians to one another.
[Translation]
I would now like to move on to my second topic. One of the achievements I am most proud of in recent years is my partnership with the Commissioner of Official Languages for New Brunswick, and the French Language Services Commissioner of Ontario.
Memoranda of understanding have been established between our organizations that focus primarily on sharing best practices and facilitating the transfer of complaints between jurisdictions.
I meet with Commissioners Boileau and d'Entremont every time we find ourselves in the same city, and our staffs are in regular contact with each other. In 2013, we published a joint report on access to justice and the bilingual capacity of Canada's superior courts. In November 2014, Mr. Boileau's and my offices published a joint report on francophone immigration. Given the number of issues that overlap our jurisdictions, this ongoing partnership helps us to take more efficient and effective action, thus improving the services we provide to Canadians.
[English]
In closing, I would like to make brief mention of some of the publications my office will be releasing before the end of my mandate: my annual report, which will be released on May 19, along with a review of the court cases my office has been involved in over the past decade, and new report cards for 33 federal institutions; an overview of how I have exercised my role before the courts; a study on active offer to the public by federal institutions; a study on early childhood development in French-speaking minority communities; the results of a public opinion poll on what Canadians think about various issues related to official languages; and, finally, a follow-up to my 2012 audit of Parks Canada.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I will gladly answer your questions and those of your colleagues.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
I gather that we will have the pleasure of seeing you again on a number of occasions given the reports and documents you are publishing in the next few weeks. It will be our great pleasure to welcome you here again.
We will now begin with questions, starting with Senator Poirier.
Senator Poirier: Welcome and thank you for accepting our invitation to be here.
My questions are on three topics. My first question touches on some of the comments you made during your presentation. You said that in November the Federal Court ruled in favour of CBC/Radio-Canada in the proceedings you filed against the corporation in order to exercise your power to conduct investigations into CBC/Radio-Canada's failure to meet its linguistic obligations to Canadians. Can you explain why your jurisdiction to investigate CBC/ Radio-Canada is important to francophone communities?
Mr. Fraser: I believe that a very clear example of the importance of our investigations to the communities is the investigation we conducted into, as well as the court proceedings involving CBEF Windsor, despite CBC/Radio- Canada's lack of cooperation in this case. These proceedings before the courts and the CRTC resulted in CBC/Radio- Canada improving its consultation initiatives. Consultation obligations are now requirements for renewing CBC/ Radio-Canada's licence and that would not be so if we hadn't done something about the 876 complaints we received.
I should add that I am very particular about the complaints under my jurisdiction to investigate. I had no desire to be news director when I was a journalist and I still don't, now that I'm Commissioner of Official Languages. A certain number of complaints have to do with journalistic decisions and I have no interest in exercising my power to conduct an investigation into that.
Sometimes the public recognizes that. For example, during the shooting in Moncton in 2014, RDI decided not to interrupt its broadcast of the Charbonneau Commission hearings in order to cover this major event. Complaints were filed with the CBC/Radio-Canada ombudsman and if I had received any I wouldn't have accepted them because this was a journalistic decision. CBC/Radio-Canada acknowledged its mistake after the near immediate observations of Ombudsman Pierre Tourangeau. I have no desire to conduct investigations into this type of complaint. Nonetheless, when it comes to decisions over budgets and budget cuts, that have a potential impact on the communities, I believe it is very important for CBC/Radio-Canada to meet its obligations and not hinder the communities.
CBC/Radio-Canada is an extremely important resource for communities across the country. It is like a community bulletin board for the communities that are spread out across the country. It is extremely important that this service to minority communities continues to be provided the way it has been in the past. There is a very important link, which was acknowledged by Justice Martineau, between the services provided by CBC/Radio-Canada and the vitality of the linguistic communities.
Senator Poirier: If I understand correctly, the 876 complaints were not about journalists. What was the nature of the majority of the complaints? What were they about?
Mr. Fraser: They were about the loss of local programming in Windsor and the decision to cut positions in Windsor, such that all the CBC coverage is provided from Toronto. They were complaining about how local programming has been reduced from 35 hours to 45 minutes, or to be more precise, three segments of 15 minutes. As part of the licence renewal process, the CRTC required CBC/Radio-Canada to go back to 15 hours a week for local programming.
Senator Poirier: In your opinion, what are CBC/Radio-Canada's main objections to your jurisdiction to investigate? What is the corporation afraid of?
Mr. Fraser: I believe that, like any news organization, it is concerned about any impact there might be on the organization's journalistic independence. As I said, it is an instinct that I respect greatly. The corporation is concerned that this could open the door to government interference. There is also the fear that it could become impossible to change the nature of the services. The corporation is concerned that if something isn't quite working that it won't be able to change the situation.
I have received complaints about a journalistic decision where a journalist was transferred from one city to another. I decided those types of decisions wouldn't be the type of complaint we would deal with.
