Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 8 - Evidence - Meeting of November 21, 2016
OTTAWA, Monday, November 21, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:34 p.m. to continue its study on the challenges associated with access to French-language schools and French immersion programs in British Columbia.
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening. My name is Claudette Tardif and I am a senator from Alberta. I have the pleasure of chairing this evening's meeting.
I am particularly pleased because tonight we welcome two new senators who are here as observers. I extend our welcome to Senator Bovey, from Manitoba, and Senator Moncion, from Ontario.
Before giving the floor to our witnesses, I would invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler, senator from New Brunswick.
Senator Maltais: Welcome to our witnesses. Senator Ghislain Maltais, from Quebec.
Senator McIntyre: Senator Paul McIntyre, from New Brunswick.
Senator Gagné: Good evening. Raymonde Gagné, from Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey, from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion, from Ontario.
The Chair: This evening it is our pleasure to welcome Mr. Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages; Ms. Mary Donaghy, assistant commissioner, Policy and Communications Branch; and Ms. Christine Ruest Norrena, senior counsel and assistant director.
Commissioner, we are very happy to welcome you here. The last time we thought we were saying adieu to you, but what a pleasure to see you once again. Perhaps for the last time, who knows? We are delighted to have you.
We are continuing our study on the challenges associated with access to French-language schools and French immersion programs in British Columbia. One of the issues we were told about concerned access to early childhood services. On this topic, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages published a very interesting study in October 2016 entitled Early Childhood: Fostering the Vitality of Francophone Minority Communities. It is quite recent.
Mr. Commissioner, I invite you and your colleagues to make your presentation.
Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee. As the chair said, this is probably the last time I will appear before you. I would be remiss if I did not tell you how much I have appreciated the constructive relationship I have had with you and your committee during the 10 years I had the privilege of serving as Commissioner of Official Languages.
[English]
I am impressed by the fact that you visited British Columbia and were able to hear from parents, students, teachers and administrators on this important topic. Your observations are necessarily based on a more recent visit than my own, and my statements will instead be supported by our studies and our intervention in the Rose-des-vents case.
A striking consensus has been reached on our official languages: They no longer divide Canadians. In fact, according to a recent Nielsen survey conducted for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 84 per cent of Canadians are in favour of bilingualism and 88 per cent support the objectives of the Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
Learning both official languages helps preserve linguistic duality as a Canadian value. In this regard, I presented Canadian Parents for French with the Award of Excellence — promotion of linguistic duality — this year for the key role the organization has played in promoting linguistic duality on a national scale.
Many young Canadians have learned both official languages through immersion or French-language education programs. Today, a number of senior officials in the Canadian public service, as well as members of Parliament and ministers, are among those who have benefited from these programs in the past. Many newcomers express their feeling of belonging in Canada by ensuring their children learn both official languages.
[English]
In the Nielsen survey, among Canadians who have a certain command of French as a second language, 80 per cent indicated that they had acquired it in elementary or secondary school.
We also asked people who reported they were not bilingual about what prevented them from perfecting their second language. The most common response, 33 per cent, was a lack of access to language courses. This means that the road to bilingualism generally starts in school.
[Translation]
In British Columbia, enrolment in immersion programs has increased by 40 per cent over the past 10 years. More than 49,000 students are enrolled in French immersion, 5,000 students attend French-language schools, and a third of public school students are enrolled in core French. These numbers could be higher. French as a second language programs do not suffer from a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the students or a lack of willingness on the part of their parents, but from insufficient resources.
[English]
Stumbling blocks such as quotas, ridiculous overnight lineups and a lottery system still hinder access to second language education programs in many regions, as is the case in British Columbia. Demand from parents still exceeds the number of immersion spots. Rather than lamenting the stagnant rate of bilingualism, the government could work to break down barriers.
[Translation]
Now, what about French-language education? My office recently published a report that enabled us to look at early childhood, meaning the pre-school years between 0 and 6 years of age, and its importance for the vitality of francophone communities. The report also gave us a better understanding of the possibilities for collaboration between community organizations and the federal institutions that play a role in early childhood development — which is crucial to the vitality of francophone communities.
[English]
Education in minority language environments should comprise early childhood development. This means all services related either directly or indirectly to early childhood offered in a community. Children must develop in an environment that most closely resembles their reality and make progress rather than having to adapt. In this regard, the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique launched a pilot project this past September and offered a new kindergarten program starting at age four. About 50 students, spread across four schools, were able to start school in French as their first language. This is the first time that a British Columbia school board has offered French schooling starting at the age of four.
