Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 12 - Evidence - Meeting of May 11, 2015
OTTAWA, Monday, May 11, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5 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, and to continue its study on best practices for language policies and second-language learning in a context of linguistic duality or plurality, as well as its study of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public).
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I now call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages to order. I am Senator Claudette Tardif, from Alberta, and I have the privilege of chairing this committee. I will now ask the senators to introduce themselves, beginning with the senator to my left.
Senator Poirier: Good evening. My name is Rose-May Poirier, and I am from Saint-Louis-de-Kent, New Brunswick.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis from Quebec City.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais from Quebec.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
Senator Chaput: Maria Chaput from Manitoba.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are pleased to have with us today the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, to discuss three topics of interest to the committee.
During our first hour, the commissioner will talk about his 2014-15 report, which he tabled in the House of Commons and the Senate on Thursday, May 7. Then, he will share his comments in relation to the committee's study on best practices for language policies and second-language learning.
In about an hour, we'll take a quick break, after which the commissioner will speak to Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public).
Before I hand the floor over to Mr. Fraser, I'd like to introduce the members of his team joining him today. With him are Mary Donaghy, Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications Branch; and Ghislaine Saikaley, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance Branch. Welcome.
I will now ask Mr. Fraser to give his presentation, after which, senators will have an opportunity to ask questions, as you know.
Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Thank you kindly, Madam Chair.
[English]
Madam Chair, members of the committee, good evening. I am pleased to appear before the committee today to talk about best practices for language policies and second-language learning in a context of linguistic duality or plurality. This has been an issue of concern to me since the beginning of my mandate, and I would like to thank you for consulting me about it. As you know, I tabled my annual report last week, and I would be happy to answer any questions on that topic as well. It is a shorter, more targeted report than usual and focuses on immigration. It is more targeted and more focused and coming out in the spring because of the election timetable.
[Translation]
We live in a competitive, knowledge-based world in which language skills are a definite economic advantage. Proficiency in English and French — our two official languages — is therefore even more relevant. Canadians are renowned for their language skills.
[English]
Thus, it goes without saying that investing in the learning of our official languages means investing in Canada's competitiveness, both domestically and internationally. Many young Canadians who are currently working abroad started by learning both official languages. Learning Canada's two official languages can be a stepping stone not only toward bilingualism but toward multilingualism.
[Translation]
In that context, a true continuum of options for learning our official languages, from early childhood education to post-secondary studies, would strengthen Canada's linguistic duality as a fundamental value and open up a world of opportunities for young Canadians.
[English]
There are many programs that promote second-language learning, and they vary from province to province. One thing is certain: The success of our immersion programs is limited only by the resources that governments decide to allocate to them.
[Translation]
French immersion has been one of the most successful educational experiments in Canadian history. It has been praised as the most popular language program ever recorded in professional language-teaching literature. Next year, we will be celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the first immersion program, which was launched in Saint-Lambert, Quebec, by Professor Wallace Lambert.
[English]
However, there are still hurdles to be overcome in order to improve fluency in our two official languages among young Canadians and newcomers. Here are some examples.
There are far fewer immersion programs at the university level than there are at the elementary and high school levels. Young people sometimes have to give up their studies in their second language when they go to university.
[Translation]
Many parents who want to enrol their children in French immersion programs cannot do so for want of space or funding.
Caps, overnight lineups and lottery systems continue to undermine enrolment in second-language programs in many regions of the country.
[English]
That said, thousands of graduates of second-language programs have gone on to use the skills they have learned to become functionally bilingual. Immersion program graduates also want their children to go through the immersion system. In addition, many newcomers have expressed a strong sense of belonging to Canada simply because their children have learned both official languages.
[Translation]
But to integrate fully into their new communities, newcomers must have access to resources that will also allow them to learn or improve their second language. By encouraging immigrants and their children to learn both official languages, and by providing better support to allophone parents interested in these programs, we will be helping them to integrate smoothly into Canadian society.
[English]
The federal government must show leadership and engage the provinces in creating a true second-language learning continuum from early childhood education to post-secondary studies, reinforced by summer programs and exchanges and then into the workplace. Providing learning opportunities throughout this continuum is by far the best way to promote becoming fluent in a new language.
[Translation]
In recent studies and annual reports, I have made specific recommendations to promote second-language learning and to increase the number of Canadians who speak our two official languages. I would like to reiterate those recommendations here.
I recommend taking the necessary measures to double the number of young Canadians who participate each year in short- and long-term language exchanges at the high-school and post-secondary levels. It would be an exemplary way of marking Canada's one hundred and fiftieth birthday.
[English]
I recommend working together with provincial and territorial governments, as well as post-secondary institutions, to increase the number of programs in which students can take courses in their second official language.
[Translation]
I also recommend providing financial assistance to universities to develop and implement new initiatives to improve second-language learning opportunities for students.
[English]
On that point, Madam Chair, I will conclude my remarks. I thank you for your attention and would be pleased to answer any questions you or your colleagues may have.
[Translation]
The Chair: We now move on to questions, but first, I'd like to know how you would like to proceed. My understanding is that senators will have questions about best practices, but in terms of your annual report, will you be making a presentation, or would you simply prefer to leave the floor open to all questions?
Mr. Fraser: I could give a presentation on the annual report off the cuff, but since we only have a short amount of time to cover all three topics, we may be better off using another approach. What would you prefer? Personally, I think it would be more efficient if I were to keep my remarks to the current study.
Senator Maltais: Commissioner, I haven't had a chance to look over the annual report yet. It came in to my office at 2:45 p.m., so I wouldn't be able to discuss its content.
Mr. Fraser: Would you like me to give you a recap?
Senator Maltais: If you wouldn't mind.
The Chair: Time is of the essence. We're going to have to move on to the next part of the meeting in an hour. What we could do is start with questions about your presentation on best practices, and if we still have time left before the second half of the meeting, we can discuss the annual report.
Mr. Fraser: I'd be glad to describe the highlights of the report, if you wish to ask about those.
The Chair: You can do that after the questions.
Mr. Fraser: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you. The deputy chair of the committee, Senator Fortin-Duplessis, will start us off with the first question.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: We are going to start with best practices.
Commissioner, do you think that a national policy would promote official-language instruction at all levels of the education system? Do you think such a policy is necessary at the primary and secondary levels?