News organizations are not interested in being watched by an outside organization. Newspapers are reticent about being monitored by press offices. There is a natural and understandable fear of losing control over content. In my case, it is not the content that I want to control, but the impact on the services that represent an important link to the vitality of linguistic communities.
Senator Poirier: I will now move on to another subject.
Two weeks ago, a group of Acadians sent a letter to CBC/Radio-Canada concerning hateful comments about Acadia and francophones. In response to the pressure from different people — 120 people signed a letter while others, such as the federal minister and the premier of New Brunswick, went to hearings held in Moncton last week — the CBC/Radio-Canada reversed its decision. We are pleased with that. In addition to removing the comments, the corporation also decided that anyone who posts a comment must now indicate their name. I believe that the corporation is also going to review its policies. It told us that it is an independent corporation that follows directives.
Do you believe that this decision will solve the problem for social media, or are there additional measures that you could suggest to prevent people from making such hateful comments about francophones or other organizations? Can you make other suggestions or recommend other measures to improve the situation?
Mr. Fraser: The fundamental principle is that any news broadcaster, whether a newspaper editor or CBC editor, is responsible for content. When I worked for a newspaper in the days of print media, we had a policy that letters were published only if the name and address of the person was on the letter. We would try to confirm by telephone that the person had actually written the letter.
These are new times and this is part of the digital shift. According to the statement by Jennifer McGuire, who is responsible for CBC content, the corporation publishes one million texts a year. She cannot be expected to verify the identity of these people to the same extent we did in the good old days of journalism, or as we continue to do in print media.
However, what is important — and I believe that the CBC recognized this — is to monitor comments and require people to identify themselves. This means that human resources must be allocated to monitor comments, even if the information is displayed automatically when a comment is submitted. In a similar vein, there is a 15-second delay on open-line radio shows so that an employee in the studio can determine whether the comments are appropriate and cut off the speaker, if necessary. I think that putting a stop to anonymous comments is a first step. I believe that anonymity is conducive to comments that are quite inappropriate. However, we still have to be vigilant because some people will provide their name and still make all kinds of racist, xenophobic, or misogynistic comments.
Earlier, I mentioned the former CBC/Radio-Canada ombudsman, Pierre Tourangeau. At one point, there was an exchange between a Radio-Canada journalist and a listener that went sideways. The listener filed a complaint with the ombudsman, who ruled that the important word in the expression "social media'' is the word "media'', and that no CBC journalist should say anything on social media that he or she would not dare say on the airwaves. I believe that the same principle applies to the broadcasting of comments. You would not make racist, xenophobic or misogynistic comments on a newscast. Therefore, an effort should be made to ensure that comments and information circulated are monitored.
Senator Poirier: I completely agree with you.
Senator Maltais: Welcome, Mr. Fraser. You know, we have had long careers.
Mr. Fraser: That is true.
Senator Maltais: God has given us our health, so we go on, but it is not the CBC's fault. You know me very well, Commissioner Fraser, and I have a lot of respect for you, in your professional capacity, and for your work.
You are an officer of Parliament. The parliamentarians of a democracy have tasked you with monitoring the application of a law. First of all, I find it ridiculous and absurd that you are forced to turn to the courts to monitor CBC/Radio-Canada. In a normal democracy, this should not happen. Parliament ensures compliance with the law through you. MPs have given you the power to monitor the application of the Official Languages Act. Therefore, I find that ridiculous, but not surprising in the case of the CBC/Radio-Canada. Radio-Canada in Montreal and CBC in Toronto couldn't care less about Parliament and, for that matter, Canadians. Just look at their decisions.
I would like to quickly tell you a story that we heard last week when the people from TFO appeared before the committee. For the 400th anniversary of Champlain's arrival in Canada, Radio-Canada put on a big, beer-fuelled party on the Plains of Abraham, with an orchestra from I do not know where, from London or somewhere like that. TFO, on the other hand, produced quite an exceptional program. You know it well. Champlain's Dream was based on an American book, of course. What was quite ironic, as they told us in committee, was that most of the artists, researchers and directors were from Montreal. However, the fact that they were not from the right circles was a strike against them. Thus, TFO was able to hire them. The program was made by TFO with Quebecers.
Meanwhile we were celebrating the 400th anniversary near Champlain's statue at an event sponsored by Molson and Coors Light. In your opinion what was CBC/Radio-Canada's role? According to the Broadcasting Act, its role is to ensure that the two linguistic communities live together harmoniously. CBC/Radio-Canada didn't film anything, besides the party. It was an opportunity for Quebec to raise its profile and our neighbour, Ontario, understood that. It understood that the people at CBC/Radio-Canada were incompetent. You know that I shoot straight from the hip.