[Translation]
As with other provincial areas of jurisdiction, federal institutions can provide assistance, as many have done in the past, under part VII of the Official Languages Act, which states that the Government of Canada is committed to advancing the vitality of official language communities. Federal institutions should not miss out on this opportunity.
Like the federal government, provincial and territorial governments do not always respond adequately to the requests made to them by official language communities or even to rulings from the courts on language matters. For example, in the Rose-des-Vents case, involving the only French-language school in the west part of Vancouver, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that British Columbia had not respected the francophone community's constitutional right to instruction by failing to provide facilities equivalent to those provided to majority language schools.
[English]
It is essential that Canadians benefit from the same quality of education in the west of the country as in the east of country in both official languages. It is unacceptable that francophone parents in British Columbia have to fight such a long battle to have their language rights recognized, as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Providing more support for education in collaboration with the provinces would make it possible not only to promote linguistic duality as a Canadian value but also to enjoy the benefits of French-language learning.
[Translation]
Canadian businesses could certainly benefit from a bilingual workforce. In particular, the renewal of the federal public service relies on access to graduates with strong language skills in all regions of the country. Canada can meet this objective by targeting sustainable measures and investing more resources to provide more second language learning opportunities to all Canadians — from early childhood to the post-secondary level. Guaranteeing that official language communities receive the same quality of education as majority communities also contributes to this objective.
On that note, I would like to conclude my remarks, Madam Chair. I would be happy to answer any questions you or your colleagues may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fraser, for your presentation, which is always most interesting.
Senator McIntyre: Good evening once again, Mr. Commissioner. It is always a great pleasure to have you here, to hear you, and to ask you certain questions.
During her appearance before the Senate committee on October 24, the Minister of Canadian Heritage named early childhood as one of the priorities of the next official languages multi-year plan, which will be made public on April 1, 2018. However, she did not indicate whether the amount allocated to it will be sufficient, stable and ongoing, as you had requested in your report.
My question is this: in your opinion, what would constitute sufficient, stable and ongoing funding for early childhood development in francophone communities?
Mr. Fraser: First, I must admit that I cannot provide any figures to you. You may be familiar with this line written by a famous Canadian novelist: "Build it and they will come''. It is very difficult to make a forecast, even with the demographic tools that could in theory serve to predict the growth in demand. It all depends on public education, awareness-raising campaigns to inform parents in minority communities of the importance of this tool. It is very difficult to give you a figure.
I can tell you, however, that "sufficient, stable and ongoing'' funding brings with it certain guarantees. When we announce funding for the creation of an early childhood centre, for instance, it is of course understood that it will not be funded only for a five-year cycle. The parents have to be able to count on the fact that if that early childhood centre is created, it is meant to last.
Regarding community programs — for instance, funding for Radio-Canada — when funds are renewed or renewable, it is very difficult for the institution to make long-term plans. To plan for an increase, the funding has to be based on real research, on the identification of the potential pool, and on an awareness-raising campaign. We have observed an increase in British Columbia in the demand for immersion.
Senator McIntyre: I'd now like to discuss section 23 of the Charter with you. As you know, for a long time francophones have been asking the courts to give that section a broad interpretation that could allow for the provision of a French-language early childhood program.
To date, I believe no consensus has emerged on the matter, as you in fact mentioned in your study. That said, you will remember that last September, the Supreme Court of British Columbia did not recognize the obligation to provide early childhood services in French under section 23 of the Charter, and services are provided in English only.
This is my question: what is your interpretation of the rights conferred by section 23 of the Charter?
Mr. Fraser: First, I have always been impressed by the Mahe ruling, which proposed a generous interpretation of section 23. There is also the Beaulac ruling, which does not concern education, but the general interpretation of sections 16 to 23 of the Charter, and favoured a broad and generous interpretation.
Consequently we must admit that the Charter has a restorative aspect and that we are rebuilding rights that had been trampled over 100 years of history. I think that any decision should be taken not only in light of this obligation to give the section a broad and generous interpretation, but also in light of the importance of vitality. What are the measures that will strengthen and enhance the communities' vitality?
Senator Gagné: Thank you again for being here tonight. It is a pleasure to see you again.
During our trip to British Columbia, parents told us that access to day cares or early childhood programs was a real problem. I must admit that it is a real issue everywhere there are minority francophone communities. I applaud your report on early childhood, and its title particularly, that indicates that early childhood education really is a vector of vitality for minority francophones. I would even go so far as to say that it can be likened to the lungs of a community.