Mr. Fraser: I think it's very important to create a cascade effect, if you will, where the biggest employer in the country, the federal government, takes the lead by sending universities a very clear message that it needs bilingual employees and that universities have a responsibility to provide the necessary learning opportunities. Universities would, in turn, need to send an equally clear message to students, parents and high schools that they attach value to more advanced second-language education.
I have talked to immersion students who told me that their teachers advised them to take the core French test, instead of the immersion test, since it wouldn't be as difficult and would probably result in a better mark, because grades are all universities care about. Oftentimes, the decision as to whether or not to continue with second-language learning is made at the age of 14. I don't think the future of bilingualism in Canada should rest solely on the shoulders of 14-year-old students.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: What are the social factors that contribute to second-language learning?
Mr. Fraser: You may not know that, 15 years ago, the Edmonton public school board noted that French immersion enrolment had gone down. After doing a study on what was causing the decline, the school board discovered that a whole host of factors determine whether an immersion program is successful or not, as far as student enrolment and retention are concerned. Support from parents and the school principal, as well as professional support provided by teachers, are all factors. In dual stream schools, environment and teaching support matter. It is also important to establish a process to assess students' language skills beyond the standard classroom assessment mechanism. Students and, more importantly, their parents need to know their actual level of proficiency in the second language.
Those recommendations were put in place by the school board at the time. It asked the Public Service Commission of Canada for permission to use the second-language tests that were administered to public servants. Students did very well on the test. However, the Public Service Commission of Canada later decided that the use of the tests outside the public service was illegal. Someone at the school board said this to me, "We're a Canadian school board with Canadian students who will want to live in Canada; we wanted a Canadian test, and when we couldn't have it, we used a French system.'' So they used that system, and it has contributed to their success. I would say the Edmonton public school board is generally recognized as having the most successful immersion program in the country. Other school boards are hoping to follow its lead by studying the elements it put in place.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Your example illustrates that Edmonton had qualified staff. From your research, are you able to tell us whether the rest of the provinces have qualified staff?
Mr. Fraser: No, they don't, and that's a real challenge for the system. The shortage is especially acute in regions that aren't close to urban centres. In fact, we're even seeing the story in the film The Grand Seduction play out in real life, with certain schools and chapters of Canadian Parents for French trying to attract and retain qualified immersion teachers.
An entire generation of teachers has retired, and we have to deal with that problem now. Some universities specialize in training immersion teachers. I was told that, at Campus Saint-Jean, the unemployment rate among program graduates is 0 per cent. All of them get jobs. And I believe the same is true for Université Sainte-Anne, a training institution for immersion teachers in the Maritimes.
Senator Maltais: Welcome, Mr. Fraser. Welcome, ladies. Numerous witnesses have told us they agree with your report, indicating that the best way to learn a second language is through immersion.
I'm from Quebec, and it's unfortunate, but we were told that it's extremely difficult in Quebec to organize language training opportunities. When teachers are asked, at the end of the year, to do one, two or three extra weeks of work, they say no because their union doesn't allow it.
How can we fix that problem? You've been all over Quebec and Canada. I would think Quebec isn't the only one in that boat. Making teachers do work that isn't covered by their collective agreement is rather tricky, is it not?
Mr. Fraser: It's always a challenge. I noticed something, even before becoming commissioner, and as far as I know, the situation hasn't changed. It's easier for an Ontario teacher to participate in an exchange with a teacher from Australia than with a teacher from Quebec. Similarly, it's much easier for a Quebec teacher to take part in an exchange with a teacher from France, than with a teacher from Ontario.
France and Quebec have signed multiple exchange agreements. My feeling is that it's become customary to sign agreements when the two leaders get together. They've increased the number of occupations in which exchanges between Quebec and France are possible.
I think it's a great initiative, but I think we could implement a system similar to Ontario's in other English-speaking provinces, in terms of its arrangement with Australia, where two teachers teach each other's classes and live in each other's homes for an entire school year. The teachers don't pay for the accommodations or lose any salary. The only thing they have to cover is their airfare. With enough will, we could set up a similar arrangement between Quebec and the other provinces.
Senator Maltais: Quebec has a different education system than the other provinces do. In Quebec, students go to CEGEP for two or three years, but in other provinces, they finish high school after Grade 12. Something I've noticed in recent years — and I've witnessed this with my own children — is that the English-as-a-second-language program has improved markedly from the first year to the last year of high school. But when students get to CEGEP, they fall into the abyss. And when they get to university, 80 per cent of textbooks are in English. That was the case with my three children, whether it was in medicine, engineering or management.
I'm not sure why, but it's claimed that students should be bilingual by the end of Secondary V. No one can be perfectly bilingual with just a few hours of second-language instruction a week.
How do we remedy that? It's a big problem for students. Quebec has a high university dropout rate because the textbooks are in English. Students don't study engineering or accounting in French. In some programs, they do, but in other fields, North American or Canadian programs are being taught. All the textbooks are in English, and that puts students at a disadvantage when they get to university.
Mr. Fraser: I am no doubt venturing out of my area of expertise, but in my opinion, providing learning opportunities to young people is important. They need to be aware that the textbooks for some classes are in English. And they need to be given learning opportunities outside the classroom.
That's how I learned French. Like any high-school student in Ontario, I knew the basics. But I really became fluent when I worked in Quebec for the summer as a university student.
That's one path that can be taken. There are some programs, but not many. SEVEC representatives told the committee that an increasing number of students wish to go on exchanges and that positions need filling.
Senator Maltais: I have one last question for you. We recently heard from the people at the Conference Board of Canada, and they were touting the benefits of bilingualism, and rightly so.
Would there not be a way to promote student exchanges through the Conference Board of Canada given the numerous companies within its reach? Unfortunately, I didn't think to ask them the question. My three children took advantage of student exchange programs, spending their summers working in Alberta, British Columbia, Kapuskasing and so forth. That's how they learned English.
Mr. Fraser: Indeed.
Senator Maltais: Could the Conference Board of Canada be helpful in that regard? I really regret not asking the question when the representatives were here.
Mr. Fraser: I can't speak on behalf of the Conference Board of Canada, but I believe the government is trying to build partnerships with the private sector and foundations. For instance, the Governor General's Performing Arts Awards have sponsors, and efforts are being made to convince those sponsors to support exchanges and the like. Now, there again, I'm speaking off the cuff because that isn't something we studied or researched. In addition, it would be in line with past initiatives.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, commissioner, for your presentation.