Today, Champlain's Dream serves as a model in French schools and in francophone communities in Quebec and other parts of Canada. This program is a tool for all Canadian francophones. Despite its billion dollars in funding, CBC/Radio-Canada cannot even tell us who Champlain was married to.
If we give CBC/Radio-Canada an additional $75 million, how much of it do you think will be handed to the regions? Zero. The money will benefit its headquarters, Montreal and Toronto. No more than a few hundreds of thousands of dollars might be allocated to the regions. CBC/Radio-Canada is no longer carrying out its mandate.
In a future report, I hope that you, the Commissioner of Official Languages, will clearly tell members of Parliament what changes should be made to CBC/Radio-Canada bylaws so that the corporation reflects the Canadian duality and is prepared to defend the linguistic duality, both English and French, while respecting everyone.
What happened in New Brunswick is completely unacceptable. The head of a company would be fired for allowing such things to happen. You have worked for large corporations. Had you made such mistakes, you would have been shown the door. The president of CBC/Radio-Canada deserves to be fired. He is responsible for overseeing what is happening in social media. You will remember that it was CBC/Radio-Canada that wanted to embrace social media. The situation is unacceptable. I do not understand why this person is still at the helm of CBC/Radio-Canada, and this is not the first time that I have failed to understand the corporation. In my opinion, not only is this revolting, but I find it completely disgusting, and I will repeat it at every opportunity.
Mr. Fraser: First of all, with regard to our court case, I understand that it may seem ridiculous. The only other person to ask me a question about the paradox of an institution that reports to Parliament and is funded by taxpayers taking another public institution to court, was a 12-year-old girl who came to our office on "take your child to work'' day. I thought that was very astute of her.
I have never considered our court challenge as being an action against CBC/Radio-Canada. We disagree on my authority, and whether or not Radio-Canada is subject to the law. To my mind, the only way to address this issue was to go before the Federal Court. Judge Martineau answered in the affirmative, and my office shares this jurisdiction with the CRTC. This decision was overturned, and we are now back at square one. However, we have initiated informal discussions with CBC/Radio-Canada to try to find a solution. Therefore, I remain optimistic.
Senator Maltais: How can you believe that CBC/Radio-Canada is sincere? Based on your discussions, do you feel that the corporation is sincere?
Mr. Fraser: I believe so. I do not think that we can. . . .
Senator Maltais: I suggest that you take a photo and frame it when you meet them, because it will be the first time that those people are sincere.
Mr. Fraser: That is not my experience.
As for your example of how CBC/Radio-Canada handled the 400th anniversary of the arrival of Champlain compared to TFO, that is exactly the type of thing I will not handle as a complaint, because that is about content. The only way I can reach an agreement with CBC/Radio-Canada on the complaints I receive is to be clear that I will not intervene.
I think we can say that Radio-Canada does a fantastic job in the regions. Program hosts across the country have a tremendous role. Last week, as part of la Semaine de la Francophonie, RDI broadcast from Moncton a special instalment of the program 24/60 across the country, with the participation of people from Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ontario and the Maritimes. You mentioned the collaboration of commissioners. All three of us were asked to comment on what we heard during the two-hour program.
Recently, people who take communities' needs seriously have been appointed. These people are aware of the vitality of these communities and the need to maintain this vitality through the efforts of CBC/Radio-Canada. Therefore, I continue to have a great deal of respect for what it does. However, year after year, the corporation has been weakened due to funding cuts. Comparing today's investment to that of 20 years ago, we see that funding freezes and cuts have had an impact.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much, Commissioner Fraser, for your presentation, which I really appreciated.
[English]
Commissioner Fraser, when I'm listening to you, I am very discouraged because I see CBC as a pillar of who we are, and I see your office as a pillar of who we are. I see Radio-Canada as a very important service in my province. A lot of people rely on Radio-Canada, sometimes — and I have no statistics for that — I feel, more than they may rely on CBC because there are lots of other ethnic channels. In listening to you, I am just wondering how far we have come.
You said that your mandate may expire in October. I hope not, but you've had a number of years of experience. Have we made progress? Children will say, "Are we getting there? Are we there yet? How far to go and what do we have to do?'' I ask you my question with this in mind.
As a member of this committee, which I have asked to sit on because I truly believe it is a very important committee, I believe that we have to create a culture of learning languages, and we are not doing that. We are still, as a country, resisting the learning of languages. We still think one language is good enough. Would you be so kind as to give us an idea of how much progress we have made and what is it going to take for us to become a culture of wanting to learn languages? In Europe, it's not a question. There is a culture of learning languages. How long is it going to take us?
Mr. Fraser: A vast question.
I think we have made progress. I think the progress varies in different areas.
One of the distressing things that emerged from the last census was a slight reduction in the number of bilingual anglophones. One of the challenges to creating a culture of language learning is that French is not an obligatory subject in Western Canada. It is in Eastern Canada, and yet, at the same time — and this is one of the things that I learned and was quite impressed by — the best immersion program in the country was developed and is operated by Edmonton public schools. There continues to be great demand for access to immersion in British Columbia.