My question is about the second recommendation in your report, which calls for the development of a national framework on early learning and child care, and asks that a francophone component be included in the framework. I like this recommendation very much. I think that it would be very important that we have a public policy on early learning. I think we should also have one on post-secondary education.
The mandate letter of the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development refers to the work to be done in cooperation with the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada; they are to hold consultations with the provinces, territories and aboriginal peoples regarding the national framework. However, no mention is made of francophone communities.
How can francophone communities ensure that their needs in the area of early learning and development will be taken into account? According to my reading of the mandate letter, it targets aboriginal communities specifically, and not necessarily francophone communities.
Mr. Fraser: One of the factors we took into account in setting the deadline for the publication of our report was to make the study available to the minister in the context of his work on the national framework. I hope that this study will be part of the issues the minister and his department will examine.
When I met with the minister last spring, I raised these issues. As a former professor, I believe it was one of his specialties as an economist. I would be surprised if he did not take the francophone aspect into account. We nevertheless made sure that we made the recommendation. We did not receive an official reply from the government, and I did not expect one. I simply wanted the study to be available on time for the department. The public servants told us they appreciated the fact that we had adjusted our time frame so that they could use this study in their work.
Senator Gagné: I would have an additional question about needs. Some British Columbia parents shared their needs with us. I am also very aware of the needs that exist in Manitoba. How does one set priorities, regarding early childhood development, in a country made up of provinces that invest differently and have different standards when it comes to the quality of care for young children?
Mr. Fraser: That is the challenge for any federal intervention in an area that is clearly a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The final priorities will indeed be set at the provincial level. The federal government intervention has to be done very gently and with diplomacy, while respecting the provincial jurisdiction.
I think that the Quebec experience has shown to what extent the creation of a network of quality early learning centres has a real impact on the economy and on the participation of women in the work force. The data on the economic impact are clear. Here we are talking about the impact on the vitality of communities.
I remember a conversation I had with Madeleine Meilleur, the former Minister of the Francophonie in Ontario: she told me about a pilot project in the Windsor area. This project followed the children who had attended the early childhood learning centre. They discovered that 95 per cent of the children who had gone to an early childhood centre were registered in French school. As for the other 5 per cent, it was made up of families that moved to another community. This project gave a very clear indication of the importance of early childhood centres as a gateway to the francophone education system.
Senator Maltais: Mr. Fraser, you are like good wine. The more one drinks, the harder it is to stop. Thank you for being with us. We have been jousting for about 20 years.
For of all, I would like you to leave us a legacy, the legacy of never again talking about second languages. I allowed myself to correct the president of the University of British Columbia, as my colleagues will remember. In Canada, there are two official languages: French and English. Whether you speak one or the other, they are both official languages. There may be 25 other languages, but Canada is a bilingual country with two official languages. There is no first language, no second language, but two languages. That term is pejorative toward both francophones and anglophones. I'd like it to disappear from the vocabulary. Since I convinced her, the minister indicated that she too would eliminate it from her vocabulary, because it is discriminatory.
We visited several schools in British Columbia, including the Rose-des-Vents school. As you said in the beginning, this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. We note that cooperation, like the Internet, is not always at high speed. This creates incredible situations.
When we discuss francophones in British Columbia, we have to talk about waiting lists. It's incredible! There are 150 or 200 parents who want to register their children in French school, but there is no room, we don't have enough schools. Aside for one school in Victoria and one other one, there are trailers.
We were talking about early learning. We visited centres that take in three-year-old children and have about 20 square feet at their disposal. That situation has to be corrected, and vital space has to be expanded to accommodate the parents who want their children to learn French. You said this very well in your report, and I congratulate you on it: there is an exceptional will among the francophones of British Columbia, and even the anglophones, to learn French. We simple have to give them the opportunity.
I'll go back to one of my old hobby horses, which is that CBC/Radio-Canada does not do its job in British Columbia. And yet, the corporation received an additional $600 million. I would like to know how that money was spent in British Columbia. The reports the corporation prepares on francophones in British Columbia do not cross the Rockies, and it seems that the camera is turned toward the Pacific.
The students we met, and my colleagues will confirm it, are hungry to acquire francophone culture. But they do not want to acquire it with the people of the Plateau Mont-Royal. They would prefer to go to Sherbrooke, to Lac-Saint-Jean, to the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé, the North Shore, Quebec and central Quebec, rather than to a big city. They are already living in a big city and they know all about that.