You've been before the committee three times to share your views on best practices, twice in 2013 and once in 2014. It's clearly an issue you care deeply about. You say, in one of your reports, that your office will be conducting a national survey to gauge Canadians' opinions and perception with respect to bilingualism and linguistic duality.
So my question is this. When will the survey be done and who will be surveyed?
Mr. Fraser: We anticipate conducting the survey during the last year of my term. Right now, we're discussing our budget priorities in detail. I can't say for sure, but my successor may be the one handling the survey when he or she takes over in a year and a half. We are in the midst of deciding whether the survey will take place next year or whether it will fall to my successor. That means the survey will be conducted at either the end of my term or the beginning of my successor's. Since we are currently discussing budget issues, I can't give you an exact date at this point.
Senator McIntyre: According to your research, is Canada's level of French-English bilingualism stable or declining?
Mr. Fraser: The figures show that bilingualism, among both francophones and anglophones, is stable, sitting at about 17 per cent.
According to our observations, bilingualism has increased slightly among francophones and decreased slightly among young anglophones, which concerns me somewhat.
Senator McIntyre: On the same topic, what is the difference in second-language skill retention attributable to, as far as anglophones versus francophones are concerned?
Mr. Fraser: A French ambassador once told me that what he found so wonderful about Canada was the fact that French was the language people aspired to speak. In Quebec, that language is English, the language of international trade and the language spoken around the world. English is the language of Hollywood and the most commonly used language on the Internet.
In some parts of the country, learning the other official language isn't always easy. What often happens, even for young people who were in immersion programs in primary school, is that when they get to high school, they have to start making decisions and specializing. Specialty programs aren't usually available in immersion schools, immersion, itself, being a specialty. If students want to specialize in technology, robotics or another area of science, for example, they have to quit the immersion program. So that's a factor, in my opinion.
I hold immersion programs in the highest regard, as I mentioned in my statement, but there is another factor. As a result of the success of immersion programs, core French programs are losing respect and resources. It's believed that the only way to learn French is to take French immersion. And so core French classes are seen as being second rate and having less value.
Core French teachers in some schools don't even have their own classrooms; they have to drag a cart around from class to class. The more we attach greater value to immersion programs, the more they will monopolize our best core French teachers.
I spoke to one student who, after taking French immersion in elementary school, chose to switch to an English program in Toronto because she wanted to specialize in a particular area. When I asked her what she thought of the core French class, she said that the students spoke better French than the teacher did.
That's the trend. The flip side of the coin is that the success of immersion programs is having the unintended consequence of diminishing the value of a system where the majority of students will learn core French, skills that are very important in second-language learning. I, myself, am a product of core French. There was no immersion back when I went to school.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner.
You presented to us in your presentation three recommendations that you had already put in reports. Obviously, you presented them because you thought they were worth repeating; they are important?
Mr. Fraser: Yes.
Senator Seidman: I'd like to ask you about them, if I may. The second one you put forward is this: "I recommend working together with provincial and territorial governments, as well as post-secondary institutions, to increase the number of programs in which students can take courses in their second official language.'' Can you explain what you mean by that?
Mr. Fraser: One of the things I was interested in doing when I first started was seeing how majority-language universities could improve their offerings of courses in the second language. We did a study, and we discovered that there are a variety of programs that do exist and exchanges that do exist but that are relatively unknown. You have to hunt for them; they are not given much publicity. When we presented that study to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, they reacted favorably but said, "We'd be delighted to do that provided we got more money.'' I think any discussion about education ultimately comes down pretty quickly to matters of funding.
The federal government already contributes a substantial amount of funding to second-language learning and to minority language education, but I think that there are ways in which the federal government, as an employer, could be sending the message to universities. The example I always give is that if architecture schools or engineering schools were not giving adequate training to their graduates, engineering firms and architecture firms would speak quickly to those institutions and say, "Look, you're not giving your students what we, as employers, need.'' I think that the federal government has the responsibility to deliver a message. It has been made clear from a number of clerks speaking to deputy ministers that they are the recruiters-in-chief for the federal government in their various areas and that that message should be delivered to the client universities in those areas. If it's foreign affairs, that message is pretty clear. People know that if they want to become a Canadian diplomat, they have to speak both Canadian official languages. But it is not as necessarily clear that if you are interested in natural resources and thinking of working in an area of meteorological service, say, that language should necessarily be part of your training.
I was taken aback to discover how few public administration programs there are which include a language-training component. It's almost as if those institutions were saying, "We don't have to worry about that because the federal government will train those people if they go work for the federal government.''
Just as I'm sure you heard all kinds of witnesses saying the younger the better in terms of language learning, that's also true for young adults. It is much easier and, dare I say, much cheaper for a university student to learn a second language than it is for a 45-year-old bureaucrat.
Senator Seidman: This is all about the continuum again.
Mr. Fraser: Yes.
Senator Seidman: It makes me think about one of the challenges we've heard about here which is that young people, young anglophones, trying to learn French language, in the rest of the country, not in Quebec, start to slide off at the age of 14 or so. In Quebec, it's the opposite. The anglophones strengthen their French language in their teen years and into their twenties. Perhaps they have more access to the continuum.
Mr. Fraser: I think there is also just the question of the environment they are living in. One of the huge advantages that the St. Lambert experiment had for teaching immersion in Quebec is that when those students left the classroom and walked to the bus stop, they were in a French-language environment. For an immersion school, even in Ottawa let alone Prince George, when they leave the immersion classroom into the corridor, let alone into the playground or on the street, the language disappears as a presence in their lives.
Senator Seidman: Exactly. So that's part of the challenge, the social and cultural environments.
If you talk about courses in the second official language at the university level, what about at the elementary and high school levels? Instead of just a 45-minute class in French, you might learn math in French, and maybe even something else, so that there would be more of an opportunity to apply what you're learning?
Mr. Fraser: That's certainly the immersion principle, and there are certainly all kinds of varieties of that principle that can be applied.
One of the innovations that has been developed over the last few years has been the idea of intensive French where, for a full year, I think usually Grade 6, there is a really intensive push on doing the entire year in French, and then moving on to either 50-50 or 70-30. Even with the immersion programs, by the time immersion students get to high school, a fair number of their academic programs are being offered in English. It depends on the school board and the school which those are, but it's rare, I think, to have a an immersion system in which the student has spent 100 per cent of their time in their second language all the way through.
But as I said earlier, in a lot of school boards, you are getting schools specializing and offering special programs, whether it's a sports program, whether it's a technology program, robotics programs, and in that context, students who have gone through primary and middle school and immersion will say, "You know, I'd love to continue in immersion if I were able to do that technology and robotics specialization in immersion, but that's the direction I want to go.''