There are some school boards that still operate on a first-come, first-served basis, and parents will organize to stay up all night. I remember, a few years ago, the father of a minister from British Columbia telling me, with some pride, how he and the minister and his son-in-law had organized shifts to stay up all night so that they could ensure that his granddaughter would have a place in immersion.
I had very contradictory reactions to that. On the one hand, I thought, "Isn't it impressive that we are such an egalitarian society that a minister of the Crown does not get special access for his niece to get into immersion.'' Yet, at the same time, what a crazy way to distribute resources, as if access to immersion should be distributed like Rolling Stones tickets.
There is clearly no problem of demand. There continues to be a problem of supply.
In the 1980s, there was a study saying that if immersion continued to grow at the rate it had grown through the 1970s and 1980s, there would be a million children in immersion by 2000. That leveled off at 300,000 largely, but not entirely, for funding reasons. Also, problems emerged in terms of school boards not being prepared to respond to the demands from parents. For the last 25 years there have been, year in year out, 300,000 students in immersion across the country.
Now, there are some wonderful success stories. I was on my way to the conference of the International Association of Language Commissioners. I was at another conference in Europe and met the Canadian ambassador, who told me that she was born and grew up in a small village in Cape Breton. As a young child, she insisted on going to immersion over her parents' unease. They didn't speak French. She wanted to be able to get a job at Fort Louisbourg. She knew that to be a federal guide there, you needed to be able to do it in both languages. Now she is an ambassador and says that her life would have been very different had she not learned French and that her dreams would have been much smaller.
For 300,000 children and their parents, year in year out, there is a culture of language learning. The problem is that it has not spread beyond. Even after the extraordinary successes of immersion since the mid-1960s when it was introduced as an experiment in St. Aubin, about every two years an article is published in a newspaper or magazine saying that there are flaws; they don't speak perfect French; it is an elitist program; it is simply for the striving upper middle class that want a private school education on the public dime.
Well, yes, there is an elitist tendency. One of the reasons is that every time a child in immersion shows any kind of learning problem, regardless of whether language of instruction is part of the reason for that or has any relationship to that learning problem, the immediate response of the school is to say to the parents, "Take the child out of immersion.'' So they filter out all of the children that have any learning problems and so create a sense of resentment in the English stream where they have to absorb all the children who do have learning problems and feel that the immersion children are being cossetted and spoiled as part of the elite.
I think this is another aberration of our teaching system. If the sufficient resources were there, there would be a support for those parents, support for those children who have learning difficulties but who want to be in immersion.
I think there is the basis for a culture of language learning. Certainly my experience from the children of my friends and the friends of my children is that the immersion experience creates a bridge to the learning of other languages in other parts of the world.
I could go on at some length about my passion of immersion.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: Commissioner, I would like to thank you and your team for being with us this evening.
I understand that with the help of Commissioner Boileau, from Ontario, and Commissioner d'Entremont, from New Brunswick, you have made 10 recommendations with respect to access to justice in both official languages.
Mr. Frasier: Yes.
Senator McIntyre: Moreover, in collaboration with the Ontario Commissioner, you made eight recommendations, seven of which are addressed to the federal government, while the remaining one concerns the Government of Ontario.
Since your term ends this fall, I would like to know what your priorities are from now until the end of your term. Do these priorities include monitoring the implementation of these recommendations?
Mr. Frasier: I will start with the last part of your question. In regard to our recommendations on immigration, a meeting has already been held with the minister. I must say that I am very pleased with his approach to the issue of immigration and the announcements he made recently.
Last week in Winnipeg, during a forum on immigration that we organized, he made a specific announcement about restoring the program previously known as the "Francophone Significant Benefit.'' It will be introduced under a new name, but it is the same program. He also met with his counterpart from New Brunswick to discuss the integration of Syrian refugees in Acadian communities. I am very pleased to see that he is seriously considering our recommendations, as well as francophone immigration in general to official language minority communities.
In terms of justice, a meeting with the minister has been planned. Discussions are ongoing with the provincial government. The Deputy Minister is concerned about the issue. We intend to vigorously pursue these discussions.
With respect to other priorities, the annual report will include a review of legal proceedings during my term. We will also refer to the legal action taken by my predecessors since 1988, when the law was amended to allow this kind of action.
In addition, a study on early childhood that will be carried out before the end of my term will hopefully provide some food for thought for the review of the roadmap. This study was part of Mr. Dion's action plan 10 years ago, but it was cancelled by the previous government. I intend to stress the importance of supporting early childhood as a key element of community vitality.