I profoundly deplore the lack of professionalism and the lack of will shown by CBC/Radio-Canada. I am not saying that to criticize you, but I know that you have noted this as well. This is also the case in the central provinces, because once CBC/Radio-Canada has prepared its reports, and pointed the camera to the other side of the Rockies, the reports do not make it back here. Quebec has little information on the francophone minorities of British Columbia and central Canada.
I don't know if you broached this topic in your report, but when the President of Treasury Board appeared before our committee recently, we realized that federal transfers to the provinces through Heritage Canada or Treasury Board do not have an accountability mechanism. The federal government cannot find out what happened to that money. I met with the President of Treasury Board another time, and he told me that he was working on bringing in controls to ensure accountability. I think that is the Gordian knot. If the provinces are not allocating the money to French teaching programs and using it instead to build bridges, aqueducts or highways, this does not benefit the children.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is also willing to establish accountability. Have you noted that the money given to the provinces is actually being used to fund services for francophones outside Quebec?
Mr. Fraser: It is very difficult to know where the money is being spent. I have had a conversation with a minister of education, who told me that, when he receives a cheque from the federal government, he does not read the accompanying letter. He feels that money is just money.
We did assess accountability measures and, in Canadian Heritage's case, there are some controls to ensure that the money is spent on education. However, it is very difficult to know the specifics.
I think you have already heard from witnesses who talked about their difficulties in obtaining services mandated by a federal program. For example, in the provinces, for monitor programs, it was said that instead of having 50 of them, there would only be 20. I also think that some members of Canadian Parents for French jokingly talked about an immersion gymnasium or immersion basketballs — in other words, they were purchased with funding for the immersion program. The Department of Education apparently said that immersion students need those services, too, and that the funds should be taken from an envelope, even if it cannot be guaranteed that all the money is being used to support those programs.
So, yes, some mechanisms are in place to more or less help ascertain that the money set aside for education is going to education. We don't have the authority to check the particulars of where the money is going. It is even difficult to ask provincial auditors general to look into that. As you know, provinces are pretty protective of their jurisdiction.
Senator Maltais: That is something school boards from Vancouver to Victoria have said. You are right in saying that we don't have audit mechanisms, and they claim that they are not receiving all the money allocated to them by the federal government.
When it comes to community radio, we know that the federal government funds the vast majority of Aboriginal radio stations — providing nearly 95 per cent of the funding — and that's a very good thing, as it enables them to maintain their languages and their customs. I completely agree with that. We visited a community radio station in Victoria that was not receiving any money from the federal government. However, Radio-Canada could give them a small envelope of $25,000, $30,000 or $50,000 with the money it has received. Those people are keeping francophone culture at arm's length. They have a newspaper that is funded by three or four small local retailers. We are not doing enough to help them. I don't know whether you saw the same thing.
Mr. Fraser: In my personal experience in western Canada, the hosts of Radio-Canada's local programs are doing a wonderful job. Yes, I think that community radio plays an extremely important role, and that issue is deserving of consideration to determine whether there is a way for us to provide more support.
I don't want to hear any negative comments on Radio-Canada's role in minority communities. The hosts are almost social in nature and they play an extraordinary role for those communities. It's really something of a community bulletin board with morning and noon shows. The hosts often go into the community and prepare shows on community events that are broadcast live. They often volunteer to host shows or parties in the community. I understand your frustration as a Quebecer not to see the results of that kind of work, as the Rockies are often a barrier to communication, but I am very impressed by the work Radio-Canada is doing locally.
Senator Maltais: Good for them.
The Chair: Before we move on to Senator Mockler for the next question, I would like to point out that our colleague Senator Poirier, from New Brunswick, has just joined us.
Senator Mockler: First, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the tremendous work you are doing and the leadership role you have played from east to west and from south to north, Mr. Fraser. I have had an opportunity to work with you and your office, and you have always been professional. From time to time, when my questions had to do with matters before the courts, you would always tell me that you could not comment. I now have a few questions for you, since the matters are no longer before the courts.
Jean-François Dumas, president of Influence Communication, recently said:
There are fewer and fewer media in the regions. All the private media have been networked. There are fewer and fewer staff. Information is starting to be "McDonaldized''. From coast to coast to coast, news content is increasingly the same.
That does not speak to what is being done in our small and large communities.
He also said the following:
Francophones outside Quebec receive coverage that is the equivalent of a horoscope in a newspaper.