The other thing I think is important for post-secondary instruction is that all of those students who have spent 11or 12, no longer 13, but 11 or 12 years in immersion suddenly go off to universities, and they are not having any courses offered. One thing that the University of Calgary does is that every semester there is a certain number, about half a dozen courses, and it changes every semester what those courses are, specifically designed for immersion students to offer them that opportunity to keep up their language programs.
The University of Ottawa is one of the few universities that offers a real immersion program at the post-secondary level, and they've made it work with two or three innovations that I haven't seen offered by other programs. They have a mentorship program, where an older student will mentor a student in first year so that if, for example, they are taking their physics course in French, for every two hours of lab and lecture, there will be one hour of tutoring from a mentor just to ensure that they understood the concepts and understood the vocabulary. They also have the option, if they are worried that they are going to lose their scholarship or their marks will not be good enough because they are doing some of their courses in French, they can choose a pass-fail option for one of those courses. Obviously not all the courses, but they can ensure that if they are taking a challenging course and they are worried their marks would not be as good as they would be if they took their course in their mother tongue, they won't be penalized for doing that.
That has been one of the obstacles for students, even those who have come out the French-language system if their school is in an overwhelmingly English-speaking area. The further you get away from a majority-French-speaking environment, the more a French-language school resembles an immersion school. The students sometimes feel, when they graduate from those schools, that their French really isn't at a level it should be for university courses.
[Translation]
The Chair: Given how many people have questions, I encourage you to keep both your questions and comments as brief as possible.
Senator Poirier: Commissioner, in Canada, how many native French speakers are bilingual, as compared with native English speakers? Do you have those numbers?
Mr. Fraser: It varies from census to census, but roughly 48 per cent of francophones are bilingual, which means that about 60 per cent of francophones in Canada, or 4 million, speak only French. And I believe that 6 per cent of anglophones are bilingual, which is equivalent to around 2.5 million bilingual native English speakers in Canada.
Senator Poirier: So it's 6 per cent versus 48 per cent. Is that correct?
Mr. Fraser: Yes.
Senator Poirier: I'm curious to hear your thoughts on something. Even though New Brunswick is an officially bilingual province, not all New Brunswickers are bilingual, which means services have to be provided in both official languages.
A week or two ago, an anglophone group was causing a stir, calling for equal rights because of bilingual requirements for certain jobs. To your knowledge, do francophones and anglophones have access to the same number of second-language learning programs?
Mr. Fraser: I haven't looked at it in terms of programs, but I would say that learning opportunities are, to some extent, available to anyone with access to a radio or TV.
In Canada, we are fortunate that we can always access the other official language at the touch of a button or dial. If people really want to improve their skills in the other language, all they have to do is change the radio station in the car. In terms of the exact number of programs, however, I don't have that information.
Senator Poirier: That's what I thought. Native speakers of both languages have equal access to second-language learning opportunities.
I have one last question. Witnesses who have come before the committee have frequently pointed to the differences from province to province in terms of the number of hours of classroom instruction needed to learn a second language, the level at which students should begin second-language learning and the matter of making instruction mandatory after a certain number of years. According to you, that's a challenge.
How would you suggest addressing that challenge, in order to adopt a more uniform approach to second-language instruction so that students are better prepared and all on equal footing when they start university?
Do you have a sense of how many provinces would be interested in such an approach? I know education is a provincial domain, but is there anything the federal government can do to introduce some consistency?
Mr. Fraser: When I talk to visitors from other countries, I often say to them that the Fathers of Confederation decided that all important matters would fall under federal control, such as defence and economic policy, and that trivial or unimportant matters, such as education and health, would be controlled by the provinces.
Since the Second World War, Canadians have taken a different view than that of the Fathers of Confederation. Federal-provincial squabbling often arises from the division of powers, because all governments recognize that health and education are of the utmost importance to Canadians, hence why every government wants to have a hand in those areas.
The reality of Canadian federalism means that the federal government's ability to call the shots in the area of education is fairly limited. It can provide incentives, talk about best practices, offer scholarships and even organize an exchange system. In short, there are a whole slew of non-classroom-related initiatives at its disposal, but as soon as we get into schools, teachers and classrooms, provinces have all the power.
Senator Chaput: For years now, commissioner, you have been proposing solutions and making suggestions for best practices for second-language learning. In your 2009-10 report, you recommended best practices and priority sectors that could focus on success factors for learning. Are those good practices and priority sectors still relevant today, in 2015? Are there any you would add? Are they applicable and relevant to both official language communities, be it in terms of learning English in Quebec or French outside Quebec?
Mr. Fraser: Yes, those best practices are still applicable. There isn't anything I would add to the list. As far as differences are concerned, it's important to recognize that popular spoken English is more accessible to a francophone student in a majority or minority language community than French is to an anglophone student who isn't necessarily close to a French-speaking community. Nevertheless, minority language communities can be found in many municipalities, towns and cities. I have already encouraged immersion schools to build stronger ties with French- language schools. In some instances, cooperation or, at least, opportunities for cooperation are possible, in terms of organizing performances, public speaking competitions and other cultural events or even book clubs. It's important, however, to recognize that the francophone space is often much less accessible to those who don't live close to Quebec.
Senator Chaput: If I understand you correctly, commissioner, basically you're saying that it's harder for a young anglophone to learn French anywhere in the country?
Mr. Fraser: Yes. English has an international presence, thanks to films, television, sporting events and all kinds of other cultural areas that appeal to young people. That is not to say that a young anglophone can't find those cultural elements; they simply have to be more determined about it.
Senator Chaput: I see. Thank you, commissioner.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you, commissioner, for your presentation. As you know, I'm from British Columbia.
Mr. Fraser: Yes.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: Where I come from in my province, sometimes Ottawa seems very far away, and we have our own culture. Sometimes when I land here, I feel I have come from another country; we are very different.
So our needs are different. When we speak about immigration and allophones, I can tell you that the people I work and deal with want French. But to give you one small example, when my young grandson wanted a place in French immersion, my daughter-in-law applied to 13 schools. He still didn't get a place. After three months he got a place on a waiting list. That's the interest in B.C. There is a great need for French immersion schools across my province, even though we are far away from Ottawa.
When you have these three things on leadership or what the federal government should do, may I respectfully suggest that we need to look first at the most important thing, which is "Who are we?''