Also, a special report to Parliament will be prepared in June. I think that is all. There is also a study on the active offer by certain institutions. This study tries to answer the question of why year after year, from one commissioner's report to another, federal institutions have failed to integrate the active offer in their way to greet the public. We therefore have a pretty full agenda.
Senator McIntyre: If I correctly understand the answer to my question, at this time, do you feel that the new government has shown some political will to implement these recommendations?
Mr. Fraser: There is some interest. We are trying again with a new government, and some people are going over things that have seen no action in the past. Regarding access to justice, I received a response from the previous minister indicating that he was satisfied with the procedure in place. My impression is that the Department of Justice is making some effort to review what is happening on the ground with the language proficiency of the judiciary.
No commitments were made, but what I see, I also see in the minister's mandate letters, and that is the government's commitment to prepare for the appointment of bilingual judges to the Supreme Court. These issues are being reviewed; there are sometimes problems that may not be obvious at first, but I am pleased that the government is examining all these matters.
Senator McIntyre: With regard to the bilingual capacity of superior court judges, I draw your attention to the issue of access to justice in both official languages.
Mr. Fraser: Are you talking about our report?
Senator McIntyre: Yes, more specifically the recommendation to set the appropriate number of bilingual judges and/or designated bilingual positions. When you specify "identify the appropriate number of bilingual judges and/or designated bilingual positions'', do you mean that at least one bilingual person is required for all judicial districts in the country, or do you think there is no minimum threshold?
Mr. Fraser: I wouldn't deny that there are often districts where there is little demand. The important thing is to make a rigorous analysis of the real demand and the language skills of people who apply to become judges. I would ask Ms. Giguère to answer your question in more detail.
Pascale Giguère, Senior Counsel and Manager, Legal Affairs Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Indeed, what the commissioner just said is actually what is recommended in the study.
Because there are differences at the provincial level, and even within a province, it's up to each court to determine what the needs are in terms of the judiciary's capacity. There is no actual formula that would apply uniformly to all courts across the country, but rather an assessment that must be done to determine what the demand is.
Senator McIntyre: Then, is the assessment done at the provincial level?
Ms. Giguère: It is done at the provincial level by the chief justices of the superior courts, and that assessment should be communicated to the minister before the appointments are made.
Mr. Fraser: One of the problems we currently have is that the evaluation of linguistic ability is based on self- assessments. As a result, candidates often believe they are bilingual enough to preside over proceedings, only to find out very quickly that that's not quite the case.
I have had conversations with truly bilingual judges who were very frustrated. Every time that judges who thought they were bilingual turned out not to be, bilingual judges were called in to preside over proceedings that other judges were not able to deal with in the other official language. Therefore, it is important to have a real and practical assessment process and also to evaluate the candidates' language skills.
The Chair: Before we go to Senator Rivard, I have a question supplementary to Senator McIntyre's.
In some provinces, there is no active offer in the area of judicial administration services. Wouldn't it be difficult for a province to submit a real demand if no active offer is made in that province?
Mr. Fraser: I think that a few years ago, the Criminal Code was amended because it was necessary to ensure that the accused be informed of their language rights at the very beginning of the legal process.
Our report mentions that sometimes things get complicated because some lawyers, after evaluating the languages skills of the presiding judge themselves, tell their clients that it is possible to proceed in French, but that it will take longer and cost more, and they are not sure that the judge will fully understand their side of the story.
Sometimes the accused and their lawyers have a very pragmatic tendency to choose the language of the majority out of caution and lack of confidence in the actual linguistic capacity of the court. However, I understand that the active offer issue was resolved through an amendment to the Criminal Code.
Ms. Giguère: The Criminal Code does not stipulate that the judge should necessarily be the one to make the active offer, but it should be made in each and every case to ensure that the accused persons are informed of their rights.
Senator Rivard: Mr. Commissioner, still on the CBC, are CBC/Radio-Canada French television and radio available in the territories, namely Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut?
Mr. Fraser: That is a very good question. There is CBC North, which operates in a range of Aboriginal languages. I think CBC/Radio-Canada is available throughout the territory, but this may not be the case in some areas. Today, with satellite broadcasting, everything becomes accessible. As for radio, I think that the two networks are accessible anywhere within Canada.
Also, in the Far North, we have the northern service, which broadcasts in several Aboriginal languages. I cannot name all the Aboriginal languages that are available, but there are several.
Senator Rivard: I'm asking you, because I recall that four or five years ago, a francophone witness from Yukon testified before the Official Languages Committee, during consideration of the votes related to the roadmap. The witness told us that he had found that the funding allocated to French second-language or French immersion courses had been "diverted'' from the provincial budget to be allocated to other programs. This led me to ask whether the funds allocated to certain regions can be reallocated by the territory under the pretext that it has other priorities. What is going on there, do you know?