The vice-rector of the Université de Moncton, Marie-Linda Lord, said a few years ago that francophones outside Quebec were not present, not to say that they rarely received media coverage. With your vast experience and as we approach the end of your career, do you think that minority groups, both anglophones in Edmundston and francophones in Fredericton or Vancouver, are facing the same challenge? What communication strategy should we use to educate all the francophones in the country, from coast to coast to coast?
Mr. Fraser: We must recognize that the media crisis is not limited to minority media. We are going through a transition period for traditional media. With La Presse transforming itself into a social media outlet during the week and the paper version of La Presse becoming a weekly edition, with revenue dropping for all traditional media, with young people no longer subscribing to newspapers, if I may correct Mr. Dumas, it's not a matter of "McDonaldization'', but rather of "Facebookization'' of media.
I could say a lot more about the symptoms of those diseases that affect traditional media and about what that means for the profession of journalism. For official language minority communities, first, the federal government is responsible for being highly aware of the impact of its advertising and public information policy. A Treasury Board directive was issued without my knowledge. A number of departments turned to social media to announce activities, and that had some negative results, both for community media and for communities.
A meeting was held recently to discuss the impact of changes to government policies for communities. The editor of a small community publication said that government consultations were traditionally announced in his newspaper. People would see the advertisement and participate in those public meetings. However, this year, the consultation was announced on the Internet. No one knew about it, and the level of participation was very low.
So I think the federal government is responsible for recognizing that official language minority communities are often not as connected as people in big cities and majority communities are. Departments should take into account communities' connectivity levels in their advertising or public information campaigns.
In addition, I think it is important for community media to recognize that minority communities are not as connected as young people in their 20s in the big cities are. However, a transformation is taking place and people cannot be ordered to use a medium they see as outdated. It is important for community media to think about the way to use social media and the Internet and the way to make the transition.
Senator Mockler: I know that you are following very closely what is happening in all our provinces and what is happening in the only bilingual province of Canada and North America. Last week, the provincial government threw in the towel in the bilingual buses file. Is it not an affront to the Official Languages Act when our language responsibilities are transferred to school boards? It is no longer a legal matter. The government has passed that responsibility on to school boards.
Mr. Fraser: As far as I understand, they withdrew a reference to the court. I did not really understand that as giving up, but perhaps I was wrong. I thought that the government implied that it may potentially make a decision instead of waiting for a court ruling.
I must say that the official languages legislation related to that decision is not the federal piece of legislation, but rather the New Brunswick one. So I would be hesitant to comment on the Official Languages of New Brunswick Act, aside from saying that it is a matter related to a constitutional right in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think that the provision in question is section 16.2, and I will ask Ms. Ruest Norrena to talk a bit about that section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which defines collective rights. If I understand correctly, that is the only element of the charter that is clearly collective in its definition.
Christine Ruest Norrena, Senior Counsel and Assistant Director, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Section 16.1 is the provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that recognizes the equality of New Brunswick's two official language communities.
In addition, the reference was related to section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects the rights to education in the language of the minority. It was a request for clarification with regard to that.
Senator Mockler: So the government withdrew that from the court system and asked the school boards to make the decision. So that's not an affront to the Official Languages Act? Is that not an assimilation mechanism?
Mr. Fraser: I don't see how the Official Languages Act can be involved, but I will put the question to our legal counsel.
Ms. Ruest Norrena: In fact, the commissioner is correct; the federal piece of legislation is not involved.
The Chair: Senator Mockler, perhaps you could meet with the commissioner or with Ms. Ruest Norrena to discuss this further.
Mr. Fraser: My counterpart from New Brunswick, Katherine d'Entremont, is responsible for the Official Languages of New Brunswick Act.
Senator Mockler: I have already met with her.
Senator Poirier: Welcome and thank you for being with us this evening. I apologize for being late.
I had three different issues to discuss, but since two of my questions have already been asked, I will move on to the third point I wanted to talk about.
Despite the announcement the government made last Thursday, some of the government's decisions are a source of concern for me. That includes the decision made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to drop the title of Minister of Official Languages for reasons that remain unknown.
Moreover, when it comes to appointing your potential successor, the government does not seem to be making it a priority, despite the fact that it has been aware of when your term will end since it came to power. I was also reading in newspapers that the number of complaints received by your office is increasing and that official language minority communities are the ones losing out while there is no Commissioner of Official Languages. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
Mr. Fraser: I was also very happy to hear the news of the government's announcement last week. I think it is a good decision to put a moratorium on the potential discontinuation of bilingual services in 176 offices that would have lost services according to the old calculation method. I am completely in favour of the moratorium and the consultation that will follow.
