Official Languages Committee on March 30th, 2010

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would suggest that we discuss the first bill that was tabled with the House of Commons and that we comment on it, namely, what was missing and what was present. It's as simple as that. A bill has already been drafted. I don't think that it's up to the commissioner to draft the bill. However, he could make certain remarks, especially where certain problems exist.

Personally, I would refer to the first bill that was tabled with the House and that was so watered down that it no longer exists. It was never adopted. That's what happened.

[Graham Fraser]

I have already emphasized the importance of identifying entities, given the risk that a corporate change could make certain elements of the bill obsolete.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Earlier, Mr. D'Amours said that when Air Canada was privatized, it was subject to the Official Languages Act. The people in this company knew what they were getting into. What they didn't realize is that things would no longer be the same when the Liberals forced Air Canada to buy Canadian Airlines Limited. The only alternative for Canadian Airlines Limited was to be bought out by an American company. So the people from that company were stuck with the workers from Air Canada.

I had certain concerns in that regard because of this. If you look at part II of the employment insurance legislation, there are amounts granted to provide training to people in the private sector, not only in the public sector. I believe that Quebec receives over $800 million and New Brunswick over $100 million per year to offer training.

So if there is an obligation to provide bilingual services, as the act stipulates, do you really believe that the government should completely ignore Air Canada as it is doing and refuse to provide it access to training programs? Whether it be to perform a basic job or exercise responsibilities linked to bilingualism, don't you believe that the government could help Air Canada provide training and thus ensure that the act is respected?

[Graham Fraser]

Mr. Chair, I find this idea very interesting. The member is much more familiar with the provisions of the Employment Insurance Act than I am. That is something I had not considered.

The question of training interests me a great deal. I'm thinking not only of training within the federal government, but also of opportunities to learn a second language in post-secondary institutions.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I'll tell you why I'm saying this. It's not only because of Air Canada. The anglophones in my region say that they would like to have training to learn the other official language in order to find work, even with the government. But the government doesn't want to touch that with a ten-foot pole.

Language training is just as important as training intended to show people how to use a machine or a computer, because it's part of people's jobs.

[Graham Fraser]

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

To answer your question, this is in line with one of my arguments concerning the definition of leadership skills. We cannot claim that language is a separate issue. It's an essential component of the skills.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Yes. As I said, it's not only because of Air Canada. If we truly want both languages to be equal and receive services in both languages, then this should be an essential part of an employee's training, like all other parts. I think we could solve many problems in this way. I know I'm repeating myself, but at the same time I want Mr. Moore to hear what I have to say. Or at least I want his assistants to hear it and I want them and you to repeat it to Mr. Moore, who is the Minister of Canadian Heritage and responsible for Official Languages.

As Ms. O'Neill-Gordon said, that is what young people today want. Times are changing. We've come a long way from the times when ships left England and France and those aboard fought until they arrived in Canada. The new generation is coming. They have forgotten that their grandparents told them that they had to fight. They want to learn both languages and I find that commendable. In my region, Acadie-Bathurst, it's a wonderful thing to see. However, they need the tools.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin, for this promotion of bilingualism.

We will now complete the last round with Mr. Nadeau, who, I believe, will be splitting his time with Mr. Lemay.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

You guessed right, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to come back to something that Ms. O'Neill-Gordon said and what Mr. Godin has just said on the question of what young people want. It's true, but the parliamentarians of all political parties must want it too to make it happen with legislation that is complied with and implemented. We must ensure that the government in place, regardless of its party stripes, has the will to ensure that French is a language on equal footing with English in all federal institutions. This is very important. We cannot keep putting it off to the next generation. The act has existed for 40 years.

I have a question for you, Mr. Fraser. I'm using a specific example, but it could apply to a more general situation. The contribution agreement between the Department of Canadian Heritage and VANOC is a document that was signed. It is only in English. We were the ones, on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, who asked to have a copy in French. You may recall that the government was reluctant to distribute it to the media, but it did agree to give it to the committee. It could have given it to the media as well, because we would have made headway more quickly.

The contribution agreements were drafted in English only for an organization called VANOC, which was responsible, among other things—even though it did not honour this responsibility—for the equality of French and English in the organization of the Olympic Games, which have an impact throughout the world. Is this normal, or should we point out to the government that, at all times, contribution agreements should be drafted in both official languages?

[Graham Fraser]

That's an excellent point and I have no specific answer to give you concerning the contribution agreements.

Does Mrs. Tremblay have anything to add regarding language obligations under contribution agreements, aside from VANOC?

[Johane Tremblay]

There are no obligations as concerns the language in which the contribution agreement is drafted but, naturally, given that the beneficiary is supposed to implement the obligations, it is definitely preferable that it be drafted in both languages. If the contracting party is a lawyer and only understands one language, the tendency is usually to draft the agreement in the language of the attorney, but this is not a legal or contractual agreement as such, with obligations that must be implemented.

It's more than a question of obligations, as the commissioner said. It's a question of clearly understanding the value of such a document. It would certainly be more respectful of the spirit of the law that these agreements be drafted in both languages rather than simply in the one language in which the contracting party is more comfortable.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Fine.

So I hope the message is clear and that it will be transmitted to the parliamentary secretary. Unfortunately, she is not present today. This is a very important message if official languages are to be respected, they must be respected throughout the mechanisms of the federal government and not only in certain circumstances, for appearances' sake.

I will now turn the floor over to my colleague, Mr. Lemay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have one minute left, Mr. Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Okay, I have one minute.

So I would ask that you keep a close eye on the agreement to be signed between the federal government and the Pan American Games to be held in Toronto, because I believe that it is currently drafted only in English.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

And in Spanish.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

No, Spanish is for the agreement with the Pan American Games.

Ms. Charlebois mentioned earlier that you are going to meet with Air Canada, and that you would be conducting studies, checking to find out what is happening with its subsidiaries, including Air Cargo, ground services, Air Canada Vacations and Aeroplan. Are you also going to check with those who benefit from the presence of Air Canada, namely, airports, small airports? Let's talk about Air Canada Jazz, which serves several airports and New Brunswick, among others, and Air Nova elsewhere. Are you going to try and ascertain what is happening within Air Canada Jazz?

[Graham Fraser]

Just to clarify, the audit that we will be doing concerns the services to the public provided by Air Canada and its components. I don't know, given the contract agreement with Air Canada Jazz, if it is included.

Concerning obligations in the airports, there are language obligations in airports that welcome at least one million passengers per year. In small airports, there are no language obligations. That is how the regulation was drafted. It's difficult for us to go any further, I believe.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

Ms. O'Neill-Gordon.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

I just want to make a point to Mr. Godin. He is right that actions speak louder than words.

I want to assure you that over the years I have taken French as a second language, and I have taken it again since I've been here. So it's not just something I'm preaching but not doing. I feel more comfortable in my own language, and that's why I speak in my mother tongue when I'm speaking here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mrs. O'Neill.

We would like to thank the commissioner. We will suspend the meeting for a few minutes and then deal with the report from the steering committee for the members of the committee.

Thank you.