[Translation]
Who are we as Canadians? Linguistic duality is very important to me.
[English]
That's something, for example, in my province people will ask why we want to learn French. There are Punjabis and Chinese, and those heritage languages are taught as well. The most important role the federal government should play, especially when you get so far away, is who are we, and the languages should be more emphasized, the need to speak both languages. What happens is we speak about immigrants, but the people who are born here and people who have lived here for a long time sometimes don't embrace the language. When we talk about immigrants, they only learn from people who are around them.
I think the federal government has a very important leadership role to play in emphasizing the two languages all across the country. I would like to hear from you.
Mr. Fraser: I agree very strongly.
Let me reinforce what you were saying about the interest in immersion in British Columbia. A few years ago I was in British Columbia, and the father of a very prominent figure in British Columbia was telling me with some pride how he and his son and his son-in-law had taken turns staying up all night so that his granddaughter could get a place in immersion. Part of me thought, aren't we a democratic country, that this very prominent figure doesn't get special access for children to get into immersion? Another part of me thought, this is appalling, that this would be how you would distribute access to an important educational resource. If that was the way used to distribute access to the teaching of algebra or the teaching of trigonometry, there would be an immediate scandal and people would determine that the whole region was suffering from lack of educational opportunity because we're using a lottery to decide how well educated our children will be. We're distributing education places the way we distribute Rolling Stones tickets, and I think that this is a clear indication of the effects of the capping on funding.
There was an academic from British Columbia in the 1980s who predicted that if immersion continued to grow at the same rate that it was growing throughout the 1980s, there would be a million students in immersion by the year 2000. Well, funding got capped, and it has remained fairly constantly at $300,000 ever since. The way those limited seats have been distributed has been with lotteries or on a first-come, first-served basis. And it's not simply immersion seats that are being limited. We've seen that the school board had to go to the Supreme Court to get the Government of British Columbia to recognize their obligation to deal with the pressures to expand and offer substantive equality in education, as in the case of the Rose-des-vents school.
There is a Supreme Court decision that's going to be coming out later this week on Yukon, where the territorial government responded to requests for expansion of the French-language school that's bursting at the seams by determining that if you kick out the students who are not rights holders through Article 23, you don't need an expanded school. It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court follows the tradition it has established of giving a generous interpretation of Article 23 or not.
So the demand is there, it's growing, and the supply seems to remain fairly constant as school boards are resisting.
One of the realities one has to face is that there is no constitutional right to second-language learning. The constitutional right is defined as the right of the minority to have access to minority-language schools.
And I agree with you completely that the most effective way to advance the learning of the second language is through stressing how important it is in terms of the identity of the country, inspiring rather than requiring. I think that students and their parents respond to that inspiration.
One of the reasons why many of the immigrant families that I have spoken to feel so strongly about their children learning a second language is that they feel their children are becoming more Canadian by doing so. I think that one should not underestimate the powerful message that we had to two Governors General in a row who were visible minority refugees and who came to this country, one of them Adrienne Clarkson joining the English-language community and the other Michaëlle Jean joining the French-language community. Both of them decided as they were growing up that in order to become full participants in the public life of the country, they needed to become not just competent but eloquent in both official languages. When each one of them became Governor General, it sent an extraordinarily powerful message to the diverse parts of the country that this was a critical part of the success and of the identity of the country.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Commissioner, Senator Fortin-Duplessis would like to ask you a question about your annual report during this half of our meeting. We have just a few minutes remaining.
Senator Maltais: I have a short follow-up question for the commissioner, after Senator Fortin-Duplessis.
The Chair: If the commissioner agrees to stay a bit longer.
Mr. Fraser: Of course.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Commissioner, in your first recommendation, at point 5, you say, and I quote:
5. Develop long-term tools and incentives for Canadian employers to assist in the recruitment and selection of French-speaking and bilingual workers outside Quebec, thus allowing French-speaking communities to address past shortfalls and catch up in terms of their levels of immigration.
When coming up with that recommendation, you no doubt had certain long-term tools and incentives in mind. Could you give us an example?
Mr. Fraser: Employers often have little awareness of what an important role bilingual employees can play in their business and just how much immigrants can help their business. Too many business leaders are unfamiliar with the Destination Canada program, which gives employers an opportunity to participate in job fairs in Europe and connect directly with prospective immigrant employees. Even though the program has been scaled back, I think it's still a very good way to build those ties.
Other possible incentives could focus specifically on tax benefits. Budgeting often takes into account all kinds of employer tax incentives. My first job in journalism, in fact, was partly thanks to an employer tax incentive. It doesn't take a lot of money. In a nutshell, we need to foster better communication between employers and prospective immigrants.
Senator Maltais: Commissioner, your office makes a lot of requests of federal departments every year. Many senior officials and deputy ministers find your request forms to be very complicated. Would it not be possible to obtain the same information but make them a bit easier to fill out?
Mr. Fraser: That's a good question. I'll make a note of that. We are always trying to improve our procedures, and we are very grateful for the cooperation we receive from deputy ministers and departments. Good performance is important to them. They want to make sure their departments meet their language obligations.
I'll have a look at our procedures to see if there are ways we can make things more straightforward. We're in the midst of upgrading our computer system, with a view to simplifying our practices, as opposed to complicating them. But simplifying can be a complicated endeavour.
Senator Maltais: It's even more important now that we've just passed a bill to reduce red tape. It will be a follow-up item, then.
The Chair: Commissioner, thank you for contributing to our study; your presentation and recommendations are appreciated. Congratulations on your most recent report. Unfortunately, we didn't have time to discuss the report you tabled on May 7 in greater detail. Some of us didn't receive it until the end of last week.
I noticed that the report contains a sizable section on immigration, which is another important area to the committee. If we have time later, perhaps we can come back to the report. Otherwise, it will have to be at a later date.
Mr. Fraser: Absolutely.
The Chair: For the second half of our meeting, the Commissioner of Official Languages will share his views on Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public), sponsored by Senator Chaput.
For our TV viewers, I will, once again, introduce our witnesses. Joining us this evening is the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, and with him are Mary Donaghy and Johane Tremblay. Welcome to you all.
Commissioner, please go ahead.
[English]
Mr. Fraser: Madam Chair, honourable senators, good evening. I would like to begin by thanking you for this opportunity to present my position on Bill S-205, tabled by Senator Chaput. I support this bill, which aims to update Part IV of the Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
You have my brief, which provides a more detailed analysis of the bill. So, in my presentation, I will focus on a few key points.