I think you have already asked me a question about the minister's title, and I don't have any further comments on that.
As for the delay in appointing my successor, I must say that I am very happy to see that the position has been posted and will remain posted until December 2. I feel that there are a number of potential high-quality candidates who would want to apply. That is one of the effects of the government's decision to further open up a number of public positions, and that has created a lot more work for the Privy Council when it comes to organizing the assessment of candidates and establishing criteria.
I think that the new senators have gone through an unusual process and that it was a priority for the government to first appoint senators before moving on to selecting a new Supreme Court justice. I believe that there are now four agent-of-Parliament positions that will soon be open. That is not new; a number of my colleagues who were agents of Parliament have retired and have been replaced by interim commissioners. That was the case with the positions of auditor general, privacy commissioner and information commissioner. That's unfortunate and, as agents of Parliament, we are always surprised to see that, once our mandate ends, it is not a priority for the government to post our positions and select our successors. However, this is not the first time that has happened.
I have had discussions with the Privy Council Office about appointing an interim commissioner, as the process can obviously not be completed between December 2 and December 16, when my mandate ends. We won't be without a commissioner; there will always be a commissioner of official languages, and the legislation stipulates that someone can hold that position on an interim basis for a maximum of six months.
So I would have liked to organize a transition, as the case was when I was appointed. Over a five-week period, I had a number of conversations with my predecessor, Diane Adam. But I will stay in Ottawa and I could be in touch with the acting commissioner, as well as with the permanent commissioner.
Senator Poirier: Your mandate as Commissioner of Official Languages ends on December 16, but cases will continue to accumulate. What is your vision of the transition within the time frame?
Mr. Fraser: I suggested to the Privy Council that one of the deputy commissioners be appointed on an interim basis. That would provide continuity within the organization and, during that period, the preparation for the next commissioner would continue. Over the past year, we have put a lot of time into preparing for the transition to a new commissioner of official languages. The briefing notes and the binders are finished and ready to be passed on to the new person. A lot of planning has been done. I am sure that the transition will be pretty easy. In addition, I will make myself available. Since I live in Ottawa, I will always be available to meet to with my successor.
The Chair: We will proceed more quickly in the second round.
Senator McIntyre: Commissioner, I want to come back to section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the distribution of federal funding dedicated to French first-language education. You touched lightly on that topic earlier in response to a question from Senator Maltais.
Over this past year, three organizations — the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the Commission nationale des parents francophones and the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones — submitted a brief according to which the current government approach in terms of modernizing the distribution of federal funding dedicated to French first-language education violates section 23 of the charter.
Have your read the brief? If so, what do you think about its recommendations? Finally, do you share the opinion of those three organizations?
Mr. Fraser: I hesitate to provide an in-depth answer on that. I am very aware of that concern. It is clear that, in some provinces, the understanding of the specific needs of French schools is limited, even non-existent.
I recall that, after section 23 was introduced, one of the western provinces tried to divert the funding intended for French schools toward immersion schools.
I think that it is important to work with the communities, with those institutions and with provincial authorities to determine how that funding should be allocated.
Ms. Ruest Norrena, do you want to add anything?
Ms. Ruest Norrena: That is fine.
Senator Gagné: I really would have liked to hear your thoughts on a national framework, but since Senator Poirier has mentioned last Thursday's announcement, I have another burning question for you. If we have any time left, I will come back to the national framework.
I wanted to mention that, last Thursday, the Senate referred Bill S-209 to the committee for consideration. We also had the announcement by Minister Scott Brison who wanted to, in addition to the moratorium, begin a consultation so that amendments can be made to the regulations.
Since you have supported Bill S-209 —
Mr. Fraser: And Bill S-205 before it.
Senator Gagné: Were you the commissioner when Bill S-211 was examined?
I was wondering whether we could achieve the objective of Bill S-209 through regulatory amendments.
Mr. Fraser: I believe so. I feel that the most important thing is to put an end to using percentages and to the decennial ritual of using the census to decide whether a minority community has fallen below the threshold of 5 per cent. In my view, using such a percentage means that the rights and services of minority communities depend on the growth rate of the majority. A community may be growing, but if the majority community is growing more quickly, the minority community will fall below the 5-per-cent threshold. Those communities always have schools, a small newspaper, a community radio station, Radio-Canada, a community centre, but, below 5 per cent — Outside the church, there is no salvation. I think that is fundamentally unfair and that this issue should be at the heart of consultations and considerations that will be made possible by the moratorium.
