Official Languages Committee on Dec. 4th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Today is Wednesday, December 4th, 2013, and this is our eighth meeting.

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

Mr. Chair...

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Yes, Mr. Gourde?

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

Can we go in camera, Mr. Chair? I would like to table a motion that we go in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Are you moving that motion?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We have a motion before us. As this is a dilatory motion, there will be no debate.

All those in favour of moving in camera? Opposed?

(Motion negatived)

The motion is defeated. We are public.

We have two subjects to discuss today.

We will begin with committee business. Mr. Godin has submitted three notices of motion that he wishes to table.

Following that, we need to discuss the draft report.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, my first motion reads as follows:

That the Committee invite the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to appear prior to Wednesday, December 11, 2013, to provide the committee with an update about the government's intentions regarding the Maritime Search and Rescue Centre in Quebec City.

Mr. Chair, I am tabling this motion because this subject has become extremely important. We must remember that it was in June, 2011, that the government announced for the first time its intention to close the MRSCs in Quebec City and St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. It is now December, 2013. In the intervening months, the government even announced that it would wait until the Commissioner of Official Languages had undertaken a site visit and given his approval to make the transfer once the centres in Halifax and Trenton were up to snuff and able to receive emergency calls.

As we all know, the centre in Quebec City is the only maritime search and rescue centre in Canada that is not only francophone, but also bilingual. This is mainly because of the St. Lawrence. We need to remember the history of this rescue centre. It was set up in Quebec City specifically because the other centres had not been able, in the past, to answer calls concerning incidents on the St. Lawrence, which is a very challenging waterway. It is important to know the river. It is important to know the landmarks. This is impossible for people from outside the area.

Since 2011, the government has not provided an action plan, nor has it announced that it is now safe and that the transfer can go ahead. I find this very troubling. When I questioned the Commissioner of Official Languages on this issue, he answered that it was not up to him to do this work. He was very clear last Wednesday, when he appeared before the committee. It is not up to him to tell the government whether or not these centres are ready to provide services, nor is it up to him to give his approval if they are. He will determine after the fact whether or not the services are adequate. He will undertake an audit after the fact, but it is not up to him to tell the government whether or not it can move forward.

We have been in this situation since 2011, and the transfer still has not taken place. It is essential that the government not go ahead with this. People's safety is at risk.

I will end my remarks there, Mr. Chair. I ask my colleagues to support this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Further debate on this motion?

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As for December 11, 2013, we will have to consult our calendar to see if that's possible, because we don't have a lot of meetings left. Furthermore, I don't believe anyone has checked to see if the minister would be able to appear before the committee. I don't know if we can request that the minister appear on such short notice.

Moreover, I believe that the Quebec City Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre is still open, and in the meanwhile, efforts are being made to ensure that the entire community has access to services in both official languages.

We will not be supporting this motion, because the notice is much too short, and because we don't believe that there is a problem currently.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Ms. Papillon, you have the floor.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to add something to this motion. It is very important that we invite the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, since she is new in that position. She could provide us with a very useful update on the matter, since this decision dates back to 2011. For the time being, we still don't know what's going on with the transfers to Halifax and Trenton. She could tell us where things are at with the staff and what decisions have been made for both Halifax and Trenton. That is information that we do not have. People are very worried because they don't know what will become of the centre in Quebec City. People don't want that centre to close down, because they don't know what would happen next, but at the same time the centre is losing their staff.

Mistakes were made in February and May. For example, on May 18, off the coast of New Brunswick, a number of calls were made to the centre in Halifax. Unfortunately, the first calls were not successful and the people on the other line could not be transferred to someone who spoke French. Given these concerns, we are wondering if any changes were made. It is now December 2013. The first closure was announced in April of 2012, and then in April 2013. Then it was postponed until the fall of 2013.