Mr. Fraser: We did a study on accountability in the context of funding transfers, in addition to education. The problem is that once you cross provincial borders, you cannot investigate how federal money is used. We looked into the mechanisms in place at Canadian Heritage for the allocation of funds. The frustration expressed by the witness goes beyond the Yukon. Many parents believe that the money they thought was allocated to immersion or second- language education is spent elsewhere.
Once, a provincial education minister told me that when he receives a federal government cheque he does not read the letter that comes with it.
When parents complain that the money intended for immersion is spent on gyms or sports equipment, the response of education ministries, very often, is that immersion students also use the sports equipment. We can see this debate from both sides.
I have never heard it said that the money supposedly intended for CBC/Radio-Canada in the regions had been reallocated. I believe that the corporation is quite clear. When there are cuts, we see that positions were eliminated or that there have been considerable reductions and cuts.
Senator Rivard: The fiasco with French at the Vancouver Olympics is still fresh in our memories. Next year we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation. Up to now, have you been consulted on the programming and respect for the French language as part of these events? If not, would you wish to be consulted so that you could have a say and thus ensure that French is given the respect it deserves as part of the 150th anniversary programming?
Mr. Fraser: If I may, I would like to say a word about the Olympic Games. In many ways, the Vancouver Olympics were a great success, with one exception, namely the opening ceremonies. If you look at the signage, the ads during the games, the reception at the airport, the support offered to the athletes and their families, all this was often exemplary. However, in many cases, this fiasco was the only thing that Canadians saw on television across the country.
As a result, we prepared a brochure for organizers of major sporting events, and it can be seen here. It was used by the organizers of the Canada Games, which were held in Sherbrooke and Prince George, and by the organizers of the Pan American Games. We then took this model and produced another version entitled Celebrating Canada — A Guide to a Successful Bilingual Event. This booklet outlines the preparations that need to be made to ensure a successful event. I spoke with Canadian Heritage officials and I had a meeting with the minister. Officials from the Office of the Commissioner sit on an interdepartmental committee on the preparation for the 2017 celebrations. I therefore hope that there will be enough preparation done, as was the case for all major sporting events, to ensure that the celebrations being organized are respectful of the two official languages.
Senator Poirier: Currently, an individual aged 18 to 64 must know one of the two official languages to become a Canadian citizen. At the end of February, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-6, which amends the law. If the law is not amended and goes ahead as is, this age range would be reduced by 10 years and the legislation would apply to people up to 55 rather than 65.
What do you think about this? In your opinion, what would be the impact for francophone minority communities if the bill is passed with its amendment to change the age to 55?
Mr. Fraser: I must admit that I haven't looked into the age change issue in terms of its impact on communities.
There is also the matter of fees being charged, and we received complaints about that. Therefore I cannot comment on the fees, since we are conducting an investigation.
Regarding the age change, I'm assuming that it is intended to take into account the number of grandparents who are not yet 65 but who came to Canada with their children and grandchildren. The government decided, probably after hearing from witnesses, that those aged 55 to 65 would find it difficult to take a language test in either of the two official languages.
Senator Poirier: Then again, a large majority of Canadians aged 55 are still in the workforce. Therefore, they must know one of the two official languages.
Mr. Fraser: As I indicated, I am speculating about the reason for the change.
As an organization, we have not been informed of the nature of change, and I have no comment on that as Commissioner of Official Languages.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator Maltais: Mr. Fraser, I have two brief questions.
I am going back in time, and I hope my information is accurate. It comes from Radio-Canada. Please correct any details that are not factual. An anglophone journalist accused federal institutions and universities in English Canada of too often treating French as a foreign language. I will read from the Radio-Canada report:
This is an obvious problem when senior ministers are unable to express their positions in French and in English. One example is the Minister of the Environment, Rona Ambrose, who does not speak French.
According to the journalist, English-language universities share some responsibility, as they train future leaders who are often unilingual. The vast majority of English-language universities continue to treat French as a foreign language to be taught in literature departments. The author also took exception to the unilingual signage just steps away from Parliament. Since then, and to your knowledge, have there been any changes?
Mr. Fraser: That is what I said after my book was published, nearly 10 years ago. There have been some changes. When I was appointed Commissioner, we conducted a study on the opportunities for second-language learning in post- secondary institutions. To my surprise, I found that there were more learning opportunities than I originally thought. Many universities organize exchanges with France, fewer with Quebec, where universities are less known. We created an interactive map that, for example, enabled an immersion student who wished to continue learning French to access the services available at the universities with one click; with a few more clicks, that student could compare, right on the spot, the various possibilities available.
Those in public administration are gradually beginning to recognize that bilingualism is an essential asset for the advancement of employees in the federal public service. Throughout my term, I kept repeating the same message to senior management, namely that it is important for universities to know that the federal government is the largest employer of bilingual staff in Canada.
