Official Languages Committee on March 26th, 2013

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

I have another question.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I think that bilingualism is simply an essential skill when it comes to these positions.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

With respect to appointments, we are talking here about the Auditor General of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Senate Ethics Officer, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, and the President of the Public Service Commission.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Yes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

I think these appointments are associated with a lot of experience. I don't think a university educated 20- or 25-year-old can aspire to obtaining one of these positions. It takes more than just education. You need to have worked in various sectors, have acquired experience, have been recognized by your peers as being the best in your field, and so on. So it does in fact limit the possibilities. Out of 30 million Canadians, we are talking about maybe 100 people. In addition, we require these people to speak both official languages.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Yes, a lot of other skills are required but, even for an interim appointment, I am convinced that we can find someone who is bilingual to fill those positions.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

But like I said, it is a little difficult. It is not a pool of 30 million people. It is significantly more limited.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I didn't say that 30 million people could be Auditor General of Canada. It's just that, in Canada, it is possible to find a bilingual individual who can carry out these duties.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Ms. Latendresse, your bill sends a very clear message to future incumbents of these duties. It is clear and unambiguous. If I were your age and aspired to obtaining one of these positions, there is no question that I should be bilingual.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I think that is a good message to send.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Indeed, but studies show that approximately 5% to 7% of Canadians are fully bilingual. Therefore, we risk upsetting 90% to 93% of the Canadian population.

Have you analyzed that? Are you aware that we could do more harm than good?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I sincerely hope that someone who gets to a high enough level to be considered for one of these positions is aware that we live in a bilingual country and that officers of Parliament work in both languages. It is not as if French just became an official language of Canada. These people are fully aware of the situation. So they can act accordingly.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

You said that there were enough Canadians for these positions. Is that your interpretation or is that based on studies that prove that it is, in fact, possible to easily find candidates to fill these positions?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I don't want to say that it's easy. It certainly isn't the easiest thing in the world, but the reality is that there are more and more people who can speak both languages. I think this type of bill can only encourage the growing number of people to persevere and go further in learning their country's other official language.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

So that is your perception. You did not look at the issue in depth, over several hours.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Of course, I studied linguistics, and I have some understanding of the linguistic dynamics. In my opinion, this message can only encourage more people to learn their second official language.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Latendresse.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Thank you, Ms. Latendresse.

Thank you very much for your testimony.

We'll suspend the meeting briefly to allow our next panel of witnesses to join us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We are continuing the meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Welcome to our witnesses. We have two groups before us. First, we will hear from Ms. Kenny and Ms. Côté, from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, and then…

Mr. Thompson and Mr. Shea, from the Quebec Community Groups Network.

We'll begin with an opening statement from

…Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada.

[Marie-France Kenny, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members. Ms. Bossé, who was to accompany me, is not here today. I have with me Diane Côté, our director of government and community relations.

I would like to begin by thanking you for inviting us to testify before you about Bill C-419. It will come as no surprise to anyone here that the federation supports the bill and that we are truly very pleased that all parliamentarians have shown their support of this bill at second reading.

Before I discuss the bill itself, I would like to say that we were surprised that the committee invited us to comment on the bill when we are not aware of the wording of the amendments that will be proposed. Our appearance here today may be our only opportunity to comment on Bill C-419, and obviously we would have preferred to have appeared once the amendments had been tabled. It would have at least been more useful for the committee.

Our comments today will focus in part on what we were able to read in the transcript of the debates held in the House on February 26 with respect to the government's planned amendments.

One of the concerns expressed in these debates has to do with the definition of the required language skills. In that respect, allow me to give you the citizen's point of view. French-speaking Canadians expect to be able to hear the Auditor General speak in French to explain the government's major financial management issues. They expect to be able to speak with the Privacy Commissioner in their own language. In short, the capacity to speak to the public and understand them without using an interpreter is essential. It requires advanced oral and comprehension skills.

I will now comment on the issue of whether the power to add to the list of positions set out in this legislation should come under the Governor in Council or Parliament. This issue is of interest to us because, as you no doubt know, the FCFA has proposed that we eventually add to this list the president of the CRTC and the president of CBC/Radio-Canada, among others. However, if this power to add positions is given to Parliament, it means that each addition will have to be made by amendment to the bill, with the related delays. To be efficient, we therefore feel that this power to add positions should be the responsibility of the Governor in Council.

Lastly, we would like to comment on the issue of people appointed on an acting basis. From our perspective, the language skills set out in Bill C-419 are linked to the positions and remain a constant. Furthermore, you know as well as we do that an acting appointment can last several months before a permanent appointment is made. Therefore, we think that any incumbent of a position set out in Bill C-419, whether that person is appointed on an acting or a permanent basis, must have the language skills required by the position.

Those are our thoughts on the intended amendments that we are aware of. We truly hope that the amendments that are made by this committee will respect the basic principle of the public's right to communicate with officers of Parliament in the language of their choice.

I want to reiterate that we are delighted to see that parliamentarians are united in their support of Bill C-419. Clearly, when you voted in the House, the interests of Canadians were at the heart of your concerns. We hope that it will be the same for this committee. There are many serious issues facing the francophonie and official languages that deserve this committee's attention.

The FCFA and the organizations in its network hope to work with the committee to advance French and linguistic duality in Canada, but we think it is important that this cooperation be productive and beneficial for everyone. Among other things, that means being able to appear at an appropriate time, at a stage that will enable us to best contribute to the committee's work.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Ms. Kenny.