Now we are completely in the dark. We have no idea what the plans are. Clearly the closure will be very costly. So far, many competitions have been held to recruit people with the right skills in Trenton and in Halifax. It's becoming very expensive and we want to know how much this will ultimately cost. Do Halifax and Trenton have to update their centres in order to accommodate those who will be transferred from the centre in Quebec City? Do we have any solid numbers? Could the minister provide us with this information? A number of questions involve both safety and economic issues. How much will the government earmark for this matter?

Providing this information would be a sign of respect for the people of Quebec City, but also for those who live along the St. Lawrence River. Those people could tell us what the current situation is like. People in Halifax are worried because they see these people arriving, but unfortunately they don't know how many bilingual people they need. The minister could also inform us of what she will say to the Commissioner of Official Languages when they discuss the number of bilingual employees that are needed in these centres and so on.

I've been following this issue for the last two years in Quebec City. In fact, it was one of the first responsibilities given to me. I am not able to get any information. During that time, a number of simulations were carried out and they failed. I would like to know what has been done in two years. Where are things at? Has a deadline been established so that we can change strategies if we realize we are on the wrong track? In three years, if things aren't working and if it turns out that it wasn't the best decision, could this process be stopped?

This is the kind of information the minister should be giving us. After holding a number of competitions, if we still can't find qualified individuals who understand the unique navigating conditions of the St. Lawrence River and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and who also understand the French language well, the process needs to be stopped. These people not only have to speak an international French, but they also have to understand different accents. There are very unique accents in Quebec. My mother tongue is French, and even I would have a hard time understanding all of them. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I couldn't understand an accent from some of the regions, but it would be a challenge.

In addition to this dangerous situation, there is the stress factor. People who were in their boat were saved at the last minute thanks to the rescuers' intervention, when the water was up to their ankles. It was a question of minutes and seconds. If the person cannot be understood in their native language, the language which they speak, we might not be able to save their life. As for me, I want to know what the plan is.

In Canada, we are surrounded by water. The St. Lawrence River has 11 sections. Even a sailor cannot pass from one section to the other freely, because each section has its unique challenges. History tells us that it was the same 400 years ago. The navigators had difficulty navigating. Today, despite all our technology, we are in the same position and we don't know what direction to take.

I have started reading the reports, not only those of the official languages commissioner, but also those about shipwrecks that happened or rescues that happened at the last minute. It seems incredible, but there are a whole series of details that I understand now. I never thought I would have this expertise. I even have a few more questions of this type to ask. I always wonder if language was an issue, if there was a problem with coordination, and if the transfer will lead to this kind of problem. Those are the questions I am raising.

I think everyone can approach this subject in good faith. Supporting this motion, to see where we stand, could help shed light on the situation, and not only on this side of the table. Everyone could benefit from it. I know there are people concerned about this subject everywhere in the country. The centre in Quebec City is the only officially bilingual centre not only in the country, but in all of North America. The centre has already sometimes helped francophones who were in trouble in Boston. Right now, this is a major question. I know that the centre in Quebec is in fact a secondary centre, but personally, I want to say that the centre is very important.

Supporting the proposal to have an update from the minister would be appreciated. I also think that it would be a sign of respect for the recreational boaters, sailors, and various associations. More than a hundred resolutions have been passed in Quebec in support of the centre. I would like to hear the minister's comments on the subject. Has she considered the resolutions of the various municipalities, fishermen's associations, marinas, and so on? What did she conclude from them? Will she say that she visited the site?

When I went to the Maritime Rescue Centre of Quebec in January 2012, I met some people. The minister's predecessor did not take the time to go there. Is the minister prepared to go meet people at the Quebec centre? These are questions that I am very interested in. I know that the minister is very busy, but I would very much like her to dedicate a bit of time to this subject, which is very important.

We don't want to be discussing this subject again in a few years and reading a report that is catastrophic because we didn't make the right decision. I know that everyone around this table cares very much, and is thinking about this situation. As far as safety questions are concerned, I am absolutely convinced that we can agree.