We have seen an improvement. The last time I asked the question, the secretary of the Treasury Board at the time told me — it has been two or three years, but I think this is still the case — that 40 per cent of new employees in the public service are already bilingual, which is an improvement over the previous situation. Public administration programs are increasingly recognizing the importance of bilingualism and starting to offer courses. For the past few years, Glendon College has offered a Master's degree in Public Administration specifically designed to train bilingual administrators. Other schools of government are beginning to recognize the importance of bilingualism. When I submitted my report to Canadian university heads and presidents, they said they were all in favor of this measure if there was funding. All the issues with the universities boil down to funding.
Senator Maltais: I have one last question for you, because I want to leave some time for my colleagues.
Last year, we planned to go to Switzerland to look into plurilingualism elsewhere. You went to Switzerland, where you had the opportunity to speak with education officials. What did you take away from that visit?
Mr. Fraser: I was a guest of the federal delegate of plurilingualism, Nicoletta Mariolini. She organized a series of meetings with public officials, and politicians from all levels of government, including officials from the municipality of Bern, in the canton of Bern, the capital.
What stands out for me is the complexity of the Swiss political system, which is based on a principle of compromise and direct democracy. Many government decisions go through referendums, at the request of the government or as a result of a citizens' initiative. Another thing that struck me was the spirit of compromise and cooperation that is at the heart of the Swiss identity. At the entrance to Parliament, there is a great symbolic statue of three historical figures from the 14th century who came together to agree on the defence of their land. They are the Three Confederates, who stand with their hands placed together. That made me think. It is rare to see a country where the national mythology is based on agreement, cooperation and compromise, rather than military victory and conquest.
Therefore, there is a real desire to foster a spirit of respect and cooperation between the linguistic groups. Most speak Swiss German, a minority speaks French and a smaller minority speaks Italian. I felt that plurilingualism was more problematic than official bilingualism. It's one thing for most people to learn a second minority language, but to go beyond that and learn the third language of a minority that makes up 8 per cent of the population. . . I think that the Italian minority is the one that is pushing a bit to get more recognition for its language, its culture and its place as an official language group.
Senator Maltais: I did the same thing you did at another time, and I came to the same conclusion. It is very hard to make sense of the situation. It is complicated. What stood out, for me, was the canton president telling me that language was the homeland. I replied, "Yes, but you have four.'' He then said, "When we talk about the homeland, it has no language.'' So, go figure. In any case, thank you for your comments, you came to the same conclusions as I did.
Mr. Fraser: I will add a comment made by Pascal Couchepin, former president of the Swiss Confederation, who was the Grand Témoin of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie at the Olympic Games. He said, "In Switzerland, we get along well because we do not understand each other.''
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Commissioner, I believe the place to grow the language is when people come from other countries. One of the main areas that people come from is the Francophonie countries, but they don't necessarily settle in Quebec. I'm finding — and this is not in the statistics, just what people in my province tell me — that when they arrive, they do not know that they have an automatic right to have French education or their children being taught not in French immersion, but being taught in French.
Is your office at all involved in this? Is there a way that we can increase this? When people come to our country, if they don't settle in Quebec or New Brunswick, they may not know and their children lose the language of their birth because they do not have their education in their language, which hurts us as a country because we are not growing the second language.
Mr. Fraser: You're absolutely right. I have tried to convey to the department of citizenship and immigration and now refugees the importance of ensuring that those organizations that welcome immigrants and refugees are themselves aware of the French-language institutions that exist in that province.
I've had the experience of visiting francophone community centres and clinics where they've told me that they have encountered francophone immigrants from the Maghreb or from sub-Saharan Africa several years after they've arrived. They have said, "If we had only known that there was a school where we can send our children, or your clinic existed, we would certainly have sent our kids to that school. But now our children like their teacher and they have made friends. We've got a doctor or we're in a clinic, so we don't really want to change now.'' They were directed to these various institutions by welcoming organizations. It's extremely important that the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship ensure that all of these very well-intentioned, very well-meaning, hard-working, dedicated NGOs involved in supporting immigrants and refugees are aware.
Sometimes people are aware. I'm sure everyone knows people who have sponsored Syrian refugees. A friend of ours was saying that in the family they had sponsored, the two adolescents had gone to French school in Beirut, so they ensured that the apartment that was rented was near a French school here in Ottawa. It requires that kind of support.
One of the things that always struck me as interesting about the French-speaking in British Columbia is that between 80 and 90 per cent of the community comes from somewhere else. So there is not a deep sense of historical grievance. People are there because they want to be there, because they love British Columbia. But they want to be able to send their children to French school. They want to be part of a French-language community. It means that it's a very rich and diverse community, but it is very important that those people, when they arrive, are aware of those services.