Let me start by saying that I believe it is necessary to update Part IV of the Official Languages Act for at least two reasons.
[English]
First, the criterion of the particular characteristics of the English and French linguistic minority populations was not incorporated into the regulations related to Part IV, adopted in 1991, despite the importance attached to that criterion by the then Minister of Justice, the Right Honourable Ramon Hnatyshyn. When he appeared before the legislative committee tasked with reviewing the Official Languages Act, 1988, Mr. Hnatyshyn made the following statement:
The particular characteristics of that minority population . . . such as the existence of educational, religious, social or cultural institutions . . . may attest, perhaps better than numbers alone, to that population's vitality and potential as a community.
[Translation]
Second, the numerical criteria that are set out in subsection 32(2) of the act and used in the regulations to define significant demand do not take into account all of the people who use the minority language in the public or private sphere. For example, the current criteria as they are applied exclude at least three groups of people from the evaluation of significant demand. They are individuals whose first official language spoken is not the language of the minority, but who speak the minority language at home — as can be the case for a certain number of exogamous couples, newcomers and anglophiles or francophiles; who speak the minority language in the workplace; or who receive their education in the minority language.
[English]
I would now like to draw your attention to one of the provisions in the bill that your committee has discussed at greater length. I am referring to clause 5, amending subsection 32(2) of the Official Languages Act.
To be clear, the purpose of subsection 32(2) is not to define who is a francophone or to determine who should be included in the francophone minority communities; neither is its purpose to determine who is an anglophone in Quebec, nor to determine the size of Quebec's English-speaking communities.
[Translation]
However, the numerical criteria in subsection 32(2) for assessing potential demand for services in the minority language should be inclusive and relevant, while taking into account the purpose of Part IV of the act. For example, not everyone who can communicate in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population will choose to receive public services in the minority language. However, people who use the minority language in the public or private sphere could make that choice. That could be the case for the three aforementioned groups of people.
[English]
In conclusion, this third bill tabled by Senator Chaput is just as important and necessary as was Bill S-3, adopted in 2005 to amend Part VII. Bill S-205 will help fulfill the purpose of Part IV and enable official language minority communities to develop, thrive and strengthen their identity.
Thank you for your attention. I would be pleased to answer any question you or your colleagues may have.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Commissioner, Ms. Tremblay and Ms. Donaghy, welcome.
We have repeatedly been told that the Official Languages Act and corresponding regulations need to be modernized, an exercise that hasn't been undertaken since 1992. My question for you is a bit on the technical side. As far as workload and investigation time frames are concerned, do you currently have the necessary resources to put Senator Chaput's proposed amendments in place?
Mr. Fraser: I am not the one who drafts regulations or amends them. My role is to provide advice and oversight, and to investigate. My responsibility is to determine what impact bills will have on linguistic duality and the vitality of official language minority communities. We will not be drafting the regulations. We support this bill for the reasons I listed, and there are a number of aspects I find extremely important, in addition to those I just highlighted in my statement: how can we emphasize the importance of the travelling public in this report, as well as put an end to strictly numerical rules, especially in terms of percentage?
I have always felt that using percentages to define the rights of the minority was unfair, as it allows the growth of the majority to define the rights and services of the minority, even if the minority is growing.
In 1991, when these regulations were presented and amended, the immigration rate was not as high as it is today. Since then, in terms of immigration rate, only 2 per cent of immigrants outside Quebec have been francophones. The more we continue to use a percentage to define access to services and rights, the more disadvantaged minority communities will be.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you. If any time is left, I would like to ask a question in the second round.
Senator Chaput: Commissioner, I have a question about something I consider to be a key element of this bill — institutional vitality.
Let us say an active community has created institutions for itself. I think that is one of the main criteria the government should take into account to assess the potential demand. What is your opinion on that? I would like you to tell the committee how you view the institutional vitality criterion.
Mr. Fraser: I think that the institutional vitality criterion is extremely important. First of all, with my predecessor, and as part of my mandate, we have carried out a series of studies on the vitality of minority communities, and we have found the institutional vitality element to be extremely important.
That may address the concerns I sensed in Senator Fortin-Duplessis' question. Finding institutions is no more difficult than calculating the percentage. Is there a school there? Is there a community centre? Do community media exist? Are there other community institutions? What about an association of lawyers or business people? Those are all elements that are indicative of a community's existence and its vitality.
Another important element of the bill is the consultation requirement. The resulting dialogue could effectively establish that institutional vitality.
Senator Chaput: If time permits, I would like to ask another question in the second round.
Senator Maltais: Commissioner Fraser, we knew each other in another era, in another Parliament, during a language crisis. Bill S-205 aims to protect minorities. Conversely, in Quebec, we have to protect the majority. We suffered defeat three times in a row in the Supreme Court. We had to use the notwithstanding clause with Bill 178 and improve it with Bill 86.
Are you not worried that Bill S-205 might clash with Quebec's language legislation and the Charter of the French Language, and that we might once again get bogged down in endless and costly legal debates?
Mr. Fraser: No, not at all. I do not think that the future of the French language depends on the closing of federal offices in the regions in Quebec. One of the witnesses from the Treasury Board talked about 84 service points audited as part of the census. However, none of those federal service points will be closed in Quebec. For instance, if the percentage-based criteria or the figures on institutional vitality were changed, the provision of services in Montreal would not be affected.
Federal offices do ensure continuity of services to some extent. I am not talking about provincial institutions. The Charter of the French Language is not at all affected by this bill. Post offices and federal service centres will be audited in terms of continuity depending on whether or not community institutions exist.
If the Thetford Mines community was to disappear, for example, no services would have to be provided. However, if a community preserves the vitality of its institutions, I think it is entitled to continue to receive existing services.
Senator Maltais: You know perfectly well that the Charter of the French Language protects those small communities. As for the English language, show me a province with three anglophone universities, a number of colleges and schools funded by the government, with 20 per cent of the population.
Mr. Fraser: My argument has nothing to do with the Quebec education system. However, the Charter of the French Language does not apply to federal institutions, and service delivery to fragile and vulnerable communities will not change.
Senator Maltais: Bill S-205 is not enhancing those services in Quebec, as they already exist.
Mr. Fraser: Indeed. The objective of the bill is to guarantee their continued existence. Let's take Sherbrooke for example. If Sherbrooke continued to grow at the current rate, or if an industry set up in the region, it is entirely possible that the anglophone community would maintain its current size, which is fairly small.