That is what I wanted to say, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Ms. Papillon.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to add something that I consider important.

I don't know if you recall, but we had already asked that a study be done on the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre in Quebec City, and the government refused. I remember that at the time, Mr. Gourde said that it was up to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to conduct this study, not our committee. I would like to give some information to the public on this subject. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans had requested the same thing, and its request was turned down. This is the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and it is up to our committee to conduct this study, because it concerns language. It does not concern people's skills at sea and that type of thing, but rather language and communication with fishers.

The accident in Tabusintac cost the lives of three fishers. People called Halifax and were told "I don't speak French." It took six calls before they were able to speak to someone in French. The man was not trying to be difficult; some of his colleagues were drowning.

If ever there was an incident on the St. Lawrence and someone somewhere in Canada answered a distress call by saying "I don't speak French," I would not want to be in the Conservatives' shoes. They had better not shed crocodile tears in the House of Commons when we ask questions about accidents that cost people their lives, and they had better not say that that is not the place to discuss it. And that is not a threat, it is a promise. I can guarantee you that they will be held fully accountable for the loss of life, if, one day, someone on the St. Lawrence makes a distress call that is transferred to Trenton or Halifax, where the sub-centres are being transferred, and is told: "I'm sorry, I don't speak French". That is currently the case with Service Canada. Whether you call Halifax, St. John's, or Newfoundland and Labrador, the answer is the same.

As members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we have responsibilities. I would like the government to answer a question. Mr. Gourde said earlier that the minister cannot appear before the committee on December 11, but could she come after the holidays? Is she going to appear or will the government simply refuse by saying that it is making the changes required and it is doing what it is supposed to do? If that is the case, then what purpose do Parliament and parliamentary committees serve? Why do we conduct studies?

Our committee has a fundamental responsibility, which is to put questions to witnesses. I want people from Quebec City, experts on the St. Lawrence River, to be able to have their say. Based on that, the government can make a decision and assume the consequences.

If the government maintains its decision, makes the change and sends people to Halifax, it had better be prepared for the consequences, because I guarantee that we will not accept loss of life because of language issues, here in Canada. The law is clear: both languages are equal. Despite that, that was not the case in Tabusintac. The fishers had to call Halifax, but there were no services in French there. Try telling our families that there are no emergency services in French in a country like ours, when such services should be provided. Someone is going to have to take responsibility and face the consequences.

If the minister cannot appear before the committee on December 11, then can the government move an amendment to set a date for her to appear in mid-February or mid-March? Nothing is going to happen before then. They need to give us a date when she can appear so we can discuss this matter. I want the government to think about certain things. Why don't we conduct a study on this? Why can't we have experts come and testify before the committee? What is the government afraid of? Is it just a matter of saving money? People's lives are at stake. So it is not a question of saving money, far from it.

I have said enough about this. I want the government to reconsider its decision. If it thinks that the minister cannot appear before committee on December 11, it can always move an amendment, but it must ensure that she comes to testify at some point. I would even say that we should invite experts; that is what the committee wants. The change that was made represents a fundamental problem. They want to close the only francophone centre in Canada, which, in addition, is bilingual. It is pathetic.

There was an incident involving a sailboat that was heading for Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon. The call was received in Boston, then transferred to Halifax, then transferred back to Boston, before it ended up in Quebec City. Only the people in Quebec were able to answer in French and help these people.

It's the only francophone centre in Canada. What's the problem? Why pick on this one? I am sorry, but the committee does not often study situations involving the closing of English centres whose calls would be redirected towards a francophone region where nobody speaks English.

In 2013, we should not have to talk about this kind of thing anymore. The government should have a conscience and state that the reason we don't need to talk about these things anymore is because the government will look after the situation, and make sure that both languages are treated equally, and that services are provided equally in both languages.