One of the other problems is that constitutionally those people do not have a right to go to French-language schools. The right, as defined in article 23 of the Charter, defines access to minority-language school as children of whom at least one parent was educated in that language in Canada. It was designed that way because, modelled on Bill 101 in response to the specific needs and the language debate in Quebec at the time, article 23 was not written to take into consideration the needs of minority-language communities outside of Quebec so they could better welcome French-speaking immigrants.
There have been some cases where those children have been welcomed into the schools because they want to see an expansion of the community. There have been other cases where provinces or territories have responded to the school by saying, "Well, if you got rid of schools that are seeking financing for expansion, if you got rid of the children who don't have a constitutional right to be in your school, you wouldn't need to expand.'' That's a case that went to the Supreme Court for other reasons that didn't have anything to do with the content of the case and has gone back to another trial, but the whole question of the access to minority-language schools for francophone immigrants is one that's not constitutionally guaranteed. It depends on the goodwill of the school, the school board and the province.
Senator Jaffer: I think that's something our committee can look at to see how to make it maybe not constitutional but within the law.
I'd like to push you further, if I may. I do not feel that is the responsibility of NGOs. They have enough on their shoulders. The kind of country we are is our responsibility as parliamentarians and your responsibility.
I am going to ask our committee to look at the school boards. We know that Syrian children, many of them, are francophone in the sense that that's their first language or second language; Arabic is probably their first language. If we're serious about being a bilingual country, we cannot say that because you're not born here, you're not entitled to French education. However, I understand what you're saying; that's the Constitution.
Madam Chair, that's maybe something we can study to see how we can push the issue: Where there is a francophone parent, it doesn't matter where they were born; they're entitled to it.
Have you done any work or studies on this?
Mr. Fraser: We have to the extent that we intervened before the courts in defence of the school boards in the Northwest Territories that were pushing for a guarantee of that right.
In terms of the definition of what constitutes real equality, we intervened in a case in British Columbia and had a favourable decision there in terms of the obligation of the province to ensure that there is an equal quality of education.
Pascale, are there other examples that I should mention in terms of our intervention? The Northwest Territories case —
Ms. Giguère: The Yukon case.
Mr. Fraser: I'm sorry. It was a case in the Yukon.
[Translation]
The Chair: Time is running out rather quickly, unfortunately. I will therefore ask senators and the commissioner to be as brief as possible so that everyone can meet their evening commitments. Thank you.
Senator McIntyre: I would like to go back to the linguistic obligations of CBC/Radio-Canada. As you mentioned, Mr. Commissioner, the issue of CBC/Radio-Canada's linguistic obligations has been dealt with by the courts — first by the Federal Court and then the Federal Court of Appeal. You summarized the rulings. I want to know why you decided not to bring the case before the Supreme Court of Canada. Is it because the public broadcaster has sufficiently improved its performance in terms of meeting its linguistic obligations under the Official Languages Act?
I know that you touched on the issue of jurisdiction to investigate the broadcaster's breaches. Do you still believe that you have the power to investigate the public broadcaster's breaches of Part VII of the Official Languages Act?
Mr. Fraser: Yes, in answer to your last question. As for the courts, the reason why we have not appealed the decision of Justice Nadon of the Federal Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court is that the procedural aspects of Justice Martineau's decision were technical. We concluded that it was unlikely that the Supreme Court would accept that kind of appeal, since the Federal Court did not rule on substantive issues, but rather on technical ones.
If you require further explanation, I will ask Ms. Giguère to help me.
Senator McIntyre: Do you think that this power to investigate would extend to the programming? This is what I want to know.
Mr. Fraser: No. I agree with the CBC's argument that programming content is under its responsibility. However, the issue is what programming actually is. CBC has a very broad interpretation of the concept, namely that everything that happens once you get past the doors of the CBC office is programming. If someone complains that when they came to the door, the commissionaire was unable to direct them to the CBC offices, that is not programming and the CBC agrees with this; so I have the right to investigate the commissionaire who was at the door.
Senator McIntyre: But woe unto those who dare touch Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
Mr. Fraser: Yes.
Senator Rivard: Commissioner, I seem to recall that the government eliminated the bilingualism bonus for federal public servants a year or two ago. Am I mistaken?
Mr. Fraser: I think you're mistaken.
Senator Rivard: It wasn't eliminated?
Mr. Fraser: No.
Senator Rivard: I withdraw my question. I guess I had a bad dream.
Mr. Fraser: I would humbly submit that, were the government to spend that $70 million on giving employees language training instead of handing out bonuses, the measure would go a long way towards improving bilingualism in the public service. According to my math, the infamous bonus amounts to a case of beer every two weeks, but it's so entrenched in the collective agreements that the government didn't want to put an end to it.
Senator Rivard: So it's a nightmare, not a dream.
The Chair: On behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, I'd like to thank you and your team, Commissioner, for accepting our invitation to appear this evening and for sharing your experience and expertise with the committee.
On that note, the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)