In the Eastern Townships, the community is spread out over a territory the size of Belgium. However, if the francophone community grew more quickly than the anglophone community, the latter could lose the services provided at federal service centres. That has nothing to do with the Charter of the French Language.
Senator Maltais: Just to be clear, I have nothing against francophone communities; quite the opposite, I am a defender of francophone communities outside Quebec.
In Quebec, the situation is the opposite, as francophones are the majority. Commissioner Fraser, I remember well that, when Bill 178 was passed, a number of editors of anglophone newspapers were predicting the disappearance of Bishop University, in Sherbrooke, but Bishop is doing better than ever.
The same goes for the universities of Concordia and McGill. I am not saying there is no room for improvement. That can be done quite well under the existing Quebec legislation. We have consulted a number of individuals in Quebec during the study on Bill S-205, and they said that the bill was flagrantly contradicting Bill 86.
Mr. Fraser: In what sense? I don't really see the connection with the Charter of the French Language.
Senator Maltais: The first time you came to testify, I asked you a question about what you felt constituted a sufficient number. You told me that it was difficult to answer the question. What is a sufficient number for providing services in a language other than the language of the majority?
Mr. Fraser: That was established by the Supreme Court in an educational context. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no absolute number for determining it accurately, but that, if there was a sufficient number of anglophones to open a school or a community centre, in order to ensure institutional vitality, the growth of the majority should not result in the elimination of existing services.
The Chair: Senator Maltais, you could ask your last question in the second round.
Senator Maltais: I will be very brief, Madam Chair.
Commissioner, you have not gone through a language crisis in Canada. We have in Quebec.
Mr. Fraser: I was in Quebec during the debate on Bill 101.
Senator Maltais: Yes, I remember that.
Mr. Fraser: I spent the entire summer of 1977 on a parliamentary commission listening to the debate on Bill 101, the Charter of the French Language. I was at St. Andrew's when Premier René Lévesque offered reciprocity to the other provinces. I followed the developments very closely.
Senator Maltais: So you know what happened with Bill 101. It was struck down by the Supreme Court, and Bill 178 had to be introduced. That is what really got to Quebecers because, to protect the provisions of Bill 101, we had to invoke the notwithstanding clause — in other words, suspend the Canadian charter and the Quebec charter to legislate, so that French would remain the language of the majority.
I do not want Quebec to go through another language crisis. The government is under enough pressure to amend and re-amend Bill 86, and I think that Bill S-205 is opening the door to a legal challenge.
Mr. Fraser: In all honesty, I do not see how this bill might violate the Charter of the French Language. There would be a continuation of services that already exist. I will ask my legal counsel, Ms. Tremblay, to give us her opinion. I may be wrong.
Johane Tremblay, Director and General Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: I have absolutely nothing further to add. I think that the commissioner answered the question very well. We actually share the opinion that there is no conflict with the Charter of the French Language.
Senator McIntyre: Commissioner, I want to draw your attention to your 2015-16 Report on Plans and Priorities. In that report, you say that the commissioner will work on finding solutions to the issue of active offer and services of equal quality in English and French in the provision of services to the public.
What exactly will that work consist of, and will your efforts be in line with Bill S-205?
Mr. Fraser: I admit that I have not made the connection. However, we have begun the study on the active offer. Despite the fact that this is part of the clearly expressed obligations in the legislation, we think it is an area where federal institutions regularly exhibit deficiencies.
Active offer means saying, "Hello, bonjour'' or "Bonjour, hello,'' at a service counter, and that is not part of the service culture in most federal institutions. We have been emphasizing this issue for years, and then we made recommendations.
It is often said that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is a sign of stupidity or insanity. We will try to figure out why it is difficult for federal institutions to integrate that obligation into their service culture.
However, there are some exceptions. Prior to the Olympic Games, some institutions, such as Parks Canada, worked on explaining to their employees what an active offer is and how to provide it, even when someone does not speak both languages. So we are trying to get to the bottom of things — with this year being an exception — and we are noting that the number of complaints has been on the decline over the last few years.
We have decided to conduct a study to determine whether the situation was similar to that experienced by other ombudsman offices. We have contacted 22 ombudsman offices and other agents of Parliament, ombudsman offices in Canada and abroad. When I was provided with an update on the status of the study, I noticed that all those we contacted were not only very generous with their time and participation, but were also very interested in the final results. Everyone wants to know what we have learned. When you notice a trend and repetitions, you wonder what the cause is. That is why we will carry out the study on the active offer and the assessment of service delivery.
In a year, I will submit my last annual report. I think the first question you will ask me next year will be, "Commissioner, you were in office for 10 years. Did you make any improvements? Did you stagnate or regress?''
To be able to answer that question, we had to reassess institutions and review the observations made at the beginning of the mandate. So we will make observations on 32 institutions. We will cover 17 of them this year, and the rest next year, in order to make a conclusive comparison. I expect some institutions to have made progress, others to have results that are more or less the same, and some to have regressed. I am speculating. I do not think the results will be universal — where the situation will have improved or deteriorated across the board. I have noted that the management in some institutions has really made a commitment to improving the situation, while recurring problems are noted in other institutions, where I expect to have the same results as those we had when I took office.
The Chair: Thank you. Before we move on to the second round of questions, I would like to ask you something with your permission, commissioner.
My question is about to the closing of certain federal offices following the 2011 census. In the wake of that regulation compliance review, 74 federal offices lost their linguistic designation. Had the institutional vitality criterion been used instead of an arbitrary statistic, could those offices have kept their linguistic designation?
Mr. Fraser: It is difficult to say without analyzing all those service points, but we might assume that some of those offices could have kept their designation. However, it is difficult to say unequivocally without having done an institutional analysis, as proposed in the bill.
The Chair: Do you think that, for the travelling public, Bill S-205 would require public access to services in both official languages in the major transportation centres? Do you think that is essential?
Mr. Fraser: In short, I do, but I will expand on that. There are two core aspects to the provision of services and two language policy targets that are fundamentally different, in a way. First, there are people who live in a place where measures are necessary to ensure their community's vitality. Those measures support communities.
Second, there are travellers. Travellers are often individuals, or sometimes a family, who find themselves alone and in a vulnerable situation. Travellers use a transportation system, but they must also use other systems. For example, they can register electronically when they get to the airport or even on the Internet before going to the airport. Those services are very important for individuals, but they do not necessarily help the community. The travelling individual needs information — especially if the situation changes — in order to know whether flights have been cancelled or there is a snow storm. The current rules in airports with at least one million passengers are really based on the needs of travellers who must receive information in their language.