Senator Gagné: I imagine that Treasury Board intends to sit down with the next commissioner as part of the consultations. I was wondering whether the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages would be able to commit to publicly releasing the regulatory proposals.
Mr. Fraser: Are you referring to the proposals that are the subject of the consultations?
Senator Gagné: No. The Treasury Board is going to set up a whole consultation process, all of which will not necessarily be made public. Even though all the consultations will not necessarily be public, I was wondering whether the Commissioner of Official Languages would still be in a position to disclose the recommendations tied to the regulatory amendments.
Mr. Fraser: I think we can disclose our own observations. There have been occasions in the past. Following the implementation of the new version of Part VII of the act, Department of Justice officials did not want us to be present at the discussions on the government's directives to the departments. We were cut out of the discussions about the legal advice and the departments' obligations under Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
It all depends on the degree of confidentiality imposed by the government. If a duty of confidentiality is imposed and we agree to participate, then, we are bound by that duty. Whenever we participate in consultations, we always have to be vigilant that our independence is not compromised. That means that, when someone employed by a federal institution asks for my opinion on a potential change to a practice, I always say that I am willing to have the conversation before a complaint is filed or after a complaint has been settled. I can never be in a situation where I am participating in a discussion whose outcome could lead to a complaint. The department would then be able to say that the commissioner had taken part in the discussions.
Oftentimes, it's hard to know where to draw the line. Nevertheless, subtle ways of making our viewpoint known do exist. For instance, when the new version of Part VII of the act was being drafted, I do know that our office played a discreet role behind the scenes. It is possible to contribute in that way, but never in a manner that might compromise the office's independence.
Senator Mockler: Commissioner, a smile costs less than electricity but lights up the room just as much. I would like you to share with us some of your observations as they relate to immersion. Is the impact different for a child who starts an immersion program in grade 1, as compared with a child who starts in grade 3? What are your thoughts on the discussions we are having right now about immersion programs for minority communities?
Mr. Fraser: I'm not an educator or a teaching specialist, but I can tell you that there is conflicting research on the matter. Traditionally, the consensus was that it was very important for a child to begin immersion in grade 1. Other researchers went on to determine that children could start later, in grade 4 or 5, with the same outcome. Some studies claim that students who begin immersion in grade 4 or 5 do not have the same ease when speaking or accent, later on, as students who begin immersion at an earlier age.
I just finished a book by Dr. Norman Doidge, who claims that the best time for language learning, the period when the brain is the most malleable and open, is before the age of nine. I find the debate among the experts fascinating. I always thought that the sooner a child started, the better the outcome. Some experts, however, have studies showing that is not necessarily true. Others, like Dr. Doidge, argue that it is very difficult to learn a second language later. Yet, I learned French at the age of 18. I have an accent, yes, but many people are comfortable conversing in their second language despite their accent. Having an accent is not the end of the world.
Senator Maltais: Second language!
Senator Mockler: I am going to switch to the other official language of the land and, then, ask another question.
[English]
The Minister of Canadian Heritage appeared before the Senate committee on October 24, 2016. She identified early childhood as one of the priorities in the next multi-year official languages plan, which will be released by April 1, 2018. She did not say whether an adequate, stable and sustained investment would be made, as called for by the commissioner in his report.
Do you have any additional comments?
Mr. Fraser: I think it would be premature for the minister to make that kind of guarantee at this stage of the process, and it would be similarly premature for me to respond to what she has not said as opposed to what she has said.
I'm very pleased to hear that early childhood education is going to be part of the next multi-year plan. It was for two of the earlier versions of the action plan and the Roadmap, and then it dropped from the Roadmap in the third version. To a certain extent, this would be a return.
No minister is ever able to make a guarantee of adequate, stable and continuing funding, unless they happen to be the Minister of Finance. It would have been, probably, unwise of her to make such a claim at this stage, a full year and a half before the plan is announced.
As I said earlier, I certainly hope that there is adequate, stable and continuing funding. For something as critical as early childhood education, it requires infrastructure. It requires the training of personnel. It requires people to be hired, and those people should not feel that they only have a job for five years, when the next plan is going to be renewed. This is something that should be a continuing part of the education system, which, if the federal government is going to be involved, there should be some long-term commitment.
I think it would be unrealistic for me to expect that the minister, a year and a half before the program is announced, probably two years before the budget that would be granting the funding, would make a claim that there would be adequate, stable and continuing funding for the program.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: After 10 years and a few months as the country's Commissioner of Official Languages, would you say that Canada's official languages situation has gotten better since you first took office? I don't want to revisit what hasn't worked, but, after all these years, what is your outlook?