I will now turn things over to the Quebec Community Groups Network.

[Stephen Thompson, Director, Policy, Research and Public Affairs, Quebec Community Groups Network]

Good afternoon, Monsieur Chong, Monsieur Dion, Monsieur Godin, and other members of the committee.

With me today is Mr. James Shea, a member of our board of directors who very graciously agreed to come at short notice to help answer questions.

It's a pleasure to be back with you. The last time we were here we were providing testimony for your study on linguistic duality during the 150th anniversary celebrations of Canadian Confederation in 2017. Here we are again talking about a bill that fulfills a duty to a right first pronounced in the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 133 permits English or French to be used by any person in the Debates of the Houses of Parliament of Canada, and for both official languages to be used in their respective records and Journals.

Over a century later, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would constitutionally reinforce and expand English and French as Canada's official languages, proclaiming their equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use not only in all institutions of Parliament but also of the Government of Canada.

Parliamentary language rights were established to ensure that the people's representatives could fulfill their duties in French and English so that government could be held to account. It is you, Canada's parliamentarians, who are the focus of these rights, and it is the duty of the institutions of Parliament to ensure that you may fully enjoy them.

Canadians participate directly in their Parliament. For example, I am appearing today at your invitation, and I'm exercising the right to address you in the official language of my choice. I used parliamentary records and Journals translated into English to prepare. Later, I will access those same records as a citizen to hold you to account.

But I am not an appointed agent of Parliament. Although subject to its decisions, I am not a servant of this institution. If I were, it would be unacceptable for you to need translation to understand my message to you. The requirement to provide services of equal quality in both official languages is how the institutions of Parliament and the Government of Canada ensure the equality of status and the equal rights and privileges of Canada's two official languages.

The QCGN firmly believes in Bill C-419 and the aim of ensuring that the named agents of Parliament must understand English and French without the aid of an interpreter and be able to express themselves clearly in both official languages. We do not believe that further caveat is required. The appointees enunciated in the bill not only support parliamentarians in their governance of Canada, but are important Canadian public figures and leaders in their own right. They deal with complex issues that require mastery of the two official languages. If this were not the case, then parliamentarians with no or with low second official language skills would not enjoy equality of status, rights, or privileges.

Imagine a Commissioner of Official Languages who could not explain Canada's official languages in English. Imagine a president of the Public Service Commission who couldn't answer questions from a reporter from Le Devoir because he or she didn't speak French; a Privacy Commissioner who could not read the concerns expressed in an English editorial; Acadian voters being forced to communicate in English so that the Chief Electoral Officer could understand their concerns.

If a matter is of sufficient importance that Parliament feels compelled to pass legislation and appoint officers of the type listed in Bill C-419, then those officers must be able to communicate to Canadians as clearly in English as in French on their areas of responsibility. If they cannot, either English or French Canadians and their representatives will be left out of important public discussion. This would deny not only the law, but democracy itself.

In short, bilingualism for these positions is not something that would be nice to have; it is a job requirement. Translation, no matter how well it is done, is technical and formal. It can never completely capture nuance, emotion, and meaning. Language skills also affect whom parliamentarians have access to on an informal basis, what conversations they might be a part of, and what ideas they may discover. Isn't this a place where ideas are supposed to be shared?

The Prime Minister's message to preface the road map for Canada's linguistic duality admirably noted that linguistic duality is a cornerstone of our national identity. You don't weaken a cornerstone.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson, for your opening statement.

We'll begin with Monsieur Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank Marie-France Kenny and Diane Côté of the FCFA, and Stephen D. Thompson and James Shea of the QCGN.

It's great to have you here.

We just spoke to the member about why she brought in the bill. Mr. Thompson, I have to make that comment because of the comments you made that they are agents of the Parliament working for Canadians and parliamentarians. This is clear. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you said it doesn't matter which language Canadians speak, English or French, that they have the right to hear these agents of the Parliament in the language of their choice.

Mr. Ferguson, for example, was appointed as the Auditor General. I want to make sure that this has nothing to do with the person himself; we're talking about the position. It's exactly what you have said. When he did his report, on the French channel everything was in English and the francophones got nothing. That's why what you have said is so important. When he had his press conference and they asked him a question in French, he answered in English. It was not translated and nobody in the country got it. That job is important and all Canadians should be able to hear what is said. That's why I appreciate the statement you made.

With that, we see in the bill, “The Governor in Council may, by order, add offices to the list established in section 2”. We're talking about the officers of the Parliament. That's what we're talking about, and it's stated in the preamble:

And whereas persons appointed with the approval by resolution of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament must be able to communicate with members of those Houses in both official languages;

We're talking about those appointments which are done by the Parliament and the Senate. We're not saying that the Governor in Council just does it on his or her own. It says when they're appointed that those persons will be bilingual.

Do you have any problem with doing that through the Governor in Council?

[Stephen Thompson]

We take the note that was raised by Mr. O'Toole, and I think Mr. Trottier, when Madame Latendresse was commenting on the bill. The aim of the bill seems clear: to ensure that those agents of Parliament are people who can function in both official languages without translation.

My understanding of the explanation to the question is that should additional agents of Parliament be created, whether or not it's in this act or it's in an enabling section to another act, it—