We will always have to consider those two concepts — the language network and the linguistic space. The transportation system is the major Canadian network that facilitates our travel and our communications, and it enables Canadians to travel across the country without having to learn the language used by the majority in the region they are visiting. Those are often points of contact where travellers can know they will have the information they need in their language.
I remember talking to a television host who was very critical of my role as Commissioner of Official Languages in terms of the Official Languages Act and language obligations. When I ran into him on the street, he told me that, when he was in Quebec City for a conference, he felt relieved in the taxi taking him to the airport, knowing that he could be served in English. That confirmed my belief that a traveller who speaks a minority language feels vulnerable and looks for resources in their language in transportation systems.
The Chair: Do you think Bill S-205 meets those needs?
Mr. Fraser: Yes. It highlights the two important elements — the travelling public and the community space.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: My question is for Ms. Tremblay. According to the lawyers who have testified, the government must take measures to conform to the jurisprudence and to respect the constitutional obligations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Do you agree with them that Bill S-205 contains the necessary measures to accomplish that — to conform to the jurisprudence and respect the constitutional obligations?
Ms. Tremblay: Thank you very much for the question. Indeed, Bill S-205 would help the government focus more on the remedial nature of the language rights guaranteed by the charter. What I mean by remedial is that language rights must help the country's minority communities develop and flourish.
The objective of the amendments made by the bill is to establish institutional vitality of communities as the main criterion for defining significant demand. That certainly helps strengthen those communities' identities. More federal offices providing the service in both languages is a contributing element to the vitality of official language communities, so it is consistent with the remedial aspect of language rights.
The other aspect of Bill S-205 I think is very important is access to services of equal quality as defined by the Supreme Court in the Desrochers decision, the foundation of which is the obligation to take into account community needs when the government develops, implements and provides services.
The bill clearly imposes on the government the obligation to consult communities on the quality of services provided in both official languages. In that regard, the remedial nature of language rights and access to services of equal quality — two principles recognized by the Supreme Court over the past 10 years, but before the regulations were adopted, in 1991 — are at the core of this bill and explain why the commissioner is supporting the legislation.
Senator Chaput: As you know, I am the sponsor of Bill S-205, and I would like to tell you how much I appreciate the Senate of Canada allowing us to hold this political debate. I sincerely believe that discussions and debates on issues help us better understand everyone's realities, as Canada is a vast country.
Let me also say that I am very sensitive to the concerns of some of my colleagues and I have listened to them very carefully. I thank them for their courage and honesty in sharing their concerns about this bill.
Mr. Commissioner, when Bill S-205 is implemented, whether amended or not, do you think it would be possible to develop completely different regulations for each province, at least for the predominantly English-speaking provinces and the predominantly French-speaking province of Quebec?
Mr. Fraser: Anything is possible. We live in a system of asymmetrical federalism. Take, for example, denominational education. Newfoundland and Quebec have eliminated their denominational system whereas Ontario still has its system. We live in an extremely asymmetrical country and I think it is possible to accommodate Senator Maltais' fears. If those changes were seen as a threat — which I really do not think is the case — I do not believe that implementation of the bill needs to be completely uniform.
The important part about the consultation requirement and the obligation currently provided for in Part VII of the Official Languages Act is that the federal government has the duty to consider the specific needs of communities, and the Desrochers decision explicitly states that the concept of equal quality does not mean a translation of the services designed by the majority. Under Part IV of the Official Languages Act — not Part VII — federal institutions must consider the specific nature and needs of communities.
I see nothing in this bill that goes against the principles already set out in the legislation and in the Supreme Court decisions. I give the floor to Ms. Tremblay, who may be able to add something.
Ms. Tremblay: I would just add that, to develop new regulations, or even if the government decided to review the regulations bearing in mind the criterion of the institutional vitality of communities, it will very likely have to consult with the communities in each province and territory to determine the relevant vitality indicators, which might even vary from one province to another.
As the only officially bilingual province, New Brunswick is different from the others, and, as a result, implementing the regulations, amending the current regulations, could in fact yield different results because of this reality and the specific needs of each official language minority community.
Senator Chaput: If Bill S-205 used the criterion of the use of the language instead of the knowledge, how could we assess that criterion? Can you give us an example of what would be different and how we could assess it?
Mr. Fraser: I think some calculations are available. For example, the question about the language of work is part of the census.
For example, I have noticed that, in your community, at the Université de Saint-Boniface, the president, Gabor Csepregi, is not considered francophone. His mother tongue is Hungarian, but he works in French. I do not know what language he speaks at home.
The Vice-President, Academic and Research, is Peter Dorrington. His mother tongue is English. However, he works in French. I know him and I'm sure he expects service in French. The former Dean of Arts and the Faculty of Sciences is Ibrahima Diallo, whose mother tongue is Wolof. Those three people work in French, but they are not considered francophone under the current regulations. However, it is more than likely that they demand services in French. This is an anecdotal example to show how people like that are not considered francophone right now. However, the task would be very easy according to the census data.
It is a little more difficult for people studying in French. It would require consultation with the ministries of education or an assessment of the number of French-language or immersion schools in the area.
Senator Chaput: Mr. Commissioner, my understanding is that the existing census data would be sufficient to meet a criterion like that if we were ever to take that approach, correct?
Mr. Fraser: I think so, to an extent. For people using French or the minority language at work, we would use the national household survey, which is part of the census. It is a little more difficult for those studying in French, because the data is not in the census. However, there are other ways to get the data.
The Chair: I see no further questions. Would you like to add anything?
Mr. Fraser: I think we have covered everything.
The Chair: On behalf of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I would like to thank you for being here today. I also thank you for your commitment and contribution, not only today, but for all your work on official languages.
(The committee continued in camera.)
—————
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, I propose the adoption of a new budget for the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages:
That, notwithstanding the approval by the committee on March 9, 2015 of a special study budget application in the amount of $166,872 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2016, the committee withdraw this application; and
That the following special study budget application for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2016, be approved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration: General Expenses: $500.
Honorable senators, can I have a motion for the adoption of this new budget?
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I move that this motion be carried.
The Chair: Senator Fortin-Duplessis moved that the motion be carried, seconded by Senator Chaput.
Do you agree, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. The motion is carried.
(The committee adjourned.)