Mr. Fraser: In our last annual report, one of the things we did, precisely to be able to answer that question, was to develop 33 evaluations of federal institutions. They were chosen because we had already done an evaluation on them previously. We noted that some had improved, a small number had gotten worse, and, in the majority of cases, the situation had remained stable overall. That means, then, that we saw small improvements and little decline.
One of the things I learned during my 10 years as Commissioner of Official Languages is that leadership is key in federal institutions. If the minister or deputy minister makes it clear that they take the issue seriously and view it as important, that message filters down throughout the entire department. Conversely, if the department head does not care about the issue and adopts a risk management approach, it sends the message that respecting official languages is not mandatory.
When an institution makes a sustained effort, the results can be very positive. The Vancouver Olympic Games were an event that really impressed me and showed some progress. Apart from the opening ceremony, the games were a great success language-wise. If we consider how the event would have gone 40 years prior, we can say that it would have drawn critical comments or graffiti and a negative response. On the contrary, the private sector stepped up. Coke and IBM took part in the advertising, and even McDonald's sent staff from Montreal so it could serve people in both official languages.
The subsequent Canada Games followed the same example. The summer games held in Sherbrooke followed suit, as did the winter games held in Prince George, a municipality located in a mountainous region in the middle of British Columbia, one where few francophones live. It was really something to see how they managed to deliver the games in both official languages. I think that planning leads to success.
As I said in my opening remarks, a recent survey revealed that 88 per cent of Canadians support the objectives of the Official Languages Act. We are a long way from the divisiveness that characterized the official languages debate in 1969, when the act was passed. Some provinces have experienced their own language disputes in more recent times. I am optimistic.
There are always going to be challenges. As a country that takes in between 250,000 and 300,000 newcomers every year, we need to constantly educate the public about the importance of Canada's official languages and the way in which they shape our national identity. Very often, immigrants embrace the idea, seeing official languages as a wonderful way to identify ourselves. They want to enrol their children in immersion programs. They realize that French is the language of ambition in Canada.
I am optimistic, but I am also vigilant.
Senator Maltais: The country's francophones will no doubt remember the impact you had during your time in office on the Olympic Games and the Canada Games. I would say it was a resounding success. Had it not been for your involvement and the work of your office and staff, we would have missed the boat. It should be a constant source of pride, like a trophy sitting on your mantle, along with the gratitude of Canada's 10 million or 11 million francophones.
Thank you and good luck.
Senator Gagné: My question will be quick, as will the answer, I think.
The Chair: We want to respect the Commissioner's schedule and stay within the time he had for the committee.
Senator Gagné: I will ask one last question, and he can choose to answer it or not.
Since this is one of your last reports, I'd like to delve a bit deeper into your vision for a national framework. It's an old idea that fell off the government's radar for many years and is now re-emerging in your recommendation.
We all know — and you, yourself, mentioned it — that the early childhood sector plays a central role in the development and vitality of francophone communities. With that in mind, I'd like to hear what your vision for a national framework would look like.
Mr. Fraser: You know, I was here in 1988, when the bill to establish a federal network of early childhood centres died on the Order Paper because an election was called and Parliament was subsequently dissolved. I always thought it unfortunate that certain groups criticized the bill on the grounds that it didn't do enough, that a better program was needed. It was also around the time of the Meech Lake Accord, which would have given the federal government an opportunity to intervene in matters under provincial jurisdiction, provided that it foot the bill. All of that is water under the bridge. They are missed opportunities. Since then, however, I have always found it somewhat unfortunate that, because of happenstance and the circumstances around the debate at that time, it is now very difficult to return to a federal early childhood regime, an achievement that would have been possible before 1988 and before the failure of the Meech Lake Accord.
I nevertheless believe that it would be possible to move forward with a national framework, with all the diplomacy that federal-provincial relations call for, and come to an agreement towards progress in the crucial area of early childhood.
The Chair: As you saw, Commissioner, the senators wanted to take full advantage of your wisdom, experience and expertise by asking you questions on a variety of topics.
Mr. Fraser: I would have been shocked otherwise.
The Chair: On behalf of the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, I want to thank you for your leadership, commitment and dedication during your more than 10 years in office serving Canada and Canadians.
Thank you very much, Commissioner. We wish you well in your much-deserved retirement.
Mr. Fraser: Thank you kindly. Appearing before the committee was always a pleasure.
(The committee adjourned.)