However, since June 2011, we have not been able to find people with the necessary skills to work in these call centres. There is one thing that scares me. Imagine if you finally found qualified people, but that six months later, three or four of them decided to quit their job to work elsewhere. And then what? It would not be possible to reopen the centre in Quebec, because the employees and the experts would have left. In the meantime, what can we do? Who will answer the phone?

You are carrying a burden on your shoulders which is not justified. As far as I am concerned, I would not want to carry that burden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Dionne Labelle, you have the floor.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Here again we are dealing with a serious issue which requires good faith all around. We are all engaged in politics. We are members of different parties which have different visions. However, we are talking about the safety of people on some of the most dangerous waters in the world. Some of you might not even know the river. I have been sailing on the St. Lawrence River for 10 years. There are 10,000 traps on the river; it's a huge water lung. You may not know this, but every day the current switches direction. At the Saint-Roch crossing, the current changes its east-west axis at a speed of 10 km/h.

Not only does the Quebec centre offer bilingual services, but it also has an expertise with regard to local phenomena, and that is important. This summer, there were 1,500 distress calls. The people involved were not expert sailors. They were probably sailors like myself who headed out onto the water and who, at some point, were caught in a cross-current or in a katabatic wind, whatever. So their vessel would have become destabilized, they would have needed help, and they placed the call.

If I head out next summer and encounter major problems, I do not want to hear English spoken at the other end of the line. That's pretty obvious. The expertise was acquired in that area; it's a local expertise. This river is one of the most dangerous places in the world. So we cannot afford to lose this expertise.

I want the minister, if she appears before us, to tell me who will actually answer the phone. Will these people know exactly what is going on? If I call from the Saint-Roch crossing because my keel is broken, will these people know where I am? Will they know, at any given time, whether the current is flowing from east to west or from west to east? Will they have all of this data? Will they know if the cross-current will carry me to the north shore or whether it will keep me on the south shore? The Quebec centre has all of this information right now, and we don't want to lose it. The people in Halifax might not have all of this data.

The best evidence underpinning our argument is that for the last two years we have been looking for people who are not only bilingual, but who are familiar with the river, and we still have not found anyone. Actually, they already exist: they are in Quebec City. This decision will have to be rethought and these questions will have to be put to the minister.

If I go to the Magdalen Islands this summer and if I am in any kind of danger on my boat, will I have access to rescue services in French over the phone? That is my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Dionne Labelle.

Ms. St-Denis, you have the floor.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

First, I find that my colleagues have defended their point of view very effectively. They presented good arguments. So I don't really understand why you would be opposed to them. I don't see any good reason for that. The minister might not want to be put in a position where she does not know what to respond, but I imagine that she is familiar with this file. She should also be able to take a bit of time to meet with committee members.

I will support the motion, because I find it is completely justified.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Ms. St-Denis.

Mr. Nicholls.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I'll be brief, Mr. Chair.

Friends, this motion calling on the minister to clarify the situation is quite simple. I think the onus is on the government to show goodwill towards respecting the offer of two official languages in this country. This has become a heated point, particularly in Quebec. The willingness of the government to step up to its responsibility to offer two official languages is in question through this very decision. The government could decide today to clarify this situation by allowing the minister to come here and answer questions about this Maritime search and rescue centre. In doing so, he'll show the goodwill and the leadership that, the commissioner has told us over the past two meetings, are required of the federal government.

The francophone community in this country is looking for leadership from the federal government. It wants to see goodwill on the part of the government and the ministerial party. I hope you will vote for this motion. I encourage you to do so. In doing so, you'll show your goodwill towards the people affected by the decision that's been made.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Nicholls.

Mr. Dionne Labelle, you have the floor.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I am going to move an amendment. The beginning of the statement would remain unchanged, but instead of "before Wednesday, December 11, 2013", it would read "in February".

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

We have an amendment before us.

Is there debate on the amendment?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Of course, I am referring to February 2014.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.